The W. Edwards Deming Institute® Podcast

How can we improve attendance when every school has a different process? In this episode, John Dues continues his exploration of Deming's philosophy in action, focusing on chronic absenteeism. As part of their third PDSA cycle, John's team shifts from individual interventions to process standardization—mapping how each of their four campuses handles attendance interventions. The surprising discovery? Each school follows a different process, revealing hidden variation and inefficiencies. By visualizing these systems, the team is not only grasping the current condition but also setting the stage for a reliable, scalable, and effective process. This methodical approach highlights how understanding systems and reducing variation are key to meaningful improvement. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.1 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz and I'll be your host as we dive deeper into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with John Dues, who is part of the new generation of educators striving to apply Dr. Deming's principles to unleash student joy in learning. The topic for today is Mapping the Process. John, take it away.   0:00:26.7 John Dues: Hey Andrew. It's good to be back. Yeah. For the folks that have been following along for the past several episodes we've been working towards defining this problem more narrowly in terms of this chronic absenteeism issue we've been talking about. And for the last few episodes we've been talking about how the team didn't have enough information to write that precise problem statement. And we took a look at gathering additional information by running a couple PDSA cycles in those first two cycles that we've discussed so far. We know we had zeroed in on a handful of students and ran PDSAs with them and their families about their obstacles getting to school. And then we left off talking about how we were going to shift gears in PDSA cycle three. And instead we were going to focus on standardizing our process. So creating a process map for how we intervene with kids with our attendance teams across the network. So that's what the team is currently working on. But just as a sort of quick reminder to folks, and especially if you're watching, we have this model that we've been working through, this four step improvement model where you set the challenge or direction, grasp the current condition, establish your next target condition, and experiment to overcome obstacles.   0:01:48.1 John Dues: And then like we've talked about several times, we're doing this with the team and that includes people working in the system, people with the authority to change or work on the system, and then at least one person with significant knowledge of the System of Profound Knowledge, like an SOPK coach. And we've been using this model that's on the screen to sort of symbolize or I guess visualize what those four steps look like. You're sort of marching up this mountain towards this challenge or direction. And we've also talked about this long range goal that we've had and we've taken a look at some data where we have our chronic absenteeism rate mapped out over the last eight years or so. We have this long range goal. So this is the direction of the challenge where we're trying to take our chronic absenteeism from above 50% down to 5%. We have the data going back to the 2016/17 school year. Then we also talked about how there's this, not surprisingly, there's this sort of pre-pandemic level of chronic absenteeism, which was again too high. It's not where we wanted it, but we have this major shift up where we've seen this significant jump in chronic absenteeism since the pandemic hit.   0:03:15.0 John Dues: So in those four years, 2020/21, 21/22, 22/23 and 23/24 we were up in the 51, 52, even up into the close to the 60% range in chronic absenteeism at the height of the pandemic. So for PDSA cycle three, really doing two things. So, and we're going to talk about this in the episode today. If you remember back way at the start of this series, we looked at something I called a system flowchart. So we'll kind of revisit that and then we're going to take a look at two process maps that were created by two of our school teams to sort of map their current process. And then we'll walk through, sort of we'll take that, we'll walk through what the plan is for this PDSA cycle three. So let's start by looking back at this system flowchart. I'll sort of reorient you to this. So we have up on the, and this is the current state. So up on the top we have the target system which is attendance. And then we have this aim that is sort of a three part aim.   0:04:42.7 John Dues: We want to define strong attendance for students and staff, make sure everybody's on the same page. We want to ensure that students, families and staff have a shared understanding of what it means to have strong attendance. And then we are working on improving and creating systems that identify and remove barriers to strong attendance for students and staff. And then over on the left hand side we have sort of inputs. So these are things that contribute or their conditions that impact our system. And then in the middle we have our core activities. So the things that are happening that impact attendance and then there's outputs, both negative and positive outputs that come out of this system. And then we get feedback from our customers, we do research on this feedback and then we make design if it's a new system or redesign if it's a current system. And some of these things, some of those contributing conditions are, Ohio has a set of transportation laws. You know, there's our school model and our the way we operate our school hours, our expectations regarding student attendance, our various intervention systems, neighborhood dynamics, how far our families live from school.   0:06:03.4 John Dues: These are all things that contribute to our sort of inputs into our system. And then we have these core activities. And remember, we could just zero in on attendance systems. But there are many other parts of our system that impact whether or not kids come to school. So for one, many of our families are always going to be new to our system. So for example, in our middle schools, where they start with sixth grade some number of those kids are going to be from our elementary schools. Some number of those kids are going to come from other neighborhood schools, but they're all going to be new to that middle school. So whether they're coming from our elementary school or not, you have to think about how is the student and family being onboarded to our system. Another thing we're looking at is school culture and trust. You know, how much trust is in there, in the school. Do they have a strong culture between teachers and families or teachers and students, or the principal and teachers? Then there's academic systems how engaging are classes, those types of things.   0:07:05.7 John Dues: Then we have the attendance intervention systems, which is obviously a core focus. We have health and wellness and changes around mindset since we went through the pandemic. And then finally the third sort of, or sorry, the third, not the third, but the sixth core activity that we talked about was transportation. So we've talked about lots of problems with our busing system this year. So that's another thing that has a big impact on attendance. And so what this group, again is working on the core activity is the attendance intervention systems. What's the process for that? But I had mentioned in an earlier episode that we have another group that's working on transportation and busing and how we can improve that. So the whole point of the system flowchart is there's many, many things that go into something like an attendance rate. And many of these things are very challenging. Some are largely out of our control, but much of it is largely in our control. And we're trying to pull the levers that we think are most important when it comes to student attendance.   0:08:09.2 Andrew Stotz: And just one thing on that, one of the things I just find so frustrating and it's part of this class I'm teaching tonight is how do we scale a business. And one of the ways that's critical to scaling is simplifying. And sometimes, like, when I look at all of this complexity, on the one hand, you're like, okay, well, that's our job, right? Our job is to manage complexity. And that's the reason why we don't have a thousand competitors coming in, because it's complex and it's difficult. And on the other hand, it's like the simplifier in me is like, how do we simplify this? You know, like, I'm just curious about how you see complexity versus simplification. And in particular, it may just be in this stage, you're just putting everything up there, and it's just overwhelming. Like, oh, my God, there's so much involved in just fixing one thing, you know? What are your thoughts on that?   0:09:11.5 John Dues: Yeah, that's, I mean, that's a really good question. It's, I mean, I think it is a complex system because there's so many moving parts. And I think part of the nature of a complex system versus something like a complicated system is that when you try to impact some part of the system that has these ripple effects into other parts of the system, many of which are unattended or unintended consequences. So, yeah, I mean, I think one thing we have working in our favor is very stable senior leadership. So we're pretty good at understanding how we all work. We have a pretty good historical knowledge of how our school system has worked over time. And we have a pretty good holistic view of all of this complexity. Not that we're all able to improve it all at once, but I think we have a pretty good grasp of what's going on. And even a team like this there we could move faster perhaps, but I think we're trying to be pretty deliberate about the changes that we're making.   0:10:24.7 John Dues: And we're also deliberate about the levers that we're trying to pull for improvement. And these things change over time. So even something like transportation, I mean, the reason that we're working on that now and that we've chosen to work on that now is because the transportation that we're getting from the district is so untenable. Whereas 15 years ago, when I was a principal in our system, while the busing wasn't perfect, it was pretty consistent. You know, most days it dropped off at about the same time. It picked the kids up at about the same time every day. And while it was nowhere near where you would want it to be overall, it wasn't my biggest pain point as a principal. Now kids are literally missing hours or buses aren't showing up at all. And so we have to figure out a way to make this work. And to your point this was a system when charter schools were set up in Ohio, is just basically like the district, the nearby district, which is usually a big urban district, is going to do the busing for charter schools.   0:11:35.5 John Dues: And there really wasn't any more thought to it than that and so from the district's perspective, they they have to manage a lot of complexity. They have their own schools, they're busing for charters, which there's about 15,000 kids in charter schools in Columbus. And then they're also busing for private schools. And the district itself still has a very large geographic footprint, even though the number of students that attend there are about half what it was 50 years ago. So they have very spread out buildings, some of which are far below capacity, but they still have students attending them. So they haven't shrunk that geographic footprint. So that's a challenge as well. And at a time when it's become very difficult to find bus drivers. So I don't take lightly, like the challenges that the district is facing in this, but we got to get kids to school as a... Just as a basic starting point to be being able to do school well.   0:12:31.8 Andrew Stotz: Okay, keep going.   0:12:33.8 John Dues: I mean, it's also a really good segue. We'll take a look at a couple of the process maps. So we have our four campuses. We have something different going on. So even though our four campuses are geographically pretty proximate to each other, they have four different processes going on with their attendance intervention system. So take a look at this first process map, which is pretty simple from start to finish. What is that? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. It's really nine steps and it really...   0:13:08.6 Andrew Stotz: And for the listeners out there that can't see it, he's got a process map, State Street. And what it shows is some circles and some squares and some tilted squares. I don't know what those are called.   0:13:23.5 John Dues: Yeah, I mean, it's just the circles are the start and end points.   0:13:26.9 Andrew Stotz: Okay.   0:13:27.8 John Dues: The squares are the steps in the process. And then the diamonds are, when there's a... Some decision has to be made in the process.   0:13:37.0 Andrew Stotz: Okay, great.   0:13:38.0 John Dues: So we're not going to go through all of these steps. But if you are watching this is a pretty simple process at one of our campuses, while there are multiple people sort of involved, it's also true that one person is driving a lot of this work. But the point is, especially for people that are watching, when you sort of walk through these 10 steps, you're going to see that this map is going to look very different and less complicated than the map at one of our other campuses. But the point is, especially if you can see things visually that you can tell just by looking at the two maps, there are two very different processes going on. And these two schools, this first one is actually an elementary school that feeds into the middle school. That is the map that we'll look at second, so this is the first process map. And then when we look at the second map, we can see very quickly, just visually speaking, there are far more steps, it's far more complicated. There's far more decision points. There's a lot more detail here, and there's a lot of interfacing between multiple people that all play a role in this particular process.   0:14:55.4 John Dues: And it's not that one is right and one is wrong. It's just that when you have these two campuses doing it differently, there very likely is inefficiencies.   0:15:06.8 Andrew Stotz: And are they mapping the same thing? And they...   0:15:10.6 John Dues: Yes, it's the same process. It's how they intervene as the state requires for kids that have some type of attendance issue. And there's different thresholds that mean different parts of the process kick in as a result. But they're operating within the same state process that you have to follow. But even so, you can see that they have a very different sort of illustration of what that process looks like. And if I had the other two campuses, we'd have four separate versions. And remember all these steps and you know, all these decision points. There's documents that exist. There's meetings that happen. There's agendas for those meetings. There's agendas for meeting with parents. There's letters that have to be mailed. And so you can imagine if everybody is creating separate forms, separate meeting agendas, keeping this information in different ways. There's probably a way to design this that's far more effective and efficient by pulling from the four different processes to create one process. And oh, by the way, if you do that, it makes training easier for anybody new that's going to take on some of the clerical roles or some of the interfacing with parents.   0:16:26.9 John Dues: And then if you have one process that you're working from, then you can also share best practices as they emerge as you're working. But if you have four variants, it's much harder to share that information.   0:16:43.4 Andrew Stotz: And you know, it's questionable whether this is a core function. It is an important process. Is it the core?   0:16:54.8 John Dues: Yeah, I mean, I would say it's a, I guess depending on how you define core. I mean, it's a required process. It's a process that the state requires and a lot of the sub steps are required components. Now, interestingly, this, the setup for this attendance intervention system came out of some legislation called Health...House Bill 410. And it's been in place for maybe five years or so, four or five years. And they're changing it right now. So there's new language.   0:17:30.2 Andrew Stotz: Just when we got it set.   0:17:32.2 John Dues: Just when we got it set. But we at least know the likely changes that are coming. So Ohio operates on a two year budget cycle. So in this new budget that will likely pass on. Well, it has to pass by June 30th. Right now there's language in there that changes this process for schools and actually gives schools way more leeway. So we'll sort of be ahead of the game because we're going to have our own process mapped and you know, we can remove some of those things that are a little more cumbersome on the school teams. And to your point, those things that were compliance related but didn't have really impact on improving attendance, we could just remove those now. We'll have some more freedom there.   0:18:13.8 Andrew Stotz: I mentioned about the core thing because there's a great book I read called Clockwork by Michael Michalowicz and he talks about identifying what is the core function in your business and then really focusing in on that. And it's interesting because one of the benefits of that is that if you don't do that, you can get caught up in every process like, and then all of a sudden it's just everything is seen as equal.   0:18:43.6 John Dues: Right. Yeah.   0:18:44.6 Andrew Stotz: Anyways, keep going.   0:18:45.9 John Dues: Yeah, it's one of those weird things and I'll stop sharing. Yeah, that was the last visual. But that's one of those things where like I said for the last five years or so these things have been required. And I think you'd be hard pressed to find a school system that would say these, the way things are outlined as requirements for schools to do on this front are not effective but people do them because they're required. And you know, I think with this updated language, we'll have some more flexibility to do this how we want to do it.   0:19:20.4 Andrew Stotz: And how does this, just to clarify how it fits into that mountain diagram, this is trying to assess or deal with the obstacle or is this the current state? I noticed that it said current state for the process map. But is the purpose of what you're... The original one you show. But is the purpose of what you're doing trying to overcome the, identify and overcome the obstacle?   0:19:46.8 John Dues: Well, I would say this is a part of grasping that current condition. You know, we did that early on in terms of that system flowchart, in terms of what the whole system looks like. And now what we're doing is learning about the processes at each individual school. Well, I'd say when you map out a process like this, and I think people would probably, my guess is, is that senior leaders would often say, well, no, we have a process and you know, everybody follows the same thing. And then if you actually mapped it like that, step by step, what you would see is tons of variation, tons of variation.   0:20:23.9 Andrew Stotz: So one of the benefits of that is it's not only, it's about facing the reality or understanding the true current state. Like everybody can say, no, no, no, we all know what the current situation is. No, we don't.   0:20:41.2 John Dues: No, you don't. And every time I sit with a team and make these process maps, we'll say, okay, what's the next step? And you know, maybe a couple people will pipe up and then someone inevitably goes, well, no, wait a second, that's not what we do. What we do next is X, Y or Z. I mean, it's... And that happens over and over and over again with this with this process just seems to be a part of it. It's not a bug. It's actually a feature of this mapping exercise.   0:21:08.5 Andrew Stotz: And many people try to solve these problems by just jumping in rather than taking the time to really, truly understand the current state. You know, what's the risk of the action taker?   0:21:22.7 John Dues: Well, yeah, I mean, I think what happens a lot of times is like when people don't really understand a process like this is they start blaming people for things that aren't going right. That's what typically happens.   0:21:35.8 Andrew Stotz: I want people to take responsibility around here.   0:21:38.3 John Dues: We have to hold people accountable, but you can't hold them accountable to a process that's unknown. Right. It's not well specified, but that's what typically happens. So, so yeah, so the objective for this PDSA cycle, so we're on this third cycle. So those first two were focused on talking to individual kids, interviewing with individual kids. And we said well let's actually look at our process for how we're intervening from a school perspective as a team at each of the schools and let's standardize that process.   0:22:13.1 John Dues: So that's what we're doing. We're sort of mapping it from start to finish, gathering feedback from key stakeholders as we sort of map a standardized process that works across all four schools. And really one of the things that we're doing right now is we're saying can we develop a process? And we have these four dimensions that we're looking for to sort of meet. One is functional, one is, is it reliable? Third, to your point about the business talk you're giving tonight is is it scalable? You know, does it work across the entire school and across the entire school system? And then is it effective? And we're basically, the attendance improvement team basically is going to put together the process and then they're going to put it in front of our senior leaders and we're going to rate sort of the process across those four dimensions and they've sort of predicted what they think is going to, how it's going to hold up when it's sort of tested by those senior leaders.   0:23:12.8 John Dues: So that's kind of what we're doing right now. So step one is mapping the four campuses and then we're going to map one standardized process, at least a rough draft. And again, so once that initial network wide or system wide map is created, we're going to put it in front of that senior leadership group. We're going to give them a brief survey, sort of a Likert scale across those four dimensions and see, see what they think basically. So that's our next step right now.   0:23:40.6 Andrew Stotz: Exciting, exciting. I want to tell a little story to wrap up my contribution here and that is after many years of living in Asia, I started to realize that everything's connected in Asia, people are connected. If you want to be mean to somebody, it's going to come back around to you. And if you want to push on somebody, it's going to come back around because everybody knows everybody. And I like to picture it like a circle. Let's just say a bunch of people in a circle facing the same direction. And then let's say they all put their right arm on the right shoulder of the man or woman in front of them. So now we have a circle that's connected in such a way. And if you think you're going to get something done by squeezing on the shoulder of the person in front of you, the problem you're going to face is that that's going to transmit all the way around the circle until all of a sudden you're going to be squeezed. And that is my visualization of the way influence works in Asia. Yeah, but I feel like it's the same type of thing when you just say, I want to hold people accountable and we need responsibility around here.   0:24:57.8 Andrew Stotz: What ends up happening is that the only choice that someone has is just to squeeze on the person in front of them. And when they do that, it just transmits a squeeze all the way around. It builds fear, it builds distrust and all of that. And so that. That was a visualization I was having when you were talking.   0:25:16.4 John Dues: Yeah, I mean, I think... And it can be convicting a little bit there. There's a Dr. Deming quote that I'll share to sort of wrap this. Before I do that, I think again, I go back to we... There are these unknown things about how to improve attendance. And so this PDSA, this plan, do study, act cycle, we're using one, again, was intervening with kids and trying to work with a handful of kids that had attendance issues and just see what works and what doesn't. We've shifted gears in this third cycle to something very different. But this is all part of one comprehensive effort by this team to put this new system in place. And all of these pieces of information are important, but this and this mapping, the process thing I think is a great... And I think maybe a lot of people wouldn't think about that as a PDSA to plan a new process, but you can absolutely use it in that way. But the Dr. Deming quote that I think of when I do process mapping is "if you can't describe what you're doing as a process, you don't know what you're doing."   0:26:21.7 John Dues: And I think that's true. Again, it's not to convict people, but I think often when we say, well, that's this thing is going wrong, we need to hold people accountable. And then you ask that person that's making that claim, well, what is the process for this thing? And they often can't tell you. Or they do, it's so vague that nobody could.   0:26:45.3 Andrew Stotz: Or they say, that's not my responsibility. My responsibility is to hold you accountable for getting the result.   0:26:51.4 John Dues: Right. Yeah. And, and, and many people, many organizations don't write these things down. You know, they don't write them down and share them with folks. So that's just some of these simple things are as part of the power making things exciting.   0:27:05.1 Andrew Stotz: Exciting. Well, yeah, how about we wrap it up there and so what are we going to get next time?   0:27:10.7 John Dues: Yeah, I think so. What we went through quickly here at the end was the plan for this PDSA cycle. So by the time we get back together, will have the process map for the system and we'll have had the feedback back and we'll be able to compare that to what the group predicted.   0:27:28.8 Andrew Stotz: So ladies and gentlemen, we're watching it in real time unfold the applications of Dr. Deming's principles. And isn't that what we want? You know, obviously we love theory and we love ideas, but we really need to be all thinking about how we apply these things. And so from my perspective, I'm really enjoying this series and I'm learning a lot. And as I mentioned before, I've been improving some of my thinking and some of my teaching in particular, based upon the discussions that we've had. So on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this discussion and for listeners remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. And also you can find John's book, Win Win: W. Edwards Deming the System of Profound Knowledge and the Science of Improving Schools on Amazon.com This is your host, Andrew Stotz. And I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming. I know you've heard it before, but I'm going to say it again. Until we have joy. "People are entitled to joy in work."

Why would any leader choose to take on a transformation that requires rethinking how they lead, how their organization functions, and how they learn? In this episode, we dive deeper with Cliff Norman and David Williams, co-authors of Quality as an Organizational Strategy, exploring Chapter 11: “Getting Started.” They share powerful stories, practical steps, and the deep-rooted challenges leaders face when shifting from conventional methods to building true learning organizations grounded in Dr. Deming's philosophy. This conversation highlights why improvement cannot be delegated, why leadership transformation is essential, and how to begin the journey—with clarity, commitment, and courage. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.1 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz and I'll be your host as we dive deeper into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today we are going to continue our conversation with Dave Williams and Cliff Norman about their book Quality as an Organizational Strategy. I found this book fascinating because I think it's addressing something where there's been a bit of a hole and that is how do we think about the strategy of our business? And so we already had our conversation in a prior episode about the overview of the book, but today we're going to be talking about specifically, now this is kind of funny because we're going to be talking about the back of the book and that is chapter 11, getting started. Dave, why don't you take it away?   0:00:53.3 Dave Williams: Well, thanks, Andrew. Thanks for having us back on the Deming podcast. So, as you mentioned, part of the way that the book is laid out is that it describes kind of the foundations that are behind quality as an organizational strategy and begins sort of with an introduction that explains a good bit about how Dr. Deming had this provocation of a need for leaders to transform the way that they approach leading organizations. And part of that was to move not just from process based improvement projects, but to start to think about major systems in the organization and to pursue quality as the overall strategy and create a continuous improvement organization or learning organization. And so the book lays some of the foundation behind the science of improvement or behind profound knowledge that underpin the thinking, walks through quality as an organizational strategy, as a method of five interdependent activities. Then at the end it comes back full circle to say, well, this is great, now you've learned about these theories and methods. But a natural question for any leader would be, how do I get started? And one of the first things that we talk about in that section actually is about why leaders would want to do this transformation.   0:02:30.9 Dave Williams: And this actually came from a conversation that Lloyd and Cliff and I had in 2020 where we were talking about getting on this journey of building the book. And we all kind of recognized that this was really, really hard work. And we were curious or we, we didn't have a good answer of what was our theory about why somebody would deviate from the way in which they work today and embark on a transformational change of the way that they approach leadership, the way that they approach organizations. And actually I ended up going on a journey of interviewing a whole host of leaders who had been influenced by Deming, who had been involved in improvement in healthcare, folks like Dr. Berwick and Paul Batalden and Brent James. I interviewed some folks in the UK and other places, like John Seddon, and asked them, oh and I should Blaine Godfrey, who had been the lead of the Durand Institute, and I posed the question, what causes somebody to want to embark on this change? And many people actually had a hard time articulating it. But the answer that emerged, or actually Blaine Godfrey was the one that kind of framed it the best, I think, for us, was a number of things.   0:03:57.7 Dave Williams: Sometimes it's something like a book like this comes out and people read it and it's interesting and new. Sometimes it's an event happens, a patient safety event or a major accident or something of which causes people to have to change or do something different. Sometimes it's a discouragement with a desire that you know you could do better, but you don't have methods or know how to. So there were a host of things that we listed, and those are some of a sample of them that might invite somebody to say, the way that we're working today is not getting us to the level that we want to. And now we want to embark on something different. And we might look to something like quality as an organizational strategy as a method for us to transform the way that we're working and build on the shoulders of Deming's philosophy and the science of improvement and do it differently.   0:04:56.0 Andrew Stotz: And when I look at the book, you guys are bringing together a lot of different stuff. It's not just a Deming book. It's Deming is a part of this, and that's fascinating. One of the questions I have is when we look at, let's say, a business owner, a business leader is looking for answers, as you said, maybe it's an event, maybe it's a discouragement, maybe it's a feeling like we can do better. Maybe it's just being beaten by competitors. They come to a point where they start looking for answers and they find some fantastic books, authors, ideas, consultants, all this and I think about whether that's Peter Drucker or whether that's the Lean movement or whether that's, let's say Taguchi or something like that is the teachings that you guys are talking about - and I'm going to specifically ask about the teachings of Dr. Deming. Is it more or is it more difficult or less difficult to implement than other books or styles or methods that someone's going to come across?   0:06:08.7 Cliff Norman: I have to quote one of my colleagues here who probably knew about more about Deming than anybody in API or all of us combined, that's Ron Moen, who did, I think it was 88 seminars, four-day seminars with Dr. Deming. Dr. Deming once told him, he said, Ron, I believe you've been to more of these and I've been to. And it's kind of a joke. He had a great sense of humor. But you know, Ron told me the problem with Deming is he's asking us to change. And there's all sorts of things out there that require the management and the leadership, they really don't have to do anything different. And there are several things out there. In fact, Philip Crosby, one of the three gurus during when they launched, he was more the evangelical and had a way of talking to management so that they understood it, which that was his contribution to all that. But when Six Sigma came up and black belts and all that, and Crosby looked at him and says, that's not going to change the system. He said, all you're doing is killing a bear for management, killing a bear for management, and then you'll get a black belt.   0:07:19.9 Cliff Norman: You know, And I thought, wow that's pretty profound. Because the management at that point doesn't have to do anything, just have the black belt ceremony. There's absolutely no change on their part. Where Deming, as Ron says, he's kind of a pain. You've got to learn about variation, you got to learn about Shewhart charts. You've got to be able to put together a family of measures for your organization. You've got to understand your organization's system. You need to understand psychology, you need to understand theory of knowledge and how people learn how they change. And nothing else out there puts that on leaders. And so that was a question that Dave was lending back to. Why would somebody do this to themselves? You know, why would they take on this whole extra thing to learn and all the rest of it. And for the people that I know that have made that, that bridge, the pure joy that they get and the rewards they get from people who are learning and that they're leading and that they're changing and they're able to go to other organizations and repeat this and call them up and say, thank you so much for helping me learn how to be a real leader.   0:08:35.8 Cliff Norman: I mean, that's the reward in it. But it requires a real change on the part of the leader. And I don't know of anything else, Andrew, that actually requires that kind of in depth change. And there was one of our leaders, Joe Balthazar, he had Jane and I do four years in a row with his leadership team, teach them the science of improvement. The same curriculum, same leaders, four years in a row. And the second year I was doing it, I said, don't we need... No, no, Cliff, I want you to do exactly what you did last year. He said, it takes years for people to understand this. And I thought, wow, this is unbelievable. But on the fourth year, the VP of sales walked up to me and he says, I think I figured it out. And I thought, wow. And it does it literally... Because you've got to depart from where you've been and start thinking about how you're going to change and let go of what's made you successful up to this point. And that's hard, that's hard for anybody to do.   0:09:47.2 Cliff Norman: And anybody's been through that four day seminar knows when they crossed that path that all of a sudden they had to say, you know what I've been doing, I can see where I've been, the problem and not the solution. And that's tough for us. That really is tough. And Deming says you have to give up that guilt trip. And once you understand the theory of variation, once you understand systems, once you understand psychology and theory of knowledge, it's time then for you to move on and let go of the guilt. I hope that makes sense. But that's the difficulty in this.   0:10:17.6 Andrew Stotz: It reminds me of two, it made me think about two things. I mean, I was just a 24 year old guy when I attended the seminars that I did, and they weren't even four day. I think they were two-day ones at Quality Enhancement Seminars in, what was it, George Washington, I think. But the point that I remember, as just a young guy who I was, I pretty much admired all these business leaders. And then to see Dr. Deming really nail em to the wall and say it's about you changing. And whether he was saying that directly or whether that he was implying that through the Red Bead experiment or other things, it's about you shaping the system. That really blew me away because I had already read some books and I was pretty excited. And then it also made me think about, let's say there's a really good book, I would say Good to Great by Jim Collins that highlights some things that you can do to succeed and make your business better. And you can just buy that book and hand it to your management team and go, hey, implement what you learned from this book.   0:11:20.8 Andrew Stotz: Whereas with the Deming book, it's like there's just so much more to it. So I guess the answer to this is it is more takes time. There's more thinking going on. And I think that's part of the whole point of what your book does, is to help us map it out. So why don't we go through and think about this and kind of maybe step by step through what is the starting point and how do we go?   0:11:45.4 Cliff Norman: Andrew, I just got to add to what you just said there and go back to Joe Balthazar at Hallmark Building Supplies. He shared with me that, and he's the one that said I want you to do these four year seminars dedicated Deming's idea of Profound knowledge. And he said, Cliff, the day I made it, I knew I'd made it. Is my son Joey spilled his milk. He's about three years old. And he said, I started to do my normal leap across the table and he said I was about mid air. And I thought, oh my, this is what they do. This is part of their system. This is common. And I'm treating this like it's special. And that was so profound for him. And when, when you move beyond the Shewhart chart and you see events in your life around you relative to the theory of variation, common and special cause variation at a deep way like that, that's the kind of transformation you want to see in a leader. And Joe will tell you he's forever grateful for Deming and everything he's learned, and I think that's the reward. But people need to be willing to go on that journey, as Dave was saying.   0:12:53.0 Andrew Stotz: So Dave, why don't you walk us through a little bit of what you guys are teaching in that chapter.   0:13:00.3 Dave Williams: Sure. Well, one of the next steps obviously is if somebody, if a leadership team thinks that they want to go on this journey, there's some considerations they got to think about. As we've already sort of alluded to or touched on, this is a leadership responsibility and a leadership change. And so there's got to be will amongst the leadership team in order to say we want to work together and work hard to do this work. That this is not something that, similar to Cliff's example of say, having black belts, that we can just hand it off, somebody else will do it, and we can just keep going about our business and hope. It's important that leaders spend time recognizing and thinking about the fact that this is going to involve them doing work, doing effort, changing the way that they think, changing the way that they practice. And I like to say it's good hard work. I mean it's going to be something that's deeply rewarding. But it does require them to have that will. And with will then it's going to come time and energy, right? They've got to make the space, they've got to create regular routines and opportunities for them to learn just in terms of content, learn in terms of practice or application and learn in the process of doing the improvement work and doing the change to the way that they work in the organization.   0:14:38.0 Dave Williams: So there's going to be a need to build in that ability. And then a third thing is to ask whether you think this is something that you can do on your own or whether it might be useful to have help. And help may be an internal, a consultant, but likely not to promote consulting it but, but there's a good chance that you're going to need somebody that has both experience in improvement and helping people do results-driven improvement as well as somebody who has experience doing system wide change through a lens like QOS. And, and the advantage of that often is it it gives you as a leadership team to focus in on your job of thinking and looking and learning and allow somebody else to be an external intervener, somebody who comes in and creates some of the support, some of the context, some of the ways that can make it easier for you to step back and look at your organization in a different way. And so many times those are some of the things that should be considered as teams working through it. Cliff, what would you add or improve upon.   0:16:07.3 Cliff Norman: The idea of external help. Deming was pretty black and white about that. I was kind of surprised. I went back and read one of his quotes. He said, "I should mention also the costly fallacy held by many people in management that a consultant must know all about a process in order to work on it. All evidence is exactly the contrary. Competent men in every position, from top management to the humblest worker know all there is to know about their work except how to improve it. Help towards improvement can come only from outside knowledge." And I was reflecting on that today with Jane who's been involved in this for 40 plus years also. I said Jane, when he said that, I think it was accurate because at that time she and I were going to Duran seminars. There's only two books out there with methods. One was Ishikawa's book on Guide to Quality Control. And the other was Feigenbaum's book. And then of course you had Duran's book on The Quality Handbook, which was a nice doorstop. But there wasn't that much knowledge about improvement. And the worst part where Deming was really getting to was there's very few people you'd run into that actually under the Shewhart methods and charts and understand the difference between special and common cause variation.   0:17:27.0 Cliff Norman: And so you had to bring that kind of knowledge in from the outside. And frankly, we've had people go off the rails here. You know, Dr. Deming in the teaching of statistics has identified analytic studies which is focused on looking at data over time and trying to understand that and simple methods and approaches and then what he calls enumerative statistics, which is use of T tests, F tests and all the rest of it, which assumes that under the IDD principle that data is independent and identically distributed. Well, if you have any special causes in the data set, it blows up both of those assumptions and the use of those methods doesn't offer any help in prediction. And as Dr. Deming often said, prediction is the problem. And then go back to Shewhart. And Shewhart said, things in nature are inherently stable, but man-made processes are inherently unstable. So when Dave and I first do a Shewhart chart for a client, we don't expect for it to be stable. We expect for to have special causes. And as Dr. Deming said and also Dr. Juran, that when you get a stable system, that in and of itself is an achievement, that means nobody's messing around with the system anymore.   0:18:43.0 Cliff Norman: And you see this in the simplest things, like in an office, somebody will walk in and they think that their body is the standard for what the internal temperature should be for that room. So then they walk up and they start tampering with the thermostat. And by the end of the day everybody's irritated because we've had so many bodies up there with their standard. Moving the funnel on us here, and just leaving it alone would probably all be better off. But you have to learn that. And I think that's what Dr. Deming was saying, is that that kind of knowledge is going to come from the outside. Now the good news is is that since he wrote that in 1986, we've got a lot of people out there and some of them are in organizations that do understand the Shewhart methods and can understand the difference between common and special cause variation. They do understand the difference between a new and analytic studies and statistics and they can be of help. So the Deming Institute has a room full of these people show up, but they're at their gatherings annually. So we're a lot further along than we were in 1986.   0:19:45.2 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. So let's go through that for just a second. Some considerations you've talked about. You know that it's a leadership change. Right. And you gotta ask yourself, are we ready to work on this? And you know, this is not a hands-off thing. The second thing you talked about is time and energy. Are we ready to make the space for this? We have to have regular meetings. You know, we've gotta really... There's some work involved here. And then the third part you've talked about is outside help. And you mentioned about this story of Joe Balthazar and how he asked you to do the same topic over and over for four years. And imagine if he was telling his team, let's meet and try to implement some of this stuff on our own. Everybody dig into a book and then let's try. It would be very difficult to make that kind of progress compared to bringing an outside person. Which also brings me to the last thing that you said, Cliff, which was the idea that Dr. Deming had mentioned, that you need an outside person to truly change something. Everybody's got the expertise on the inside.   0:20:44.5 Cliff Norman: I appreciate you summarizing that because my job and working with Joe and leadership team, I was meeting with him every month. But what the four years that Jane and I spent were the next levels of his leadership. You know, it wasn't the leadership team. And I'm glad you brought that up because it was the very next level that he wanted exposed to this and the VP of sales that came in, he was new, so he had to be part of this group because he wasn't there originally. And so there was that ongoing... He wanted that next generation that was going to take over for him and the others to really understand this. So I'm glad you summarized that for me to help.   0:21:30.5 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. And I think one of the starting points too, I mean, the body of work, not just this book, but the other books that you guys have been involved in and produced provide a lot of the starting points for this. So there's a lot there. Dave, where do we go after these considerations? And the people say, okay, yeah, leadership says, we want to make this change. We're ready to make some time for it. We're willing to get outside support and help. Where do we go next.   0:21:57.7 Dave Williams: Right. Well, one thing that we typically invite a leadership team to do is to take kind of a self assessment of where they sort of see their baseline in relation to the methods and activities of QOS. So in chapter one of the book, there's actually a table that is 10 different categories. And then each leader takes it independently and they rate their level of agreement with different definitions from 0 to 10. 0 being this really isn't present, and 10 is, I'm very, very far along on this journey that in the book that's out now, there's a summarized table, it's on a page. But actually in the QOS field guide that we're working on publishing this year, there's a much more detailed version that we use in practice that has deeper definitions, but basically it works its way through purpose and leadership and systems thinking and measurement and all the things that are tied into QOS and what... And as I mentioned, we have each individual member of the leadership team take it independently and then we bring those scores together to learn together.   0:23:32.5 Dave Williams: And there's different ways in which you can display it. In the book, we show an example of a leadership team's scatter plot where it shows the rating and then it also shows the standard deviation amongst that exists between the leadership team. It's very, very common for leaders to not be in agreement in terms of their score in each of the different areas. You know what I said, It's a 0 to 10 scale. Typically, in my experience using the tool, people tend to be between a 2 and a 6 and hovering around a 2 or a 4. But it sort of looks like a buckshot or shotgun blast where there's a very... If you were to put dots where everybody scores, where there's variation that exists. And that's good because it's useful for the team to pause and think about why they assess the organization the way that they did. Looking at it through this new lens, where are the places that there's agreement and also where are the places that there's variation? And that helps them to be able to think about the fact that through this process, they're likely to both improve their assessment of the organization, but also increase their agreement about where they are and what they need to do to move forward and what they need to do to improve.   0:25:05.2 Dave Williams: And so that's a useful starting point, gets everybody kind of on the same page, and it's something that we can use at intervals as one of the ways to continually come back and evaluate progress towards the destination of pursuing quality as an organizational strategy.   0:25:23.7 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, I mean, I imagine that self assessment, it helps you too when you work with companies to be able to really understand, okay, here are starting point with this company is really, they just really don't know much about all of this stuff, whereas you'll have some other clients that basically, wow, okay, there's a lot of knowledge here about it, but how's the implementation and all that? So are we ready to change? Are we prepared to devote the time and energy? Are we going to get outside help? And where are we now? What's our starting point that's great to help us understand exactly how you step through it. What comes next?   0:26:03.5 Cliff Norman: Well, in that very first milestone, in that table, is it table three, Dave? Anyway, the very first milestone is to establish formal improvement efforts. And the reason for that is that unless people experience what it takes to develop, test and implement changes in the organizations, they really can't appreciate the structure that comes with quality as an organizational strategy. Because it's very difficult for many organizations to launch three or four improvement efforts and then bring them to fruition. And there's all sorts of stuff that happens. And then you find out very quickly whether you have managers or leaders, and organizations they've brought me in, they say, let's do some leadership training. I said, no, let's just do some improvement and then we'll find out if we have leaders or not. And one group, I won't mention who it was, but they had five people on their leadership team and they had to replace two of them because they found out they couldn't actually manage an improvement effort. And then the CEO was wondering how they actually manage their organization, which they weren't either. And so it's a rather, it's an important test in the front.   0:27:22.2 Cliff Norman: But as Dr. Juran says, it's real important to develop the habit of improvement. And if you don't know what that is, if you've never experienced it, then it's hard to say to people, gee, I need a purpose that aligns my improvement efforts. I need to understand my system so I know where those improvements are going on. I need to build an information system, get information from customers outside, people inside. I need to put together a strategic plan that actually makes improvements on purpose. That's a lot of work. And once you understand how complicated it can get in terms of just doing three or four improvement efforts and then all of a sudden you got a portfolio of 30 to do your strategic plan. Now that needs some structure, that needs some guidance and all the rest of it. But I'll just go back one step further. My own journey. I was sent by Halliburton at Otis Engineering to go see Dr. Deming 1982 in February. And coming back, I had an audience with the president of our organization, Purvis Thrash. And I went on and on about Dr. Deming. He said, Cliff, you know what I'd like to have? I said, what's up, Mr. Thrash?   0:28:27.5 Cliff Norman: He says, if you'll take this 50 million dollar raw material problem and solve this for me, I'll be a happy man and I'll give you all the quality you want. But go take care of that problem for me first and then come back to me and talk about Deming and Juran and anything else you want to talk about. So I put together four or five people and over about three months we solved his 50 million dollar raw material problem. And then he had a meeting of all executives and I was sitting with the managers in the back row and he called me to the front and he says, Cliff, will you sign this card right here? And I says, well Mr. Thrash, what is this? He says, well, I'm giving you authority to sign $50,000 anytime you need it to get all the quality we can stand here at Otis Engineering. One of the vice presidents said, well, I don't have that authority. He said, you didn't save me $50 million. You know, but once that happens, Andrew, once you do that, then you've got people that are willing to help you. And then once that takes place, I can't tell you how important, it allowed me then to bring in Lloyd Provost to help me.   0:29:36.2 Cliff Norman: And they weren't about to pay out money. They didn't like consultants, in fact, they were anti-consultant. But you saved us $50 million. I gave you $50,000. And Lloyd doesn't make that much. So get him in here, do whatever you need to go do. And I just think it's so critical that we have that demonstration project that people understand at the leadership level what we're talking about when we talk about design and redesign of the system.   0:30:00.0 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. I mean, I appreciate in the book you're talking about this concept. I'm not going to call it quick wins, but the idea is we need to get results. You know, this isn't just about talking about stuff so that's one thing that as you just illustrated, that's one point. The second thing you mentioned, is this person a leader or a manager? You know, and I think for the listeners or viewers out there, they're probably... When they heard you say that, they're probably thinking. Okay, wait a minute. Are my team managers or leaders? How do I know? What would you say? What differentiates the two?   0:30:37.2 Cliff Norman: I was fortunate to hang around Dr. Maccabee, as Deming did, and I asked Dr. Maccabee that question. He said, Cliff it's actually pretty easy. He said leaders have followers, and if you have followers, you can be anywhere in the organization, be a leader, but if you don't have followers, you're not a leader. You might be a manager with authority. You're not a leader.   0:31:02.7 Andrew Stotz: Can I ask a little bit more on that? So I'm thinking about my own business, which is a coffee factory, and I have people that are running the business, but I also have people that are running departments like the roasting department. And that area when they're overseeing this and they're doing a very good job and they're keeping things up and all that. How do I understand in a sense you could say, are they followers? Well, not really. They're people working for them and they have a good time and so do I view that person as not necessarily a leader, but more of a manager, or how do I look at it in my own company?   0:31:35.5 Cliff Norman: It could be a manager, which is essential to the organization. And that's another big difference. You see, the leader can't delegate their relationship with the people who are followers. You can't do that any more than a teacher can dedicate her class to a substitute teacher. Anybody that's ever watched that knows that chaos is getting ready to break out here because that teacher has a relationship with those students. She knows them all in a big way. And when the substitute comes in is game time in most classrooms and so forth, the managers have skills and things that they're applying and they can actually delegate those. Like when I was a foreman, I could have somebody come in and take over my department and I say assign all my people tomorrow. And they could do that. Now, in terms of the people that I was leading that saw me as a leader in that department, they didn't have that relationship.   0:32:30.2 Cliff Norman: But management or skills and necessary things to make the organization run like you're talking about, the coffee is not going to get out the door unless I have people with subject matter knowledge and competent managers to make sure that the T's are getting crossed, the I's dotted and the rest of it. But the leadership of the organization that has followers, that's a whole different person. And I think it's important. That could be anywhere in the organization. Like I had at Halliburton, I had a VP of engineering. Everybody went to him, everybody. He had 110 patents. You know, he built that system. He built the whole organization. So the CEO did not have the followers that the VP of engineering had. And it was well earned. It's always earned, too.   0:33:16.7 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. Okay, that's great. Leaders have followers. Leaders cannot delegate their authority. They have a different relationship.   0:33:24.0 Cliff Norman: They can't delegate the relationship.   0:33:25.8 Andrew Stotz: The relationship. Okay.   0:33:27.4 Cliff Norman: Yeah. Very important.   0:33:34.3 Andrew Stotz: So now let's go back to what, where we were. So we were saying some of the considerations. Are we ready to change? Are we prepared to devote the time and energy? Are we ready to get outside help and where are we now? And that self assessment that you talked about helps us to understand what's our starting point. I always tell a joke with my students about this when I talk about. I'd say, imagine you go to London and you're going to go visit your friend and you call your friend up, you say, I've arrived and I'm calling from a phone booth and just tell me how to get there. And the friend says, well, where are you? And you say, I'm not really sure. Well, do you see anything around you? Yeah, well, there's lots of buildings, but I don't really, you know. Well, do you see any names of any streets? No, I don't really see anything. But just tell me how to get there. There's something missing. If we don't know where we are, it's very difficult to get to where we're going. So now we understand where we are. We got that scatter plot that you guys have that you've talked about. Dave, where do we go next?   0:34:26.6 Dave Williams: Well, so Cliff already mentioned one of the fundamentals. And sometimes I think this is something that people struggle with because they want to jump into something new. But one of the best starting points is to focus in on improvement. And there's a number of different reasons for that. So one is that I don't know about you all, but in my experience, if I ask people, like, hey, I want to create some improvement projects and get started on improvement, I always tell people, like, if you remember the old Stephen Covey exercise where he put the rocks and the stones and the sand into a jar and poured water. And like you would do it in different orders. And I'm fascinated that people will stare at the big rocks or the things that are right in front of them, or the things that are on their agenda, or the things that are part of their strategy. And then they'll look to the side and grab some rare event or some extra thing that isn't related to that, but they've always wanted to work on. And where we try to focus people's attention is one, what are you already working on? Can you look through your and ask around, what are the things that are currently in play, projects that exist? And sometimes we won't ask, what improvement projects do you have? Because if you do that, you get a short list.   0:35:51.4 Dave Williams: Those are the things that people defined as an improvement effort, or maybe use some kind of framing to decide it was an improvement project. It may be better to in the beginning of the book, in the first chapter, we talk about different ways that you improve. And there's designing and redesigning a process. There's designing and redesigning a service or a product. There's changing a whole system. And so it can be useful to say, well, what are we doing in these areas? And that may actually create a bigger list of the various things where people are working on something that's about change to the system that may lend itself to be better activated through firing it up as an improvement project. And then, of course, there's a good chance that any organization, especially if they've done some kind of strategic planning, have some strategic objectives or some strategic priorities which they've committed to or already said, these are the things we're going to work on. So kind of crowdsourcing or bringing those together helps us to potentially find the early portfolio of projects without having to look much further, without having to say, what else do you want to work on.   0:37:07.0 Dave Williams: And then if we've got that, if we've got that list, a second thing that we can do is invite people to use the three questions of the model for improvement and reflect on can you answer these three questions? Do you know what you're trying to accomplish? Do you know how a change will result in improvement? Do you know what changes you'll make? What's your theory about how you'll get to improvement? And so having a list of the things that are already present or existing may be one first step. Another second step in the firing up a portfolio of improvement projects is asking the three questions for the model for improvement. And then a third one, if it's an active project is we have a project progress scale that you might use that can help you gauge. So I've got a project where is it on its journey towards achieving its aim or getting results? Those three can help us to sort of get a sense of the work that is at hand and that has already been sort of started in some fashion that is already in progress and maybe to get a sense of the level of definition and the progress that exists.   0:38:22.3 Dave Williams: They may not be the right projects, but that's a good place to start before trying to create new ones. And I'll hand it to you, Andrew.   0:38:30.4 Andrew Stotz: I find that interesting. Both the story that you told Cliff about fix my raw material problem and then, Dave, what you're talking about is as you talk in the book, focus first on improvement. What are we already working on? What's an improvement project we've got? What's a problem we've got? Because a lot of times, let's say in the teachings of Dr. Deming, it's like, no, get your mind right, read this stuff, read this, figure this out, think about this, go to a seminar, talk to other people before you do anything. I feel like that is oftentimes where people get caught is they get caught up in, I need a year to think about this. And can you explain a little bit more about why once we've done our self assessment and we're ready to go, that you focus on improvement rather than the thinking process?   0:39:21.7 Dave Williams: Well, because we want to... Well, one, we know that in order to get results or to get a different result than what we want, we got to change the system that we got. Right. So in order to do that, we've got to do improvement. The other thing is that there's already energy that's being expended here.   0:39:41.4 Andrew Stotz: That's a good point.   0:39:42.7 Dave Williams: The risk that often I find people run into is that they then add other projects that are not strategic into that bucket and take up more energy. I'll tell you an example. I was working with the health system here in the States and we crowdsource just the things that they were calling improvement projects. The health system had 25 active teams that were just the ones that were called out as improvement projects. When we looked at those 25 teams, the vast majority of them were not actually... They had been meeting for months and doing things for quite some time, but they actually weren't doing any changes and, or they've been testing changes for quite some time. So, now just this exercise alone by only asking, what improvement projects do you have? You realize you've got 25 teams that have been resourced or are spending energy or going to meetings or focused on something. They may not be the strategic thing that matters, but that's irrelevant right now. We just know that we already have invested some interest here. The second thing is these folks have been on this journey for quite some time and are not making progress.   0:41:01.7 Dave Williams: So that tells me something about maybe the way that they framed it. Did they charter it well? Did they have the right people in the room or the right team? Did they have the right tools and methods to be able to break down the problem and then figure out what to test and learn? So there may be some difficulty...   0:41:19.4 Andrew Stotz: Or did they even just dissipate their efforts across 25 projects too? Right in their resources, yeah.   0:41:26.1 Dave Williams: Yeah. Or there are overlaps? So there's a number of different factors. There's actually a paper that was published by a health system in the United Kingdom, and it was really interesting. They spent a lot of attention on generating will through training and getting people in the classroom and teaching them about improvement methods. And they fired up all this energy. They had a massive explosion of the number of projects that were started or where somebody went into their software. They had a software platform. Anybody could go and start a project. Well, something like 50% of those projects never actually got to PDSA testing where they changed anything. And then there were a slew of them that were stuck in PDSA testing but never saw any movement in their process measures or their outcome measures. And only a small number actually progressed in achieving their aim. And I asked the Chief Quality Officer about this, and and he admittedly said that it was very exciting that we we're generating will and getting things going, but that alone was only getting them to maybe some early design and some thinking, but they weren't getting them to results.                                                                         0:42:34.8 Dave Williams: And I said, well, what about the ones that were getting results? And he said, well, those are actually ones where we've got an improvement advisor who's got some skills and ability and improvement. There are things that are resourced, there are things that were prioritized. And man, when we did all those things, they moved from planning and organizing and thinking to testing changes and moving in a direction of goodness and getting at least results in their process measures, if not their outcome measures. And so in my mind, I was like, I appreciate you're trying to build this sort of culture, but it felt like a lot of burnt energy at the front end with all these teams getting into training and firing up their software and more energy might have been strategic in copying what was getting to results. And I think that's part of what we're trying to get to, is helping people learn. You've got if you don't have a method to figure out strategic projects, let's look at the ones you got. How are they going? Where are people at? And how effective is the capability that you have within your system right now? And the leaders want to be part of that, and they can learn within that to go, oh, wow, this is our current state.   0:43:47.2 Dave Williams: And so maybe we're going to agree to continue on with these projects. Maybe we're going to sunset some of them, but we're going to learn together about how do we get better at getting better, and how do we learn how to move projects forward and not to have them take two years. Let's try to get them down to four or six months, whether that's through scope or execution. But let's get better at getting better. And then as we're building... Developing the early activities of QOS, we'll eventually get to a point where we'll also be able to identify more strategic projects that are going to move us towards our aim or towards our purpose better. And this will help us as we're trying to build the capability to get there.   0:44:32.7 Cliff Norman: You know, Andrew, early on, when Dave went down this path, he said that we got to make sure that somebody's working on improvement. They're actually making changes. And Jane and I were working with a group, and the CEO said they've been meeting a long time. Could you down there and see what they're doing? Because nothing's happening. And we started looking through their agendas and they had everything well documented, and it was all about getting ready to get ready. And then they'd assign the dessert. Who's going to bring the dessert to the next meeting. And Jane looked at him and says this reminds me of something, Cliff. I said, what's that? Can I share my screen?   0:45:10.9 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. Yep, go ahead.   0:45:13.7 Cliff Norman: I may send this to. You may know about it, but this is Dr. Deming's Diary of a Cat. And everyday...   0:45:20.6 Andrew Stotz: It hasn't come up yet. Hold on one second. Hopefully you've got permission now.   0:45:28.6 Cliff Norman: Let me go back and check here.   0:45:33.9 Andrew Stotz: Okay. It looks like it's coming up. One second.   0:45:38.4 Cliff Norman: It said every day is today. There's no theory days of the week. But today I got up some food in a bowl, it was great. Slept some too. Play with yarn, got some food in a bowl, had a good nap, slept, food, yarn, fun. Play with a shoelace. There's a big change right there. Went from yarn to a shoelace. Some people call that a job shop. And ate, slept, had a good day, slept, ate some food, yarn, so forth. So, and the team meeting looked just like that. But there's really no changes going on relative to improvement. So Dr. Deming would often share this into four days seminar to make sure that we weren't involved in the Diary of the Cat, but we were actually doing something useful in terms of making changes in the organization.   0:46:24.4 Andrew Stotz: That's a great one. And it helps us to understand that we could be busy all day long and not improve anything.   0:46:31.8 Cliff Norman: You know, or actually confuse that with improvement. In fact, we have an operational API that my team, we were embarrassed in our first, wait a second, our first improvement guide we wrote. And Dr. Adamir Pente, who's a professor at the university in Brazil, he sent us a note and he said, I know you guys and he said you're real big on operational definitions, but you've written this book on improvement and nowhere have you, you've defined what you mean by improvement. And then he put together a three part definition that there's a design and redesign system, there's system measures and the change is sustainable and lasting and so we put that definition in the second edition. But I was confronted at a university, I won't mention which one it was, but they had 30 Keystone projects for a advanced degree program for nursing and they were convinced they were doing improvement. And when I had them apply that definition, they came up out of the thirty. They only could find two projects out of the 30 where they were actually designing and redesigning the system, which, that's the first thing Dave said are we designing and redesigning and making real changes? And people think just showing up and going through motions and all the rest of it is improvement. No, it means...   0:48:07.8 Dave Williams: Looks like we've lost...   0:48:11.9 Andrew Stotz: We lost you at the last, the last statement you just made. People are going through all this stuff and thinking that they're improving, but they're...   0:48:22.8 Cliff Norman: Yeah, it's showing up and going through motions and you know, having the meetings and making sure we assign who's bringing dessert. But we're not really designing and changing the system. We're not getting measurable changes of improvement. In other words, we haven't tracked the data over time and we can't say that the changes that we've made are going to in fact be sustainable because we haven't known what we've done to the system to deserve a sustainable change.   0:48:51.4 Andrew Stotz: By the way, what a buzzword these days, sustainability, sustainable and all that. And you just think do people really think about how we're building something that's really lasting and sustainable?   0:49:04.8 Cliff Norman: Well, we have a checklist and actually Jane designed it for the first edition and it literally lays out what changes did you make, which processes did you change, what's going to change in the documentation, whose role statements have been changed in the organization because of this change. And once all that's answered on that checklist, which is in the book, then we can... But we're pretty certain that we've created the structure to make it easy for people to do the right thing and hard to do the wrong thing. But unless that structure's changed, probably not much going to happen.   0:49:40.8 Andrew Stotz: Just for the sake of time, because I think we want to wrap up in just a bit. But there's so many stuff, so much stuff that we've been through. But I know there's even more in this chapter, but how would you start to bring this together for the person who is a leader, himself or herself, and they're listening to this and they're thinking, okay, I'm ready to make a change and I'm prepared to devote the time and energy because I see the outcome and I'm open to help, whether that's through the book and other books, whether that's through a consultant, whatever that is. And I can even do a self assessment to some extent and know where our level is, which is very low. We don't know much about this type of stuff and that type of thing. We talked about the first focus on improvement. How do they pull this all together and start moving on it?   0:50:35.0 Dave Williams: There's three things that follow the self assessment. The first one is this focus on doing improvement work and setting up a portfolio of projects. And we just kind of talked about many of the different methods that go into that. And like I said, sometimes that when you say that out loud, leaders don't initially get excited by it because they think they have it. But actually it's a powerful opportunity for you to learn about what's currently going on in the organization and about where this opportunity is to reduce a lot of the noise and a lot of the friction that's getting in the way from you getting to results. The second thing that often happens in parallel is that the leaders need to build a learning system where they're going to be able to learn together both about these projects and what these projects are telling them about their organization, about their culture, about their people, and about their capacity to get results, but also that they can start to be learning about the science of improvement and profound knowledge and the activities of QOS that are going to be part of what they're going to work on developing over the course of the first year or two.   0:51:50.6 Dave Williams: And so that typically is, that's making that space and energy. It's a blend of book learning and application and practical. Trying and looking at things within the organization. It's a very applied approach, but it's an ongoing piece of their discovery. And I often argue that this is a real opportunity for leadership because they're going to be able to see their organization in a way that they haven't seen it before. And when we talk about profound knowledge, they're going to gain this profound understanding and expertise about what they're charged with and what they own and what they want to change in a way that they haven't been able to have it before. And so it's a hard work, but rewarding work. And then third is that typically where the, where we invite people to start is to focus in on the first activity, which is to develop or establish or develop their purpose. When this work was initially framed, not everybody was as... Not everybody had a mission, vision and value statement or a purpose statement that wasn't as common, but today people do. But the difference here, and you'll see this in the chapter on purpose, is that organizations that are pursuing quality as an organizational strategy are organizations that are systems that are built to constantly be trying to match a need that exists out in the world.   0:53:34.7 Dave Williams: And so often a learning for people is to step back and have to reflect on, well, what is the need in which we are creating these products and services to match? And if we're creating these things to match the need, how do we understand what's important, what are the quality characteristics that matter? And then how do we define what our mission is in that context? And being able to say, here's why we exist and the need that we're trying to serve, and in what way? And how do we set a vision for where we want to get into the future and what are the tenants or the practical values that exist in our organization, that we want to define how we work together in terms of building in that way. And so purpose is a big focus. It's that clarity of the need, the clarity of the quality characteristics that it takes to match that need. Understanding what are the products and services that we have. I know that sounds a little trivial, but you'd be stunned how hard it is, especially in service organizations, for people to actually describe what it is that they do, what are the actual services.   0:54:54.3 Dave Williams: They might have the name of the service or the class or the whatever, but to actually say this is what we deliver, and then really think about how do I use this as our organization's sort of North Star, our aim, so that everything else that follows is going to be about building a system that produces the results that we want and produces the services that match that need. So going forward, that's going to be very, very important in instructing the direction and instructing the way in which we're going to work as a community of professional people together.   0:55:30.8 Andrew Stotz: So after self assessment, we're talking about focusing on improvement. We're talking about building a learning system, and we're talking about revisiting or establishing or developing our purpose?   0:55:43.3 Cliff Norman: Yeah, I'll just add to what you just said there, Andrew. There's three basic things that have to happen when we start working. Number one is create the habit of improvement. Start improvement right away. Second thing, Dave just went through some detail on building a system of improvement. And Dave called that a learning system, which I thought was interesting because that's what Dr. Maccabee called it when he saw the five activities. Said, these are really methods for building a learning organization. And he said, I've never really seen them before, but this is what will come out of this, which is the essence of what you want. You want people continually learning, as Dr. Deming said, so they can continually improve. But the third thing that has to happen is we have to develop internal capability for them to carry this on, because we're not going to be around with them. We've never advertised. We don't advertise for clients, and we only get word of mouth. And we're only in there to do those three things, get them started on the habit of improvement, start building the system improvement so they can take it over.   0:56:43.4 Cliff Norman: And the third thing, start developing internal capability so they can continue it on into the future. So those three things basically take off on day one. And depending on the organization, I think this is critical. Dave, you asked this question the other day, if the context is such they've got things in front of them are so bad and so challenging that they just need to work on improvement. That's where we're going to be focused. But now if they can chew gum and walk at the same time, we're going to start building the system of improvement. And the first people I want on those initial teams, I want people on there who are going to be future improvement advisors. And more importantly, they perceive them as future leaders in the organization. I don't want a cadre of a whole bunch of improvement advisors. I want leaders in the future who actually understand the science of improvement, understand these methods, so when they go to the next department, the next organization, they can carry this on. So those three things start improving, start building a system of improvement. And the third thing, start developing internal capability. Those have got to take off almost simultaneously, depending on the situation, of course.   0:57:49.8 Andrew Stotz: Well, on that note, that's quite a discussion. I'm so happy that we can have this to go in a little bit deeper into the work that you guys have done. Again, the book is Quality As an Organizational Strategy. I got mine on Amazon and it sent it to me. But I wonder if you have any last words that you'd like to share about what we've talked about today in relation to getting started.   0:58:18.3 Cliff Norman: So, Dave, why don't you talk a little bit about. Because I think this is critical. We've just finished Andrew, the book that's going to be for the people who actually have to build this system. So Dave, just say a few things about that if you would, because you.   0:58:32.0 Dave Williams: About the field guide?   0:58:33.8 Cliff Norman: Yeah.   0:58:35.5 Dave Williams: Yeah. Well, so when this body of work was first created, there was the content of which you see in this book. And then there were also a lot of exercises and methods and applications and examples that existed as well. And it was a pretty thick binder. We have created two volumes. One, the book that you have, which is the description of the theory and the method and gives you some of the tools. And we're now in the process of pulling together what we call the QOS Field Guide, which is a guide that is supporting people that are going down this journey. It follows the same structure as the book, with the exception of the, the Getting started chapter that we had at the end is now at the beginning. And it walks through in great detail various ways in which you leaders and practitioners can approach getting started and building the capacity and then working through each of the activities. And it's equal in size, I mean, it's about the same thickness. But what we tried to do is to give people really pragmatic things to do.   1:00:01.1 Dave Williams: So there are exercises where people are simulating an idea or a concept or a particular piece. There are what we call QOS applications, which are where you're actually taking the theory or the method and applying it to your own organization. There are case studies and things that have been built that might allow you to practice. There's wonderful examples of just about everything from all, from people that we have worked with over the years across multiple different fields, from my background in emergency services and healthcare to education to manufacturing to elevator companies, all kinds of great stuff. And so that will be helpful as people are trying to think about pursuing this journey and working through that first phase of developing QOS and moving into using it. And we're in the stages of having it done to be available later this year.   1:01:08.6 Andrew Stotz: Exciting.   1:01:09.2 Cliff Norman: We've tried to make it useful, Andrew, that the people have to stay overnight with the management and actually get something done and build it without being run off. That everything is there for them to make sure that they make it successfully. That's the thing we kept in mind as we kept writing this second volume.   1:01:25.2 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, I mean, I would say my experience with your guys's writing is that it's applicable.   1:01:34.1 Dave Williams: Well, Andrew, one thing I was going to add on you mentioned a lot of different examples. There are a lot of books in which people tell you a theory, but they don't tell you how to do it. Or they tell you about their own experience, but they don't actually convey the theory. The Quality as an Organizational Strategy book is laying out the theory and the methods of this approach built on the foundations of the science of improvement and profound knowledge and the Deming philosophy. The QOS Field Guide adds to that by giving you the methods and the tools and the things. It doesn't mean that that by itself you can't just go through like it's some kind of self guided tour and all of a sudden magic happens. There's a lot of work and learning and things that have to go into going through that process. But between these two volumes, a leadership team has the tools and methods that put them in position to be able to make this journey.   1:02:41.4 Andrew Stotz: Right. Well, let's wrap it up there. On behalf of everyone, I appreciate Dave and Cliff. All that you're doing and you're sharing with us and taking the time to do that. So from everyone at the Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for joining this and bringing your discussion on these topics. And for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. And you can find this book, Quality as an Organizational Strategy at Amazon and other booksellers. Are there even booksellers these days? I don't even know. They're mainly online these days. So this is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'm going to leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming, which is "people are entitled to joy in work."  

It's time for PDSA (Plan-Do-Study-Act) Cycle 2 in John Dues' journey to reduce chronic absenteeism in his schools. His team is using PDSA to quickly test ideas and learn on a small scale. Find out what happened and how PDSA can be a powerful tool for learning. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.2 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we dive deeper into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with John Dues, who is part of a new generation of educators striving to apply Dr. Deming's principles to unleash student joy in learning. The topic for today is Powerful Learning with the PDSA Cycle, Part 2. John, take it away.   0:00:26.7 John Dues: It's good to be back, Andrew. Yeah, like you said, we, I think for the past three episodes or so, we've been working towards getting a better definition of our problem specific to this chronic absenteeism issue that we're working on this year. I don't know if you remember from last episode, but we have this team working and they've basically said we don't have enough information quite yet to write this precise problem statement. So we decided to gather information running the Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle. And last time we focused on the first cycle. This episode, we're gonna focus on a subsequent PDSA cycle, sort of along those same lines. For folks that are watching and perhaps just joining for the first time, I'll kind of share my screen and do a little bit of a review so that everybody can see or know what we're talking about, even if they're just listening for the first time. So we've talked about this improvement model. We're working through this four step improvement model. So set the direction or challenge is the first step. Grasp the current condition is the second step. Third step is establish your next target condition and then fourth, experiment to overcome obstacles.   0:01:44.3 John Dues: And we're doing all this with a team, people working in the system. People have the authority to work on the system and someone with the System of Profound Knowledge knowledge. right. And so, you know, we've talked about setting that challenge or direction. And as we're grasping the current condition, we've actually decided to skip to step four and experiment a little bit so we can get a deeper understanding of this problem that we've been working on. And you'll remember probably as well, did the screen change for you so you can see the chart now?   0:02:21.8 Andrew Stotz: Yeah.   0:02:22.9 John Dues: Yeah. Great. So I thought it'd be helpful to show this again too. So this is our process behavior chart of the chronic absenteeism rates dating back to the 2016/'17 school year. So we have eight years of data in regards to this problem. And you'll remember when we talked about set the direction or the challenge, we wanna basically cut this chronic absenteeism rate we're seeing coming out of the pandemic by a lot. So we're hovering around this 50% chronic absenteeism rate. We wanna cut it to 5%. So that means, you know, 50% or more of our kids, or right around 50% of our kids are missing 10% or more of the school year.   0:03:06.2 John Dues: And this is a trend that we're seeing all over the United States right now. And the other thing that we talked about is when we looked at this process behavior chart, that it's basically like there's a pre-pandemic system of chronic absenteeism, and then there's a post-pandemic system of chronic absenteeism. So, you know, before the pandemic, the rates were too high, but nowhere near to where they are now. So, you know, prior to the pandemic, we were sort of hovering around the, you know, 20 to 30% of kids chronically absent. And then, you know, coming out of the pandemic, it's been more like that, that 50% number that we've, that we've talked about.   0:03:49.4 Andrew Stotz: And so to reiterate for the listeners or the viewers, this is the chronic absentee rate at your school, as opposed to nationwide, which I remember last time you talked about, it's about 30% nationwide, and pre-pandemic, it was about 16%.   0:04:06.5 John Dues: Yeah. Right around there. So, yeah, so I'm talking about the four schools that make up our school system in Columbus, Ohio.   0:04:15.8 Andrew Stotz: Yep.   0:04:16.6 John Dues: And, you know, we have a pretty high percent of our kids are economically disadvantaged. And so the rates in schools that have that demographic tend to be more like ours, in that 40, 50% range. And then, but all schools coming out of the pandemic had much higher rates than what they had pre pandemic. No matter your affluence levels. It's just, just like a lot of things the schools with the most kids living in poverty get hit the hardest when you have these problems, basically. So, yeah, yeah. So what we were, we were studying this problem, and, you know, we have some idea of what's causing our challenges, but we've started running these PDSA cycles to dig into that a little bit more, and I'll, I'll, I'll stop sharing. So that's not distracting. And so we ran this first PDSA cycle we talked about last time, and now we're running, or we've just gotten finished running a second PDSA cycle. So for folks that are new to that, what that means is that we are basically running an experiment to test an idea, an idea about how to improve chronic absenteeism.   0:05:26.6 John Dues: And to do that we plan the intervention, then we do or run the experiment, we study it and then we act on that information. 'Cause that's where the PDSA comes from. So basically the objective specific to PDSA 2 is were or we designed a individualized intervention based on responses we get from interviews with kids using this five whys sort of empathy interview template. Right? And then after we do that, what's happening is that students are actually. So after the five whys is completed with the student, we move right into creating the plan of the PDSA still with that student. So they're part of the process. So that's also sort of a key, I think innovation of this particular round of PDSAs is the student is sitting there as we design the intervention. A student that has some issues with chronic absenteeism. And then basically in this particular plan, we decided we're gonna collect detailed attendance data for two weeks to evaluate the effectiveness of that.   0:06:39.7 Andrew Stotz: When you said this one, are you talking about the PDSA one or two?   0:06:43.5 John Dues: Two. The one. The one you just got done running. The one we're talking about. So the PDSA 2 ran for two weeks. So when I say experiment, I'm not talking about, you know, like a randomized controlled trial that can last a year or two years or five years before you get the results. I'm talking about something you can do in a day, a week, two weeks. My general rule is not to go over a month with these PDSA cycles. It starts to feel like it's too long. I wanna get data back quicker than that on an intervention. And so that's what we did with this PDSA cycle 2. And it was really, the plan was built around this key question. The key question was, will involving students in the design of an individualized intervention to address their chronic absenteeism lead to an increase in their average daily attendance rate during that period of intervention. So we're not taking that for granted just because we're sitting with the kids creating a plan with them. We don't know, we don't know what's gonna happen exactly. And basically step one of that plan was this five wise interviews that I talked about.   0:07:50.2 John Dues: So basically we had four staff members. So each one was assigned a student at their campus that they chose to work with on this initial intervention. And they took a piece of sticky paper and up top they basically wrote, here's our problem, the student's name. So let's say James is not coming to school consistently. And when students miss a lot of school, they're at risk of falling behind academically. And right below that problem statement, then they wrote, why are you not coming to school consistently? 'Cause that's the first why question. So that's sort of the first part of this five whys interview. So it's very simple. You need chart, paper and marker in about 20 minutes to do this. Step two is, then they used the information that they gathered from that five whys interview to design the intervention with the student. And basically what they did was they designed the intervention around the root cause that they got to at the bottom of that five whys sequence. So basically, you know, when they said that, when they asked that first question, you know, why are you not coming to school consistently? The student is then going to say something, right? I miss the bus almost every day.   0:09:10.7 John Dues: And so the next question, the next why question is built on the previous answer from the student. So why do you miss the bus every day? And you kind of keep going. And it doesn't always happen perfectly. Sometimes it takes three questions, sometimes it takes a little more than five. But generally speaking, once you drill down with those five whys, you'll get to sort of a root cause from the interviewee, right? And so then they're basically saying like, you know, based on that root cause we identified, what do you think we can do to improve your daily attendance? And then now they're sort of transitioning from the five whys into the planning of the intervention. And sort of that was step two of the plan. And step three is then actually starting to track the student's daily attendance as they do whatever that plan is across the 10 school days that are in that particular cycle. So that's the plan phase. You know, we had a key question that we designed around, and then the team also makes predictions about what they think is gonna happen during that cycle. That's the plan.   0:10:23.5 John Dues: And then, so then they move into, once the plan's in place, you run the experiment. That's the do, right? And so in this particular do, PDSA cycle two here, that team collected both the quantitative data, so that's the five whys interview, and then the quantitative data, that's the daily attendance data. And so, you know, I mentioned that they had chosen four students to do this work with. And so what you're doing in the do is saying, did you do the plan? Basically. And that shouldn't be assumed because things may happen that interrupt the plan or derail the plan or make you change the plan. The guy that's designing these PDSAs is pretty good project manager. He knows improvement science, he knows the Deming stuff pretty well. So largely this experiment ran as planned. It's also for a pretty short time frame, so there's less time for it to go sort of off the rails and go wrong. But one of the student's attendance, it was so poor during this two week period that they never actually held the empathy interview. So you're noting stuff like that. You plan to interview four kids, you actually only interviewed three kids.   0:11:34.9 John Dues: And here's the reason why, we couldn't even get to the part of interviewing the student, this particular student, because he was not there during that two week period when they were gonna do the interviews. And so then the data comes in, right? The data comes in and now we're ready to study what actually happened during that two week period. So with the first student, interestingly, during the course of the PDSA, that daily attendance rate did go up. Right? And he was actually, he did miss a couple days, so it wasn't perfect, but he brought a note and there was actually a medical diagnosis. There was like a excuse reason for those particular days. Right. The second student was that student I was just referring to. So it was, his attendance was so poor that weren't even able to do the interview. That happens that you know, in real life. Third student's, this was a real success story. She was a part of her, the plan that she designed. She was meeting with one of the staff members at the school she attends that she chose one-on-one at the start of the day and she had significantly increased attendance during this two week period.   0:13:04.0 John Dues: And then the last student had this initial bump early in the PDSA and then had four straight sort of missed days at the end of that two week period also due to an illness, due to the flu. So you know, four kids, one uh two kids, pretty good success. Two kids still had some absences throughout the period. And then one kid sort of really didn't break the cycle. Nothing changed. And in fact the interview didn't even occur. Which means there was also no intervention that occurred with that particular student. Even so, with the student where we couldn't do the interview during that period, part of the plan was to get him a more reliable bus stop and we actually were able to change his bus stop, communicate that to the family and then that still didn't lead to increased attendance. And that's, you know, when you, I think when you work like this too, when you are sort of a policymaker or politician and you make these proclamations, we're gonna decrease chronic absenteeism or to cut it in half. And then you say, okay, well here's four students. Do that in two weeks. Do that over the course, just two weeks, just 10 days. How hard could it be? Right. [laughter] You see, you see just how hard these things are in reality. Right. So can't just make these proclamations.   0:14:32.9 Andrew Stotz: And is that part of what you're trying to do also in this process is get people to, you know, I mean, obviously what you'd love is to be able to come up with solutions from these four students. But really what you also are identifying is the other side of that. Wow, this is even harder than I thought.   0:14:50.2 John Dues: Yeah. And I, you know, with the people that work in schools, like the folks that are on this improvement team, none of this is gonna be a surprise to them.   0:14:57.3 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, they already know that, I guess.   0:14:58.6 John Dues: They already know.   0:15:00.3 Andrew Stotz: Yeah.   0:15:00.4 John Dues: Because they're on the front lines. I mean, they already know knew this is, you know, multi layered, challenging problem to address. But on the flip side, there were some pretty encouraging signs that getting, we call it getting proximate to students, individualizing some of those interventions and then including the student in that attendance monitoring and the intervention that it, you know, like I said, there were some success stories. So that first student I talked about, he went from 52% attendance to during the intervention period, it jumped up to 70%. So, you know, it's a short time frame, but a positive sign. That second student that I said that, you know, we never even got to do the interview with, he actually got quite a bit worse. So he had something like 37% attendance and that dropped 10% during that two week period. And then that third student that I said was a real success story, she went from 75% attendance to 96% attendance. And 96% attendance is good. And then the last student, she was the one that I said, you know, there was an initial bump and then kind of fell off, due to the flu at the end, she basically stayed the same. Like she was at right around 56% attendance and stayed right in that mid-50s range during the intervention.   0:16:19.8 Andrew Stotz: And just for, if a listener or a viewer has come in just on this episode and they're trying to understand where we're at, it's maybe you could talk a little bit about what you're doing in the sense that someone may look at it and say, wait a minute, this is just some anecdotes and how does that help you? And then on the other hand, one of the lessons in the business world that people sometimes say these days is do things that don't scale, which is counterintuitive. But what they're trying to get you to do is focus in, on getting it right with a small number of people before you then, you know, decide to go to the next level. So just maybe just give a brief of where it's at in this whole process.   0:17:04.8 John Dues: Yeah, I mean, I think. I mean, that's the whole point of the PDSA. The counterintuitive thing is that while you want to improve things for all students, you may start by working with a single student or a single classroom, or in our case, you know, four students. So, you know, the good thing is, is that what you could possibly do out of a cycle like this is, and this is only two weeks. But there's significant learning. And so what you would then do with cycle three, perhaps if the team decided this was what they're gonna do, is make some adaptation to this process, and if you were feeling confident that the adaptation was gonna work, then you could possibly. It's pretty early cycle two to start spreading this real wide. But I mean, you could spread this, you know, if you wanted to, to instead of four students, maybe you wanna try 10 students, something like that. Right. And in that way, and that's the basic idea, is to go from one student to one classroom of students to maybe one grade level of students to a whole school, perhaps if some type of idea is working really well. But the thing is, is that the whole mantra is, I lost my train of thought. Start small, learn fast. That's the mantra. Right.   0:18:23.7 Andrew Stotz: And then the other question I would have is, to what extent is this, you know, just subject to the Hawthorne effect in the sense that we knew in the many years ago that when they increased the intensity of the light, the workers did better, and then when they reduced the intensity of the light, the workers did better. So it was just that somebody was paying attention to the workers and the result was they appreciated that and so they did better.   0:18:53.9 John Dues: Yeah, I mean, that's possible. I mean, I would say...   0:18:57.0 Andrew Stotz: Which of course. Which of course may be the solution anyways. Right? You know, like, geez, if a teacher was... If each student was greeted by a teacher who cared about them and said, I'm so happy to see you, and it's great that you made it on time. Let's get started. I mean that could change the life of some people for sure. Including me.   0:19:13.7 John Dues: Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, like the girl that went from 75% to 96% attendance during the intervention. I wouldn't say, oh my gosh, we're gonna do this school wide now, but what I would say is, wow, that worked for that two week period.   0:19:25.7 Andrew Stotz: We're learning.   0:19:27.5 John Dues: It was relatively easy to do on a daily basis, so let's do more of that. Right. And also another thing you can think about is when you run PDSA cycles and you, let's say you do have really great success on whatever that thing is and you've spread it throughout your system. But now the priorities have changed. There's some other thing that really needs intensive intervention. One thing you can do is sort of as the 10th step in our improvement process is hold the gains. And so you often can then check back in on that thing in a month or two months and just see what the data says. Did it deteriorate because we're not paying as much attention to it or because we put that thing in place and left it in place? Although we're not as hyper focused on it, is it still sort of continuing on in a way that's at least acceptable to us?   0:20:22.3 Andrew Stotz: I just had an idea. Why don't we put a finish line and a countdown clock and a checkered flag and cheer every student as they get over the line?   [laughter]   0:20:35.0 John Dues: Yeah, that would be great. That would be great. The problem is, is the cheering isn't the thing that's preventing them from coming to school.   0:20:45.1 Andrew Stotz: Yeah.   0:20:46.1 John Dues: Maybe like the cherry on top, but you know.   0:20:49.4 Andrew Stotz: Exactly.   0:20:51.6 John Dues: So, so it's tough. Yeah.   0:20:52.2 Andrew Stotz: Great, great example of where superficial things that outsiders see may not really connect with the real trouble that they're struggling with. Yep.   0:21:01.5 John Dues: And remember, the student's not the only part of the process. The people, the staff that were doing these interventions, they reported that this was like a really powerful experience for them. Most of them haven't been through a PDSA cycle before.   0:21:18.6 Andrew Stotz: Right.   0:21:18.6 John Dues: So this.   0:21:20.3 Andrew Stotz: Maybe I was, slogans and exhortations is what I was just talking about.   0:21:24.8 John Dues: Right, right, right. Yeah. But they felt pretty confident that doing more of that thing was a good idea coming out of cycle one and then this second cycle. Now, with that being said, one of the things that we've also discovered is that there's some required intervening that has to happen as kids meet certain thresholds that are required by the state of Ohio. And so I think I mentioned this before, that one of the things that we're doing as a part of the project was mapping out the intervention process in place at each campus. So while the benchmarks are the same for when you need to do that, the how and the who and the when, that there's variation in that. So right now we're taking like each of the campuses mapped out their intervention process for attendance, and we're taking a look at that. And so what we're actually gonna do in the next cycle is work to put together a more standardized approach to these intervention teams. So, and that... And you get that from the team, you know, you're sort of talking about, you know, as we get to the Act.   0:22:38.4 John Dues: I think I've talked about this before. There's sort of the three A's. You can adopt this into your system, write it down in a manual or whatever, you can adapt it, change it a little bit, or if it's really not going well, then you abandon it. So in this case, there's an adaptation where we're gonna sort of shift gears and work on this process mapping and get that put in place 'cause the team feels like that's the highest lever, next thing to do, basically.   0:23:06.5 Andrew Stotz: And is that. Have you already mapped out PDSA 3 now? And you're in that process? Is that. And that's what we're gonna talk about next one, or where are you at with that?   0:23:15.5 John Dues: Yeah, so I think looking at the process maps would be interesting because you can sort of assume that things happen relatively similarly, you know, especially in a small school system like ours. But you're gonna see that there's... And it's not right or wrong necessarily, but there may be a sort of like, again, a better way to do things because there are many... There's sometimes many people involved, many processes, many forms. And so, yeah, we're gonna look and see, basically, is one more efficient than the other, is one more effective than the other, that type of thing.   0:23:51.4 Andrew Stotz: Okay.   0:23:52.3 John Dues: Yeah. So a lot of learning, you know, I mean, I think, and you know, again, this takes time. But, and we're still sort of in that "define the problem" step. But again, the fact that we're studying the problem, the fact that we're talking to kids as a part of it, we're actually learning from data coming from what's happening on the ground. The ultimate solution or set of solutions we come up with are gonna be much more robust, you know, and they're gonna be much more sort of durable into the future, anti-fragile you know, into the future because of this work versus, you know, the typical fly by night. Let's have a pizza party on Friday to encourage kids to come to school, that just... There may be an initial bump, but it's just, this has no durability into the future. Yeah.   0:24:44.8 Andrew Stotz: Great, great. Well, I like that. And I got excited 'cause I thought, oh, maybe we can come up with some incentive or something. But what I see is that the challenge is how do you make it durable? So I like that word. And this was a good discussion on that.   0:25:01.8 John Dues: Yeah. Well, I was just gonna say the other point I would make is, you know, sometimes you can plan, plan, plan, but that, you know, at any point of an improvement process, you can use a PDSA cycle, start running an experiment and start gathering information right away. Just do something, you know, thoughtful, but do something. Don't plan in a room when you can go out and get actual, run actual experiments and get back real data.   0:25:27.5 Andrew Stotz: All right, and one other question I had that just came to my mind is what is the value of doing this in such a structured way as the PDSA versus Oh, come on, John, we're testing things all the time, you know, and let's say that to some extent they are, right? We all are testing every day. Why is it important that it's done in a structured way, in a documented way?   0:25:50.8 John Dues: Well, I mean, one, you have a historical record. Two, you know, we had four. So there's one PDSA cycle, but actually there's four different mini experiments happening, one at each campus. And if you didn't write it down like the guy does that's designing these, every one of the experiments would have been different. And he really thinks through step by step. Okay, put this number here. How are we gonna define that? There's a validated list of definitions of that type of attendance issue that day. Because if you don't have all that stuff, then there's no way to analyze it after the fact, or at least it's a lot less, a lot less efficient.   0:26:28.3 Andrew Stotz: And the learning could be lost too.   0:26:30.1 John Dues: Learning could be lost. And you know, I would venture to guess that, you know, if you run a sort of an experiment haphazardly, especially if there's multiple locations, the people sort of, their definition of the thing that's being measured is gonna vary too.   0:26:45.0 Andrew Stotz: Yeah.   0:26:45.5 John Dues: Almost every time. Almost every time, even subtly.   0:26:50.9 Andrew Stotz: All right, well, that was a great discussion. And on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute. I wanna thank you again for this discussion and for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. You can find John's book, Win-Win, W. Edwards Deming, The System of Profound Knowledge and The Science of Improving Schools on Amazon. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming. People are entitled to joy in work.  

How does "quality" apply in all areas of an organization? In this final episode of the Misunderstanding Quality series, Bill Bellows and host Andrew Stotz discuss lessons from the first twelve episodes, and the big ah-ha moments that happen when we stop limiting our thinking. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.6 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz and I'll be your host as we dive deeper into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today I'm continuing my discussion with Bill Bellows, who has spent 31 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. Today is episode 13 and the title is Quality Management: Don't be limited. Bill, take it away. 0:00:30.5 Bill Bellows: Hey, Andrew. So this is episode. What number did you say it was? 0:00:36.2 Andrew Stotz: 13. Lucky 13. 0:00:38.1 Bill Bellows: Lucky 13. So then for those who are concerned about the use of the number 13, this is episode 14. 0:00:51.0 Andrew Stotz: I thought you're gonna say episode 12A. 0:00:54.7 Bill Bellows: And for those who don't mind the number 13, this is episode 13. And as we talked earlier, if Dr. Deming was to title the episode it would be... It would not be "don't." It would be "do not", do not be limited. So at the start I wanted to go back to review the path we're on. We've been on episode one back in end of May, Quality, Back to the Start. All part of the Misunderstanding Quality series for The Deming Institute. Episode two, we got into the Eight Dimensions of Quality with David Garvin. One of those dimensions was acceptability. 0:01:49.8 Bill Bellows: Another was reliability. Another was I say dependability performance. Okay. And I think it's important in a series about misunderstanding quality to look at the work of David Garvin. Just realize I think it's fascinating to... You move out of the world of the American Society Quality and control charts and whatnot. And that's why I think Garvin's work paints a nice... Gives a nice perspective to not be limited.  And then we got into in the third episode Acceptability and Desirability. Episode four, Pay Attention to Choices and the choice of differentiating acceptability which is I'll take anything which meets requirements, and desirability. 0:02:42.3 Bill Bellows: I want that little doggy in the window. Not any doggy in the window. And then we followed that with episode five, the Red Bead Experiment which for many is their first exposure to Dr. Deming's work. I know when I worked for the Deming Institute for a few years the Red Bead Experiment website was one of one of the most popular pages. I believe another one was the 14 Points for Management. And, personally, I've presented the Red Bead Experiment think just once, just once. And I'm going to be doing it at the 2025 at, let me back up, the Bryce Canyon Deming... The Bryce Canyon...Bryce Canyon Forum. I can't remember the name. It's a partnership between Southern Utah University and The Deming Institute, and we're doing it at Southern Utah University. And on one of those days, I'll be doing the Red Bead Experiment, which takes a lot of time and then studying to present it a few years ago I was getting all the videos that I could find of it, many of them on The Deming Institute web page and none of them have the entire data collection. 0:04:18.5 Bill Bellows: They kind of fast forward through six people putting the... drawing the beads each four times and when you're up on stage trying to do that, I had four people that's, you gotta do a lot of work to make it that exciting. But the reason I present it, I say I present it for a number of reasons. One is to do the classic "The red beads are not caused by the workers are taken separately. They're caused by the system which includes the workers. It's an understanding of variation and introduction to control charts" and all of that is as exposed by Dr. Deming is classic. 0:05:00.7 Bill Bellows: But, I'd like to take it one step further, which is to go back into that desirability thinking and look at the concept that we've talked about of going through the doorway and going past the achievement of zero defects, zero red beads, and realize that there's further opportunities for improvement when you start to look at variation in the white beads. And, that then takes into account how the beads are used. And that gets us into the realm of looking at quality as a system.   Looking at quality with a systems view as opposed... That's good, that's good, that's good. With or without an appreciation on how the bead is used. So anyway, that was episode five. We explored that. Next we got into the differentiation of Category Thinking and Continuum Thinking. 0:05:55.5 Bill Bellows: And for those who haven't listened to it, maybe not in a while, the differentiation is category thinking. Putting things in categories such as red beads and white beads are the... It could be any categories, categories of fruit, categories of religion, categories of political systems. We have categories and then within a category we have variation. We have different. We have apples and oranges and then we have a given type of orange. And then there's variation in the juiciness, ripeness. That's called continuum thinking, which goes back to, if we go back to the red beads and the white beads is notion that the white beads are not uniformly white, not uniform in diameter or weight. 0:06:44.5 Bill Bellows: And, what are the implications there? Well, if we think in terms of categories, red beads and white beads, if all the beads are white have we stopped improving? And Dr. Deming and I believe it was Point 5 of the 14 Points stressed the need for continual improvement. And yes, you can continuously improve and reduce cost, you can continuously reduce cycle time, but can you continuously improve quality? Well, not if you're stuck in a category of good, then the role of that is to just to remind people that there's opportunities to go further when you begin to look at variation in white, which is the essence of looking at how what you're looking at is part of a system, which Dr. Deming was well, well aware of. 0:07:33.7 Bill Bellows: Next we got into the Paradigms of Variation and a big part there was differentiating acceptability. Well, going beyond acceptability was differentiating accuracy from precision. Precision is getting the same result shrinking the variation, otherwise known as getting achieving great piece-to-piece consistency. Metrics that begin with the letter C and sub P could be Cp, Cpk, are the two most popular. Those are measures of precision that we're getting small standard deviations that they are very, very close to each other. But in the paradigms of variation that was what I referred to as Paradigm B thinking we're looking for uniformity. Paradigm A thinking being acceptance, we'll take anything that meets requirements... Or academically called paradigm A. Paradigm C is what Dr. Taguchi was talking about with the desirability, where we're saying I want this value, I want uniformity around this specific value. 0:08:43.9 Bill Bellows: Here what we're looking at is uniformity around the target, around an ideal, otherwise known as piece-to-target variability. And, the idea there is that the closer we are to that ideal, the easier it is for others downstream to integrate what we're passing forward. Whether that's putting something into a hole or does this person we want to hire best integrate into our system. So, integration is not just a mechanical thing. In episode eight we then got into Beyond Looking Good which then shatters the Paradigm A acceptability thinking, going more deeply into the opportunities for continual improvement of quality. 0:09:29.1 Bill Bellows: If you shift to continuum thinking. Next, Worse than a thief coming from Dr. Taguchi. And that's the issue of achieving uniform. Part of what we looked at is the downside of looking at things in isolation and not looking at the greater system. Then episode 10 we look at Are you in favor of improvement of quality? 0:09:53.6 Andrew Stotz: I'm in favor. 0:09:55.7 Bill Bellows: To which he would always say, but of course. That was a reference back to chapter one of The New Economics. And he said everyone's got an answer. Improving quality computers and gadgets. And what we spoke about is Quality 4.0, which is gadgets of the 21st century, tools and techniques. And again, what we said is, there's nothing wrong with tools and techniques. Tools and techniques are about efficiency, doing things well, but they lack what Russ Ackoff would say in asking, are we doing the right things well. And then episode 11 delved into what I've...amongst the things I've learned from Dr. Taguchi, To improve quality, don't measure quality. 0:10:42.5 Bill Bellows: If we have a problem with, we want to reduce scrap, we want to reduce rework, we want to eliminate the problems that the customer has experienced or that someone downstream is experiencing. And what Dr. Taguchi emphasized was start asking, what is the function of the thing we're trying to do? And the idea is that if you improve the function, then you're likely to improve the quality as measured by what the customer is looking for. If you focus on what the... If you focus your efforts on reducing what the customer is complaining about, you're likely to get something else the customer is complaining about. And for more on that, go to episode 11. 0:11:19.0 Bill Bellows: And then episode 12, Do specification limits limit improvement? Which again goes back to what I experienced on a regular basis is in my university courses with people I interact with and consulting is a very heavy emphasis on meeting requirements and moving on. And not a lot of thought of going beyond that or even that there's anything more to do, that's alive and well. And that's reinforced by Six Sigma Quality is filled with that mindset. If you pay attention closely to Lean Manufacturing, you'll see that mindset again, alive and well. So, what I wanted to get to tonight in episode 13, Quality. 0:12:04.3 Andrew Stotz: That was quite a review, by the way. 0:12:06.7 Bill Bellows: Yeah, Quality Management: don't be limited, as and I'm teaching for the sixth time a class in quality management at Cal State Northridge. The title used to be Seminar in Quality Management. The title this year is Engineering Quality Management and Analytics. One of the assignments I give them, essays, the quizzes, attending the lectures. 0:12:34.9 Bill Bellows: Learning Capacity Matrix that I learned about from David Langford. But what I was sharing with you earlier, Andrew, is one of the first things I thought about and designed in this course, back in 2019 was I could just imagine students going through the course. And, what I'm going to hear is, what I've heard before is professor, these are very, very interesting ideas, but I'm not sure how I would apply them where I work. Because where I work is different. It's different. And to avoid that question, I came up with an assignment I called the Application Proposal. And there's four parts to it. But part one is: imagine upon completion of this course. And I let them know about this in the first lecture and I say, imagine upon completion of the course, your boss, someone you work with, challenges you to find three things you can do within three to six months of the of the completion of the course. 0:13:34.6 Bill Bellows: And it must include something you learned in this course. I don't say what thing, I don't say two things, I don't say three things. I leave it to them. But all it comes down to is I'd like you to contemplate and within three to six months of the completion of the course, what could you do? And I call that the near-term application. Well, subtask one is come up with three. They have to meet your job, your role, not your boss's role, not another department's role. They have to fit your role because only you know then the method by which you would go about that. And, so for that near-term, I ask them to let me know what is the present state of that near term, the before, the current condition and what is the after. What is the future state of that near-term? So I assign that before the course begins, I give them until week five to submit and give me those three things. The reason I asked for three is if one, if the first one they give me, if they only asked for one and one didn't quite fit, then I say, well, okay, Andrew, go back and give me another one that same time. 0:14:49.7 Bill Bellows: So I said, give me three. And most often all three are fantastic. In which case I say they're all great. Which one would you like to do? But again, it has to fit their role because in Sub-Task 2, the next thing I want them to do is not so much tell me about the present state, tell me more about the future state. And again, the future state is how much can you accomplish within that three-to-six month period? And that's subtask two. Then they come back to me and tell me the plan. What is the plan by which you go from the near-term present state to the near-term future state, tell me about the plan. Tell me what some of the obstacles might be and how you plan to deal with the obstacles. And then I say now what I want you to do is imagine that is wildly successful, jump ahead a year and a half to two years and tell me what you would do next. How would you build upon this? And in that mid-term time frame, what is the present? What is the future of the mid-term? And then go a few years out and tell me how you're going to further expand on what you've learned. 0:16:03.4 Bill Bellows: I call that the far-term. And for the far-term, what's the present, what's the future? So when they submit that to me, then I come back with - it could be questions about some of the terminology.  It could be a suggestion that they look at something with the use of Production Viewed as a System. Or, I ask them to think about operational definitions or perhaps suggest a control chart and, or a book. So, part of the reason I wanted to bring that up is few of the title, few of the topics we are looking at are specifically quality related. They're all about improving how the organization operates. Which goes back to what Dr. Deming stressed is the importance of continual improvement. 0:16:50.9 Andrew Stotz: Can you explain that just for a second? Because that was interesting about quality versus improving the organization. What did you mean by that? 0:17:00.4 Bill Bellows: Well, I, they didn't come to me with this process I have, has lots, has a very high defect rate and I thought that's where I need to focus. Or this process has a lot of scrap and rework. That's where I want to focus. What I was excited by is that they were looking at how to take a bunch of things they already do and better integrate them. Just fundamentally what I found them thinking about is how can I spend time to organize these activities as a system and as a result spend a whole lot less time on this and move on to the next thing. And, what I found fascinating about that is if we keep our thinking to quality and quality's about good parts and bad parts, good things and bad things, and having less bad things and more good things, that could be a really narrow view of what Dr. Deming was proposing. Now another aspect of the assignment was not only do I want them to give me three ideas, we down-select to one. It could be they're writing a new piece of software. One of the applications has to do with a really fascinating use of artificial intelligence. 0:18:27.0 Bill Bellows: And what's that got to do with quality? Well, what's interesting is it has a lot to do with improving the functionality of a product or a service, having it be more reliable, more consistent, easier to integrate. But, the other thing I want to point out is not only do I ask them to come up with three things and then assuming all three things fit well with their job, their responsibilities, their experience.  What I'm also interested in is what from the course are you going to use in this application? And, two things came up that fit again and again.  One is the value proposition of a feedback loop. 0:19:12.9 Bill Bellows: And they would ask me, what do you mean by feedback? I said, well, you're going to come along and you're going to tie these things together based on a theory that's going to work better. Yes. Well, how will you know it's doing that? How will you know how well this is performing? And, I said when I see this is what people refer to as Plan-Do, but there's no Study. It's just... And, I saw that Rocketdyne, then people would come along and say, oh, I know what to do, I'm just gonna go off and change the requirements and do this. 0:19:44.6 Bill Bellows: But, there was no feedback loop. In fact, it was even hard to say that I saw it implemented. It just saw the planning and the doing. But, no study, no acting. 0:19:57.3 Andrew Stotz: Is that the Do-Do style? 0:20:01.3 Bill Bellows: Yes. But what was really exciting to share with them is I said in a non-Deming company, which we have referred to as a Red Pen Company or, or a Me Organization or a Last Straw. And I don't think we covered those terms all that much in this episode, in this series, we definitely covered it in our first series. But what I found is in a Deming or in a non -Deming company, there's not a lot of feedback. And even if I deliver to you something which barely meets requirements and we spoke about this, that in the world of acceptability, a D- letter grade is acceptable. Why is it acceptable? Because it's not enough. It's good parts and bad parts. And so even if I deliver to you, Andrew, something which barely met requirements, and you said to me, Bill, this barely meets requirements. And I say, Andrew, did you say barely meets requirements? And you say, yes. So, Andrew, it did meet requirements and you say, yes. So I say, "Why are you calling me Andrew?" 0:21:12.1 Andrew Stotz: By the way that just made me think about the difference between a pass fail course structure and a gradient course structure. 0:21:20.7 Bill Bellows: Exactly. 0:21:21.5 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. Okay. 0:21:22.5 Bill Bellows: Yeah. So even if you give me that feedback. I reject it. I'm just going to say, Andrew, move on. But I said, in a Deming organization, feedback is everything. The students were giving me feedback on the quizzes and some things that caused me to go off and modify some things I'm doing. And I told them, if I don't have that feedback, I cannot improve the course. So, I met with each of them last week for an hour, and the feedback I was getting is instrumental in improving the course for the remainder of the semester as well as for next year. And, so that's what I found is what really differentiates a Deming approach to improving a process or a service or a product is feedback, which goes then to watching how it's used. It is, I think I mentioned to you Gipsie Ranney, who was the first president of The Deming Institute, a Professor of Statistics at University of Tennessee, when she met Dr. Deming and later became a senior consultant, maybe advisor to General Motors Powertrain. And once she told me, she said to Dr. Deming "You know, Dr. Deming, what do people get out of your seminars?" And. he said, "I know what I told them. 0:22:42.0 Bill Bellows: I don't know what they heard." And, the challenge is without knowing what they heard, because we would also say, and I'm pretty sure we brought this up in one of our this series or the prior series, Deming would say the questions are more important than the answers because the questions provide them with feedback as to what is going on. So anyway, part of what I wanted to bring out today in this quality management, don't be limited, is whether or not you're focusing on quality per se, minimizing scrap, minimizing work. If you're trying to improve a process, again, you're not improving it necessarily because there's more I want to have less scrap. But if your improvement is, I want it to take less time, I want it to be easier to do. I want it to be cheaper to do. Well, while you're at it, think about a feedback loop.  And the role of the feedback is to give you a sense of is it achieving what you're hoping it would achieve? It would allow you over time to maybe find out it's getting better.  Maybe there's a special cause you want to take advantage of or a special cause you want to avoid.  But, without that feedback, how do you know how it's working and then beyond that? 0:23:55.7 Andrew Stotz: And where is the origin of the information coming from for the feedback loop? Is it a feedback loop within your area or is it feedback loop from the next process or what do you. 0:24:08.3 Bill Bellows: All of that. That's what I told her. I said one is, I said, when you're developing the process. I told them, I said, when you're. If in Sub-Ttask 1, your idea is to flowchart a process, come up with a template, a prototype. Part of the feedback is showing that to people. And part of the feedback is, does it make sense to them?  Do they have suggestions for improvement? Do they... Is there an issue with operational definitions?  There would be better clarity based on the words you're using.  You may say in there clean this thing, or early in the semester, one of the assignments I gave the students was to explain some aspect of the course within their organization. And then I thought, well, then now it will explain to who. And I thought, well, unless I say if I felt that without giving clarity to who they're explaining it to, they're going to get lost in the assignment. Am I explaining it to a co-worker? Am I explaining it to someone in management? Am I explaining it to the CEO? And, finally I just thought, well, that's kind of crazy. 0:25:18.3 Bill Bellows: I just said, well, as if you're explaining it to a classmate. But, my concern was if I didn't provide clarity on who they're explaining it to, then they're going to be all over the place in terms of what I'm looking for versus what they're trying to do. And that being feedback and that also being what I told them is part of collecting, part of feedback is looking for how can I improve the operation, how can I improve? Or, what are the opportunities for paying closer attention to operational definitions, which means the words or the processes that we're asking people to follow. 0:25:58.3 Bill Bellows: But, I found in in joining Rocketdyne, I was in the TQM Office and then I began to see what engineering does. Oh, I had a sense of that when I worked in Connecticut, paid more attention to what manufacturing does. Well, then when I moved into a project management office. Well, project management is just like quality management. It's breaking things into parts, managing the parts in isolation. And, so when I talk about quality management, don't be limited. There's a lot Dr. Deming's offering that could be applied to project management, which is again, looking at how the efforts integrate, not looking at the actions taken separately. 0:26:45.4 Andrew Stotz: And, so how would you wrap up what you want to take away. What you want people to take away from this discussion? You went over a very great review of what we talked about, which was kind of the first half of this discussion. And what did you want people to get from that review? 0:27:05.2 Bill Bellows: The big thing, the big aha has been: this is so much more than quality. And, I've always felt that way, that when people look at Dr. Deming's work and talk about Dr. Deming is improving quality, and then when I work for The Deming Institute, the inquiries I would get it was part of my job to respond to people. And they want to know I work for a non-profit, do Dr. Deming's ideas apply. And, so for our target audience of people wanting to bring Dr. Deming's ideas to their respective organizations, even though the focus here is quality, we call this series Misunderstanding Quality. At this point, I'd like you to think more broadly that this is far more than how to improve quality.  This is improving management of resources, management of our time, management of our energy.  So this is a universal phenomenon. Not again, you can look at it as good parts and bad parts, and that's looking at things in isolation. That's what project managers do. That's what program managers do. That's what organizations do relentlessly. And this is what Ackoff would call the characteristic way of management. Break it into parts and manage the parts as well as possible. 0:28:21.5 Bill Bellows: So, I just wanted to bring that back as a reminder of this quality, quality, quality focuses. There's a lot more to this than improving quality when it comes to applying these ideas. 0:28:34.7 Andrew Stotz: And, I would just reiterate that from my first interactions with Dr. Deming when I was 24, and then I moved to Thailand and I did finance business and all that. So I wasn't, applying statistical tools in my business at the time. That just wasn't where I was at. But the message that I got from him about understanding variation and understanding to not be misled by variation, to see things as part of a system. Also to understand that if we really wanted to improve something, we had to go back to the beginning and think about how have we designed this? 0:29:20.3 Andrew Stotz: How do we reduce the final variability of it? And, so, it was those core principles that really turned me on. Where I could imagine, if I was an engineer or a statistician, that I would have latched on maybe more to the tools, but from where I was at, I was really excited about the message. And, I also really resonated with that message that stop blaming the worker. And, I saw that at Pepsi, that the worker just had very little control. I mean, we're told to take control, but the fact is that if we're not given the resources, we can only get to a certain level. 0:29:58.3 Andrew Stotz: Plus, also the thinking of senior management, you are shaped by their thinking. And, I always tell the story of the accumulation tables in between processes at a Pepsi production facility. And that basically allows two operators of these two different machines to, when one goes down, let's say the latest, the farthest along in the production process, let's say the bottling goes down, the bottle cleaning process behind it can keep cranking and build up that accumulation table until it's absolutely full. And, that gives time for the maintenance guys to go fix the bottling problem that you have and not stop the guy behind. And, that was a very natural thing from management perspective and from my perspective. But, when I came to Thailand, I did learn a lot more about the Japanese and the way they were doing thing at Toyota. 0:30:51.4 Andrew Stotz: I went out and looked at some factories here and I started realizing they don't do that. They have their string on the production line, that they stop the whole thing. But the point is the thing, if a worker can't go beyond that, you know what the senior management believe about it. So, that was another thing that I would say it goes way beyond just some tools and other things. So, I'll wrap it up there. And Bill, on behalf of everyone at The Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this discussion and for listeners. Remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. And if you want to keep in touch with Bill, just find him on LinkedIn. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming and that is people are entitled to joy in work. 

Are your specification limits holding you back from improving your products and services? Should you throw out specifications? What does Stephen Hawking have to do with it? In this episode, Bill Bellows and host Andrew Stotz discuss specifications and variation. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.5 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we dive deeper into the teachings of Dr. W Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with Bill Bellows, who has spent 31 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. Today is episode 12, and the title is Do Specification Limits Limit Improvement. Bill, take it away.   0:00:31.4 Bill Bellows: Hey, Andrew. How's it going? All right.   0:00:33.8 Andrew Stotz: Great. Great to have you back and great to see you. For those that are just listening, you can watch the video on DemingNEXT. But for those listening, Bill looks handsome, full of energy, ready to go, and it's my 8:30 in the morning in Bangkok, Thailand. So let's rock Bill.   0:00:56.3 Bill Bellows: So. I spoke recently to one of the folks I'd met on LinkedIn that have listened to our podcast and took the offer to reach out and we now talk regularly. And I just wanna say I've gotta, before we get to some, the story behind the title, I wanted to share, a heads up. And if anyone would like a copy of this article that I wanna, take some excerpts from, then just reach out to me on LinkedIn and ask for a copy of the article. The article's entitled 'A Brief History of Quality,' and there's three parts. So it's about 10 pages overall, and it was published in 2015 in the Lean Management Journal, which I don't believe still exists. I was writing articles at the end once a month for this journal, I think based out of the UK.   0:02:04.3 Bill Bellows: I think there was a manufacturing magazine that still exists and had this as a special topic and my interest was bringing Dr. Deming's ideas, to the Lean community, which is why it was a Lean Management Journal, so the article was entitled 'Brief History Equality.' And so I wanna get to those topics, but when I was reading the article, reminding myself of it, I thought, oh, I'll just share this story online with Andrew and our audience. And so here I'm just gonna read the opening paragraph. It says, "several years ago, I had the opportunity to attend an hour-long lecture by Stephen Hawking," right? So the article was written in 2015. So the presentation by Hawking would've been maybe 2012, 2013. And back to the article, it says, "he, Hawking, returns to Pasadena every summer for a one-month retreat, a ritual he started in the 1970s, several thousand attendees sitting in both a lecture hall and outdoors on a lawn area complete with a giant screen were treated to an evening of reflection of the legendary Cambridge physicist."   0:03:14.3 Bill Bellows: And I'll just pause. I have friends who work at JPL and they got me seats, and they got me an inside seat in the balcony, front row of the balcony, but they had big screens outside. I mean, it was like a rock concert for Stephen Hawking, right?   0:03:34.3 Andrew Stotz: That's amazing.   0:03:34.9 Bill Bellows: Oh, it was so cool. Oh, it was so cool. So anyway, "his focus was my brief history offering us a glimpse of his life through a twist on his treatise, A Brief History of Time. His introspective presentation revealed his genius, his humility, his search for black holes, his passion for life, not to mention his dry sense of humor. It ended with questions from three Caltech students, the last of which came from a postdoc student, an inquiry Hawking had likely tackled many times before."   0:04:06.6 Bill Bellows: So realize he's answering the questions through a voice activated thing. And it appeared that the questions were, his answers were prerecorded, but they're still coming through a device that is a synthesized voice. But I get the impression that he knew the questions were coming, so we in the audience were hearing the questions for the first time. But he had already answered the questions. So anyway, it ended with questions. There was an undergraduate student, a graduate student, then a postdoc, and I said, "the last of which came from a postdoc student, an inquiry Hawking had likely tackled many times before. And the student relayed the story of an unnamed physicist who once compared himself to both Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein." So this unnamed physicist compared himself to Einstein and Newton each placed on a scale of 1 lowest to 10 highest. "With this context, Hawking was asked where he would rank himself."   0:05:22.0 Bill Bellows: So this physicist said, oh, you know, Andrew, I see myself as this. And so the guy relays the story, and he says to Hawking, so given this other physicist said this, where would you rank yourself? "Well, I do not recall the relative rankings posed in the query. I'll never forget Hawking's abrupt reply. He says, “anyone who compares themselves to others is a loser." And I found online that he was, that commentary, this was not the first time he said that.   0:06:04.9 Andrew Stotz: Right.   0:06:06.5 Bill Bellows: And I just thought, oh, anyone who compares himself to others is a loser. And then the end of the paragraph is "in reference to Dr. Deming," Andrew, "variation, there will always be. So can't we just get used to variation?" So the title, are you in favor? No, no, no, no. That was last time. Are you in favor of improving the quality was number 10. Number 11 was to improve quality, don't measure quality. For 12, the specification limits limit improvement.   0:06:46.9 Andrew Stotz: Now, if that was true, first of all, that would be a little scary, 'cause we spend a lot of time working on specification limits. There's a lot of people working on that.   0:06:55.4 Bill Bellows: But here's what's behind the title. In 1995, I was invited to speak, not for the first time, but for the first time I ever spoke to an audience of the American Society of Quality. It was a San Fernando Valley chapter. I forget the number. I've spoken there many, many times over the years, but this is the first time I ever spoke to quality professionals as opposed to project managers or Society of Manufacturing Engineers. I was there with my wife. There's dinner, then after dinner in the next room, and the chairs were set up, theater style, that'd be 70, 80 people. And I was talking about what I would, I mean, things I still talk about, I talk about new things, to have new things done. But the big thing I was trying to get across the audience is, the difference between meeting requirements, which in this series, we call it acceptability versus desirability, which is, I want this value, I want this professor, I want to date this person. And so I was relaying that concept to that audience. And the question I asked that night was do specification limits limit improvement?   0:08:31.0 Bill Bellows: And there was a guy about seven rows back, and I built up to that. That wasn't the opening thing, but what I was really pushing on was a focus on Phil Crosby's goal of striving for zero defects. And, then what? Once you achieve that, then what? And we've talked about the doorway and that's like the door is closed, we get up to the doorway and we've achieved zero defects. And, what we've talked about is going through the doorway and the attitude is, well, why open the door? I mean, don't open the door, Andrew. There's a wall on the other side of that door, Andrew. So it might be a door, but everybody knows there's a wall behind it, and I was poking at that with this audience, and prepared to show them the value proposition of going through that.   0:09:34.0 Bill Bellows: So anyway, I remember I got to the point of asking, do specification limits limit thinking about improvement or something like that. And a more senior gentleman, about seven or eight rows back, and fortunately, he was seven or eight rows back, fortunately, because he stood up and he says, "Are you saying we don't need specification limits?" There's a lot more anger in his voice. And I said, "No," I said, "I'm saying I think they limit our thinking about improvement." And, but he was really upset with me, and I was deliberately provoking because again, you and I have talked about, how can we inspire through this podcast and other podcasts that you do with the others, to get people to think about the possibilities that Dr. Deming shared with us. And it's not believing that there's a door that you can't walk through. You open the door and there's an opening and you can go through. There's a lot more going on there. So anyway, so I had prepared them. The whole reason for being there was to share what we were doing at Rocketdyne, and not just talk about the possibilities, but show them the possibilities. But he got very upset with me. But if he was in the front row, he might've hit me.   0:11:08.9 Andrew Stotz: May have thrown a book at you.   0:11:11.5 Bill Bellows: Oh, he...   0:11:12.2 Andrew Stotz: May have thrown a Specification Limit at you.   0:11:17.0 Bill Bellows: Twice I've had people get, well, I've gotten a number of people upset with me over the years, but that night was, I'll never forget, and I'll never forget, because my wife was sitting in the front row and she asked me never to be that provocative again. It might be dangerous to my health. But I was doing another class, also for the American Society of Quality, I was a member of the local chapter, and there was a big movement within Rocketdyne that all Quality Engineers within Rocketdyne be Certified Quality Engineers. And so two or three of us from Rocketdyne got involved in helping the local chapter train people to prepare to take this one day exam. Very, very, very rigorous. And it's a valuable credential for quality professionals.   0:12:20.1 Bill Bellows: And so the company was pushing that every single quality engineer was certified. So we did the classes on site. So instead of going to the nearby Cal State Northridge and doing it over there, we wanted to do it onsite, make it easy for our employees to attend. And so I would do one and a half sessions. So a given session was three hours long, and then there'd be a half session. And my topics were Design of Experiments and Dr. Taguchi's work. And so as I got this group this one night for the very first time, I was the second half of that three-hour session, and there's 30 some people in the room at Rocketdyne. And the question I wanted to raise is, why run experiments? What would provoke you to run an experiments either, planned experimentation, Design of Experiments or Dr. Taguchi's approach to it.   0:13:15.1 Bill Bellows: So I was throwing that out and I said, in my experience, we're either applying it to make something better - that's improvement, Andrew, - or we're applying it to find out why something doesn't work, which is rearward looking. And I was saying that in my experience, I spend like a whole lot of time running experiments to solve a problem, to fix something that was broken, to get it back to where it was before the fire alarm, not as much time focusing on good to make it better. And so I was just playing in that space of, you know, I guess I was asking the audience are we running experiments to go from bad to good and stop, or from good to better? And I was playing with that 30 people in the room, and all of a sudden, four or five feet in front of me, this guy stands up, says this is BS, but he didn't use the initials, he actually said the word and walked out of the room. And all of us are looking at him like, and there was no provocation. Now, I admit for the ASQ meeting, I was poking to make sure they were paying attention. Here, I was just plain just, why do we run experiments? So, he stands up, he lets out that word, pretty high volume, storms out of the room.   0:14:42.1 Bill Bellows: Well, at Rocketdyne, you can't... You need a... You have to walk around with someone who works there. You just can't go walk around the place, so I had to quickly get one of my coworkers who was in the room to go escort him to the lobby or else, we're all gonna get fired for having somebody unescorted. So the specification limits limit thinking about improvement, I think they do. I am constantly working with university courses or in my consulting work and acceptability in terms of the quality goal, that this is acceptable, it meets requirements is alive and well and thriving, thriving. And, I think what goes on in organizations, I think there's such a focus on getting things done, that to be done is to be good and is to stop that I could pass my work on to you.   0:15:45.2 Bill Bellows: And, the challenge becomes, even if you're aware that you can walk through the doorway and move from acceptability to desirability, how do you sell that to an organization, which you, what I see in organizations, there's a lot of kicking the can down the road. There's a lot of, and even worse than that, there's a lot of toast scraping going on because there's not a lot of understanding that the person toasting it is over toasting it because all they do is put the toast into the oven. Somebody else takes it out, somebody else scrapes it, somebody else sends it back to a different toaster. And I see a lack of understanding of this because the heads are down. That's part of what I see. What I also see in organizations is, with students is this is their first drop.   0:16:51.0 Bill Bellows: Wherever they are, engineering, manufacturing, quality, they're new, they're excited, they're excited to be on their own, to have an income. And they're taking what they learned in universities, and now, they get to apply it. And I remember what that was like. I worked the summer after getting my bachelor's degree, my last semester, I took a class at heat transfer, the prior semester, took a class in jet engines, and I just fell in love with heat transfer and I fell in love with jet engines. And that summer, I was coming back in the fall to go to graduate school for my master's degree. That summer, I worked for a jet engine company as a heat transfer engineer, I was in heaven.   0:17:37.6 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. That's gotta be the coolest thing.   0:17:40.1 Bill Bellows: Just incredible. So I can imagine people coming out of college, going to work, and you get to apply what you learned. You get to use computers, you get to work with some really cool people, and you're doing what you're doing, and it's a blast. And I think it takes a few years before you start to listen to what the veterans are talking about. And you might hear that they're challenging how decisions are made, they're challenging how the company is run. I think prior to that, your heads are down and you're just the subject matter expert. It could be, you know, engineering and manufacturing, finance, and you're doing what you're doing. Their head is down, you're receiving, you're delivering. I still remember when I went to work with my Ph.D. at the same jet engine company, they hired me back. And, I remember walking down the hallway with a colleague and somebody says, that's the VP of Engineering.   0:18:42.7 Bill Bellows: And I thought, we have a VP of Engineering? I mean, I know we have a Vice President of the United States, but I didn't know anything about titles like that. And I think... And I don't think I'm the only one. I've shared those with some younger folks recently, and they agree, you come in, it's heads down, we don't know management, all I get to work on this great stuff. I go and I, and so what we're, but I think what happens is, I think at some point of time you start to look up and you're hearing what the more senior people that are there are saying you've had some experience. And, I know when people join Rocketdyne, and they would come to my class and I would share these stories that had some things that were, if your experience would be questionable, some other things that are pretty cool.   0:19:34.6 Bill Bellows: And, I just had the feeling and I found out people would walk outta there thinking what you mean that, I mean the things, the use of incentives, like why do we need incentives? But, and what I found was it took a couple of years and I would bump into these same people and they'd say, now I'm beginning to understand what you were talking about and what Dr. Deming was talking about. So I throw that out. For those listeners that are trying to, that are at that phase where you're starting to wonder how are decisions being made? You're wondering what you wanna do in your profession. You're wondering what this Deming stuff is about. A whole lot of this entire series has been targeted at people that are new to Deming's ideas. Or maybe they have some experience, they're getting some exposure through these podcasts either with me and the ones you're doing with John and the others. And so, but the other thing I wanna get into today is this quality thing. I go back to this article. And then I was thinking about this article, things I didn't know when I started researching this article is, this term quality, where does that come from? And the term quality comes from, I got to pull it, I have to scroll through the article. Let me get it, let me get it.   0:21:06.4 Bill Bellows: All right. Here we go. "The word quality," Andrew "has Latin roots, beginning with qualitas coined by Roman philosopher and statesman, Marcus Tullius Cicero, who later became an adversary of Mark Antony." You know, what happened to Cicero? Wasn't pretty.   0:21:32.8 Andrew Stotz: Yeah.   0:21:33.9 Bill Bellows: "Feared by Antony," I wrote, "his power of speech led to his eventual beheading. But long after he introduces fellow Romans to the vocabulary of qualitas, that's quality; quantitas, that's quantity; humanitas, that's humanity; and essentia, which is essential. He's also credited with an extensive list of expressions that translate into English, including difference, infinity, science, and morale. When Plato invented the phrase poiotes for use by his peers." So Plato would've been Greek, "Cicero spoke of qualitas with his peers when focusing on the property of an object, not its quantity." And, what I had in mind there is counting how many things we have, so you come in and you want five apples, five suits, whatever it is, there's the quantity thing. And then what Cicero was trying to do is say, quality is not the number, but quality is a differentiation of not just any suit, not just any...   0:22:53.1 Bill Bellows: And I think that becomes the challenge is, is that still important? So when Dr. Deming came on board in 1980, at the age of 79, when the NBC white paper was written, and people got excited by quality because quality was something that people identified with Japanese products, not with American products.   0:23:19.9 Andrew Stotz: Well, not in 1980.   0:23:21.1 Bill Bellows: Not in 1980...   [laughter]   0:23:22.2 Bill Bellows: I mean, at that time, the auto companies were making a lot of money in repair businesses. And Toyota comes along and says, and the words on the street, our products don't require all that repair. And I thought, yeah. And what was neat about that is when I thought, when you think about differentiation and like how do you sell quality? Because, again, I find it, for the longest time, beginning in 1980, quality was hot. Quality improvement. I mean, the American Society of Quality membership skyrocketed. Their membership has dropped like a rock since then because they don't have this Deming guy around that got them going.   0:24:12.1 Bill Bellows: Now, they're still big in the Six Sigma, but I don't believe their membership is anything like it was, but what I was thinking and getting ready for tonight is the economics of quality is from a consumer, what, at least, when my wife and I buy Toyota, it's a value proposition. It's the idea that if we buy Toyota, in our experience, we're getting a car that doesn't break down as often, is far more reliable. That becomes the differentiation. Also in the first... In the second series, second podcast of this series, we talked about the eight dimensions of quality and David Garvin's work.   0:25:03.2 Bill Bellows: And one of them was features, that a car with cup holders is quality 'cause... And there was a time, and the more cup holders, the better. And that was... And Garvin was saying lots of features is quality. He said, reliability could perceived it as a dimension of quality. Conformance was one of the dimensions, and he attributed that to the traditional thinking of Crosby. Reliability is a thing. And so when it comes to, how do you sell quality today? How do you get people within your organizations to go beyond, 'cause what I see right now is it's almost as if quality has gone back to quantity, that it's gone, that it's lost its appeal. Now, quantity doesn't lose its appeal 'cause we're selling, five of them, 20 of them, 30 of them.   0:26:09.2 Bill Bellows: But I don't get the impression from students and others that I interact with, that quality has big appeal. But, if we convert quality to the ability to do more with less, I mean the, when I'm delivering a higher quality item to you within the organization, that it's easier for you to integrate, to do something with, that's money, that's savings of time. And the question is, well, I guess how can we help make people more aware that when you go through the door of good and go beyond looking good and start to think about opportunities for desirable? And again, what we've said in the past is there's nothing wrong with tools, nothing wrong with the techniques to use them, there's nothing wrong with acceptability, but desirability is a differentiator.   0:27:15.2 Bill Bellows: And then the challenge becomes, if everyone's focused on acceptability, where it makes sense, then within your organization going beyond that, as we've explained, and this is where Dr. Taguchi's work is very critical. Dr. Deming learned about desirability from Dr. Taguchi in 1960. And that's what I think is, for all this interest in Toyota, I guess my question is, why is everybody excited by Toyota? Is it because they do single-minute exchange of dies? I don't think so. Is it because they do mixed model production? They can have, in one production line have a red car followed by a blue car, followed by a green car as opposed to mass production? Or is it because of the incredible reliability of the product? That's my answer, and I'm sticking to it. So...   0:28:14.3 Andrew Stotz: Yeah.   0:28:14.7 Bill Bellows: So what do you think Andrew?   0:28:17.2 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. There's two things that I was thinking about. One of the things I was thinking about is the idea if we're doing good with quality, and maybe we're satisfied with good, I was thinking about the book 'Good to Great,' and like how do you make this breakthrough? And then I was maybe it's good to groundbreaking or good to amazing or whatever. But like, when you really go beyond specification limits and take it to the next level, it's like you're moving from good to great. And one of the things that I see a lot is that, and I talk a lot in my corporate strategy courses with my clients and with my students is this idea that Deming really hit home about, about focusing on your customer, not your competitor.   0:29:06.6 Andrew Stotz: And I just feel like humans have a need to classify everything, to name everything, to label everything. And once they've got that label, that's the specification. That's what we want, they will fixate on that. And whether, I think, you think about all the kids that come out of the out of some meeting with a doctor and say, oh, I'm ADHD. Okay, we got a label now that's good and bad. And so that's where I think it, when I thought about the specification limits limit improvement, I think that, specification to me, when I think about quality, I think about setting a standard, moving to a, a new standard, and then maintaining that standard. And I can see the purpose of limits and controls and trying to understand how do we maintain that. But if we only stay on maintaining that and never move beyond that, then are we really, are we really in pursuit of quality?   0:30:12.0 Andrew Stotz: Now, on the other hand, when I think about the customers of my coffee factory, CoffeeWORKS and they want the exact same experience every single morning. Now, if we can make tests and do PDSAs to improve how we're doing that, less resources, better inputs and all that, great, but they do not want a difference. And I was just thinking about it also in relation to my evaluation masterclass bootcamp, where I still have a lot of variation coming out at the end of the bootcamp. Now, in the beginning, this is bootcamp number 19. So I've done this a lot. In the beginning, man, I would have, someone really terrible and someone really great, and I wasn't satisfied. So I kept trying to improve the content, the process, the feedback to make sure that by the time they get to the end, but I was just frustrated yesterday thinking there's still a lot of variation that, and I'm not talking about, the variation of a personality or something.   0:31:15.2 Andrew Stotz: I'm just talking about the variation of understanding and implementing what they're learning. And then I was thinking as I was at the park running this morning, I was thinking like, what makes Toyota so great is that there is very little variation of the 10 million cars that they've produced last year. And how impressive that is when all I'm trying to do is do it in a small little course. So I don't know, those are some things that were coming into my head when I thought about what you're talking about.   0:31:44.6 Bill Bellows: But no, you're right, in terms of the coffee, and I think you brought up a couple of good points. One is when the customer wants that flavor, whatever that level is, now, but that, I don't know how, anything about measuring taste, but there could be, within the range, within that, when they say they want that flavor, I mean, that could still have, could be a pretty broad spectrum. So maybe there's the ability to make it more consistent within that, if that's possible.   0:32:27.8 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, I think that, I think, like we have a blend we call Hunter's Brew, and I drink that every single morning and I can say, yeah, there's a variation, but it's a small enough variation that it doesn't bother me at all. And I think it doesn't bother our customer. Could we get more conformity to that? Yes, I think we could reduce that. Is it worth it? That's another question. We're looking at some automated equipment, some automated roasting equipment that would bring automation that would allow us to reduce that variation a bit. Will the customer notice that or not? Maybe. But the customer will definitely notice if we're outside of specification limits or if it's burnt...   0:33:12.7 Bill Bellows: Yes.   0:33:13.5 Andrew Stotz: As an example, and we're still shipping it, you know, they'll definitely notice that. And we have our mechanisms to try to measure that so that we are within those limits. So I do see, I see that the function of that to me is like, okay, in fact, in any business, you're constantly chasing and putting out fires. I mean, there's always things going on in every business owner's situation.   0:33:38.6 Bill Bellows: Right.   0:33:39.9 Andrew Stotz: And so there's at points where it's like, okay, can you just keep that in specification limit for right now while I get over to here and fix how we're gonna make sure that this is at another level where that is, I would consider it kind of an improvement versus maintaining. But I don't know, I'm just, I'm riffing here, but those are some things in my head.   0:34:00.0 Bill Bellows: No, what I hear you talking about is if we shift from quality management to, I mean, what desirability is about is looking at things as a system. Acceptability is about looking at things in isolation and saying, this is good, this is good, this is good, this is good. Not necessarily with a lot of focus of how is that used. So if we move away from quality and really what we're talking about is a better way to run an organization with a sense of connectedness that we're, we can talk about working together. Well, it's hard to work together if the fundamental mindset is: here, Andrew, my part is good and I wash my hands of it. When you come back and say, well, Bill, I'm having trouble integrating it, that's more like working separately.   0:35:07.2 Bill Bellows: So if we shift the focus from quality, which could be really narrow, it could be an entry point, but I think if we step back, I mean the title of Dr. Deming's last book was 'The New Economics,' the idea which has to be, which to me, which is about a resource. The better we manage the organization as a system, the more we can do with less. And relative to the quality of the taste and yeah, the customers want this and maybe we can make that even more consistent simultaneously. Can we use control charts to see special causes before they get too far downstream that allows us to maintain that consistency? That'd be nice. Then can we figure out ways to expand our capacity as we gain more? So there's a whole lot to do. So the organization is not static. And simultaneously the challenge becomes how do we stay ahead of others who might be trying to do the same thing? Dr. Deming would say, be thankful for a good competitor. Are we just gonna sit there and say, oh, we're the only coffee... We're the only ones in house that know how to do this. What is our differentiator? And I think having a workforce that thinks in terms of how the activities are connected, that are constantly involved in improvement activities.   0:36:45.1 Bill Bellows: Short of that, what you're hoping is that no one comes along in... Remember the book, it was required reading within Boeing, sadly, 'Who Moved My Cheese?'   0:36:58.2 Andrew Stotz: It was required reading at Pepsi when I was there, and I hated that book. We had another one called 'The Game of Work,' which I just was so annoyed with, but that 'Who Moved My Cheese?' I never, never really enjoyed that at all.   0:37:07.0 Bill Bellows: We used to laugh about, within Rocketdyne 'cause, and for those who aren't aware of the book, the storyline is that there's a bunch of mice and they're living in their little cubby holes and every day they go through the mouse hole, try to avoid the cat, find the cheese, bring the cheese back into their cubby hole, and that life is good. And then one day, somebody steals the cheese, moves the cheese and one's kind of frantic and the other's like, oh, not to worry, Andrew, I'm sure it was taken by a nice person and I'm sure they'll return it. So I wouldn't lose sleep over that. That's okay. That's okay. And then kind of the moral was another company is stealing your cheese and you're sitting there thinking everything's okay, and next thing you know, you're outta business because you weren't paying attention. And so the, and it was, this is written for adults with cartoons of cheese. That's how you appeal... That's how...   0:38:15.9 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. So that's what got me annoyed about it because it felt like, just tell me what you're trying to tell me, okay. Instead of telling me this story. But yeah, it was a used to create the burning platform concept that was used... I know at Pepsi when I was there, they talked about the burning platform, the level of urgency, we're gonna get, and, and there's, I kind of understand where they were coming from with it, but yeah.   0:38:44.7 Bill Bellows: But what is interesting is nowhere in the book was a strategy to be the ones moving the cheese. What it was more like is don't be in an environment where somebody else moves the cheese. Don't be that company. And I thought, no, you wanna be the company that's moving the cheese. But that was, maybe that's an advanced book that hasn't come out yet.   [laughter]   0:39:08.6 Bill Bellows: But really...   0:39:10.5 Andrew Stotz: There's some work for you, Bill.   0:39:12.6 Bill Bellows: But, but that's what... I mean what Dr. Deming is talking about is having an environment where you have that capacity on an ongoing basis. First of all, you're not sitting back stopping at good, thinking that what you're doing is always acceptable. It's trying to do more with that. Anyway, that's what I wanted to explore today. Again, there's nothing wrong with specification limits. I told the gentleman that night, specification limits are provided to allow for variation, to allow for commerce, to allow for suppliers to provide things that meet requirements. Then the question becomes, is there value in doing something with a variation within the specification limits? Is there value in moving that variation around? And that's the desirability focus. That is what Ford realized Toyota was doing a lot, is that then improves the functionality of the resulting product, it improves its reliability. All of that is the possibility of going beyond meeting requirements. So it's not that we shouldn't have, we need specifications. Why? Because there's variation. And if we didn't allow for variation, we couldn't have commerce because we can't deliver exactly anything. So I just want, just for some...   0:40:34.9 Andrew Stotz: Okay, all right. That's a good one.   0:40:37.4 Bill Bellows: All right.   0:40:38.2 Andrew Stotz: And I'll wrap it up with a little humor.   0:40:40.4 Bill Bellows: Go ahead.   0:40:40.5 Andrew Stotz: There were some parody books that came out, in relation to 'Who Moved My Cheese.' In 2002, the book 'Who Cut the Cheese' by Stilton Jarlsberg, which was good. And in 2011 was, 'I Moved Your Cheese' by Deepak Malhotra. So there you go. A little humor for the day. Bill, on behalf of everybody at The Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this discussion. And for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. And if you want to keep in touch with Bill, just find him on LinkedIn. He responds. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming. I just love this quote. I think about it all the time. "People are entitled to joy in work."  

Can you use Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) during the information-gathering phase of an improvement project? Yes! Join John Dues and host Andrew Stotz as they discuss how John's team used PDSA to learn more about chronic absenteeism, their surprising findings, and what they'll do next. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.8 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we dive deeper into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with John Dues, who is part of the new generation of educators striving to apply Dr. Deming's principles to unleash student joy in learning. The topic for today is powerful learning with the PDSA cycle. John, take it away.   0:00:25.5 John Dues: Yeah, Andrew. It's good to be back. For the past two episodes or so, we've been working towards defining the problem of our chronic absenteeism issue, of course, we have a problem with chronic absenteeism, but we're trying to narrow that down and get a more specific problem statement. Last time we talked about how our improvement team, basically, had come to the conclusion after a few weeks of study that we didn't have enough information to write that specific, precise problem statement. So what we decided to do, and we started looking at this last time, was we started to gather additional information through a Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle. So that's what we'll focus on today, is this first PDSA cycle, and I think it's good to know that you can use PDSAs to run an experiment to test a new idea, but you can also run a PDSA to gather more information. Those are both very worthwhile uses of the PDSA cycle. So I go to share my screen just so I have that model up so that people who can see it, for those that are viewing. Can you see that now?   0:01:33.8 Andrew Stotz: Coming up. Okay, we can see it.   0:01:36.6 John Dues: All right, great. So you remember, we've been working through this four-step process for those who are hopping in for the first time or as a review for those that have been following along. So we have these four steps: set the challenge or direction, grasp the current condition, establish your next target condition, and then an experiment to overcome obstacles. And remember, we've been working through this team, that's a combination of people working in the system, people who have the authority to actually change the system, and then the System of Profound Knowledge coach. So I think that's a pretty powerful combination of people, and that's our team here working on this chronic absenteeism problem. You also remember that we have this long-range goal that this challenge that is to improve our chronic absenteeism from right around 50% to down closer to 5%, and I don't know if you remember this, but a number of episodes ago, I showed you the data we had over time, and we just had three years of data. Since that time I showed you that first run chart, I've actually gone back and added chronic absenteeism rates for our schools going all the way back to the 2016 - '17 year, and I think it's worth it to just take another quick look at those rates over time in a process behavior chart.   0:03:00.2 Andrew Stotz: Exciting.   0:03:01.5 John Dues: So, yeah. This is our chart. So we add more days so why not display it in this way. So what this chart is, is again a process behavior chart, we have school years going back to the 2016-'17 school year, and then through last school year. And we have the blue dots displaying the chronic absenteeism rate for each of those school years across our school system, and then the green is... The green line is that central line, it's the average of all years, the red lines are those natural process limits that sort of tell us where we can expect our data to fall given that this is a predictable system. So you can see right off the bat, something that's pretty obvious is that the first four years of data are below that central line, and then the last four years of data are above that central line. And of course, it's not too hard to sort of recognize that the pandemic happened towards the end of the 2019-'20 school year, and then sort of... We were all remote heading into that 2021 school year, and then for a number of years after we were in remote or hybrid, and so you can see very clearly that while there was chronic absenteeism in our system prior to the pandemic, after the pandemic, it exploded and it has not subsided.   0:04:28.7 John Dues: So in a typical year prior to the pandemic, we were somewhere around that 25, about a quarter of the kids give or take, depending on the year, of the kids were chronically absent, and then after the pandemic, we can see it sort of... Or at the begining of the pandemic, explodes up and then has settled around this, right about 50% average.   0:04:51.1 Andrew Stotz: And the fact that it's remained at this much higher level of, let's say 50-55% tells you that there's like... It has had somewhat of a permanent impact, whereas some people may think that the COVID situation caused a spike in chronic absenteeism up to 70% or whatever that number was, and then it came back to normal. But it's far away from normal.   0:05:26.4 John Dues: Yeah, and I haven't done a deep analysis. But in addition to the chronic absenteeism, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, which is like the gold standard, the report card for the nation, a nationally known test given every couple of years, that data shows that the 4th and 8th graders that take that test across the country in ELA and math, the scores are down coming out of the pandemic as well and have not rebounded. So I think that data is important. I'm not necessarily saying one way or the other, what we should have done, but what I am saying is like when we make decisions like shutting down schools, it's not just a decision that has an impact in the moment, there are ramifications on an ongoing basis. And we should sort of take that calculus into consideration when we're deciding what to do in a situation like that.   0:06:20.0 Andrew Stotz: And this also shows that you're taking on a pretty serious challenge because...   0:06:23.8 John Dues: Very serious. Yeah.   0:06:25.0 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, it's serious for the students, but it's also serious in the sense that it's been lingering at this very high level of chronic absenteeism, so, okay.   0:06:37.0 John Dues: Yeah.   0:06:37.5 Andrew Stotz: Shocking.   0:06:38.1 John Dues: Yeah, it is pretty shocking.   0:06:38.7 Andrew Stotz: That's not happening in Asia.   0:06:40.6 John Dues: No, and it's... I think a number of places in the United States, the learning chronic absenteeism has bounced back, but in the places where you expect where there's, especially high concentrations of poverty and things like that. It's sort of remained a serious issue even depending how you mark the end of the pandemic, two or three years after the primary part of the pandemic anyway. The height of the pandemic, if you will. So, ongoing challenges for sure. So what I said was that the team was going to run this initial PDSA cycle to gather more information, of course, there were some initial thoughts on why kids were missing so much school. We've talked about these transportation, different expectations that have been set for when to stay home, family and instability, those types of things. But again, we want to further test those assumptions early on in the project. So the key question that we were looking at is, for this first PDSA cycle, at least was will the combination of a what we call an empathy interview, which is just like where we sit down with a student or the family and try to better understand what's going on, and then daily attendance tracking was the other part of this, will that lead to a modest increase in the students average daily attendance rate during the period of the intervention.   0:08:11.9 John Dues: So even though we weren't necessarily testing a change idea, there was this sort of like... We framed it as a modest intervention in terms of sitting down with the kids and then doing this daily tracking and showing them the data. And a key part of this plan phase is we had all of our team members predict what they thought would happen with the four students that we chose to have those interviews with and track the daily attendance of during Cycle 1. So we had everybody really think through, "Okay, what do we think will happen when we put this plan in place?" And that's going to be really important because when we actually run the test, we want to compare the predictions to what actually happens, and that's where a lot of the learning happens from a PDSA cycle.   0:09:02.9 Andrew Stotz: And just for the listeners or viewers out there, why is it important to do that? Some people would say just do it and find out what the result is.   0:09:12.3 John Dues: Well, if you don't take a stance basically before the intervention happens or before the plan is put in place, then there's no learning that can really happen because whatever happens happens. But you didn't sort of say, "Here's what I think's going happen." And a lot of times, we quantify that prediction, and then what you can see is the difference between those two things is not only the learning, but it's also an indication of how well you understand your system. So what I mean is, if we put an intervention in place and I say, "Okay, I think this is going to have a 15% increased impact on whatever it is, a test score or attendance in this case," and then it has no impact, then I don't have an understanding really of what's going to work to fix whatever I'm trying to fix. But if the prediction bears out and it's pretty close to what actually happens, then that means, oh, I have a pretty good grasp on what's going on in my system. Yeah, kind of makes you put a stake in the ground, and it makes you mentally when you're doing it, it makes you think.   0:10:19.0 John Dues: Look further ahead and say, "Okay, if I do this, do I actually think this is going to be effective?" And you can also see the team's thinking. Some people might think this is going to be very effective, and some people may think it's not. Some people might think it'll work with some students, but not other students, and it gives you that picture black and white before you actually run the test.   0:10:37.8 Andrew Stotz: And in academic studies, it's really important to identify your end point that you're testing for. Otherwise, you run the risk of switching your end point as you get through your research because you're grounded initially.   0:10:53.2 John Dues: Right, exactly. Right, yep, absolutely. So in this plan, what we did was, this... We had parent conferences coming up, so we just said, that's a natural time to sit down with these four students that we chose at parent conferences. So at the end of November, we did that, we reviewed the data, we sat with the family to discuss some of the causes of the attendance challenges. We explained the plan to track attendance for 15 days coming back from Thanksgiving break. And then part of the plan was collecting that quantitative data, like the actual attendance rates each day for each kid, but then it was qualitative too, because we were asking the family on the front end, what was the sort of overall cause of the problem. And then we were asking the actual student every day like, "Oh, on this particular day, why were you absent, or why were you late, why did you miss school?" And we were tracking that across 15 days, so it's a relatively short time period, 'cause we don't want to go off on some grand experiment and then find out three months from now that our intervention wasn't effective.   0:12:02.5 John Dues: So that was the plan. And then the next step in the PDSA cycle is the do and that's just like it sounds. So we ran the experiment for 15 days and then started gathering that data. So what we found was that in two of the cases, transportation challenges were in fact the primary issue, in the third case, it was sort of transportation, but that was exacerbated by a family that was homeless during this period, and then in the fourth cause, or in the fourth case, there was actually some sort of anxiety issues with coming to school. So you can see three very different causes just across four students. So again, if you don't have that picture, then it's very hard to sort of design the right type of interventions 'cause you don't really know what's going on. You have assumptions, right? So I don't think it's rocket science, but the team learn that there are so many layers to this attendance challenge, and even for a single student, there's often multiple factors rather than some single explanatory variable. And so you have to sort of uncover that, and I think the key thing was that holding these empathy interviews, just these four interviews allowed us to challenge some of our initial assumptions. Like maybe a family doesn't value attendance, that didn't seem to be the case, at least with any of these four students who are facing some serious challenges on the home front.   0:13:48.6 John Dues: But it wasn't like families didn't value school or having their kids attending school, there're just major obstacles. And so digging deeper allowed us to explore these various causes with the families. Another thing that was interesting is that as we talked with the team about... As the data came in and what they were doing, we also learned that we need a better, more systematic process for intervening with chronically absent students, that's everything from reviewing the data, identifying those chronically absent students early on in the school year, for those that we're required to do something like file truancy for those processes and then monitoring attendance, there's various requirements public schools have on that front. Every school is... They have a system in place, and they have a team in place, and they have a process in place for these different things, but they're all doing it differently, and so there's not a standardized process across our system. And another thing is, some parents didn't even realize that they may have a general idea that the attendance isn't great, but don't... Most parents don't actually realize what is the actual attendance rate of their child, how far off is it from what's considered exceptional or at least okay attendance.   0:15:17.6 John Dues: Almost nobody has that. Those numbers at the ready. Another thing that has happened as we studied the data was that there was a really wide variation in terms of the difference in student daily attendance between the period of the intervention and end of the school year up to that point. So there's basically a lot of learning going on with just a very simple four student experiment. So even though the predictions weren't perfect, and one thing with the predictions is, this is Cycle 1, so what should happen over time as we gain knowledge about our system, is that the predictions get closer and closer to what actually happens because we're learning with every PDSA cycle that we're running basically. So the last part is, then you act, so we've done the plan, we've done the do, the study, and the act, and the way I frame this is that you have three As that you can choose from in the Act segment. You can adopt that change that you've tested, you're going to adapt that into the next cycle, or you can say this is not working at all and you can abandon it and just do something else.   0:16:34.2 John Dues: Yeah, those are the three options. So what we've actually decided to do, what happens in a lot of early tests, is we're going to adapt Cycle 1 into Cycle 2, and in fact, Cycle 2 has actually already started. But the aim of Cycle 2 now is we're going to increase the extent to which we're involving students and families in the data collection process, and we're going to hold what we call like a... We call this a 5 Whys Empathy interview with each student that we've identified, and then use that to create a plan for a PDSA that's specific to that one student, basically. So it's going to be very hyper-focused and so we're going to collect this data for two weeks, we recognize that doing this intensive of a process with the entire school or the entire group of students that are chronic absent probably isn't possible, but what we're doing is learning so much from this, that seemed like we're going to take another step to learn more and work with the individual student to set up the next round of interventions.   0:17:49.4 Andrew Stotz: And what are you guys expecting for an outcome? You know, talking about prediction? I don't know. Should we think about where are you going to be in one year or two years, three years?   0:18:00.7 John Dues: Oh no. It's very closely tied with the PDSA. So if it's a two-week PDSA, then we're actually saying, what is that the average daily attendance going to be for that two-week period?   0:18:11.7 Andrew Stotz: Yep. Yep.   0:18:14.3 John Dues: I mean. It's very tightly closed. Yeah.   0:18:14.8 Andrew Stotz: What I'm saying though, let's just take the attendance levels that we've seen in the chart, let's just talk about annual and let's say, "Okay, one year from now, two years from now."   0:18:23.7 John Dues: Oh yeah. That's right. Oh I see.   0:18:26.7 Andrew Stotz: Are you... Is it right to make a prediction about where you think you would be or is that not the right way to do it?   0:18:32.0 John Dues: I think it's too early in the process to make... I see what you're saying now you're talking about the actual... That overall system measurement. Yeah, I think it's too early to make a prediction on that, if you were holding a gun to my head and making me put money down, my prediction would be right in line with what it is this year, basically. I would think it... Because it's a stable system. Those last four years, all bounce around 50-55%, like you said. So my bet would be on 50-55%. Because...   0:19:11.2 Andrew Stotz: And what would... How would things change for you or the school? Let's just imagine hypothetically... I'm going to push back a little bit here and just get some thinking, but from a hypothetical perspective, let's say a new school opened up and their number one focus was chronic absenteeism, and they decided that the most important thing for them is to solve that problem. And they had been doing it for a while in other locations, and now they've come in, now you're competing with them. They're an option for some people, and they're just the place for others, and let's just say that they have optimized for chronic absenteeism and it's down to 10% at their school. Does that change how you think about what you're doing? Again, it's hypothetical, but I'm just curious. How does that...   0:20:01.3 John Dues: No. Not me, because this is what our system produces right now, so... Yeah, I think I would say I don't have enough information to make a prediction about what the ultimate outcome measure will be.   0:20:19.4 Andrew Stotz: And I guess you could say this is what our system produces in this area based upon what we see as important, right? Like this is...   0:20:32.4 John Dues: Yeah. That's fair.   0:20:33.2 Andrew Stotz: And there may be another area that you think is very important in that those numbers in that area may be very, very different from that, but another... Go ahead.   0:20:43.7 John Dues: Yeah, well, I was going to say, so in this attendance team, there's... The empathy interview is going on with these four students, and then in the Act phase, we also said we're launching an effort to make the intervention process more consistent across all of our schools. And we're starting by understanding the process that's in place right now, but this team is not the only team pulling levers that ultimately could impact attendance. I think they're pulling important levers, but there are other improvement teams across the school system, for example, I think I mentioned this maybe a few episodes ago, transportation. Transportation did come up like we thought it would in three of the four interviews. So, and we have mentioned how poor the bussing has been in Columbus for the last several school years, but especially last year and this year. And so we're working to see can we do something significantly different next year on the transportation front.   0:22:00.1 John Dues: And I think if we can pull that lever, that also... But that would be a change to the system, like a very significant change. Now, if that went through, I would be much more confident about making a prediction about improvement on the attendance front next year, so.   0:22:17.9 Andrew Stotz: If I look...   0:22:19.2 John Dues: It's not going to solve our problems though. Yep.   0:22:21.2 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. If I look at my roasting business for coffee, if I replace my pretty much manual roasting machine with a fully automated high-tech one, it's going to have a massive improvement in variability. Invariability is going to reduce way beyond what our current system can produce and it will happen in a day, right? When that happens, it'll happen in a day.   0:22:47.4 John Dues: Yeah.   0:22:52.9 Andrew Stotz: And being late for class is a big bag-a-boo of teachers here in Thailand, particularly at universities where I go to, and it's a problem and nobody likes it and students come in late and all that. But I solved that problem with just the twist of my finger, one twist of my fingers, and I solved it. What was that twist? I locked the door. And then as the students were outside waiting to come inside, I would eventually go out and I'd say, "Look, it's important to me that you're on time. I'm going to lock this door. If you can't make it... You got to figure out how to make it." I know you got two hours of traffic and you're coming in from abroad, or you're coming in from outside of the city, I know that your parents don't have the money to pay for a car for you and you got to take the subway or you've got... I know. Everybody's got their circumstances, but you're making an effort to get here, I want you to get here on time.   0:23:52.4 Andrew Stotz: The next class that I have, everybody's on time. So one of the questions I have, and this is, again, push back is, some people may look at this and go, "Oh. Come on. All this work. Why don't we just massively prioritize and focus." Let's just say that... Let's just say, I don't know what the answer is, but let's just say that the principle of the school, all the teachers and all the students gather out in the front area at the time that you're supposed to be at school, and there's a band playing. Everybody's cheering. We're getting ready. Whatever that thing is. I remember a boss I had that used to have a stand-up meeting every single morning, and you didn't miss it. And so for some people who are listening, they may think, "Oh, come on, John, you're going through all this stuff and it's not going to improve. Why aren't you just taking more aggressive action right now."   0:24:48.9 John Dues: Well, I didn't say I was going to improve it, I just said I wasn't going to make a prediction.   0:24:51.9 Andrew Stotz: Yes. Yes. Sorry. I didn't mean...   0:24:53.8 John Dues: So yeah. What would I say? I think when you have... So the person that is in charge of this project, for example, I don't know that anybody's ever gotten better results while a principal of a school in Ohio with the challenges that he faced. So this is not people that aren't driven to get extraordinary results. This is a multi-faceted problem that is incredibly tough to improve, and when I have the view point of sitting down with the students and hearing what is... Keep the obstacles are... It is just a very hard thing, and I'd say one of the reasons we're pulling that transportation lever early, or at least attempting to is because that's such a big part. Again, that's not going to solve everything. But like I said, if we were able to pull that lever and it's a big if because we get no funding for transportation. All the funding flows through the school district, so that's a massive obstacle. Millions of dollars that we aren't allocated to do this service, someone else is. So right now we don't have control over it, and so those are the types of obstacles, we can't just buy buses, for example. Because...   0:26:36.1 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. And it's like you got 50 problems that you're trying to...   0:26:41.7 John Dues: 50 problems.   0:26:41.7 Andrew Stotz: And 50 more constraints that you're operating within.   0:26:45.9 John Dues: Yeah. And so we were attacking it from multiple angles, so we were attacking it on the attendance front with kids, at the State House with funding, with trying to see if we can set up our own transportation system even without that funding. So there's many, many levers being attempted, but they are not quick and easy, simple, so.   0:27:12.8 Andrew Stotz: And for a listener who's listening to this, who may not be the CEO of a company, let's say who's got resources he can allocate or she can allocate, they also may be in a situation like, "This is all I can impact. I can impact this area, but I have to be realistic about what resources I have."   0:27:33.6 John Dues: Yeah, and I think one of the things we're doing too, we don't have rose colored glasses on, we're saying, even if we did fix this transportation system, and that's a big if again. That doesn't mean that the chronic absenteeism problem is going to be solved. Maybe it's significantly better, maybe it goes down to 30%, 35%, if we had a good transportation system, but that still means... And even before transportation was such an issue, even before the pandemic, these rates were still... The quarter of the kids who are so chronically absent, that's way too high, that's way too high. So we recognize that, but these are very, very thorny problems to try to improve.   0:28:15.0 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. Well, and also you're trying to make lasting change too, so.   0:28:18.6 John Dues: Lasting change. Yeah.   0:28:19.6 Andrew Stotz: Yep.   0:28:19.7 John Dues: Yep. Yeah.   0:28:22.1 Andrew Stotz: Okay. Great. So I'm going to wrap it up there. And thanks...   0:28:23.3 John Dues: Yeah. Absolutely.   0:28:24.6 Andrew Stotz: And thank you for, on behalf of the Deming Institute, and I want to encourage all the listeners out there to follow what John's doing and what he's talking about, and of course, go to Deming.org to continue your journey. You can get his book, Win-Win, W. Edwards Deming, The System of Profound Knowledge and the Science of Improving Schools on amazon.com. And this is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming, people are entitled to joy in work.

In this episode of Misunderstanding Quality, host Andrew Stotz and Bill Bellows discuss what not to measure when it comes to quality. Bill offers some great examples to show how organizations get it wrong, and how to get it right. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.4 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we dive deeper into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today I'm continuing my discussion with Bill Bellows, we're gonna have a lot of fun, who has spent 31 plus years now that it's 2025, helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities in the episode, today is episode 11, and the title is "To Improve Quality, Don't Measure Quality". Bill, take it away.   0:00:35.6 Bill Bellows: Thank you, Andrew. And, so the title of episode 10, came from chapter 10... Chapter 1 of The New Economics, and I used a quote from Dr. Deming, which was, "Are you in favor of the improvement of quality?" Which Dr. Deming says, "Are you in favor of the improvement of quality? We can have a national referendum, yes or no?" Everyone says yes. Then he says... Then he say, "We could have a secret ballot." And... But I... At the beginning of the podcast, I had said, "Are you in favor of quality?" And it's... No, it's, "Are you in favor of the improvement of quality?" And so today I wanna, in episode 11, share it with our listeners and viewers, more of the profound insights from Genichi Taguchi. But I think, what I was just thinking is saying, "Are you in favor of quality?" And I've used that quote, which now I now realize it's a misquote. It's not, "Are you in favor of quality?" It's "Are you in favor of improvement of quality?" But in seminars, what I've done is used the quote, the misquote, I would say Dr. Deming would ask, "Are you in favor of quality?" And he would say, "We're gonna have a secret ballot. Is everyone in favor of ballot?" In quality, everyone says yes. So I would go through that.   0:02:16.3 Bill Bellows: And then I would go to the next question, and I would say to the audience, I'd say, "Okay. Dr. Deming made reference to secret ballot. So I wanna do a secret ballot. I want you to close your eyes, and I'm gonna ask you a question, and if your answer is yes, raise your hand. But I want you to close your eyes when you raise your hand, 'cause I don't want you to raise your hand 'cause everybody else does. Okay, so close your eyes." And I say, "Are you in favor of teamwork?" And all the hands go up. [laughter] And it's not so much "Are you in favor of improvement of teamwork?" But it's the idea that, acceptability saying this part is acceptable, as we've shared in prior episodes, is the essence of looking at that part, my task, my effort in isolation. And what that has to do with teamwork, I question. Now, with a few of us at Rocketdyne years ago used to talk about, we would say, you give out a term paper assignment, the term paper must be between 10 and 20 pages long. And what happens? They're close to 10 pages. Then I would share, we'd tell Allison, our daughter, I'd say when she was in high school, "Be home by between 8:00 and 10 o'clock," and she shows up around 10 o'clock.   0:03:51.6 Bill Bellows: And I would show a distribution over there. Then I would say, "What about a machinist? The machinist is given a hole to machine. And what does machinist do is machine the hole on the low side, and then a machinist is machining the outer diameter of a shaft or a tube. And what does machinist do? Machines to the high side." And so I would show those four distributions either on the low side or the high side, and say, "What do they all have in common?" And people would say, "Each of those people's looking out for themself. They're focusing on their work in isolation." Then I would say, "So what do you call that in a non-Deming company or in a... " In the first podcast there is a, called it a Red Pen Company or a ME organization, or a Last Straw companies... What do you call that behavior where people look at the requirements and say, "What's best for me?" What do you call that? What do you call, people scratch their head? We say... You ready? "Teamwork."   [laughter]   0:05:00.6 Bill Bellows: And everybody laughs. And then I turn to somebody in class and I say, "So Andrew, are you a team player?" And Andrew says, "Yes." And I say, "Andrew, if you machine the holes to the low side, are you a team player?" And you might say, "I'm not sure." And I would say, "Say yes." And you'd say, "Okay. I say yes." And I say, "Okay, Andrew, who's on your team?" And you say, "Me." "So, oh, you are a team player, man."   0:05:24.2 Andrew Stotz: I'm a team player. Team Andrew always wins.   0:05:28.2 Bill Bellows: Yeah. And I would say, so I say, "In a non-Deming company, everyone's a team player. All right. But who's on the team?" So I would say to people, "You'd be a fool not to be on your own team. The only question is, who else is on your team?" All right. Back to Dr. Taguchi to improve quality, don't measure quality. And I was, got into this in an explanation with some others recently, and somebody was showing me a bunch of defect rate data involving some process. And the question was, how to apply this occurrence of defect rate data to Dr. Taguchi's loss function. And so, again, reminder to our listeners, acceptability is everything that meets requirements is okay. Either I am unaware of differences or the differences don't matter, any parking spot, any professor any Thermo 2, any doctor and desirability is "I want this doctor, this parking spot, this, this, this, this, this." And so not just anything that meets requirements.   0:06:50.3 Bill Bellows: And Dr. Taguchi's work has a lot to do with that thinking. And Andrew, yeah, I'm on a month, on a regular basis, meeting more and more people that are listening to the podcast and reaching out to me on LinkedIn. And one shared with me recently then, and he started to listen to this series, and he said, he never thought about desirability. He says everything he knows, everything he sees every day, is acceptability. And he's like, "You mean, there's more than that?" And it's like, "Hello. That's what our series is trying to do." So...   0:07:26.6 Andrew Stotz: And let me introduce you to door number three, which opens you up into this whole 'nother world of...   0:07:35.6 Bill Bellows: Yes.   0:07:35.7 Andrew Stotz: The interconnectedness and understanding quality from the impact on all the different parts of the organization, not just the one thing and the one area. Yep.   0:07:46.6 Bill Bellows: Yes. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Exactly.   0:07:48.9 Andrew Stotz: But that's door number three. Now, we don't wanna go through that right off the bat, but when you go through it, unfortunately door number three disappears as you walk through it, and it's a wall...   [laughter]   0:08:00.4 Andrew Stotz: And you can't go back because now you understand that what is a system, what is the interconnectedness of everything, and once you see that, you can't unsee it.   0:08:09.6 Bill Bellows: That's right. Now, it's like, it's a holistic view in which... And a from a holistic perspective, parts don't exist, parts of exist, but everything is connected.   0:08:27.4 Andrew Stotz: Right.   0:08:28.2 Bill Bellows: And what does that mean? So anyway...   0:08:30.1 Andrew Stotz: And just to put that into context, let's just take a car. A customer never buys a part. And they don't buy a jumble of parts, they buy the car. So to the customer's perspective, it's even more meaningless, the independent parts of that.   0:08:50.3 Bill Bellows: When I would go to Seattle and do training when Rocketdyne was owned by Boeing, and I'd be doing training for people working on commercial airplanes or 737s, 47s and whatnot. And one of the jokes I would use is that, "Hey, 747... " People went, "What's a 747?" How about 787? If I was today, I'd say "a 787 is not a bunch of parts that fly in close formation." But that is, the mindset is that... But anyway, so acceptability is looking at the parts in isolation, looking at things in isolation, it's assigning a grade to a student, it's performance appraisals, that's all about isolation, it's thinking, "I won the game, I get an award. I lost the game." All of that thinking, from engineering to, how we look at human resources, the idea that the savings add additional only works when the activities are independent. So that's all acceptability, looking at things in isolation. Desirability in this idea of a preferred value, I don't know that anyone contributed to that, besides Dr. Taguchi. In fact, this morning, I was talking with some friends overseas about Joseph Juran's work. And, do you remember last time you and I worked, I was sharing with them that our last podcast followed the last meeting I had with these friends in Europe. And I said that conversation led to our podcast conversation about Quality 4.0, and it's all acceptability, acceptability, acceptability, meet, meet, meet requirements.   0:10:35.6 Bill Bellows: This very conversation. And I said, I went back and did some research on what Joseph Juran... How Juran defined quality. 'Cause I looked at the ASQs definition of quality and it gave two definitions of quality, one attributed to Juran talking about quality as fitness for use, and then Philip Crosby's definition is, meeting requirements. But you may recall, I said, there is no explanation of how Dr. Deming defined quality. Yeah, maybe that will come. But, so I was sharing that with them, and also shared with them a model I've used. And it might have come up in our first series, but I think the classic model within organizations is, I work, I follow a bunch of steps to make a part, a thing, a module, something. And if all the requirements are met, I hand off to you, you're downstream. And then likewise, there's others in parallel with me that hand off good parts, good things to you. Because they're good, we can hand off to you. And then the model is you take the parts that are good and put them together, and because they are good, they fit. And then you pass that integrated component downstream where other integrated components come together. And we progressively go from, it could be that we're putting together the fuselage, somebody else is putting together the wings, and it's all coming together. And at the other end, it's an airplane.   0:12:22.5 Bill Bellows: And on every handoff we hand off what is, so the parts that are good fit, the components that are good fit together with other, then we turn the whole thing on, it works. And I show this flow to people and I say, "So what do you see going on in there?" And what eventually they start to see is that all the thinking is black and white, because they're good, they fit, because they fit, they fit, and when you turn it on, it works. There's nothing relative about that. And so I was sharing that with these folks this morning, and I said, after you and I spoke last time, went back and looked, and Juran talks about fitness for use, and the question was, is Juran's definition of fitness, absolute fitness or relative fitness? Meaning that there's a degree of good in the parts associated with desirability thinking, and if we've got degrees of good in the parts, then there's degrees of fit. And, well, it turns out there's plenty of reason to believe that Juran had a model of acceptability that the parts are good, then they fit. All to come back to what Dr. Taguchi is talking about in terms of improving quality, is improving quality from a variable perspective that there's degrees of good. And so now we go back to, to improve quality, don't measure quality. And I remember when he said that and we were dumbfounded, "Well, what do you mean by that?"   0:13:52.5 Bill Bellows: And then he would go on to explain, that traditionally, we look at the quality... The lack of quality of something. An inspector says, "There's a scratch on the door. There's a ding here. There's a crack there. There's a, the weld has a drop in it. The weld has porosity." You know what that means is that's not a... The quality inspector is looking for the absence of a crack, the absence of porosity and things like that. And it also parallels with what I learned from Ackoff, Russ would say, [chuckle] "Getting less of what you want doesn't get you what you want." So you could say, "I want less waste, less defects." Well, what is it you want? Again, the clarification is, Russ would say, "Getting less of what you don't want doesn't get you what you want." And likewise, Dr. Taguchi talked about, what is the function of the process? So if you're talking about, imagine on a washing machine, when you have a... Or a dryer, and you have a motor that's spinning, and around the motor is a belt that's spinning the drum. Well, the quality problem, classic quality problem could be that the belt slips, or the belt cracks, or the belt is vibrating.   0:15:28.3 Bill Bellows: Well, then you say, "Well, okay, what's the function of the belt?" Well, it's not about cracking. The function of the belt is to transmit energy from the motor to the drum. And if it does that really well over sustained periods of time, then that suggests there's probably less cracking going on and less slipping going on. But if you don't look at it from a function perspective and ask, "What's the function of the belt?" And move away from, "Well, I don't want it to crack and I don't want it to slip." Well, then tell me what you want it to do. What is it you want it to do? Now, let's get into more of what we do want. And then, and this is what's neat listening to Dr. Taguchi as an engineer, you say, "Well, okay, so what is the belt trying to do? It's trying to transmit energy." So if I can design the belt, and by changing the materials of the belt to transmit energy, under wide-ranging temperatures, wide-ranging usage conditions, if I do a good job of that, then I should see less cracking problems. Absent that, if I try to reduce the number of cracks, I may end up with a belt slipping more often. So then what happens is you end up trading one problem for another, which is not uncommon.   0:16:57.7 Bill Bellows: You go from, the cookies being undercooked to overcooked as opposed to saying, "What's the role of the baking process?" And he would say, "To transmit energy to the cookie in the precise amount. And if we have the precise amount and distribution, then that should work out." Now, relative to welding. Welding, there is, there may be a dozen different weld anomalies that inspectors are looking for, with X-rays, they see porosity, they see, what's called drop-through with the material and the weld, drops a little bit, which could result in a fatigue problem leading to cracking. Well, here Dr. Taguchi would say, "Well, what's the function of a weld?" Say, well, to join two pieces of material together with a given strength. And so you join them together. And then once they're joined together, now you run tests and you say, "I wanna... " It could be, "I wanna heat and cool the weld to see how it does with that. I wanna introduce vibration to the weld." And if you can show that under vibration, under wide-ranging changes in the environment, that the strength holds up, then by focusing on the strength, which is what you want, you end up with fewer quality problems. But it's turning things around and saying, "Not what I don't want, what do I want?"   0:18:35.3 Andrew Stotz: And...   0:18:36.4 Bill Bellows: And that's what... Go ahead. Go ahead. Andrew.   0:18:37.6 Andrew Stotz: There's two things. The more I think about this quote that you're talking about, to improve quality, don't measure quality, sometimes I think I got it, but sometimes I don't. I just wanna think about a couple of parallels. One of them is sometimes we say in the field of sales and marketing, we may say, "Fill your pipeline and your sales will happen." So focus on the beginning of the process. If you don't have a pipeline of people coming in to your company, into your sales team, there's nobody to sell. So that's an example. We also say sometimes, focus on the inputs and the outputs will take care of themselves. That's another way that we would use something similar. But I'm just curious, what does it mean by "Don't measure quality"?   0:19:25.0 Bill Bellows: Yeah. And that's a good question. I'd say, Taguchi's used to quality being the absence of defects. And quality is what the customer's complaining about. So he's saying, quality problems in terms of don't measure quality, he's saying, "So what are the quality problems?" "Oh, let me tell you, we've got porosity, we've got cracks, we've got drop-through, we've got cracking, cracking of the belt and slipping and the... " This is what people are complaining about. And what he's saying is, the customer's not articulating, "Hey, Andrew, improve the function." They're complaining about the... You just have to interpret that what they're saying is, you have to take where they are. They don't want it to crack. They want it to last longer. They want all these things and say... And the idea is, don't get sucked into what they don't want. Turn it around to, well then, I'm the engineer, and this is what Dr. Taguchi would say, "As an engineer, don't be dumbed down into the complaint world. Turn it around and say, what could you improve? What is the function of that thing you're selling?" And if you improve the function, because again, the beauty of talking about function, if you focus on problems, you eliminate one problem, create another problem, then another problem. Now you're just... And what...   0:21:00.8 Andrew Stotz: So it's whack-a-mole...   0:21:02.3 Bill Bellows: Exactly.   0:21:03.6 Andrew Stotz: It's whack-a-mole in the back end of the process without the awareness of, "What are the customer's needs and how do we understand whether we're hitting the mark?" And...   0:21:12.7 Bill Bellows: Oh, and this is what Dr. Taguchi used to call as whack-a-mole engineering. It's what Ackoff would say, "Today's problems come from yesterday's solutions."   0:21:24.6 Andrew Stotz: So just just to visualize that, can imagine going into a factory and saying, "Look at all these charts and how we reduce the defects of this and that. And this is... " We've reduced all these defects, but in fact, that could be out of touch with what the customer really needs at the end of that production.   0:21:44.1 Bill Bellows: Yes, it is... The beauty is, it is saying... And he would get really angry with people who got sucked into the rabbit hole of eliminating defects, scrap and rework and things like that. And just say... What he's trying to say is, "I want you to be smarter than that. I want you to start to think about what is the function of the machining process? What is the function of the welding process? What is the... " And what was neat was, I spent... On three different occasions, I spent a week with him, watching him engage every day with four teams. A team would come in for two hours, and he would discuss with them whatever the hardware was. I'm not at liberty to say what company it was. [laughter] But it was a really cool company.   0:22:56.9 Bill Bellows: And the people there invited me in because I learned at Dr. Deming's... I attended Dr. Deming's very last four-day seminar, and there met some people that were very close to him. And one of them shared that, there were people for many years, traveled with Dr. Deming. They found out where he was gonna be a given week, maybe called up his secretary Ceilia Kilian and, once he became, bonded when... And somehow Dr. Deming liked you. And then you would say, "Dr. Deming, I'm gonna take a week's vacation next summer. Where are you gonna be in June?" And he'd say, "Well, I'm gonna be at GM corporate headquarters." And what these people told me is that, they would be with him that week, whether he is doing a four-day seminar in Ohio. Now, I don't know who paid for it.   0:23:50.8 Andrew Stotz: No.   0:23:50.9 Bill Bellows: But he gave them access to be with him wherever he was. And one guy told me he was at some high-level GM meetings that week, and he said, "Dr. Deming is there and he and some others." And I think they may have been called "Deming Scholars". I know that term was used. But anyway, this guy was telling me they were there, and this GM executive comes over to him and it says to him, "So, who are you again?" And you say, "Andrew Stotz." And he says something like, "So what might I ask are your qualifications for being here?" And he says, "If Deming overheard that, Deming would turn to the executive, snap at him and say, 'These are my people. What are your qualifications?'" So anyway, inspired by that, I walked out of Dr. Deming's four-day seminar, called up a friend of mine who worked for Dr. Taguchi's company and said, "Deming had people travel with him. I wanna travel with Dr. Taguchi. I don't wanna go to a seminar. I wanna see him in action."   0:24:56.1 Andrew Stotz: Yep.   0:24:56.4 Bill Bellows: And I said, "Can we make that happen?" And it happened, and I got to go inside a company. The lawyers didn't know I was there. And I asked him, I said, to the lawyer, "Do I have to sign anything?" He said, "No. If we let the lawyers know you were here, you wouldn't be here. So, here are the rules. You can't tell anybody what happened, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah." So I get to be a fly on the wall watching him. So, a team would come in and say, "Here's this stuff we're working on." And he would... And they had an approach, which would be, reducing defects or scrap rework. And then he would turn it around for the next hour and a half and get them thinking about function. And after the first week of doing this four times a day for five days, I walked out of there thinking, "There's five basic functions." I started to notice the patterns. And then the second time I did this, a team would come in and I'm thinking, "I know what he's gonna do. He's gonna... He has in mind a function model. And all these things relative to how things come together." And so I did that three times. But, it was neat to get my brain adapted to, "Okay, what's the function? Where's he gonna come? Where's he gonna come?"   0:26:16.0 Bill Bellows: And then I would... The people would present it, and I'm thinking, "I think it's gonna go for function five. Yep. Bingo." So that's what I just wanted to share with the audience tonight. Again, there's a lot of depth. I taught two 40-hour courses at Rocketdyne in Taguchi Methods. So, a 40-hour intro and a 40-hour more advanced. So all I wanted to cover tonight, is that wisdom of not being defect-focused, but for our audience to start thinking about, start to think about the function. In fact, when I was having this conversation with a colleague recently and, 'cause he's talking about turning defect rate, he was thinking turning defect rate data into a loss function. I said, "No, defect rate thinking is acceptability thinking, the loss function is desirability thinking. They don't go together." I said, "What I wanna know is what's causing the defects." And we start diving into what's causing the defects, we can turn it into a variable data as opposed to a discontinuous data. Anyway. And I just wanted to throw out... Go ahead, Andrew.   0:27:34.4 Andrew Stotz: To wrap this up, I'm thinking about, I like what you just said, "Stop being defect-focused." Replace that with...   0:27:44.5 Bill Bellows: What is it we're trying to accomplish?   0:27:47.8 Andrew Stotz: Yeah.   0:27:48.2 Bill Bellows: If you say, "Well, we don't want defects." I know we don't want defects. But what do we want?   0:27:52.9 Andrew Stotz: Do we say replace it with outcome focus, customer focus? What would you say?   0:27:58.1 Bill Bellows: Yeah, well, absolutely it's customer focus. The idea is that, now you start to think in terms of, is what is the greater system in which this is used.   0:28:11.0 Andrew Stotz: Okay. So...   0:28:11.1 Bill Bellows: The defect thinking is just saying it doesn't fit, it doesn't meet requirements. But that doesn't tell me what you're trying to do.   0:28:17.0 Andrew Stotz: Okay. So I think I know what you're saying. Stop being defect-focused, and please walk through door number three.   0:28:25.3 Bill Bellows: Yes! Stop...   0:28:27.7 Andrew Stotz: And in door number three, you're gonna be aware of the customer, the next process, the next flow, the customer of your area and the ultimate customer, and start focusing on the needs and the desires of them, and bring that back in the chain of your process. And you'll be improving, you'll stop being focused on "Fix this, stop this. Don't do that." Let's not have any more of that, and you'll be more into, "Let's do this because this is going to drive a much better outcome, or the exact outcome that our customer wants."   0:29:05.2 Bill Bellows: Yeah, it is, which changes the hat. That may not be the purview of people in the quality organization. So, they're out there counting defects. This is not to say it's their job. Not that they're not in the loop, but it's turning to the people that are more aware... That are more in tune with functionality, which is likely gonna be that people designing the thing, thinking about what's the role of the windshield wiper? Is it to skip across the windshield? Is it to, which is, that chatter. No, we don't want the chatter. So what is it we do want? We want the windshield wiper to move smoothly. And what does that mean? It means at a given second, we want it to be... And this is where the smoothness functionality comes in that I saw Dr. Taguchi many times is, is saying at a given interval of seconds, it should be here, here, here, here, here. And if it does match those positions, then what have we done? We have improved the smoothness of the flow of the wiper blade, or whatever it is that thing.   0:30:21.5 Bill Bellows: And that's the type of thing I'm trying to introduce, in this short episode, people thinking about function, not the lack of quality, but what is it we're trying to achieve? Now, otherwise, we can also say, Ackoff would say, and Dr. Deming would agree with him, is that organizations aren't in business to make a profit. They're in business to do something really well. That's the function of the organization. And then profit is the result of that. As opposed to being profit focus, in which case you start to... You run it as a finance company and misunderstand the focus and you start believing in addition and you end up with a mess.   0:31:04.2 Andrew Stotz: So, let's end it with a cartoon that I saw in The Wall Street Journal. And in that cartoon, it was a couple of guys, young guys wearing suits, and they were talking to each other, and they were either, it was either in an MBA class or they were in a factory or something, and it said, "Things? I don't wanna make things. I wanna make money." [laughter] And the whole point is, money is the result of making great things.   0:31:38.3 Bill Bellows: Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. And that's why... And this is why I so enjoyed about listening to Ackoff, conversations with Russ... Conversations with Dr. Taguchi. And then reading Deming. I don't have any conversation with Dr. Deming and thinking of that there. They, each were astute enough to see the process, the means leading to the result. Tom Johnson would say, "The means are the ends in the making." So you have organizations that are either means-focused, which is process focus, versus, "Did you deliver the report? Did you deliver the thing?" And Dr. Deming's big thing is, by what method? Tom would say, "By what means?" So...   0:32:25.2 Andrew Stotz: All right. Well...   0:32:25.2 Bill Bellows: Anyway, that's what I wanted to expose our audience to tonight.   0:32:29.4 Andrew Stotz: There it is. They've been exposed. Ladies and gentlemen, the exposure has happened. Bill, on behalf of everyone at The Deming Institute, I wanna thank you again for this discussion. And for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. And if you wanna keep in touch with Bill, just find him on LinkedIn. And this is your host, Andrew Stotz. And I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming. And you know this one, you can say it along with me 'cause I say it all the time. People are entitled to joy in work.

Join John Dues and Andrew Stotz as they go one step deeper into finding the precise problem you want to improve. Sometimes taking big actions means starting small. TRANSCRIPT Diving Deeper into Defining the Problem: Path for Improvement (Part 6)   0:00:02.2 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz and I'll be your host as we dive deeper into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with John Dues, who is part of the new generation of educators striving to apply Dr. Deming's principles to unleash student joy in learning. And the topic for today is more on defining the problem. John, take it away.   0:00:23.5 John Dues: It's good to be back, Andrew. Yeah, so it's been a minute, but two episodes ago we just kind of refreshed. We discussed how helpful it is to make sure we see the system in which we work whenever we're starting an improvement project. And then in this last episode, we took the sort of next step and we started working towards defining a specific problem. And like you said, we're going to dive deeper into that topic today. For those that have been following along, you'll remember that we've been walking through this four step improvement model. Step one, set the challenge or direction. Two is grasp the current condition. Three is establish your target condition, and four, experiment to overcome obstacles. And then again, we've said repeatedly, we're doing all of these steps with this team that has three parts.   0:01:18.1 John Dues: The people working in the system, again, for us, that's teachers and students a lot of the time, and then those that have the authority to work on the system, that might be a principal, that might be a teacher depending on the project, maybe it's the superintendent, if it's the whole system. And then this System of Profound Knowledge coach is that third part that's often missing, at least in school improvement. So we have this nice model and this nice graphic. And then what we've also been sort of layering on top of that is this improvement process.   0:01:48.9 John Dues: So in each of these steps in the model, we have a number of steps that we're taking to be able to sort of achieve that. One of the things though, that sort of like a key organizing question in step one in the model is we asked where do we want to be in the long run, right? And so we're thinking through this longer range goal, typically in the timeframe of something like six months to three years. And if we achieve this, it's really going to differentiate us from other schools in our case or maybe businesses or hospitals or whatever it may be. And we've also sort of said that this is a stretch goal and it's at the outset we don't know how to achieve it. It almost seems impossible.   0:02:31.8 John Dues: And so for us, the key thing we're working on at United Schools here in Columbus is that we've have this really high chronic absenteeism rate coming out of the pandemic, and we have a goal to get that down much lower. So right now, about 50% of our kids are chronically absent. And I think I've said this before, we're trying to get that down to closer to something like 5%. So it's a pretty, pretty weighty problem and a pretty, very ambitious goal, I would say.   0:03:04.3 Andrew Stotz: Yep.   0:03:06.7 John Dues: So last time, what we said was, at this stage in the process, we've stepped back, we looked at some tools that help us see the system, and now we're doing that same thing for defining the problem. And we talked about there's some really useful questions to ask at this stage. The first one that we talked about as a group is how is the project being funneled from a general to more specific problem? We start with this sort of broad problem about chronic absenteeism, and we're trying to narrow the specific problem that we're going to work on. And then once we have that narrower view, we'll get all the way down and answer the question, what is the precise problem statement? And that's kind of our focus for today.   0:03:57.8 John Dues: Now, we won't get to the precise problem statement today, but we're trying to figure out the things that we need to do to get there. So last episode, I reviewed a tool we use at this step in the process called a Problem Statement Readiness Check. So we wrote this problem focus area, and this is really important. I've repeated this like, we use these tools because it helps us organize the group's thoughts and put it into writing. And that's really, really powerful. So we wrote this problem focus area, this sort of broader sort of characterization of the problem as we see it.   0:04:34.4 John Dues: And then we just listed out, what have we learned so far? What insights have we gained? And then we also listed a number of questions that still needed to be answered. And then we basically, as a group, we have this improvement team that meets weekly on Friday mornings. Then we filtered all that learning through six questions. First question is, has our team investigated multiple perspectives on the problem focus area? And actually, in the document, we write our evidence, and then we say, do we feel like the evidence is weighty enough that we've met the standard of that question, yes or no? So that particular question, we check no.   0:05:20.6 John Dues: The second question was, have you challenged assumptions our team held about why the problem occurs? And again, we've done some of that, but we were like, overall I don't think we've challenged enough of those assumptions. So we checked no for that question as well. And then we said, have you gained useful insight into why previous efforts haven't been successful? And we said no to that one.   0:05:45.7 John Dues: And the last two questions were, has your team gained sufficient insight into student needs to give you confidence that you know which kinds of improvements will lead to improved student experiences outcomes? Said no to that one. And then the last question was, have you identified existing school based practices or processes connected to the problem that might be improved? And for that one we said yes. And so again, there's no right or wrong answers here. But by having these six questions, a key sort of step at this point is down at the bottom it says, if the team checks three or more boxes, we'll move on to draft the problem statement, that precise problem statement. And if the team hasn't checked at least three yeses, then we're not going to do that. We sort of feel like if we haven't answered at least half of those questions to our satisfaction, then there's probably some more learning that needs to happen. So in this case, this is... Oh, sorry, go ahead.   0:06:42.5 Andrew Stotz: I wanted to ask because I know sometimes people probably would sit in something like this and they're like, come on, why do we have to go through all this? We know what the problem is, let's go, let's solve it now. What is the risk if you skip this type of stuff?   0:07:00.4 John Dues: Well, and that's... Interestingly, this group is mainly made up of a couple principals, a couple deans on the dean of student side or we have these dean of family and community engagements that are really involved with families especially that have attendance issues. There's a couple people that are sort of like attendance officers and then there's a couple sort of systems leaders, myself and another guy. And in this group, you don't actually have a lot of that. Where you get a lot of that type of thing is when you have the CEO or the superintendent in the room and there's a lot of urgency and pressure on those folks coming from different constituencies. But the problem is if you don't sort of slow down and study it and do that thoroughly, then what happens is you move forward. The solutions are miss, sort of, aligned to the problem and you end up wasting resources, time, money, whatever.   0:07:57.9 Andrew Stotz: And I guess you lose credibility too, that you go back and say, okay, now we're going to do our next thing. Well, we didn't really really succeed with our last one.   0:08:07.6 John Dues: Yeah. And in education, especially urban education, but in education generally, the average urban superintendent is at the helm for about three years. And so what happens is that they then turn over and there's a whole nother set of initiatives that the new person brings. And we call this initiative fatigue, where you constantly have these initiatives. Most of the people on the front line know these things aren't going to work from the outset because it's not the real problems that they're seeing in their classrooms and they sort of have to go along to get along type of deal. But over time, you just sort of wear people out and then they stop really trying that improvement. But with this team, what we're doing, we have the people that are on the ground sort of dealing with these attendance issues day to day, and they're a part of building the solution. So they have a lot of investment, I think, in developing the solution on the front end.   0:09:02.6 Andrew Stotz: A little corollary to that is the idea of family businesses versus public companies. In family businesses in Asia and particularly, which I'm familiar with, they have an amazing ability to have continuity in senior leadership in the values and that type of thing that you see is very hard to have in public company unless they're run by the founder and the founders... And it's... And the founder's been running it for 20 years or whatever.   0:09:29.5 John Dues: Yeah.   0:09:29.9 Andrew Stotz: In fact, I see in my own coffee business that just the fact that my business partner, the founder, has been running it for 30 years brings something that our competitors don't have.   0:09:40.3 John Dues: Yep, absolutely. And stability that... Sorry. Sorry, go ahead.   0:09:44.8 Andrew Stotz: No, I mean, and that can become a competitive advantage. And so I was just curious too about public versus private schools. I'm assuming that private schools in America have more ability to have the continuity of leadership or is that not the case?   0:10:03.9 John Dues: Well, I don't know. I mean, I wouldn't have the data to say, one way or the other. I would suspect that in a private setting there may be more leadership stability. I mean, the other thing that you're having to deal with in a public school system, most public school systems, traditional public school systems especially, is there's a publicly elected board that those five or seven people are who the superintendent reports to and those people they turn over as elections occur on a staggered basis. And so, yeah, I mean, getting that continuity is really, really tough. And so I think finding especially of larger districts, especially of urban districts, finding that continuity of leadership, especially at the superintendent level, is very difficult for those reasons.   0:10:58.4 Andrew Stotz: So I'm going to stop and talk for just a second about that because one of the lessons I've learned in business and in life is that when you identify that everybody's doing this thing and they're all kind of bound by this and they're stuck in this situation, that is your opportunity to differentiate.   0:11:12.8 John Dues: Yeah.   0:11:13.3 Andrew Stotz: Once you identify that point, everything you can do, knowing they're tangled up in this problem, in this mess that they cannot break free from unless they have a huge amount of political will or force of will, then you know that if you could do something differently, you would be able to differentiate your school, your business, your social enterprise or whatever it is. So it's a great little trigger to something I'm always looking for in business.   0:11:40.4 John Dues: Yeah, no, absolutely, absolutely. That continuity of leadership is a key differentiator if you can have stable leadership. No doubt. It's hard to get anything done if you don't, especially in a complex system. But in this particular case, as you would imagine, if five of the six answers to those questions were no, we didn't do enough study yet or we don't have enough understanding yet then the team obviously concluded that we didn't have enough information to write a precise problem statement. And this is where I talk to people because we do have this improvement model. And then it's under that is this improvement process. And there are steps, but it's not a recipe.   0:12:19.1 John Dues: So you can't just go from step one to two to three to four and four to five. And some people sort of get that and some people don't like that messier process. And this is sort of where the art comes in. But one of the key tools in this case that we're using, and we've talked about it before, is we don't have enough information. Typically, we start running experiments later in the process, PDSA cycles, Plan, Do Study, Act cycles. When we have a set of solutions, we want to start testing them. But there's other times you can use PDSA. I actually recommend doing this pretty early in the process when you need to gather more information or run a mini experiment. That's the perfect time, no matter what step it is, to run a PDSA cycle and start to gather that information, because otherwise, with this process, it can become a little disconnected. You can talk about things forever.   0:13:15.4 John Dues: And so you do wanna think, you do wanna slow down, you wanna be deliberate, but you also wanna run some tests right away and start small and start to learn some things that will later on inform the full set of interventions you're going to try or the full set of solutions you're going to try. So that's what we did in this particular case where we didn't feel like we had enough information to write the problem statement, we said, let's stop and let's run a PDSA cycle. So I'll just kind of walk through the objective of this first cycle. So we ran this right before break.   0:13:51.9 John Dues: So we ran it for 20 days right before our winter break, so sort of like the second half of December. And so the objective of this particular PDSA and this is sort of will take us to the end of this episode is, we already know that there's this high percentage of students that have significant attendance challenges. We know that average daily attendance across our four campuses is somewhere between 85 and 88%, and chronic absenteeism is somewhere in the low 40% range. So that's information we've started to gather. We know all that. We know there's this problem. But while the attendance team, they have some definite thoughts on what's causing so many students to miss so much school, things we've talked about, transportation, health, family instability. But we really wanted to test those assumptions early on through this structured format, this structured PDSA cycle.   0:14:56.4 John Dues: And so what we did... And again, especially at the start, if it's the first cycle in a project, you want to have a pretty narrow focus. So with this PDSA cycle, what we're going to do is... Or what we did was we picked one student. Sounds kind of crazy. You got all these students you need to help. But we picked one student at each campus. And so we have this improvement team that has people from each campus. And we said, what's a student that you'd want to dig into and learn some more about that's having attendance issues? And there's no shortage of students to pick. But what we settled on was the kind of the frame was, here are four students that are having attendance issues. And we've had trouble really figuring out what the cause is.   0:15:43.5 John Dues: So if we're going to focus on just one student on our campus, let's pick one where we've had some struggles to find additional information. So what we did was, pick those four students, and then we started tracking their attendance very closely over those three weeks of the PDSA cycle. And we came up with a system to categorize every single absence event. And it was a sort of predetermined list, like a validated list, so that it was kind of a balance between having simply qualitative perceptions of why kids are absent and we didn't want to just have like five reasons either that they need some more detail. You actually don't know enough if you just put transportation.   0:16:30.7 John Dues: So we ended up with about a list of about 20 or so, and that kind of got adjusted at the start of the cycle. And then what we did was, we sat down and talked with those students and their families, every one of those four. So the team, the school based team, there was a point person or two that sat down and kind of dug into the attendance challenges with the students and their parents and started categorizing and adding context to the various absences that had happened up to that point in the year. And then also across those three weeks, right?   0:17:07.1 John Dues: And then a key part of this is, so we kind of outline that as an objective. And then we said, okay, while this isn't like a really intense attendance intervention, it is an intervention to sit down and talk with people and try to categorize and problem solve a little bit about what the problems are and how might the parent get the kid to school over those next three weeks.   0:17:31.0 John Dues: So at this point, one of the things that we did, and this is where we'll pick back up next week or the next time we talk with the plan is, we had our team members predict, what do you think is gonna happen when we sit down and have these conversations? And do you think the conversations in and of themselves are gonna impact the students attendance rates? And I think that's a good place to pick up in our next conversation. It was pretty fascinating, the first experiment, actually. So I think listeners will get a lot out of hearing those results in our next session.   0:18:10.8 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, it's exciting as we've gone through this, thinking about how we can apply all this into, I've been taking tons of notes from our discussions on this, and I know the other listeners and viewers are to try to think about how do we adjust our own way of even thinking about improvement. And I know from my perspective, I think I would argue that my discussions with you have helped me to slow down in my improvement process.   0:18:40.7 John Dues: Yeah, I think that's often... I mean, because there's so much urgency to... And whatever our business area is, urgency to get it right, urgency to change, urgency to improve. But like what I see in schools, schools have an attendance problem. And I'm sure there's some schools that do a really good job on this front. But a lot of schools, what they're going to do is they're going to have some type of attendance incentive. We're going to have pizza party Fridays if you came all week. Might that have some short term impact? Maybe. But you're not solving the actual problems that are leading to the attendance challenges in the first place. So...   0:19:20.7 Andrew Stotz: In my online Valuation Masterclass Bootcamp, one of the big improvements that I've worked on is I've realized that I don't think we've defined the assignments as well as we could. And so I'm looking at the outcome and I'm thinking, the outcome isn't what I want. I want it better. And then I realize I've got to go back. And all of a sudden, two bootcamps ago, it made me realize I need to actually physically separate the lecture on the assignment.   0:19:54.5 Andrew Stotz: And so I've now, for every week of the six weeks on Mondays, I release a video and I say, this is your assignment and here's all the questions you're going to have. But more importantly, what I always do is I say, this is what it should look like. This is from the prior best example from last class. And all I ask of you is to try to beat this.   0:20:21.3 John Dues: That's great. Yeah.   0:20:22.5 Andrew Stotz: And then students are inspired and they're seeing, you could say, well, you just giving them the... You're giving them the result, okay, so my students are doing studies on industry in particular, what I'm talking about like the automotive industry. So they may see a prior students that just got an A plus, they were great. I don't give grades in the bootcamp, but let's say it's A plus work. Great. I'm happy to show them that and let them see that and say, now I want to challenge you to do better.   0:20:49.3 Andrew Stotz: And I think that is another addition. And I'm finding we're getting a lot less questions. The only questions we're getting from the people that haven't watched that video, if they haven't watched the assignment video, then they have all these questions. But also what's fascinating is that what we're seeing is a much improved outcome. And all of a sudden, as a teacher, on our feedback Fridays, when the students are presenting their work of the week, I'm spending a lot less time going, wait a minute, you got a grammar mistake in there or you got this or that or all that stuff's gone and now I'm focusing on the quality of their logic and their argument and that type of thing, which is exactly what I want to be doing. So just the idea of constantly improving is just so exciting.   0:21:35.2 John Dues: Yeah, I think... And I think a lot of people on our team have this natural inclination to sit down... Want to sit down with families, spend time with them and problem solve some of these issues. But when you zoom out and look at the problem and how big it is, you don't know where to start. So this gave people a place. One student, like, have one longer... I know we can't do this probably with all our kids across the entire school, but let's do this with one student and see what we learn and then use that learning to build the next cycle. And that's really what this is about, is that the power of the PDSA at any point in the improvement process, whether it's testing intervention or in a scenario like this where you need to get more information before you go on to the next step. I think PDSA can be used at any time of an improvement project.   0:22:27.9 Andrew Stotz: Wonderful. Well, John, on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute, I wanna thank you again for this discussion and for listeners. Remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. You can find John's book, Win Win: W. Edwards Deming, the System of Profound Knowledge and the Science of Improving Schools on Amazon.com and this is your host, Andrew Stotz. And I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming. People are entitled to joy in work.

Join host Andrew Stotz for a lively conversation with Cliff Norman and Dave Williams, two of the authors of "Quality as an Organizational Strategy." They share stories of Dr. Deming, insights from working with businesses over the years, and the five activities the book is based on. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.2 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we dive deeper into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, we have a fantastic opportunity to learn more about a recent book that's been published called "Quality as an Organizational Strategy". And I'd like to welcome Cliff Norman and Dave Williams on the show, two of the three authors. Welcome, guys.   0:00:27.1 Cliff Norman: Thank you. Glad to be here.   0:00:29.4 Dave Williams: Yeah, thanks for having us.   0:00:31.9 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, I've been looking forward to this for a while. I was on LinkedIn originally, and somebody posted it. I don't remember who, the book came out. And I immediately ordered it because I thought to myself, wait, wait, wait a minute. This plugs a gap. And I just wanna start off by going back to Dr. Deming's first Point, which was create constancy of purpose towards improvement of product and service with the aim to become competitive and stay in business and to provide jobs. And all along, as anybody that learned the 14 Points, they knew that this was the concept of the strategy is to continue to improve the product and service in the eyes of the client and in your business. But there was a lot missing. And I felt like your book has started really to fill that gap. So maybe I'll ask Cliff, if you could just explain kind of where does this book come from and why are you bringing it out now?   0:01:34.5 Cliff Norman: That's a really good question, Andrew. The book was originally for the use of both our clients only. So it came into being, the ideas came out of the Deming four day seminar where Dr. Tom Nolan, Ron Moen and Lloyd Provost, Jerry Langley would be working with Dr. Deming. And then at the end of four days, the people who some of who are our clients would come up to us and said, he gave us the theory, but we don't have any methods. And so they took it very seriously and took Dr. Deming's idea of production viewed as a system. And from that, they developed the methods that we're going to discuss called the five activities. And all of our work with this was completely behind the wall of our clients. We didn't advertise. So the only people who became clients were people who would seek us out. So this has been behind the stage since about 1990. And the reason to bring it out now is to make it available beyond our client base. And Dave, I want you to go ahead and add to that because you're the ones that insisted that this get done. So add to that if you would.   [laughter]   0:02:53.0 Dave Williams: Well, thanks, Cliff. Actually, I often joke at Cliff. So one thing to know, Cliff and Lloyd and I all had a home base of Austin, Texas. And I met them about 15 years ago when I was in my own journey of, I had been a chief quality officer of an ambulance system and was interested in much of the work that API, Associates of Process Improvement, had been doing with folks in the healthcare sector. And I reached out to Cliff and Lloyd because they were in Austin and they were kind enough, as they have been over many years, to welcome me to have coffee and talk about what I was trying to learn and where my interests were and to learn from their work. And over the last 15 years, I've had a great benefit of learning from the experience and methods that API has been using with organizations around the world, built on the shoulders of the theories from Dr. Deming. And one of those that was in the Improvement Guide, one of the foundational texts that we use a lot in improvement project work that API wrote was, if you go into the back, there is a chapter, and Cliff, correct me if I'm wrong, I think it's chapter 13 in this current edition on creating value.   0:04:34.3 Dave Williams: In there, there was some description of kind of a structure or a system of activities that would be used to pursue qualities and organizational strategy. I later learned that this was built on a guide that was used that had been sort of semi self-published to be able to use with clients. And the more that I dove into it, the more that I really valued the way in which it had been framed, but also how, as you mentioned at the start, it provided methods in a place where I felt like there was a gap in what I saw in organizations that I was working with or that I had been involved in. And so back in 2020, when things were shut down initially during the beginning of the pandemic, I approached Lloyd and Cliff and I said, I'd love to help in any way that I can to try to bring this work forward and modernize it. And I say modernize it, not necessarily in terms of changing it, but updating the material from its last update into today's context and examples and make it available for folks through traditional bookstores and other venues.   0:05:58.9 Andrew Stotz: And I have that The Improvement Guide, which is also a very impressive book that helps us to think about how are we improving. And as you said, the, that chapter that you were talking about, 13, I believe it was, yeah, making the improvement of value a business strategy and talking about that. So, Cliff, could you just go back in time for those people that don't know you in the Deming world, I'm sure most people do, but for those people that don't know, maybe you could just talk about your first interactions with Dr. Deming and the teachings of that and what sparked your interest and also what made you think, okay, I wanna keep expanding on this.   0:06:40.0 Cliff Norman: Yeah. So I was raised in Southern California and of course, like many others, I'm rather horrified by what's going on out there right now with fires. That's an area I was raised in. And so I moved to Texas in '79, went to work for Halliburton. And they had an NBC White Paper called, "If Japan Can, Why Can't We?", and our CEO, Mr. Purvis Thrash, he saw that. And I was working in the quality area at that time. And he asked me to go to one of Deming's seminars that was held in Crystal City, actually February of 1982. And I got down there early and got a place up front. And they sent along with me an RD manager to keep an eye on me, 'cause I was newly from California into Texas. And so anyway, we're both sitting there. And so I forgot something. So I ran up stairs in the Sheraton Crystal City Hotel there. And I was coming down and lo and behold, next floor down, Dr. Deming gets on and two ladies are holding him up. And they get in the elevator there and he sees this George Washington University badge and he kind of comes over, even while the elevator was going down and picks it up and looks it up real close to his face. And then he just backs up and leans, holds onto the railing and he says, Mr. Norman, what I'm getting ready to tell you today will haunt you for the rest of your life.   0:08:11.8 Cliff Norman: And that came true. And of course, I was 29 at the time and was a certified quality engineer and knew all things about the science of quality. And I couldn't imagine what he would tell me that would haunt me for the rest of my life, but it did. And then the next thing he told me, he said, as young as you are, if you're not learning from somebody that you're working for, you ought to think about getting a new boss. And that's some of the best advice I've ever gotten. I mean, the hanging around smart people is a great thing to do. And I've been gifted with that with API. And so that's how I met him. And then, of course, when I joined API, I ended up going to several seminars to support Lloyd Provost and Tom Nolan and Ron Moen and Jerry as the various seminars were given. And Ron Moen, who unfortunately passed away about three years ago, he did 88 of those four day seminars, and he was just like a walking encyclopedia for me. So anytime I had questions on Deming, I could just, he's a phone call away, and I truly miss that right now.   0:09:20.5 Cliff Norman: So when Dave has questions or where this reference come from or whatever, and I got to go do a lot of work, where Ron, he could just recall that for me. So I miss that desperately, but we were busy at that time, by the time I joined API was in '88. And right away, I was introduced to what they had drafted out in terms of the five activities, which is the foundation of the book, along with understanding the science of improvement and the chain reaction that Dr. Deming introduced us to. So the science of improvement is what Dr. Deming called the System of Profound Knowledge. So I was already introduced to all that and was applying that within Halliburton. But QBS, as we called it then, Qualities of Business Strategy was brand new. I mean, it was hot off the press. And right away, I took it and started working with my clients with it. And we were literally walking on the bridge as we were building it. And the lady I'm married to right now, Jane Norman, she was working at Conagra, which is like a $15 billion poultry company that's part of Conagra overall, which is most of the food in your grocery store, about 75% of it. And she did one of the first system linkages that we ever did.   0:10:44.5 Cliff Norman: And since then, she's worked at like four other companies as a VP or COO, and has always applied these ideas. And so a lot of this in the book examples and so forth, comes from her actual application work. And when we'd worked together, she had often introduced me, this is my husband, Cliff, he and his partners, they write books, but some of us actually have to go to work. And then eventually she wrote a book with me with Dr. Maccabee, who is also very closely associated with Dr. Deming. So now she's a co-author. So I was hoping that would stop that, but again, we depend on her for a lot of the examples and contributions and the rest of it that show up in the book. So I hope that answers your question.   0:11:28.2 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, and for people like myself and some of our listeners who have heard Dr. Deming speak and really gotten into his teachings, it makes sense, this is going to haunt you because I always say that, what I read originally... I was 24 when I went to my first Deming seminar. And I went to two two-day seminars and it... My brain was open, I was ready, I didn't have anything really in it about, any fixed methods or anything. So, for me, it just blew my mind, some of the things that he was talking about, like thinking about things in a system I didn't think about that I thought that the way we got to do is narrow things down and get this really tight focus and many other things that I heard. And also as a young, young guy, I was in this room with, I don't know, 500 older gentlemen and ladies, and I sat in the front row and so I would see him kind of call them on the carpet and I would be looking back like, oh, wow, I never saw anybody talk to senior management like that and I was kind of surprised. But for those people that really haven't had any of that experience they're new to Deming, what is it that haunts you? What is... Can you describe what he meant when he was saying that?   0:12:42.9 Cliff Norman: I gotta just add to what you just said because it's such a profound experience. And when you're 29, if most of us, we think we're pretty good shape by that time, the brain's fully developed by age 25, judgment being the last function that develops. And so you're pretty well on your way and then to walk in and have somebody who's 81 years old, start introducing you to things you've never even thought about. The idea of the Chain Reaction that what I was taught as a certified quality engineer through ASQ is I need to do enough inspection, but I didn't need to do too much 'cause I didn't want to raise costs too much. And Dr. Deming brought me up on stage and he said, well, show me that card again. So I had a 105D card, it's up to G now or something. And he said, "well, how does this work?" And I said, "well, it tells me how many samples I got to get." And he says, "you know who invented that." And I said, "no, sir, I thought God did." He said, "no, I know the people that did it. They did it to put people like you out of business. Sit down, young man, you've got a lot to learn." And I thought, wow, and here you are in front of 500 people and this is a public flogging by any stretch.   0:13:56.1 Cliff Norman: And it just went on from there. And so a few years later, I'm up in Valley Forge and I'm working at a class with Lloyd and Tom Nolan and a guy named, I never met before named Jim Imboden. And he's just knock-down brilliant, but they're all working at General Motors at that time. And a lot of the book "Planned Experimentation" came out of their work at Ford and GM and Pontiac and the rest of it. And I mean, it's just an amazing contribution, but I go to dinner with Jim that night. And Jim looks at me across the table and he says, Cliff, how did you feel the day you found out you didn't know anything about business economics or anything else? I said, "you mean the first day of the Deming seminar?" He said, "that's what I'm talking about." And that just... That's how profound that experience is. Because all of a sudden you find out you can improve quality and lower costs at the same time. I'm sorry, most people weren't taught that. They certainly weren't taught that in business school. And so it was a whole transformation in thinking and just the idea of a system. Most of what's going on in the system is related to the system and the way it's constructed. And unfortunately, for most organizations, it's hidden.   0:15:04.2 Cliff Norman: They don't even see it. So when things happen, the first thing that happens is the blame flame. I had a VP I worked for and he'd pulled out his org chart when something went bad and he'd circle. He said, this is old Earl's bailiwick right here. So Cliff, go over and see Earl and I want you to straighten him out. Well, that's how most of it runs. And so the blame flame just takes off. And if you pull the systems map out there and if he had to circle where it showed up, he'd see there were a lot of friends around that that were contributing. And we start to understand the complexity of the issue. But without that view, and Deming insisted on, then you're back to the blame flame.   0:15:45.1 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. And Dave, I see a lot of books on the back on your shelf there about quality and productivity and team and many different things. But maybe you could give us a little background on kind of how how you, besides how you got onto this project and all that. But just where did you come from originally and how did you stumble into the Deming world?   0:16:08.9 Dave Williams: Sure. Well, sadly, I didn't have the pleasure of getting to sit in on a four-day workshop. Deming died in 1993. And at that time, I was working on an ambulance as a street paramedic and going to college to study ambulance system design and how to manage ambulance systems, which was a part of public safety that had sort of grown, especially in the United States in the '60s. And by the time I was joining, it was about 30 years into becoming more of a formalized profession. And I found my way to Austin, Texas, trying to find one of the more professionalized systems to work in and was, worked here as a paramedic for a few years. And then decided I wanted to learn more and started a graduate program. And one of the courses that was taught in the graduate program, this is a graduate program on ambulance management, was on quality. And it was taught by a gentleman who had written a, a guide for ambulance leaders in the United States that was based on the principles and methods of quality that was happening at this time. And it pieced together a number of different common tools and methods like Pareto charts and cause-and-effect diagrams and things like that.   0:17:33.1 Dave Williams: And it mentioned the different leaders like Deming and Juran and Crosby and others. And so that was my first exposure to many of these ideas. And because I was studying a particular type of healthcare delivery system and I was a person who was practicing within it and I was learning about these ideas that the way that you improve a system or make improvement is by changing the system. I was really intrigued and it just worked out at the time. One of the first roles, leadership roles that emerged in my organization was to be the Chief Quality Officer for the organization. And at the time, there were 20 applicants within my organization, but I was the only one that knew anything about any of the foundations of quality improvements. Everybody else applied and showed their understanding of quality from a lived experience perspective or what their own personal definitions of quality were, which was mostly around inspection and quality assurance. I had, and this won't surprise Cliff, but I had a nerdy response that was loaded with references and came from all these different things that I had been exposed to. And they took a chance on me because I was the only one that seemed to have some sense of the background. And I started working and doing...   0:19:10.1 Dave Williams: Improvement within this ambulance system as the kind of the dedicated leader who was supposed to make these changes. And I think one of the things that I learned really quickly is that frequently how improvement efforts were brought to my attention was because there was a problem that I, had been identified, a failure or an error usually attributed to an individual as Cliff pointed out, somebody did something and they were the unfortunate person who happened to kind of raise this issue to others. And if I investigated it all, I often found that there were 20 other people that made the same error, but he was, he or she was the only one that got caught. And so therefore they were called to my office to confess. And when I started to study and look at these different issues, every time I looked at something even though I might be able to attribute the, first instance to a person, I found 20 or more instances where the system would've allowed or did allow somebody else to make a similar error.   0:20:12.6 Dave Williams: We just didn't find it. And it got... And it became somewhat fascinating to me because my colleagues were very much from a, if you work hard and just do your job and just follow the policy then good quality will occur. And nobody seemed to spend any time trying to figure out how to create systems that produce good results or figure out how to look at a system and change it and get better results. And so most of my experience was coming from these, when something bubbled up, I would then get it, and then I'd use some systems thinking and some methods and all of a sudden unpack that there was a lot of variation going on and a lot of errors that could happen, and that the system was built to get results worse than we even knew.   0:21:00.7 Dave Williams: And it was through that journey that I ended up actually becoming involved with the Institute for Healthcare Improvement and learning about what was being done in the healthcare sector, which API at the time were the key advisors to Dr. Don Berwick and the leadership at IHI. And so much of the methodology was there. And actually, that's how I found my way to Cliff. I happened to be at a conference for the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, and there was an advertisement for a program called the Improvement Advisor Professional Development Program, which was an improvement like practitioner project level program that had been developed by API that had been adapted to IHI, and I noticed that Cliff and Lloyd were the faculty, and that they were in my hometown. And that's how I reached out to them and said, hey can we have coffee? And Cliff said, yes. And so...   0:21:53.1 Andrew Stotz: And what was that, what year was that roughly?   0:22:00.3 Dave Williams: That would've been back in 2002 or 2003, somewhere in that vicinity.   0:22:02.0 Andrew Stotz: Hmm. Okay.   0:22:06.8 Dave Williams: Maybe a little bit later.   0:22:06.9 Andrew Stotz: I just for those people that are new to the topic and listening in I always give an example. When I worked at Pepsi... I graduated in 1989 from university with a degree in finance. And I went to work at Pepsi in manufacturing and warehouse in Los Angeles at the Torrance Factory originally, and then in Buena Park. But I remember that my boss told me, he saw that I could work computers at that time, and so I was making charts and graphs just for fun to look at stuff. And he said, yeah, you should go to a one of these Deming seminars. And so he sent me to the one in... At George Washington University back in 1990, I think it was. And but what was happening is we had about a hundred trucks we wanted to get out through a particular gate that we had every single morning. And the longer it took to get those trucks out the longer they're gonna be on LA traffic and on LA roads, so if we can get 'em out at 5:00 AM, fantastic. If we get 'em out at 7:00, we're in trouble. And so they asked me to look at this and I did a lot of studying of it and I was coming for like 4:00 in the morning I'd go up to the roof of the building and I'd look down and watch what was happening. And then finally I'd interview everybody. And then finally the truck drivers just said, look, the loaders mess it up so I gotta open my truck every morning and count everything on it. And I thought, oh, okay.   0:23:23.7 Andrew Stotz: So I'll go to the loaders. And I go, why are you guys messing this up? And then the loaders was like, I didn't mess it up. We didn't have the production run because the production people changed the schedule, and so we didn't have what the guy needed. And so, and oh, yeah, there was a mistake because the production people put the product in the wrong spot, and therefore, I got confused and I put the wrong stuff on by accident. And then I went to the production people and they said, well, no, it's not us. It's the salespeople. They keep putting all this pressure on us to put this through right now, and it's messing up our whole system. And that was the first time in my life where I realized, okay, it's a system. There's interconnected parts here that are interacting, and I had to go back into the system to fix, but the end result was I was able to get a hundred trucks through this gate in about 45 minutes instead of two hours, what we had done before.   0:24:18.8 Andrew Stotz: But it required a huge amount of work of going back and looking at the whole system. So the idea of looking at the science of improvement, as you mentioned, and the System of Profound Knowledge, it's... There's a whole process. Now, I wanna ask the question for the person who gets this book and they dig into it, it's not a small book. I've written some books, but all of 'em are small because I'm just, maybe I just can't get to this point. But this book is a big book, and it's got about 300... More than 300 pages. What's the promise? What are they gonna get from digging into this book? What are they gonna take away? What are they gonna be able to bring to their life and their business that they couldn't have done without really going deeper into this material?   0:24:57.7 Cliff Norman: Dave, go ahead.   0:25:01.4 Dave Williams: Well, I was gonna joke by saying they're gonna get hard work and only half because this is just the theory in the book and many of the... And sort of examples of the method. But we're in the process of preparing a field guide which is a much deeper companion guide loaded with exercises and examples of and more of the methods. So the original guide that that API had developed was actually about an eight... Well, I don't know how many pages it was, but it was a thick three inch binder. This, what you have there is us refining the content part that explains the theory and kind of gets you going. And then we moved all of the exercises and things to the field guide for people that really wanna get serious about it.   0:26:00.3 Dave Williams: And the reason I say hard work is that the one thing that you won't get, and you should probably pass it if this book if you're on Amazon, is you're not gonna get an easy answer. This is, as a matter of fact, one of the things that emerged in our early conversations about was this project worth it? Is to say that this is hard work. It's work that a very few number of leaders who or leadership teams that really want to learn and work hard and get results are gonna embark on. But for those, and many of our clients, I think are representative of that, of those people that say, gosh, I've been working really hard, and I feel like we could do better. I feel like I could make a bigger impact, or I could serve more customers or clients.   0:26:44.0 Dave Williams: And but I am... And I'm in intrigued or inspired or gotten to a certain point with improvement science on my own, but I want to figure out how to be more systematic and more global and holistic at that approach. Then that's what QOS is about. It builds on the shoulders of the other books that you mentioned, like The Improvement Guide which we talked about as being a great book about improvement, and improvement specifically in the context of a project. And other books like The Healthcare Data Guide and the Planned Experimentation, which are also about methods, healthcare Data Guide being about Shewhart charts, and Planned Experimentation being about factorial design. This book is about taking what Cliff described earlier as that... I always say it's that that diagram that people put on a slide and never talk about from Deming of production views as a system and saying, well, how would we do this if this is the model for adopting quality as strategy, what are the methods that help us to do this?   0:28:01.3 Dave Williams: And this book breaks that down into five activities that are built on the shoulders of profound knowledge, built on the shoulders of the science of improvement and provide a structure to be able to initially develop a system, a systems view of your organization, and then build on that by using that system to continually operate and improve that organization over time. So the book describes the activities. The book describes some of the things that go into getting started, including being becoming good at doing results-driven improvement, building a learning system, focusing in on the things that matter to your organization. And then working towards building the structure that you can improve upon. The book creates that foundation. It provides examples from clients and from people that we've worked with so that you can see what the theory looks like in practice get, kind of get a flavor for that. And we hope it builds on the shoulders of other work that I mentioned in the other books that compliment it and provides a starting point for teams that are interested in taking that journey.   0:29:26.5 Andrew Stotz: And Cliff, from your perspective, if somebody had no, I mean, I think, I think the Deming community's gonna really dive in and they're gonna know a lot of this stuff, but is gonna help them take it to the next level. But for someone who never had any real experience with Deming or anything like that, and they stumble upon this interview, this discussion, they hear about this book, can they get started right away with what's in this book? Or do they have to go back to foundations?   0:29:49.6 Cliff Norman: No, I think that can definitely get started. There's a lot of learning as you know, Andrew, from going through the four-day to understand things. And I think we've done a pretty good job of integrating what Dr. Deming taught us, as well as going with the methods. And one of the things people would tell him in his four-day seminars is, Dr. Deming, you've given us the theory, but we have no method here. And he said, well, if I have to give you the method, then you'll have to send me your check too. So he expected us to be smart enough to develop the methods. And the API folks did a really good job of translating that into what we call the five activities. So those five activities are to understand the purpose of the organization.   0:30:35.6 Cliff Norman: And a lot of people when they write a purpose, they'll put something up there but it's usually we love all our people. We love our customers even more. If only they didn't spend so much, and we'll come out with something like that and there'll be some pablum that they'll throw up on the wall. Well, this actually has some structure to it to get to Deming's ideas. And the first thing is let's try to understand what business we're in and what need we're serving in society that drives customers to us. So that word is used not need coming from customers, but what is it that drives them to us so we can understand that? And then the second part of that purpose needs to define the mainstay, the core processes, the delivery systems that relate directly to customers. And just those two ideas alone, just in the first activity of purpose, most people haven't thought about those ideas.   0:31:27.8 Cliff Norman: And can somebody pick up this book and do that? Yes. And that will answer a big challenge from Dr. Deming. Most people don't even know what business they're in, haven't even thought about it. And so that we... That question gets answered here, I think, very thoroughly. In this second activity, which is viewing the organization as a system contains two components that's viewing the organization as a system. And that's difficult to do, and a lot of people really don't see the need for it. Jane Norman reminded Dave and I on a call we did last week, that when you talk about a systems map with people, just ask 'em how do they know what's going on inside other organizations, other departments within their organization? How do they know that? And most of us are so siloed.   0:32:11.2 Cliff Norman: Somebody over here is doing the best job they can in department X, and meanwhile, department Y doesn't know anything about it. And then three months later the improvement shows up and all of a sudden there's problems now in department Y. Well, somebody who's focused on the organization as a system and sees how those processes are related when somebody comes to a management meeting said, well, we've just made a change here, and this is gonna show up over here in about three months, and you need to be prepared for that. Andrew, that conversation never takes place. So the idea of having the systems map and this book can help you get started on that. The second book that Dave was just talking about, there are more replete examples in there. I mean, we've got six case studies from clients in there than the practitioners and people who actually are gonna be doing this work.   0:33:01.7 Cliff Norman: That's gonna be absolutely... They're gonna need that field guide. And I think that's where Dave was coming from. The third activity is the information activity, how are we learning from outside the organization and how do we get feedback and research into the development of new products and services and the rest of it? And so we provided a system there. In fact, Dave took a lead on that chapter, and we've got several inputs there that have to be defined. And people just thinking through that and understanding that is huge. When Dr. Deming went to Japan in 1950, he was there to do the census to see how many Japanese were left after World War II. And then he got an invitation to come and talk to the top 50 industrialists. And he started asking questions and people from the Bank of Tokyo over there and all the rest of it.   0:33:52.4 Cliff Norman: And Dr. Deming says, well, do you have any problems? And they said, what do you mean? He says, well, do customers call up and complain? And he said, yes. And he says, well, do you have any data? And he said, no. He says, but if they complain, we give them a Geisha calendar. And then Dr. Deming says, well, how many Geisha calendars have you given out? So it's like, in 1991, I'm sitting here talking to a food company and I asked him, I said, well, you get customer complaints? Oh yeah. Do you have any data on it? No, but we give 'em a cookbook. I said, well, how many cookbooks are you giving out? So I was right back to where Deming was in 1950, so having the information activity, that third activity critical so that we're being proactive with it and not just reactive.   0:34:43.7 Cliff Norman: And so I think people can read through that and say, well, what are we doing right now? Well, I guess we're not doing this and move on. Then the fourth activity is absolutely critical. This is where you know that you've arrived, because now you're going to integrate not only the plan to operate, but a plan to improve. That becomes the business plan. For most people in business plan they do a strategy, and then they have a bunch of sub strategies, and they vote on what's important, and they do some other things, and then a year later they come back and revisit it. Well, what happens here is there's some strategic objectives that are laid out, and then immediately it comes down to, okay, what's gonna be designed and redesigned in this system? Which processes, products and services are gonna be designed? 'Cause we can all see it now, Andrew.   0:35:31.6 Andrew Stotz: Mm.   0:35:31.6 Cliff Norman: We can, it's right in front of us. So it's really easy to see at this point, and now we can start to prioritize and make that happen on purpose. As an example when Jane was a vice president at Conagra, they came up with five strategic objectives. Then they made a bunch of promises to corporate about what they were gonna do and when they were going to achieve it. When she laid out the systems map for them, they were horrified that over 30% of the processes that they needed to be having precooked meat didn't even exist. They were gonna have to be designed. And so Jane and I sat there and looking at 'em and said, well, if you'd had this map before you made the promises, would you have made those promises? No, no, we're in trouble right now. I gotta go back to the CEO of the holding company and tell 'em we're not gonna make it.   0:36:22.4 Cliff Norman: But there's a whole bunch of people that sit around in goal settings. We're gonna do this by when and have no idea about what they're talking about. So that's a little bit dangerous here. And then the fifth activity, it's probably the most important. And where I want people to start, I actually want 'em to start on the fifth activity, which is managing individual improvement activities, team activities. And what I mean by that is, nothing can hold you up from starting today on making an improvement and use the model for improvement. The three basic questions, you can write that on an envelope and apply it to a project and start right away. Because learning the habit of improvement, and when you identify, and this is typical in the planning process, again, a chapter that Dave took a lead on in the planning chapter.   0:37:03.8 Cliff Norman: When you lay that out, you're gonna come up with three to five strategic objectives, but that's gonna produce anywhere between 15 and 20 improvement efforts. And when people start three improvement efforts, and they see how difficult that is to traffic through an organization, particularly if you have a systems map, makes it a lot easier. If you don't have that, then there's all sorts of things that happen to you.   0:37:21.3 Andrew Stotz: Hmm.   0:37:22.8 Cliff Norman: But the, the idea of that all coming together is critical. And where you... Where that really shows up for the reader here is in chapter one. So Lloyd Provost took a lead on chapter one. If you read chapter one, you got a pretty good idea of what's gonna happen in the rest of the book. But more importantly, in that book, in chapter one, there's a survey at the end. And every time we give this out to people, they feel real bad.   0:37:48.1 Cliff Norman: And well, Cliff, any, on a scale of one to 10, we only came up with a four. Well, what I would tell 'em is, if you can come up with a four, you're pretty good. And those fundamentals have to be in place. In other words, the management needs to trust each other. There are certain things that have to be in place before you can even think about skating backwards here. And quality as an organizational strategy is all about skating backwards. The people who don't have the fundamentals can't even start to think about that.   0:38:15.0 Cliff Norman: So that survey and the gap between where they are at a four and where they're going to be at a 10, we've integrated throughout the whole book. So as you're reading through the whole book, you're seeing that gap, and then you have a good plan forward as to what do I need to do to get to be a six, an eight, and what do I need to do to finally arrive at a 10? Dave, why don't you add to what I just said there, and I gotta turn on a light here, I think.   0:38:39.2 Dave Williams: Well, I think one of the things that, and Cliff has probably been the one that has helped me appreciate this to the biggest degree is the role in which improvement plays in quality as an organizational strategy. So, I mean, I think in general, in our world, improvement is seen as kind of like a given, but in our case, what we've found is that many times people are not working on the things right in front of them or the problems in which they have, that they are on the hook... I like to say, are on the hook to get accomplished right now. And like Cliff mentioned, many of my clients when I engage with them, I say, well, what have you promised this year? And they'll give me a list and I'll say, well, okay, what are you working on to improve? And they'll be working on projects that are not related to that list of things that they've got to affect. And so usually that's a first pivot is to say, well, let's think about what are the things that you're working on or should be working on that are either designing or redesigning your system to achieve these strategic objectives.   0:39:48.8 Dave Williams: And the reason to put the attention on that fifth activity and get people working on improvement, there's a good chance that the improvement capability within the organization currently isn't to the level that you need it, where you can get results-driven projects happening at a clip that will enable you to chip away at 20 projects versus four in a year. And that it's not well integrated into the leadership, into the support structures that you have. In addition, if you're trying to use improvement on things that you're on the hook for, and Cliff noted, especially if you've got a system map while you're on that journey, you're gonna start to pick up on where the disconnects are. Similar to your example, Andrew, where you were describing your experience working backwards in the process, you're going to start to recognize, oh, I'm working on this, but it's linked to these other things. Or in order for me to do this, I need that. Or... And so that amplifies the project to be kind of just a vehicle to appreciate other things that are interconnected, that are important in improving our work together.   0:41:05.1 Dave Williams: And so I think that that's a critical piece. I mean, I sometimes describe it as the disappointment that people have when they open QOS because they want to have a new method or a new thing to work on. I said, well, there's a lot new in here. And at the same time, we want to build on the shoulders of the fundamentals. We want to build it because it's the fundamentals that are going to be able for you to activate the things that are necessary in order for you to skate backwards, like Cliff was describing earlier.   0:41:36.2 Cliff Norman: I got to add to what Dave was saying because this actually happened to me with a... I'm not going to mention the name of the company, but it's a high-tech companies worldwide. And we got up, a good friend of mine, Bruce Bowles, and we were introducing the idea of quality as an organizational strategy. And one of the guys in the front row, he says, Cliff, this just sounds like common sense, why aren't we all doing this? I said, that's a real good question. Let me put that in the parking lot here. So I put it up on a flip chart. And so we went through the idea of... We were working on Shewhart control charts. And so we showed him one of those. And at the end of all that, he raised his hand and I said, yeah, he says, Cliff, this is hard. I said, well, let me put that up here. This is hard. Then we went through the systems map and he says, look, this is hard. By the end of the two days, it was, this is hard, this is hard, this is hard, this is hard. This goes back to what Dave was saying earlier about once you open this page, there's some work that takes off, but more importantly, there's something new to learn here.   0:42:40.3 Cliff Norman: And that's frustrating to people, especially when they've got to quit doing what they've done in the past. It's what Deming says, you got to give up on the guilt and you got to move forward and transform your own thinking. So there's something here for the management to do. And if they're not willing to do that work, then this is probably not a good thing for them. Just go back to the blame flame and circling org charts and that kind of stuff and then wonder why we're losing money.   0:43:11.8 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, and I think that that's one of the things that we see in the Deming community is that, why are people doing it the way they are, dividing things up and doing KPIs and saying, you take care of that. And we're gonna optimize by focusing on each... We see how that all kind of falls apart.   0:43:27.9 Cliff Norman: It all falls through reductionism.   0:43:29.8 Andrew Stotz: [laughter] Yeah.   0:43:32.5 Cliff Norman: It doesn't understand the system, yeah.   0:43:32.5 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, so what I want to do now is I was just thinking about a book on my shelf called "Competitive Strategy" by Michael Porter. And there's a whole field of study in the area of strategy for businesses. Now you guys use, and you explain a little bit about the way you come up with... Why you come up with organization rather than let's say company as an example. But let's just talk about strategy for a moment. Generally we're taught in business school that there's two main strategies. One is a differentiation strategy. I like to teach my students like Starbucks. It's very differentiated from the old model. And you can have a low cost strategy, which is like McDonald's, where it's all about operational efficiency.   0:44:18.4 Andrew Stotz: And those are two different strategies that can get to the same goal, which is to build a strong and sustainable business that's making a good profit for the employees to get paid well and for shareholders. And so for somebody that understands some of the foundations of typical strategy, it's hard for them to think, wait, wait, wait, what? You're just talking about just better quality is the strategy? How should they frame this concept of quality as a strategy in relation to what we've been taught about low cost and differentiation and other types of strategy? How do we think about this book in relation to that?   0:45:03.2 Cliff Norman: When Deming wrote his book, his very first one of the four "Out of the Crisis", which was the whole idea about quality and competitive position. But he was kind of answering that. And at that time, what we had is we had three companies in the United States that were going at each other, Ford, GM, and Chrysler. And they'd call each other up, well, what are you doing this year? Oh, we're making cars that don't work. Sometimes they break down. That's why we have Mr. Goodwrench to repair them. That's an extra revenue source for us. As one of the executives that are challenged, a colleague of mine, he said, you don't realize how much money we're gonna lose here taking the repair business out because we make a lot of money out of repair. So making cars that don't work has been a good revenue stream for us. Well, all that works out great, until somebody shows up like Toyota that has a car that works and doesn't need to be repaired by Mr. Goodwrench all the time.   0:45:58.8 Cliff Norman: So the mind shift there, and what Dr. Deming was saying is that he was focused on the competition's already licked. And I don't think Porter's thought about that very much, not to be overly critical, because I'm an admirer of his, but the idea of focusing on the need and why is that customer coming to us so that we make a journey, and the Japanese call that being in the Gemba, being in the presence with the customers as they use the product or service and doing the research and the rest of it. And then coming back and then redesign that product or service so that it not only grabs the current customer, but we start thinking about customers that are not even our customers and innovate and actually come up with a design that actually brings new customers to us through products and services that we haven't thought about yet. So if I show you three products just to make a picture of it, we often show like an abacus, which was a hand calculating machine about BC. Then there's a slide rule that came out about the same year that Columbus discovered America. And that was good till about 1968.   0:47:06.0 Cliff Norman: And then the calculator, the handheld calculator came out. Well the need for all three of those products is to do handheld calculations. So we've had that need since BC. Now in 1967, K&E Calculator was making that slide rule, which I used in junior high school. If you'd have come up to me and said, Cliff, what do you need in the way of a better slide rule? I said, well can you get me a holster for it? 'Cause I don't like having to stick me in the face. I put it in my pocket and it sticks me in the face. And if you can give me a holster for that, that would be my view of that. I wasn't about to come up with the TI calculator. That wasn't gonna happen. Not from Cliff. It's gonna come from an engineer at TI. Now, K&E Calculator, if they'd been doing research in the marketplace and saying, is there something that can totally disrupt us going on here? Rather than just looking at figuring out a way to make the K&E slide rule better, they might've discovered that.   0:48:07.0 Cliff Norman: Most people don't do that. They just go back. They just lose their business. And it was interesting in '67, their annual report put out, what's the world gonna look like 100 years from now? So they had dome cities, they had cars flying, they had all sorts of things going on that were great innovations, but they didn't have the TI calculator in there, along with the HP calculator. And that wiped out their business. And so if people understand the need, and that's what Dr. Deming is getting at, he says, they really haven't thought about what business they're in. So why are the customers coming to us? He says, no customer ever asked for pneumatic tire. No customer ever asked for a microwave oven. That came from people with knowledge that were looking at how the customers are using the current products and services and say, now, is there technology innovation going on that we can actually do a better job of providing a better match in the future?   0:48:56.9 Andrew Stotz: And can you explain why you use the word need as opposed to want?   0:49:06.5 Cliff Norman: That's a good question. The idea is that there's a need that's constant in society. So that need of having to do handheld calculations or needing healthcare or to pay bills, that need is constant throughout civilization. And so if I want something that's interesting, that might be the match. That might be something to do with some features what I'm offering and so forth. I'd like to have this, I'd like to have that. But the need and the way we're using that is it doesn't come from customers. It's what drives customers to us. And it's always been there. It's always been there. Need for transportation, for example. Whether you're walking or driving a bicycle or a car or a plane.   0:49:53.6 Andrew Stotz: And Dave, how would you answer the same question when you think about a person running a business and they've had many strategy meetings in their business, they've set their corporate strategy of what we're doing, where we're going and that type of thing. And maybe they've picked, we're gonna be a low cost producer. Thailand's an interesting one because Thailand had a ability to be low cost producers in the past. And then China came along and became the ultimate low cost producer. And all of a sudden, Thai companies had a harder time getting the economies of scale and the like. And now the Chinese manufacturers are just really coming into Thailand, into the Thai market. And now it's like, for a Thai company to become a low cost leader is almost impossible given the scale that China and the skills that they have in that. And so therefore, they're looking at things like I've got to figure out how to get a better brand. I've got to figure out how to differentiate and that type of thing. How does this... How could this help a place like that and a management team that is struggling and stuck and is looking for answers?   0:51:07.0 Dave Williams: Well, I go back to what Cliff said about that many organizations don't pause to ask, why do they exist? What is the need of which they are trying to fulfill? Much of my background involved working in the service industry, initially with public safety and ambulance systems and fire systems, and then later in healthcare and in education. And in many of those environments, especially in places where in public systems where they've been built and they may have existed for a long time, when you ask them about what are they trying to accomplish as an organization or what is it that they... The need that they're trying to fulfill? Typically, they're gonna come back to you with requests or desires or wants or sort of characteristics or outcomes that people say they expect, but they don't pause to ask, like, well, what is the actual thing of which I'm trying to tackle? And Cliff mentioned like, and we actually, I should mention in the book, we have a list of different strategies, different types of strategies, all the different ones that you mentioned, like price and raw material or distribution style or platform or technology.   0:52:30.9 Dave Williams: There's different types of strategies, and the one that we are focusing in on is quality. But I think it's important for people to ask the question. Cliff mentioned transportation. There's a number of different great examples, actually, I think in transportation, where you could look at that as being an ongoing need as Cliff mentioned from the days when there was no technology and we were all on foot to our current day. Transportation has been a need that existed and many different things over time have been created from bicycles, probably one of the most efficient technologies to transport somebody, wheels and carts. And now, and you were referencing, we've made reference to the car industry. It's a fascinating experience going on of the car world and gas versus electric, high technology versus not, autonomous vehicles. There's, and all of them are trying to ask the question of, are there different ways in which I might be able to leverage technology to achieve this need of getting from point A to point B and be more useful and potentially disrupt in the marketplace? And so I think the critical thing initially is to go back and ask and learn and appreciate what is that need?   0:53:58.6 Dave Williams: And then think about your own products and services in relation to that. And I think we include four questions in the book to be able to kind of think about the need. And one of those questions is also, what are other ways in which you could fulfill that need? What are other ways that somebody could get transportation or do learning or to help sort of break you away from just thinking about your own product as well? And that's useful because it's super tied to the system question, right? Of, well, this is the need that we're trying to fulfill and these are the products and services that are matching that need. Then the system that we have is about, we need to build that and design that in order to produce, not only produce the products and services that match that need, but also continually improve that system to either improve those products and services or add or subtract products and services to keep matching the need and keep being competitive or keep being relevant. And maybe if it's not in a competitive environment where you're gonna go out of business, at least be relevant in terms of the city service or community service, government service that continues to be there to match the need of the constituents. So I think it's a really important piece.   0:55:17.0 Dave Williams: It's that North star of saying, providing a direction for everything else. And going back to your original comment or question about strategy, and many times people jump to a strategy or strategies or, and those might be more around particular objectives or outcomes that they're trying to get to. It may not actually be about the method or the approach like cost or technology that they may not even think that way. They may be more thinking about a plan. And I really encourage people to be clear about what they're trying to accomplish and then start to ask, well, how's the system built for that? And later we can bring a process that'll help us learn about our system and learn about closing that gap.   0:56:05.1 Cliff Norman: Yeah. Just what I'd add to that, Andrew, because you mentioned China, a few other countries, but I think the days are coming to an end fairly quickly where somebody can say, oh, we can go to this country. They have low wages, we'll put our plant there and all that. There's a lot of pushback on that, particularly in the United States. And if that's your strategy, that hadn't required a lot of thinking to say the least. But in 1966, over 50% of the countries in the world were, let me rephrase that, over 50% of the population of the world lived in extreme poverty. So there were a lot of targets to pick out where you want to put your manufacturing. And in 2017, and you and Dave were probably like myself, I didn't see this hit the news, but that figure had been reduced from over 50% down to 9%. And all you have to do is just, and I worked in China a lot, they're becoming very affluent. And as they become very affluent, that means wages are going up and all the things that we want to see throughout the world. And I think that's happening on a grand scale right now, but you're also getting a lot of pushback from people when they see the middle class in their own country, like here in the United States, destroyed, and say, I think we've had enough of this. And I think you're gonna see that after January. You're gonna see that take off on steroids.   0:57:31.7 Cliff Norman: And that's gonna happen, and I think throughout the world, people are demanding more, there's gonna have to be more energy, every time a baby is born, the footprints gets bigger for more energy and all the rest of it. So it's gonna be interesting, and I think we are going into an age for the planet where people as Dr. Deming promised that they'd be able to live materially better, and the whole essence of this book is to focus on the quality of the organization and the design and redesign of a system to a better job of matching the need and cause that chain reaction to go off. When Jane and I went over to work in Sweden, Sven Oloff who ran three hospitals and 62 dental clinics there and also managed the cultural activities and young shipping. He said, Cliff, I report to 81 politicians. I don't wanna have to go to them to put a bond on an election to get more money for my healthcare system, I wanna use Dr. Deming's chain reaction here to improve care to the patients in my county and also reduce our costs. A whole bunch of people that don't even believe that's possible in healthcare.   0:58:39.9 Cliff Norman: But that's what Sven Oloff said that's what you're here for. And that's what we proceeded to do, they launched about 350 projects to do just that, and one of their doctors, Dr. Motz [?], he's amazing. We taught him a systems map, I came back two months later, and he had them in his hospital on display. And I said, Motz, how did you do this? He said well Cliff, I'm an endocrinologist by education as a doctor, of course, that's a person who understands internal systems in the body. So he said the systems approach was a natural for me. But I'd like to say it was that easy for everybody else, that systems map idea and as you know, being in the Deming seminar, that's quite a challenge to move from viewing the organization as an org chart, which has been around since Moses father-in-law told him, you need to break up the work here a little bit, and the tens of tens reporting to each other, and then of course, the Romans took that to a grander scale, and so a centurion soldier had 100 other soldiers reporting to him. So we've had org charts long and our federal government took that to a whole new level.   0:59:46.1 Cliff Norman: But the idea is switching off the org chart from biblical times to actually getting it up to Burt [?] about 1935 and understanding a system that's kind of a nose bleed in terms of how much we're traveling there to get us into the 21st century here.   1:00:04.0 Andrew Stotz: And I left Ohio, I grew up outside of Cleveland, and I left Ohio in about 1985, roughly. And it was still a working class, Cleveland had a huge number of jobs and there was factories and all that, and then I went to California, and then I moved to Thailand in 1992. So when I go back to Ohio now, many years later, decades later, it's like a hollowed out place, and I think about what you're saying is... And what's going on in the world right now is that I think there's a desire in America to bring back manufacturing to bring back production and all of that, and that's a very, very hard challenge, particularly if it's gone for a while and the skill sets aren't there, maybe the education system isn't there, I talk a lot with John Dues here on the show about the what's happening in education and it's terrifying.   1:01:05.9 Andrew Stotz: So how could this be... Book be a guide for helping people that are saying, we've got to revitalize American production and manufacturing and some of these foundational businesses and not just services, which are great. How can this book be a guide?   1:01:25.8 Dave Williams: One thing I would say that I think is interesting about our times, many times when I reflect on some of the examples that you just provided, I think about how changes were made in systems without thinking about the whole system together. And there may have been changes at various times that we're pursuing particular strategies or particular approaches, so it may have been the low-cost strategy, it may have been to disrupt a marketplace. And oftentimes, they don't think about... When somebody's pursuing one particular view, they may miss other views that are important to have an holistic perspective. One of the things that I appreciate about QoS in the methods and overall as a holistic view of looking at organizations that it's asking us to really think initially about that North Star, what we're trying to do, our purpose, and what are the tenants. What are the things that are important us, the values...   1:02:38.7 Dave Williams: That are important to us in pursuing that particular purpose? And in doing that, really thinking about how does the system work as it is today, and if we make changes, how does it move in alignment with the values that we have and in the direction that we wanna go? And appreciating, I would say, part of the value of the scientific thinking that is in the Science of Improvement is that it encourages you to try to see what happens and appreciate not only what happens in relation to the direction you're trying to go, but also the... Have a balanced view of looking at the collateral effects of things that you do, and I think that systems do is really important there. So I think from that perspective, the quality as an organizational strategy brings a holistic picture into these organizations, or at least...   1:03:45.1 Dave Williams: To be paying attention to the system that you have, maybe the direction you wanna go, and what happens as you... What are your predictions and what do you see when you study the results of making changes in the direction of the vision that you have. And I think that's at a high level that is one of the ways that I think about it. Cliff, how would you add on there?   1:04:09.1 Cliff Norman: Your question made me think of something that happened about two years ago, Jane and I got a call from a lady that worked for her in one of the chicken plants, and she said, Jane, I had to call you because I need to order some of those Shewhart charts. But what happened today, you should have been here and Jane said, what... She said, Remember that 10 year thing we buried in the ground that we're gonna open up in 10 years, and she said, yeah, said, well, we opened it up today, and the new plant manager was here, and those Shewhart charts came out, and he looked at the costs on them. He said, you were operating at this level? She said, yeah, routinely. And he said what happened? He said, well, they had new management come in and they got rid of the charts, that's the first thing they did, and then gradually they try to manage things like they normally did, and then they forgot everything that we had learned. And that's kind of where we are right now.   1:05:11.0 Cliff Norman: So just think of that a decade goes by, and it just as Dr. Deming said, there's nothing worse than the mobility of management, it's like getting AIDS in the system. And they basically destroyed their ability to run a low-cost operation in an industry that runs on 1 or 2%. And when you watch that happen and understand that we still have food companies in this country, and we have to start there and start looking at the system anew and start thinking about how it can actually cause that chain reaction to take off, and that comes from focusing on quality of the system. And then as Dr. Deming says, anybody that's ever worked for a living knows why costs go down with two words less rework, but instead of people will put in extra departments to handle the rework. Next thing they start building departments to handle...   1:06:01.8 Cliff Norman: The stuff that's not working because the system they don't understand. So that was a... What do they call those things, Dave, where they put them in the ground and pull him out?   1:06:11.0 Dave Williams: Time capsule.   1:06:13.4 Andrew Stotz: Time capsule yeah.   1:06:13.5 Cliff Norman: Yeah. Time capsule. The a 10-year time capsule.   1:06:19.2 Andrew Stotz: It's a great, great story. And a great idea. We had a company in Thailand a very large company that the CEO of it came upon the idea of the teachings of Dr. Deming and over time, as he implemented it in his company, the Japanese Union of Scientists have their prize and his company won that prize and then he had about 10 subsidiary companies that also were doing it and they also won over time. And so Thailand is actually is the second largest recipient of the Japanese Deming Award outside of India. But he left and he retired and another guy took over, a very bright guy and all that, but he threw most of that out and focused on newer methods like KPIs and things like that. And just at the end of last year, maybe six months ago, they reported a pretty significant loss, and I was kind of made me think how we can spend all this time getting the Deming teachings into our business, and then one little change in management and it's done.   1:07:26.9 Andrew Stotz: And that made me think, oh, well, that's the value of the book, in the sense that it's about building the concept of quality as a core part of strategy as opposed to just a tool or a way of thinking that could go out of the company as soon as someone else comes in. Go ahead, Dave.   1:07:41.9 Dave Williams: I was gonna say, Andrew, you raise a point, I think it's really, really important and Cliff mentioned this in terms of the problem of mobility of management. One thing that I don't know that we outline probably in dark enough ink in the book is the critically important piece of leadership, building the structures and the capability. I know we talk a little bit about it, but doing it in a way that both builds up the people that you have... So Cliff emphasiz

Everyone is in favor of improving quality, but what does that mean? In this episode Bill Bellows and Andrew Stotz discuss stories of meeting requirements, missing the mark, and what Dr. Deming said about how to do better. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.2 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we dive deeper into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussions with Bill Bellows, who has spent 31 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. And I guess now that we're into 2025, it's gonna be 32 years pretty soon. The episode for today is episode 10, are you in favor of quality? Bill, take it away.   0:00:33.5 Bill Bellows: Thank you, Andrew, and Happy New Year.   0:00:35.1 Andrew Stotz: Happy New Year.   0:00:36.4 Bill Bellows: Happy New Year to our listeners. And yeah, so here we are episode 10 of Misunderstanding Quality. We got up to 22 episodes in our first series and then we'll have a follow-on series. One is I would like to thank those who took the invite to reach out to me on LinkedIn. And I've just started connecting with a few new people who are doing some interesting things involved in types of work that I'm not familiar with, it's just fascinating to listen to the types of issues they deal with. And they each come to me with an interest in Dr. Deming's work. So they're following the podcast series, this one, the others that you're doing, and they listen to all of them. And I'm not sure if they've contacted the others, but they've reached out to me. So I wanna once again say for those of you that are enjoying this conversation, my conversation with you, Andrew, then please reach out to me.   0:01:50.0 Bill Bellows: If you'd like to know more, that's one thing. The last episode was called Worse Than a Thief. And one thing I wanna mention, there's a bunch of meanings relative to being worse than a thief. One distinctly from Dr. Taguchi was... And I don't... He gave examples of manufacturers that made plastic sheeting for crops to protect the crops and his complaint was that they made it to the minimum side of the requirement. So there was a requirement on the thickness, so again, even if you have a 1mil thick here, we have in the States, there's you can buy plastic 1mil, which is 0.001 inch or something heavier. And so, and obviously, in the world of manufacturing, you're not gonna get exactly 0.001, it's gonna be a little low, a little high. So what Dr. Taguchi was referencing is companies in Japan that were making plastic sheeting that would be used for a number of things. But in particular, he talked about it, what if it's being used to protect crops?   0:03:19.8 Bill Bellows: And what if the manufacturers, to save money because they're buying the plastic by the pound, selling it by the yard, so they're gonna make it as thin as possible. And his concern was, so how much are you saving to make it as thin as possible? And what is the impact of being on the thin side when a crop is lost? And that was his reference to being worse than a thief, that you're saving a few pennies but costing the farmer the... Right? And so that could be... So that's a situation where there's a requirement, the requirement is met minimally. You and I reference that as leaving the bowling ball in the doorway, delivering to the absolute minimum, or I mean delivering to the minimum, the maximum of the requirement, whatever best suits me. So if I'm delivering to you a term paper and you as the professor say, "It must be between five and 10 pages," and I say, "Well, I'm gonna make it five pages."   0:04:23.9 Bill Bellows: If in another situation, [chuckle] an example, I guess is if when our daughter was in high school and we said, "Allison, make sure you're home between 10:00 and midnight," then she may move that to the high side of the tolerance and come home at 10:00 or 11:59. But in either case, what Taguchi is referencing is in the world of acceptability, the requirements have been met. But the worse than a thief aspect is, is what is the personal gain versus the impact to others in the system. So that could be picking up the nail in the parking lot or deciding not to do it. So I just wanna point out that I see that as a very broad statement, not just in terms of meeting requirements, but within your organization are you... To what degree are you focusing on your department at the detriment of the organization? That's another way of being worse than a thief.   0:05:28.7 Bill Bellows: It could be you're spending all of your budget just before the end of the year. 'Cause you know what happens, Andrew, if you don't spend all of your budget.   0:05:38.0 Andrew Stotz: Gonna get taken away.   0:05:38.9 Bill Bellows: So if you're 10 percent under, the next year you're gonna get 10% less. So I used to kid people is, so what will I spend... Again, so you learn the hard way, if you don't spend the entire budget then your boss the next year says, "Well, Andrew, you only spent 80% of the budget, so we're only gonna give you 80% of last year." So what's the... What message does Andrew learn? I tell people is you go a little bit over the 100%, right? You go a little bit over. And so even that I would say is worse than a thief 'cause what are you doing? You're withholding your resources that others may find. So I just wanna say that that statement is not as narrow as looking at a set of requirements, it is looking at things from what's good for me versus good for the system. All right, have fun to that one.   0:06:30.0 Andrew Stotz: Right.   0:06:31.0 Bill Bellows: So relative to the title you mentioned. Are you in favor of quality? What inspired that? There's another thing I've been looking at recently, whether on LinkedIn or elsewhere on the internet. I'm a member of ASQ, the American Society for Quality, so I get regular notes from them. And I go off and look, and I'm just reminded of how most organizations think about quality, which is meeting requirements, and it could be much more than that. But anyway, in The New Economics, Dr. Deming's book, first edition, came out in 1993. In there in the first chapter, he says, let me pull it up, and I wanna read it exactly from the good doctor.   Near the end of chapter one of the New Economics, Dr. Deming, in bold text, our listeners will find a statement, “a look at some of the usual suggestions for improvement of quality.” And Dr. Deming says, "There's widespread interest in quality. Suppose that we were to conduct next Tuesday a national referendum with the question, are you in favor of improvement of quality? Yes or no? The results." predicted Dr. Deming "would show, I believe," and again, I'm quoting Deming, "an avalanche in favor of quality. Moreover, unfortunately, almost everybody has the answer on how to achieve it. Just read the letters to the editor, speeches, books. It seems so simple. Here are some of the answers offered, all insufficient, some even negative in results."   0:09:17.9 Bill Bellows: "Automation, new machinery, more computers, gadgets, hard work, best efforts, merit system, annual appraisal, make everybody accountable, MBO, management by objective as practiced, MBR, management by results." And I'll just pause. Dr. Deming, when he would read this list in a seminar, would also make reference to MBIR, management by imposition of results. All right, back to Dr. Deming. "Rank people, rank teams, rank divisions, rank salesmen, reward them at the top, punish them at the bottom. More SQC, statistical quality control, more inspection, establish an office of quality, appoint someone as VP in charge of quality, incentive pay, work standards," in parentheses, "quotas," comma, "time standards," end quote. "Zero defects, meet specifications, motivate people." And then in bold print, Dr. Deming adds, "What is wrong with these suggestions?" He says, "the fallacy of the suggestions listed above will be obvious from subsequent pages of the text," meaning The New Economics.   0:10:36.1 Bill Bellows: "Every one of them ducks the responsibility of management," Andrew. "A company that advertised that the future belongs to him that invest in it, and thereupon proceeded to invest heavily," 40 million, no, 40 billion, I'm sorry, that's ten to the ninth. "40 billion in new machinery and automation, results, trouble, overcapacity, high cost, low quality. It must be said in defense of the management that they obviously had faith in the future." And I asked some people that knew Dr. Deming far better than me. Once upon a time, I said, "So who was Dr. Deming talking about, the company that invested $40 billion?" He said, "Oh, that was General Motors." And I used to think when I was at Rocketdyne that you could not ask for a better competitor than one that would invest $40 billion to lose market share, right? Talk about self-inflicted gunshot wounds that they're gonna go off, invest heavily in technology gadgets. That's what Dr. Deming's calling 'em, gadgets.   0:11:55.2 Andrew Stotz: Gadgets.   0:11:55.8 Bill Bellows: Did you ever hear what Dr. Deming said about, he says, there's a couple of things he said. This is one of the things I heard him say live. He said, "Where's the data in the computer? Gone forever." And then he'd say, "the hardest thing in all the world to find..." You know what he said, Andrew, was the hardest thing in all the world to find?   0:12:24.0 Andrew Stotz: No, what was that?   0:12:27.3 Bill Bellows: "A piece of paper and a pencil." 'Cause his mindset was just put the data that you wanna plot on a piece of paper, as opposed to in the computer, gone forever. Now, I worked with a company as a consultant for three years. And one of the first things they had me work on, of course, was trying to learn about a problem that happened a few years earlier. A problem, meaning something that did not conform to requirements. And in the middle of working on that for about three months and working on that, and the issue was, let's learn about what happened a couple of years ago so it doesn't happen again. And what happened a few years ago was a very stringent set of requirements for this aerospace hardware, missed the requirement by 10%. It was close. It was close, but the customer would not buy it. And it was a multimillion dollar asset that they held onto 'cause they were hoping they can convince the customer to buy it. And the customer just said, "You keep it, you keep it." So the issue was, "Come over and help us understand what happened. We don't do that again."   0:13:54.1 Bill Bellows: Well, in the midst of that, the same product being produced a few months later, instead of missing the requirement by about 10%, missed the requirement by about 70%.   0:14:12.9 Andrew Stotz: Oh.   0:14:13.2 Bill Bellows: Oh, oh. It was a nightmare. And the company spent a whole lot of money chasing that. In the long run, it may have been a bad test. We never found exactly what it was. And when I caught up with them years later, they eventually went back into production. But the reason I bring that up is, after the incident, I was called over. It was a very intense time to go figure out what's going on, only to find out that the data was in a computer. So, the data was not being plotted real time. So after the incident, one of the things that happened within a few days of the incident was to go back and plot the data. So when I was in a meeting and they showed the data and I knew what they were saying was they had pulled it out of the computer. I thought, "Dr. Deming's not kidding. Where's the data, in the computer? Gone forever." So I wanted to...   0:15:23.8 Andrew Stotz: I had something I wanted to add to that, and that is I have a couple of great classic pictures in our family that were made 100 years, 120 years ago.   0:15:36.8 Bill Bellows: Oh wow. Lucky you.   0:15:39.9 Andrew Stotz: Great grandma, those old, really old pictures. And I was just showing them to my, to some of the ladies that take care of my mom and they just can't. And I said, "Now think about all the improvements that have been done in photography. What is the chance that one out of your 10,000 pictures on your iPhone that you've taken is going to survive 120 years like this picture?" And the answer is zero. There's zero chance.   0:16:14.4 Bill Bellows: That's right. Because even if you have kids, they don't want 4000 photos then... 4000...   0:16:25.0 Andrew Stotz: Nobody can deal with that.   0:16:26.4 Bill Bellows: No one could... You're absolutely right. They will not. Unless that photo is printed and turned into a keepsake. Gone forever.   0:16:38.7 Andrew Stotz: Yeah.   0:16:39.0 Bill Bellows: Yeah. No, that's a good point. That's a very... And the fact that these photos lasted that long is pretty damn amazing.   0:16:47.2 Andrew Stotz: Well, there's a great book. I forgot the name of it, but I'll remember it. There's a great book about how slow this... The pace. It's called "Future Hype" is the name of it. It's all about the slow pace of innovation. And this is a great example. Going from no photo to a great photo 120 years ago was true innovation.   0:17:12.0 Bill Bellows: Oh, yeah. Yes.   0:17:13.8 Andrew Stotz: Just coming up with ways to do thousands of photos. And the author just basically crushes everything that you think is innovation. That there's millions of patents now that are coming out. We're much more innovative than we were in the past. And then his whole point is, "Yeah, and go and look at them, and what you see is that they've changed the color a little bit, they've changed this, they've changed that, and they're just doing modifications." So, every single area that you think there is innovation. And I think that's part of what Dr. Deming's talking about, about it's in the computer that doesn't. Tools and gadgets don't solve the problem.   0:17:56.1 Bill Bellows: No, it's... Well, they are tools. And as we've talked about in this series, in the first series, there are tools and techniques. Cell phones, computers, automobiles. These are tools. Techniques are how to use them. And tools, to borrow from Ackoff, are about efficiency, doing things well. But not to be confused with effectiveness, also from Ackoff, which is doing the right thing. And what I admire... I think what we both admire about Dr. Deming's work is the ability of the System of Profound Knowledge to provoke the question of whether or not something is... Doing something is worthwhile to do. And that has to do with not doing things faster, but stepping back and asking, "Why am I doing this in the first place?" Dr. Deming talked about. I think he used to say... He phrased it as, be, Dr. Deming saying, "Andrew, do you know how companies make toast?" And Andrew says, "No, Dr. Deming, how do companies make toast?" You ever hear that?   0:19:16.0 Andrew Stotz: No.   0:19:17.1 Bill Bellows: He says, "First, they burn it, then they scrape it." [laughter] And so what I see in organizations is the people who make the toast pass it off to the next person who does the inspection, and then upon the inspection, is sent to the toast scraper, then the toast scraper scrapes the toast and then sends it to somebody else, which could be a second toasting. [laughter] And then on to the next. And the person who makes the toast in the first place is none the wiser that X percent of the toast, they're just passing it on and so the technology is used to speed that up. And what's not happening is some type of feedback on adjusting the controls. It's just, it's... And this is what I saw when I worked in Connecticut, was immense toast scraping. Oh, it was just phenomenal. We had a machine making these plates for a heat exchanger for the Army's current main engine battle tank. A 1500 horsepower gas turbine engine. And half the volume, Andrew, of the tank is a heat exchanger to capture the exhaust heat to preheat the compressed air to improve the fuel economy.   0:20:52.4 Bill Bellows: Even when half the volume of the tank engine is a heat exchanger to capture every ounce of excess energy and convert it back to the efficiency of the engine. Even with that, the fuel economy of the Army's today main battle tank is measured in gallons per mile 'cause it drinks gasoline. Now, it's phenomenal performance. But they can't move too fast to outrun the tankers. So, these heat exchanger plates have, in the original design, I'm not sure what design is nowadays, had roughly 2 miles of welding in the heat exchanger. And the welding was what's known as resistance welding. And these very, very thin plates were welded together with a little dot of current to melt the metal to create a little bead, and then another one on, and they were overlapping melts, and that created a seam. And after these plates were welded together, you know, two together, each of them was put on to this under a bright light, a literally a Lazy Susan.   0:22:11.0 Bill Bellows: This thing had a 27 inch outer diameter and there'd be a bead around the outside and a bead around the inside. Two different diameters. And on a given plate one inspector would look under a magnifying glass to see, are there any gaps in the beads? And then flip it over and look at the other side, and then hand off to the next person to look at the same plate again.   0:22:37.1 Bill Bellows: So, every plate was 200% inspected. There were 10 machines making these plates. There was no traceability from the inspector. All the problems might have been coming from machine number one. There was no such awareness. And so, after the inspector, "I found a quarter of an inch where you... " "Okay. Then we send it to Andrew for a re-weld." There's no feedback and is that system any better today? I'm aware of systems today that are very similar to that. So, anyway, that's what Deming's talking about relative to the... Yeah. How do companies make toast? Well, the other thing I want to jump to, relative to this "Are you in favor of quality?" Which got it on my one is, I thought, is something really neat to include in this series that we're doing Misunderstanding Quality. But as I'm getting these prompts from ASQ on a regular basis, I was reminded of a few things that are near and dear within the world of the American Society of Quality. And one is what's known as Quality 4.0. Not, 1.0, Andrew, 4.0. 4.0.   0:24:00.1 Andrew Stotz: So, we're out of the crisis.   0:24:01.1 Bill Bellows: Oh, and so the phrase, Quality 4.0, this is today, right? And actually, the incentive, "Quality 4.0," this is actually five years old. So maybe they're on to Quality 5.0, Andrew. The phrase, "Quality 4.0," derived from the German industrialization program called Industry 4.0, is an evaluation of the role of quality in the increasing digital and automated world. One question surrounding Quality 4.0 is where increasing automation will leave quality professionals in the future. Technology, Andrew, has changed quality work and now offers useful statistical software that allows the Six Sigma quality movement to grow. Tons of data that allow quality professionals to act on quality issues in almost real time and new statistical methods. So, what I find is, "Quality 4.0" is artificial intelligence. It's the Internet of Things. It is technology. So if Deming was writing the, you know, the chapter on that we just mentioned earlier, the list of all the things on that list would be pretty much everything I see in "Quality 4.0." Right.   0:25:23.9 Bill Bellows: So, how far have we come in the professional world of quality? At least I am... I find there's a lot missing relative to what Dr. Deming was talking about 30 some years ago. So, that's what I wanted to put on the table is, you know, we're again not... None of us have said we're against tools and techniques. Whether it's chat GPT, artificial intelligence, those are fantastic. But if they're not guided with a System of Profound Knowledge, then you're going to improve uniformity in isolation.   0:26:09.8 Bill Bellows: And we've talked about that in this series and that is the difference between precision and not accuracy. It is making things uniform. Then you have to ask, again when I... What I challenge for those that are in the Six Sigma world is everything I've seen and I've been reading a lot about Six Sigma for the last 30 years. Everything I see about it when it comes to reducing variability, it is about reducing variability to shrink the distribution such that, what, Andrew? Such that we end up with acceptability 100% all. No red beads, all white beads. And then we get into... I went in preparation for a call today to the ASQ website to learn, just a reminder, refresher on Quality 4.0 and again, nothing wrong with advanced digital technologies, but what if we coupled that with a strong foundation that we're trying to offer people in the Deming ??? who are interested in what Dr. Deming's ideas bring to improve, to guide that technology. So anyway, that's, you know, Quality 4.0. Also, I'm on the ASQ website and their glossary section if anyone wants to go look there. If you're a member, you get free access to this. "Quality, a subjective term for which each person or sector has its own definition."   0:27:42.7 Bill Bellows: Okay. "In technical usage, quality can have two meanings. One, the characteristic of a product or service that bears on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs. Two, a product or service free of deficiencies." Excuse me. "According to Joseph Juran, quality means fitness for use. According to Philip Crosby, it means conformance to requirements." And I don't see in here a reference to Dr. Deming and how he defined quality, Andrew. Huh? Interesting. What I enjoyed about being a member of the... In fact I'm still a member of the American Society for Quality. The reason I joined is I was excited by quality. Everything I was learning about Dr. Taguchi's work and then Dr. Deming's work and then began to wonder if the American Society for Quality was advancing and doc... So if anyone listening has access to the American Society for Quality and people that make decisions there, you might want to include Dr. Deming's definition of quality.   0:29:00.2 Bill Bellows: Where Dr. Deming would say a product or service possesses quality if it helps someone and enjoys a sustainable market. And what I find is unique about that is my interpretation, as Dr. Deming is saying a lecture I deliver, a podcast we present, that we are not the judge of the quality that our listeners, students are. The people downstream are the judge of that. So, it's not me handing off a part that meets requirements saying this is good. Even when Juran says fitness for use, what I would ask is fitness absolute or is fitness relative? And so that's... So anyway, I just thought it'd be fascinating to remind our listeners of the simplicity of Dr. Deming's message from The New Economics. You know, is everyone and anyone in favor of quality? Yes. And again, nothing wrong with tools and techniques, but what a Deming organization, a Blue Pen Company, a "We" organization. What they could do, guided by the Deming philosophy, with computers, where computers make sense, with AI, where AI makes sense, would seriously outpace what other companies are doing. It's interesting, but it's just not enough to compete with companies who will do that.   0:30:32.3 Bill Bellows: So, if nobody is following the Deming philosophy, then you can get by with Quality 4.0, doing AI and doing those things. But if you've got competitors and what Dr. Deming would say, Andrew, is be thankful for a good competitor, one who raises your game, right. And so, if you and I are playing tennis and you know, we're out there to become better tennis players, and as soon as I find out that you're out there so you can go brag to your mom about how you beat me last night, then I say, "Andrew, find somebody else to beat." But if you're interest and my interest is, you know, getting a lot of exercise and improving our game. That's a different story. So, that's what I just wanted to share with our ongoing listeners, is there's a lot to be gained by continuing to study the Deming philosophy. Add it to your repertoire, build a foundation guided by what The Deming Institute is doing and sponsoring podcasts like this, as well as DemingNEXT is, there's just a lot of opportunities for what Dr. Deming is offering. And I'm reminded of that on a regular basis that people are saying, "Boy, why didn't I learn about this a long time ago, what this can bring organizations?" So that's what I wanted to bring to the table today.   0:31:50.1 Andrew Stotz: That's wonderful. Well, Bill, on behalf of everyone at The Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this discussion and for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. You'll see DemingNEXT there and the like. If you want to keep in touch with Bill, just find him on LinkedIn and reach out to him because he is responsive. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I want to leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming. I just never stop talking about this quote 'cause I love it. "People are entitled to joy in work."  

In the final episode of the series, Jacob Stoller and Andrew Stotz discuss the difference between typical companies using traditional management and more successful Deming-style companies. If productivity and performance are so much better, why do companies stick with traditional management? TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.3 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we dive deeper into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I continue my discussion and conversation with Jacob Stoller, Shingo Prize winning author of The Lean CEO. And ladies and gentlemen, I just received my copy finally. Productivity Reimagined, it just arrived from Amazon. You can get it there. And that's the latest book that he's come out with. And this is exploring applying Lean and Deming Management Principles at the enterprise level. The topic for today is moving forward with productivity. Jacob, take it away.   0:00:41.7 Jacob Stoller: Oh, thank you, Andrew. Great to be here once again. Yeah. Moving forward. That's really Chapter 13. Whether you consider that, hopefully you consider 13 lucky as I think they do in Italy.   0:00:57.4 AS: We do in Thailand.   0:01:00.4 JS: Oh, really? Wonderful. Okay. Perfect. Anyway, so I wrote in the book, I sort of defined where we're trying to go by describing two companies; a typical company, and then the company that we would aspire to for maximum productivity. So I'm gonna read those, just to illustrate. "Company A follows traditional top-down management practices. Leaders determine how the work is to be done, and give orders to their staff accordingly. Individuals, functional groups and departments are treated as independent entities under centralized control. Pay and promotion are determined by individual performance according to a set of predetermined criteria. Employees are ranked and encouraged to compete with each other." So that's company A, your typical company, which probably comprises what percentage would you say? 90%? 95%?   0:02:03.8 AS: 97.9%   0:02:04.4 JS: Okay. Okay. Let's look at where we'd like to go from there. "Company B is managed as an interactive system where people and functional teams depend on each other. Supervisors aren't expected to have all the answers, and they rely on frontline workers to share their workplace knowledge and take an active role in improving their work processes. All employees know they are part of a team culture pursuing common goals and solving problems together to move the company forward." Okay, so that's really, that's where we wanna be. And the reason you would want to go there is because if you take those two companies and they have similar resources, similar markets, perhaps operating in similar region, company B will outproduce company A 10 times out of 10. It's a more productive model, and it's proven to work. So why don't people do it?   0:03:16.3 JS: Well, there's some thinking that gets in the way, some sort of systemic kinds of barriers that are out there. So even people who aspire to making a company better, and I think there are a lot of people out there that think that, but they run into these barriers, and I'm just gonna review them again because we've gone through them in some detail. But the myth of segmented success, that's the really kind of the exact opposite of a company as a system. It's this idea that all the parts are interchangeable. You can take a department, you can give each department separate goals, and they'll all make their goals and it'll all add up. That's the myth, of course. So the myth of segmented success. We have really stemming out of that the myth of the bottom line.   0:04:11.9 JS: And because of that segmented structure, we believe that we can use finance as a proxy for all the quantitative, all the accomplishments of all these different segments. It all adds up. It's arithmetic. We figure, so why not? We just take, everyone makes their numbers, and then they all make their numbers and they all celebrate together. That's the myth, of course. The bottom line doesn't tell you what's really going on in the company. The top-down knowledge myth they run into, and that's this whole idea that managers are supposed to know all the answers, and their job is to tell people what to do. And it's not just people with MBAs. It's people with degrees in psychology and maybe working in HR. It's engineers, it's any person with professional training, figures that they have not only the privilege, but a duty to actually tell people what to do. And if I'm not telling people what to do, I'm probably not doing my job and somebody's going to be looking over my shoulder. So a big fear around that.   0:05:31.6 JS: Myth number four is the myth of sticks and carrots. And this is this idea of Homo Economicus, the idea that people act in their own financial interest and it's perfectly predictable. Performance is down? Well, let's just pay them more or maybe we need some threats here. Maybe we need to threaten them, or maybe we need to get some competition. So somebody is gonna be a little bit worried looking over their shoulder that they might get fired. Fear is a big factor here, obviously. Finally, there's the myth of tech omnipotence. And this stems right from the myth of segmented success. This idea we can take a process and we can swap out technology, we can put in technology and swap out people. We can reduce head count by 5, 10, 15 people and put in a machine in its place. That's been the business case for technology for decades. And we still have a very strong belief in that. So that's kind of what we're stuck with, those myths. And we really have to crush those myths as we go along.   0:06:42.5 AS: You know, Jacob, I was just at a meeting yesterday with a very senior executive at a very large company in Thailand. And I was just talking to him, it's off the record, so we were just chatting, but he was talking about the challenges that they're facing, and I said, so how are your KPIs? And he said, KPIs are just killing us. They're causing us to be siloed. It's setting up competition in the company. People can't work together. And I asked him this question, like, what can you do about it? He says, not much. What am I gonna do? Remove the KPI system? No. We know...   0:07:31.1 JS: Isn't that interesting?   0:07:34.8 AS: That ultimately that's probably one of the best things that they could do and get people to work together. But it just, you know, he said something to me that just made me think about, for the listeners and the viewers out there who are running small and medium-sized businesses who feel disadvantaged so many times when they're fighting against the big giants...   0:07:53.6 JS: Yeah.   0:07:53.6 AS: Take comfort that you can change your business. But many of these big companies, they just can't. And they won't.   0:08:01.2 JS: Yeah.   0:08:03.5 AS: And they never will. So that's what's so great about these types of principles, both Lean, what you're talking about, Deming, is that if you're a business owner, it's a family business, it's your private business or a group of people that you have real control over the business, you can implement these things. And you can build your business to be great.   0:08:23.7 JS: That's interesting, Andrew. I've talked in my book, I've talked with some smaller manufacturers, and at least a couple of them have said they're getting refugees from large corporations. And he'll interview these people and say, well, I can't give you, you know, you won't have 500 people reporting to you or anything. And they say, I don't care. I said, I really, you know, I've had it with this corporate stuff, and they want to be part of a culture that makes a difference. And so that's maybe catching on. I mean, interesting that the gentleman you're talking with also recognized that.   0:09:00.3 AS: Yeah. And he's just as, his hands are tied in some ways. And, so, but that to me is hopeful for the rest of the businesses that can change. And the other thing I was, you know, I always end with my favorite quote from Dr. Deming, which is that people are entitled to joy in work. Yesterday I was speaking to about 75 students in my Ethics in Finance class, and it's the kickoff day. And so it's a real fun, and I talk about a bunch of things, but the one thing I said is that ever since I graduated from university, all I really wanted was a job that I enjoyed, at a place that I enjoyed doing it, with the people I enjoyed doing it with. That's all I wanted. I wanted joy in work and I got it because I walked away from the places and the people where it wasn't happening, and I walked towards the places where I had the opportunity to enjoy it. Of course it helps that I found my love, which is being a financial analyst. It's just, I understand that so well, but this is where I think I want us to think about hope and potential for happiness in work and all of that. And so I know you've got some more steps that you've got to help people. So maybe we move into that.   0:10:27.7 JS: Sure. Sure. Well, and it would be interesting, this gentleman you talked with, I wonder if he's visited any companies that we would admire that are using Deming principles, or maybe...   0:10:39.1 AS: Well, it may give it away, but this company in the past has fully implemented the teachings of Dr. Deming.   0:10:49.2 JS: Oh, really?   0:10:51.5 AS: But they had a changeover in management, and they completely walked away from this and implemented the KPI system.   0:11:00.9 JS: Yeah. Oh my. Isn't that something? Yeah, that happens. That happens for sure. And we've had, you know, in my last book, The Lean CEO, I found some people, number of companies had fallen off the ladder. And gosh, the Shingo Institute had a real problem with that. People were winning Shingo prizes and then they were falling off the ladder, and they changed their emphasis on criteria now, and now they really emphasize culture. You can't just follow the principles, but you really have to get the culture, and they really grill them on that. So, interesting. Interesting.   0:11:38.2 AS: Yeah.   0:11:41.0 JS: But the first step, the reason I asked you if they've visited anybody is really, I think if you're starting from scratch at company A, I think the first thing is to go visit companies.   0:11:48.6 AS: Yep.   0:11:49.5 JS: I mean, you've got to see what's going on in companies that are different to even appreciate what's possible. And it's...   0:12:00.6 AS: 'Cause it's inspiring.   0:12:00.7 JS: It's not only inspiring, but you see things that you wouldn't expect to see. And I think what they said, what these folks have told me over and over again is that what you see is you actually feel it. There's a culture in there, there's a kind of an atmosphere when you walk in the door. And that's what really wows people. I hear that over and over again. So you have to feel that, you can't write that down, or you can't explain that in a talk. So I think that's really the first step. And fortunately, companies that have gone through these transformations are happy to welcome people to come visit, because it helps them reinforce their culture as well. So it's a reinforcing kind of thing. I think after you've done that, gone the rounds a bit, that's when you really need to assess where you are and what you wanna be. And I think there has to be some honest criticism about the kind of company you are. I don't know if you wanna call it soul-searching, but there's not a realization that we don't wanna go on as we were, you're really not gonna do much. So that's, I think, critically important. You're smiling. Do you have a story there?   0:13:20.8 AS: No, but I'm just, you know, it makes sense. It makes sense. I did actually, you know, in Thailand there was a company that I saw in the newspaper many years ago that it came out in the newspaper that they won the Deming Prize from Japan, from the Union of Scientists in Japan. And so I just called the company and I said, congratulations. And they said, great, thank you. And then I said, and I talked to the CEO of the company, and then I said, could I bring my staff from my coffee, you know, management team from the coffee business to come and see you guys? And he said, yeah. And that started a lifelong friendship with a guy named Srini, who was the guy who won that. He passed away about a year or two ago. And I featured him in my book on Transform Your Business with Dr. Deming's 14 Points. But the idea is...   0:14:11.0 JS: Oh yeah...   0:14:12.7 AS: Go out and...   0:14:14.0 JS: I love that book.   0:14:16.2 AS: Explore and see it, see what's out there.   0:14:16.3 JS: Yeah. For sure.   0:14:17.5 AS: Because you also, when you go out and explore, you also find out, hey, we're pretty good at some of these things and there's things that we're doing well, you know?   0:14:23.5 JS: Of course, of course. So once you've assessed your state, I think it's very, very important, even before you start talking to your people, 'cause it's gonna be a transformation, you're gonna demand an awful lot from your people, you've really got to know where you're going, and you have to establish a vision. And companies have different ways of doing that. But the one thing I would emphasize is that it's gotta be a vision with substance. And I think Dr. Deming would say, by what method? [laughter] You say where you're going. Right? So, for example, a hospital. I saw a hospital that did a very good job of that, establishing a vision, and they wanted to be the safest and most compassionate hospital in their region. They said, well, what would that look like?   0:15:13.3 JS: And they looked at, well, okay, safety would obviously be big. There would be fiscal responsibility. Wait time is a big issue in healthcare, be no waiting. I think there may have been one more as well. But anyway, they established these kinds of what I would call aspirational goals. It's where we, really where we want to be, and it's gotta be something that inspires employees, right? You wanna be a compassionate, safe place for patients to come. I mean, that's what people want. So then what they do is they took it a level down, and they said, okay, well, if we're going to have an exemplary safety record, what would that look like? How would we measure it? And they have safe... The health organizations have safety statistics. So, they have an institution, that third party organization that would report on the numbers, so they could set some targets according to that. And then they go down even further. They say, okay, safety. What are the things that we need to do? What are some of our weaknesses? So they say, well, patient falls was one of them. They have things like medication error, hospital acquired illnesses. So all this goes under the idea of no harm to patients, right?   0:16:44.0 AS: Yeah.   0:16:45.3 JS: All goes together. So, they then started to work on the most pressing one. You know, work on targets, do projects together, PDSA kinds of projects. And they chipped away at it and eventually with a number of projects, they were very successful. But I think the key, of course, is that problems in workplaces and hospitals, maybe especially, are very granular in lots and lots of things, so you need all hands on deck. But they were very, very successful at getting a very high rating just through these efforts. So, that's...   [overlapping conversation]   0:17:28.8 AS: Yeah, the vision with substance is a great one because I think lots of visions are flaky, and we've been working on the vision for Coffee Works, for my company, and that is we supply coffee to every leading brand in Thailand. And that's something that we can visualize, the employees can visualize, they can also see who we don't serve. And also when we lose a customer that's a leading brand, we can say we messed up, but when your contract's up with our competitor, we're gonna be back because we supply every leading brand in Thailand.   0:18:08.0 JS: Right, right.   0:18:10.3 AS: So, substance, vision. Yep.   0:18:13.3 JS: Yeah, definitely. Yeah. And I guess you share that, been sharing that kind of vision with your people for a long time, right?   0:18:18.3 AS: Yep.   0:18:21.6 JS: But I mean, would you say, how important would you say vision is? I mean...   0:18:23.2 AS: I think it's critical. And I think that part of what happens is that many companies start with a vision, and then they get, it's just so easy to get distracted. And there's so many, you know, business just grows complex, and then all of a sudden you feel like, we can do all of this, we can do this, we can do that, we can do this, we can do that. The best book on this is Good Strategy Bad Strategy by Richard Rumelt. And he talks a lot about what are bad strategies, and he talks about these fluffy visions that really don't help anybody. And so getting a vision with substance, I think is critical.   0:18:58.0 JS: Okay. So we got our vision, it's got real teeth. It's something that we can stand in front of our people and say, here's what we're going to do. And they won't say, oh, this is just another flavor of the month. They'll realize that we're serious and we're gonna do this. The next step, number four, is building trust. And that's extremely important. And one of the manufacturer actually told me a wonderful story about this. He was working in a very... Had a plant in a very rough neighborhood in Baltimore. And when he took over that plant as a general manager, there was terrible culture. People were... He said there was racism and there were just people quitting all the time. And just walking out the door, not showing up to work. You know, the workers hated management.   0:19:56.7 JS: So this guy went in onto the shop floors. I'm your new general manager. And he said he spent the first three or four months just talking to them about their lives. You know, he was committed to the Lean methodology, but he didn't talk about methods, how we're gonna do things different. He just found out what's important to these people. And a lot of 'em were financially strapped. They were in poor neighborhoods. So the direction was really how to make this company more profitable so we can pay you more. And that was kind of a guiding vision and remarkably successful how it did. How he won the people over. And I think there's so many people out there asking people to do things. And, you know, you really have to... Takes a lot of trust. I mean, you're gonna say, I'm gonna admit when I've made a mistake, I'm not gonna cover it up and you're not gonna fire me. You know, that's never happened. So...   0:21:02.9 AS: And I can tell you, for the listeners and the viewers out there, here's a good inspiring movie to get you an idea of thinking about how to get out on the shop floor and understand from the inside what's happening in the business. And the movie came out in 1980, and it's called Brubaker by Robert Redford. And it's the story of a new prisoner warden.   0:21:25.2 JS: Oh, I never saw it.   0:21:27.0 AS: Yeah. Prison warden who goes in as a prisoner, and the governor of the state has sent him in as a prisoner. And so he lives a prisoner's life for, I don't know how long it was, a week, a couple weeks, a month, until eventually he, you know, reveals himself and then takes over. And then he knew all the corruption and all the problems and all the issues, and he went about solving 'em. It's an inspiring movie.   0:21:54.2 JS: Yeah. And more recently, there was a program, I've seen a couple of episodes of Undercover CEO, you know, where CEO actually goes into the workplace in disguise and flips burgers or whatever. And then discovers what's really going on in the company.   0:22:09.2 AS: Yeah, that's a great. That's probably even more applicable.   0:22:11.2 JS: Yeah. Right. So building trust is just... It's very personal. And from that point, you start to make changes. But those changes... My favorite examples, I don't know if this is a general rule, but some of the best examples I've seen are working on safety. You work on safety because improving processes to make them safer is actually kind of like a gateway drug to doing continuous improvement, right? You start to understand what processes are, but first of all, people are improving the process in their own interest.   0:22:50.8 AS: Yep.   0:22:52.2 JS: So you get them very good at making these changes, proposing changes, speaking out, pointing out when other people are not following safety guidelines. Understanding that something has to stop when safety is not there. No, you build on the trust you created and you start to change the culture around that. So that's number five. So you notice I've gone five steps and we haven't introduced any methods or anything. You know, it's...   0:23:23.8 AS: What I noticed from those first five is that they're really all things that senior management need to do before they go out with all their exciting new ideas and start training people and start really bringing that out in a much more aggressive way.   0:23:41.5 JS: Exactly. So really step six is train and transform. And that's when we do all the... That's when we draw the diagrams, and that's when we start the PDSA training or the Kaizen events or whichever type of transformation you're doing. That's when we start to train the workforce and we start to undergo the transformation. So that's all the work, but the transforming work. But we've done enormous preparation before we get there. And I think that's what I've seen is the best way to do it. So we train and transform, and then of course we have to remove barriers as they come. So it might be removing some aspects of the accounting system because they might be holding us back. So you run into the barriers and you take on those barriers as you run into them and you build momentum.   0:24:36.3 AS: Yep.   0:24:38.6 JS: So step seven really is you're building this momentum and you raise the bar. You've done something and now you raise your standards and continue to raise them. And that leads you to a continually improving organization where you're always expecting to get better. People have a joy in work because they know that they're part of making something better. And you continue raising the bar 'cause people like a challenge.   0:25:07.9 AS: Yep.   0:25:08.5 JS: As long as it's a safe environment and as long as it's a team kind of self-supporting workplace. So finally we get to share and learn. So we've gone full circle. You know, you've got... You've gone through a transformation, you're proud of your work, and you start to open the door to visitors because that's where you really reinforce the culture. And, I don't know, you have... You say you have visitors at the coffee place?   0:25:45.9 AS: Yeah. I mean, for me, I just love going to companies that do like to share and learn. And I like to do that too. We get students, a lot of times it'll be like executive MBA students coming to Thailand and others that I'll bring out to the factory, so to get them to see how we do things. But I just personally love to... Well, it's great when you go out to a place, and there's a lot of factories in Thailand for sure where you can just see that they have a vision of what they're doing and they clearly communicate it. I had a company that I saw in the financial data many years ago when I was an analyst that really did something very odd, which was their cash conversion cycle was negative. Normally it's a positive thing for a manufacturing company 'cause they have a lot of inventory and accounts receivable and the like.   0:26:34.9 AS: And so I went out and I met with the CEO and then I said, how did you do this? He said, it took us five years, but we brought our inventory down to seven days of inventory. And how did you do it? And he took me out on the factory floor to meet all the different people doing it. And he said, I put people in teams and they work together and they try to figure out how do we reduce the inventory here? I help them see the overhead cost that's coming from the executives so they could calculate a P&L and understand like, how can they make their section, you know, better? And then he had some of the guys come and speak and explain what they were doing, some of the supervisors and managers on the shop floor. And I was like, wow, this was impressive. So love that sharing and learning.   0:27:22.7 JS: Yeah. No, it's great. And I've had wonderful visits where people are so excited about their work that you think, wow. And of course that means they're really, really productive. I mean, they just... They're doing it because they love it and it's... You can't compare with that kind of creativity that you get from that. So I guess that I'd like to talk a little about the competitive advantages here of taking this journey and, you know, that's the whole point. Productivity becomes your competitive advantage. You outproduce other companies with similar resources. And I believe that the way the world is changing right now, that competitive advantage for company B type companies is going to grow as things... And I have four reasons I cite for that.   0:28:21.0 JS: Reason one is flexibility, adaptability, agility, whatever you wanna call it. You know, we're going with manufacturing and services too much more into high mix, low volume type scenarios. So the mass production machinery approach has just become less and less relevant to manufacturing and also with services as well because it's not... It's less a ones size fits all kinda world. That's one very strong reason. The ability to hire talent. You know, we're just starting to see that. You know, people don't wanna work for these corporations that they feel don't have purpose. And couple of manufacturers actually told me, and this is in the US, I don't know how that compares with Thailand, but in the US he said there's a real crisis not just 'cause people maybe don't have jobs, but because people don't have purpose in their work, so people go home depressed, they take drugs and they've done medical studies on this.   0:29:30.3 JS: You know, if you don't have purpose in your work and you're doing something even though you know it's dumb and you're doing it anyway, just, you know, because to please the boss or whatever, that places huge stress on people. And there are actually medical... They've done medical studies on that, people who work in those kinds of jobs, on the negative effects. So anyway, I think getting the best talent, I hear that more and more anyone I talk to, and I think that's gonna be more and more of a factor. There's a whole deglobalization process going on right now. A lot of reshoring here in North America. People, you know, companies really realizing that sort of the fallacy of having these very, very long supply chains. So it's all about now shortening that supply chain, having immediate suppliers that are close.   0:30:23.9 JS: I mean, that's the only way you're gonna get your inventory turns down to 50 or whatever your friend was talking about. Right? And finally on climate change, that's getting tougher and tougher to deal with. And it's not just about governments not acting, but it's going to be scarcity of resources. It's going to be having to run businesses in difficult climate circumstances. It's gonna be government regulation. It's going to be whether people will come and work for companies that aren't making... Doing their bit to combat this. So those four reasons, I think that's a competitive advantage that's going to grow. And I think it's urgent that corporations act, and Dr. Deming warned that there'd be a crisis coming if companies kept running the way they were, and the crisis is here. We've arrived and, you know, the statistics are terrible. Don't have to bore you with those, but, you know, it's a very rough world and we need, obviously governments will have to act, but we need better companies. Now... Sorry, go ahead.   0:31:48.2 AS: I was... Yeah, that's why he entitled this book Out of the Crisis 'cause there was a crisis then, and the fact is there's still, and it's so many things are harder too particularly in the US with reshoring and that type of thing because education has been decimated also in the US so it's very hard to bring back, you know, engineering prowess and things like that, so. Yep.   0:32:14.1 JS: Yeah, for sure. So I... My sort of wrap up comment would be, answer to your question, not really a question, but your title, you talked about boosting Lean with Deming. So, you know, when we chat about this, but you know what, I was thinking about this, what as a person who wrote about Lean initially and then took a much deeper dive into Deming, what does Deming add, from my perspective? And what excites me the most about Dr. Deming is that I think he was less interested in maybe methods and more interested in fundamental truths. I mean, he really, I think put forward what are really fundamental truths about people, about the physical world and about how people in the physical world interact. And these are, like I say, this is not slogans or anything like this, this is science. I mean, these are proven scientific principles and I think those principles underline any method you use. You know, if you're really following that. And I'm not a Deming scholar enough to be able to say that that's what he meant by profound knowledge. But when you use the term profound knowledge, that's what that means to me. It means just a very fundamental knowledge of the way things work.   0:33:49.8 AS: Yeah. Well, it's exciting to think about how we can learn from what you've written about and what you've talked about. So ladies and gentlemen, the book is Productivity Reimagined: Shattering Performance Myths to Achieve Sustainable Growth. And I've really enjoyed our time, Jacob, to go through all the different myths and to hear the way you look at things which is coming from your direction originally, the Lean direction, and then bringing that thinking together with the teachings of Dr. Deming. So I just wanna thank you and give you the last word. If you'd like to wrap up for the listeners and the viewers to say, what's the main message you wanna get, want them to get out of all the... Out of the book and out of all of our discussion? How would you wrap it up?   0:34:45.4 JS: I would wrap it up by saying, let's look for those fundamental truths. You know, let's not look for slogans, let's not look for techniques. Let's look at what's really true about humans, about the physical world, and let's build our future based on that.   0:35:04.2 AS: Well, Jacob, on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute, I wanna thank you again for this discussion right now and the prior discussions about each part of your book and the myths and the like. And for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey, and you can find Jacob's book, Productivity Reimagined, at jacobstoller.com. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming, "People are entitled to joy in work."

Join Bill Bellows and Andrew Stotz as they discuss what actions (or inactions) make us worse than thieves and how that relates to expiration dates, and acceptability vs desirability. Plus, stories about job swapping, Achieving Competitive Excellence, and birthdays. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.3 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we dive deeper into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with Bill Bellows, who has spent 31 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. Today is Episode 9, and it's entitled "Worse Than a Thief." Bill, take it away.   0:00:27.2 Bill Bellows: Welcome, Andrew. I haven't seen you in a while, and great to be back.   0:00:29.1 AS: It's been a while.   0:00:32.0 BB: Here we are. Episode 9 already. Gosh, [chuckle] time flies when we're having fun. First, let me say a shout out to people who are reaching out to me on LinkedIn. I spoke with another one of them this afternoon. It's always exciting to connect with them. And then I ideally connect in a regular basis and help them as best I can, and learn from them as best I can.   0:01:03.0 AS: Yep.   0:01:03.2 BB: So, for those who are thinking about it, they keep hearing you say, "Hey, you know how to reach Bill? Find him on LinkedIn." So, a reminder for those who are waiting for a nudge, here's a nudge. So, "Worse than a thief" is an expression that Dr. Taguchi used when he say, Andrew, "Don't be worse than a thief." And we'll get to that, but let me just give our audience some context on that.   0:01:37.8 AS: Yep.   0:01:39.0 BB: Dr. Taguchi would say... And actually, I don't know if Dr. Taguchi explained it. Someone explained it to me this way. He said a thief could be someone who steals your wallet, finds $20; which means they're up 20, you're down 20; which people refer to as "zero sum gain." Right? So, the thief's gain is my loss, zero sum. What could be worse than that? Well, "worse than a thief" would be a situation where what someone gains is nothing compared to what I lose. A simple example is, [chuckle] I'm not the only one who does this, but if I'm going to the supermarket and I get out of the car and I see a nail in the parking lot or a piece of glass in the parking lot on my way in. So, I'm not talking about walking all around the parking lot. I'm talking about if on my way into the store I see a nail, something that could puncture a foot, a tire, and I spend a few seconds to pick it up, throw it in the trash can right by the door, then my theory is the reason I do that, the reason others do that, is the belief that that little bit of time that I am spending doing that could potentially save someone far more than the few seconds it took me.   0:03:20.9 BB: Well, "worse than a thief" would be, I see that broken bottle, let's say a bunch of shards of glass. And having worked at my father's gas station, I've seen... A nail on a tire is one thing. Nail creates a puncture. A piece of glass in a tire creates a fracture. A piece of glass can destroy a tire 'cause you get a crack and it spreads, and that's hard to repair. A puncture with a nail, yeah, it's inconvenient, but that doesn't destroy the tire. So, I'm overly sensitive when I see pieces of glass in a parking lot, that that could ruin a tire.   0:04:04.8 AS: And ruin a day.   0:04:06.2 BB: Ruin a day, oh yeah. And so the idea is that for someone to not take the time, and the time they save cost you more than they saved, that's worse than a thief.   0:04:19.8 AS: Right.   0:04:20.0 BB: So, if I meet a set of requirements, leave the bowling ball in the doorway, deliver minimally, but in the world of acceptability, what do we call that, Andrew? It's good.   0:04:35.3 AS: It's good.   0:04:36.0 BB: Right? It's good. It's just within requirements, but good.   0:04:41.8 AS: It's not beyond looking good.   0:04:43.9 BB: And forget about beyond looking good; this is looking good. So, I leave the bowling ball in the doorway. I deliver to you the absolute minimum, which is still good. So, your response to that, Andrew, is, "Thank you, Bill." [chuckle]   0:05:00.0 AS: Yeah.   0:05:00.1 BB: And I'm not saying you know what I did, but let's say the situation where I am unaware of the loss function. I'm unaware that what I'm doing is make making your life worse.   0:05:12.2 AS: Right.   0:05:13.3 BB: But the idea is that my shortcut to deliver the D minus; D minus, minus, minus, minus, minus. 'Cause that's still not an F. What Taguchi is talking about is that the amount of resources I save, may be a fraction of what it cost you in terms of extra effort to use it. So, my savings of an hour, a minute, a second causing you far more than I saved, is worse than a thief. But in the world of acceptability, there is no such thing. In the world of acceptability, a little bit within requirements on the low side, a little bit within requirements on the high side, it's all the same. Again, there may be a situation where if you're putting a shelf on a piece of wood on a wall as a shelf and it's a little bit longer, a little bit long on either side, that may not have an impact; may not be touching anything on either side. It doesn't have to fit in.   0:06:25.9 BB: Now, this past weekend, our son and I were installing a new floor at our daughter's condo, and we wanted the pieces to fit in-between other pieces and this laminate floor which is a [chuckle] lot of work. Our son is turning into quite the artist when it comes to woodworking and things. But it's very precise getting things just right, just right, just right. And that attention to detail, that attention to making sure the gaps are just right, minding the gap and not the part. And there were pieces of this floor that he was trying to install. And it was driving him nuts, and finally... He's trying to figure it out and he finally figured it out what was going on. 'Cause he wanted that floor and the spacing between not just to meet requirements [chuckle] not that our daughter gave him and set the requirement, but he wanted the floor in those gaps to be invisible. He wanted things to... Right? He had a higher level, a higher standard.   0:07:25.3 BB: Now, this is the same kid who when he was 13 left the bowling ball in the doorway. But I would've done that. You would've done that. So, anyway, that's the difference between... Another reminder of, one, the difference between acceptability and desirability. But to add to this idea of "worse than a thief," embedded in the concept of desirability is not to be worse than a thief, is to understand the consequences of your action on others, and the amount of time and your decision on how you deliver it and how you meet the requirements. The idea is that, the less time you take in order to save at your end might be causing the person downstream in your organization more than you're saving.   0:08:22.8 AS: In other words, something small, you could adjust something small that would have a huge impact down the line, and you just didn't... You don't know about it.   0:08:32.2 BB: Again, that's why I go back to the nail in the parking lot. To not pick up the nail could cause someone so much more than the few seconds you didn't spend. But again, that could be...   [overlapping conversation]   0:08:44.0 AS: And one of the things that makes it easier or better for a working environment is you know your downstream.   0:08:51.8 BB: Yes.   0:08:51.8 AS: When you're walking in the parking lot, you don't know your downstream; it's just anybody generally, and hopefully I've stopped something from happening here, but you're never gonna know and all that. But with a business, you know your downstream, you know your upstream, and that communication can produce a really, really exciting result because you can see it and feel it.   0:09:11.8 BB: Well, and thank you for bringing that up, because I've got notes from... Since the last time we met, I keep a file for the next sessions we're gonna do. And so as things, ideas come up from people that I'm meeting on LinkedIn or elsewhere, then I, "Oh, let me throw that in." And so I throw it into a Word file for the next time. And so somewhere, I can't remember who, but since the last time we spoke, someone shared with me... Hold on, let me find it here. Okay. In their organization, they do staff rotation. They move people around in their organization. And the question had to do with, "Isn't that what Dr. Deming would promote? Is having people move around the organization?" And I said... Hold on, I gotta sneeze. I said, "Well, if I am the person that makes the parts that you have to assemble, and I make them just within requirements unaware of the downstream impact... " I don't know where they are within the requirements, let's say.   0:10:30.0 BB: All I know is that they're acceptable. I machine it, I measure it, the inspection says it's good, I don't know where within it's good. I don't know. So, I'm unaware. All I know is that it met the requirements. And I hand off to you on a regular basis, and then the boss comes along and says, "Bill, I wanna have you go do Andrew's job." So, now, I'm on the receiving end. And maybe you are upstream doing what I used to do. And you are likewise unaware that... You don't know that you're delivering acceptability. All you know is all the parts you deliver are good. You're trained the same way I'm trained, I'm doing your job. Does that change anything? [chuckle] If I take on your job and let's say, banging it together, whereas the week before you were banging it together, does that rotation create the conversation?   0:11:27.2 AS: So, you're saying rotation for the sake of rotation is not necessarily valuable if in fact, what could be more value is just the two of us sitting down and saying, "So what is it that you're doing with yours and what do you need?" and maybe visiting the other side or something like that.   0:11:44.9 BB: My point is, until the thought occurs to either one of us on the distinction between acceptable and desirable, neither one of us is the wiser as to why we do what we do. So, having people move around the organization and take on different roles, absent an understanding of this contrast, absent an understanding of what Dr. Deming is talking about, which includes these distinctions, that's not gonna do anything.   0:12:16.0 AS: Right.   0:12:16.8 BB: I would say it's a nice idea, and you hear about that all the time about oh the CEO's gonna go work at the front desk. But if the CEO goes to the front desk, again, unless he or she has a sense of what could be, that things could be smoother than what they are because of where they've worked before and it's so much smoother over there, that could lead to why at the Atlanta office does it take so much longer than the LA office. Now I'm beginning to wonder what might be causing that difference. But if I just take on your job for the first time, or if you and I every other week change jobs. So, I'm doing your job, we are both doing assembly, we're both making the parts. Absent an understanding of the contrast between a Deming environment or a non-Deming environment, which would include an appreciation of what Dr. Deming would call the System of Profound Knowledge and the elements of psychology and systems and variation, the theory of knowledge, just not enough. Insufficient. Nice idea. But it's when at Rocketdyne we would call "reforming."   0:13:39.0 BB: And we started 'cause Russ... Dr. Deming talks about transformation, and Russ talks about reforming. And so I started thinking, "How would I explain what... " I just thought it was too... My interpretation of what Dr. Deming is saying of the individual transform will begin to see things differently, okay. My interpretation is, I begin to hear things differently, I begin to hear the contrast between somebody referring to their son as "their son" versus "our son," my idea versus our idea; I start paying attention to pronouns, so I start hearing things differently; I start to think about, see things as a system a little... I become more aware, visually more aware.   0:14:43.9 BB: And to me, another aspect I think about relative to transformation is that, if I'm the professor and you're the student in a class, or in any situation, I don't see... I think about how I've contributed to whatever it is you're doing. I have somehow created the headache that you're experiencing. If I'm upstream of you in the organization, whether that's me delivering a report or a tool, or I'm the professor delivering the lecture, I began to realize that your issues I've created, and I begin to see things as a... I begin to see that I am part of the issue, Part of the solution, part of the problem. When I explained to students this, I began to realize as a professor that I am not an observer of your learning, asking "How did you do on the exam?" I am a participant in your learning, saying "How did we do in the lecture?" And to me, that's all part of this transformation.   0:15:53.0 BB: Now, the other word, "reform," which is associated with things I've heard from Russ. He talks about... Yeah, I'll just pause there. But I started thinking, well, Deming's talking about how I see the world, how I begin to see relationships differently, think about variation differently. That's a personal transformation. Reforming, and others began to explain to people at Rocketdyne and I do with clients and students is, reforming is when you and I swap jobs. Reforming is when I look at the process and get rid of a few steps. Reforming is changing titles. Reforming is painting something, [chuckle] changing the color. I think I shared, maybe in the first podcast series, I was doing a multi-day, one-on-one seminar with a pediatrician in Kazakhstan, who came to London to meet me and a bunch of other friends to learn more about Dr. Deming's work. And the entire thing was done through a translator.   0:17:07.1 BB: And so I would ask a question in English, it would be translated to Russian then back to me in English. And so at some point, I said to Ivan Klimenko, a wonderful, wonderful guy. I said, "Ivan," I said [chuckle] to Yuri, the translator, I said, "Ask Ivan, what's the fastest way for a Red Pen Company, a non-Deming company, a "Me" organization, to become a Blue Pen Company, otherwise known as a Deming company or "We" organization." And these are terms that we talked about in the first series; I don't think in this series. But, anyway, I said, "So what's the fastest way for a non-Deming company to become a Deming company? A Red Pen Company to become a Blue Pen Company?"   0:17:44.9 BB: And so he asked, and I'm listening to the translation. And he says, "Okay, I give up." I said, "Spray paint." [chuckle] And that's what reforming is: Getting out the red spray paint, having things become neat, clean, and organized, and you're just going through the motions. There's no change of state. And so, "I do your job, you do my job," that's not sufficient. But get us to think about the contrast of a Deming and a non-Deming organization, then you and I changing roles could be enormously beneficial as I begin to understand what it's like to be on the receiving end. Now, we're talking. And I think I mentioned in a previous podcast, I had a woman attend one of the classes I did at Rocketdyne, and she said, "Bill, in our organization, we have compassion for one another." It's the same thing. It's not sufficient. And that's me saying, "Andrew, I feel really bad. I lost a lot of sleep last night thinking about how much time you spend banging together all those parts that I give you. And if there was anything I could do to make things better, I would love to help you. But at the end of the day, Andrew, all the parts I gave you are good, right? I don't give you bad stuff, right? Have I ever given you a defective part, Andrew?"   0:19:12.0 AS: Nope.   0:19:13.1 BB: "So, everything's good, right? Everything's good that I give you? Well, then, if I could help you, but I don't know what else to do. Everything I give you is good. So, it must be on your end." [laughter]   [overlapping conversation]   0:19:24.1 AS: And I'm busy. Yeah.   0:19:26.6 BB: Must be on you. And that's what I'm talking about. Now, if I understand that I'm contributing to your headache, I'm contributing to the trouble you're having with an example, now I'm inspired; now I understand there's something on me. [chuckle] But, short of that, nice idea, it's not helping.   0:19:50.0 BB: [laughter] So, the story I wanted to share before we're talking about this role-changing. Again, role-changing by itself, nah, not sufficient. So, see if this sounds familiar. It has to do with acceptability. I'm pretty certain it's part of the first series. I wanna make sure it's part of the second series. So, I was in a seminar at Rocketdyne on something to do with quality. And I think United Technologies had purchased Rocketdyne. They were bringing to us their new quality management system. Not just any quality management system, Andrew. This was called ACE, A-C-E. And, when we first learned about this, I remember being in a room when their United Technologies, ACE experts started to explain it. And some of my colleagues said, "Well, what is ACE?" They said, "Well, it's Achieving Competitive Excellence." "Well, what is it? What is it, 'competitive... '"   0:20:52.2 AS: It sounds like you wanna put that up on the wall as a slogan.   0:20:56.0 BB: It was a slogan, "Achieving Competitive Excellence." And people says, "Well, what is it?" I said, "Well, it's Lean Six Sigma." Well, so why do you call it ACE? Well, our arch rivals, General Electric. they call it Lean Six Sigma. We ain't gonna call it Lean Six Sigma. So, we're calling it ACE, A-C-E, Achieving Competitive Excellence. But it's the same thing as Lean Six Sigma. [chuckle] And so we had all this mandatory ACE training that we would all sit through and pray that the rosters were never lost, were never lost so we wouldn't have to take the training again. So, in the training, there was a discussion of, how does the environment impact quality? And I don't know how it came up, but similar, there's a conversation about the environment could affect quality. And, so when that was raised, I think it was a question that came up.   0:21:56.9 BB: How does the environment affect quality? The physical environment: How hot it is, how cold it is. So, one of the attendees says, "I've got an example." He says, "I worked for a Boeing supplier," and it might have been, "I worked for Boeing in Australia." I know he said he worked in Australia. They made parts, big parts, very tall parts like a 15, 20... Very long section. And I think he said it had to do with the tails, part of the tail for Boeing airplane. [chuckle] He says, "When we would measure it," he said, "we knew that if we took the measurement first thing in the morning before the sun came up and it started to get hot, then there's a good chance that the length would meet requirements. And, we knew that once that part saw the heat of the sun and expanded, then it wouldn't meet requirements. So, we measured it first thing in the morning, [laughter] and that's an example of how the environment affects quality." And, my first thought when I heard that was, "You can't make that story up, that I will keep measuring it until it meets requirements." That, Andrew, is me shipping acceptability. Do I care at all about how that part is used, Andrew? [chuckle]   0:23:18.7 AS: Nope.   0:23:19.9 BB: Do I know how that part is installed? Am I watching you install it and go through all, you know, hammer it? Nope. No. Again, even if I did, would I think twice that I measured it before the sun came up and that might be causing the issue? No, that still would not occur to me. But the other thing I wanted to bring up on this, on the topic of ACE, remember what ACE stands for?   0:23:46.0 AS: Achieving Competitive...   0:23:50.0 BB: Excellence.   0:23:50.3 AS: Excellence.   0:23:51.8 BB: So, Rocketdyne was owned by United Technologies of Pratt and Whitney, division of West Palm Beach, for 10 years or so? 10 long years. ACE, ACE, ACE, ACE, ACE. So, I kept thinking, [chuckle] I said to some of my Deming colleagues, "There's gotta be another acronym which is A-C-E." Achieving Competitive... What? What might be another E word? 'Cause it's not... Instead of ACE, Achieving Competitive Excellence, I kept thinking of this, what might be another way of what this is really all about? And it dawned me. The embarrassment is how long it took me to come up with what ACE translated to. And it was "Achieving Compliance Excellence." [chuckle]   0:24:42.9 AS: Excellent.   0:24:45.0 BB: Does it meet requirements? Yes. And so what is compliance excellence? It gets us back to acceptability. So, traditional quality compliance. But then while I was on the thought of Achieving Compliance Excellence, and then, well, there's a place for meeting requirements. There's a place for compliance excellence. I'm not throwing it out the window. I would say, if I ask you, Andrew, how far it is to the closest airport and you say 42 miles, 42 kilometers, or you say it takes an hour, then embedded in that model is "A minute is a minute, an hour is an hour, a mile is a mile, and all the miles are the same." Well, maybe they aren't. Maybe they aren't. Maybe I'm walking that distance, and I'm going uphill and downhill. Maybe I'm driving that distance. And those changes in elevation don't matter as much. So, then, what I thought was, there's Achieving Compliance Excellence that's acceptability, and then there's Achieving Contextual Excellence, which is my understanding of the context.   0:25:56.7 BB: And given my understanding of the context, if you say to me, "How far is it to the nearest airport?" I say, "Well, tell me more about the context of your question. Are you driving there? Are you riding your bike there? Are you walking there?" 'Cause then I'm realizing that every mile with Compliance Excellence, I just treat it as "a mile is a mile is a mile." They're all interchangeable, they're all the same. With Contextual Excellence, the context matters. And I say to you, "That's a... I mean, 42 miles, but boy, every mile is... They're brutal." And so then just the idea that context matters, that the understanding of a system matters. All right. So, next thing I wanna get to, and we've talked about this before but we never got it in, but I wanna provide, I really... Well, what I think is a neat example. [laughter] Okay. Calm down, Bill. [laughter]   0:26:54.8 AS: Yeah. You're excited about it.   0:26:57.0 BB: All right.   0:26:57.1 AS: So, about your idea... [chuckle]   0:27:00.2 BB: All right. So, again, in this spirit, my aim in conversation with you is to provide insights to people trying to bring these ideas to their organization. They're either trying to improve their own understanding, looking for better ways to explain it to others. And towards that end, here is a keeper. And for those who try this, if you have trouble, get back to me. Let me know how it goes. Here's the scenario I give people, and I've done this many, many times. What I used to do is give everyone in the room a clear transparency. That's when you had overhead projectors. [chuckle] 'Cause people say, "What is a transparency? What is an overhead projector?"   [overlapping conversation]   0:27:45.0 AS: Yeah exactly.   0:27:46.8 BB: It's a clear piece of plastic, like the size of a sheet of paper. And on that sheet, on that piece of plastic was a vertical line and a horizontal line. I could call it set a set of axes, X-Y axis. And the vertical axis I called "flavor." And the horizontal axis, I called "time." And, so everyone, when they would walk into a seminar, would get a clear transparency. I give them a pen to write on this transparency. And I'd say to them, "Here's what I want you to imagine. The horizontal axis is time. The vertical axis is flavor." And I would hold up a can of soda and I'd say, "Imagine. Imagine, inside this can, imagine before the lid is put on, soda is added to this can," any kind of soda. Right? "Imagine soda's in the can. Imagine in the can is a probe, a flavor meter. And the flavor meter is connected to the pen in your hand." And what that... Wirelessly, Andrew. So, there's this probe that goes into the soda, into the can. It is, let's say, with Bluetooth technology connected to the pen in your hand, such that you have the ability with this magic pen to trace out what the flavor of the soda in the can is at any point in time.   0:29:31.0 BB: And so I would put on the vertical axis, right, the Y axis, I would put a little tick mark, maybe three quarters of the way up the vertical axis. And so everyone started at that tick mark. And I would say, "Okay, get your pen ready, get it on the tick mark. This flavor meter is inside the can. It's transmitting to your hand and the pen the flavor of Pepsi. If I was to seal this can, put the lid on it, and I say, 'Now the device is activated.' As soon as I put the lid on the can, the pen is activated and your hand starts to trace out what is the flavor of the soda doing over time." And I would say, "If you think the flavor gets better, then you have a curve going up. If you think the flavor of the soda's getting worse, then it goes down. If you think it stays the same, it just goes across."   0:30:37.1 BB: And I would just say, "What I want each of you to do, as soon as that can is sealed, I want you to imagine what the flavor of Pepsi, Coke, whatever it is, I want you to... " The question is, "What do you think the flavor of soda is doing in a sealed can over time?" And I would say, "Don't ask any questions. Just do that." Now, most of the people just take that and they just draw something. They might draw something flat going across. [chuckle] Now and then somebody would say, [chuckle] "Is the can in a refrigerator?" [chuckle] And my response is, "Don't complicate this."   [laughter]   0:31:26.1 BB: So, I just throw that out. Most people just take that and just trace something out. And for the one who says, "Is it refrigerated? What's the timescale? Is the horizontal axis years or minutes?" I'd say, "Don't complicate it." [chuckle]   0:31:46.8 AS: "And don't ask questions."   0:31:48.9 BB: "And don't ask... " But you can bring me over and I'll ask you a question. You can ask your questions, I would just say, "Don't complicate it." So, what do we do? Everyone gets a few minutes, they draw it. I take all those transparencies that you can see through, and I put them on top of one another. And I can now hold them up to the room and people can see what I'm holding up. They can see all the different curves.   0:32:17.0 AS: Right.   0:32:18.0 BB: 'Cause they all start at the same point. And then I would say to the audience, "What do they all have in common?" Well, they all start at the same point. "What else do they have in common? What do they all have in common?" And people are like, "I don't know." Some of them are flat. They go across, the flavor doesn't change. Most of them think it goes down at some rate.   0:32:43.4 AS: Yep.   0:32:45.0 BB: Either concave down or convex down. Now and then, somebody will say it goes up and up and up; might go up and then down. But most people think it goes down over time. That's the leading answer. The second leading answer is it's constant. Up and down, rarely. So, I've done that. I've had people do that. I used to have a stack of 500 of transparencies. I used to save them and just go through them. I've done it, let's say in round numbers, 1,500 to 2,000 people. So, all the curves start at that tick mark in the 99.9999% of them either go down or go across. What's cool is, all those curves are smooth. Meaning, very smoothly up, very smoothly across, very smoothly down. Mathematically, that's called a "continuous function." And what I explained to them is, if I draw a vertical line halfway across the horizontal axis, and I look at every one of those curves, because the curves are smooth, if I draw a vertical line and how each curve, your profile and all the others go across that line, immediately to the left and immediately to the right, it's the same value because the curve is smooth.   0:34:28.3 BB: But I don't ask them to draw a smooth curve. I just say, "What do you think the flavor does over time?" They always, with three exceptions, draw a smooth curve. And so when I ask them what do they have in common, you get, "They start at the same point." Nope, that's not it. I don't know if anyone's ever articulated, "They're all continuous functions." Very rarely. So, then I explained, "They're all continuous functions. But I didn't ask you to draw a continuous function." Well, when I point out to them that three times, three times, Andrew, out of nearly 2,000, somebody drew a curve that goes starting at the tick mark, zero time, and it goes straight across halfway across the page at the same level, and then drops down to zero instantly, it's what's known mathematically as a "step function."   0:35:26.9 BB: So, it goes across, goes across, and then in zero time drops down to zero and then continues. So, three out of nearly 2,000 people drew a curve that wasn't smooth. Again, mathematically known as a step function. And each time I went up to that person and I said, and I comment on it, and each of them said, there's a point at which it goes bad. And each of them had a job in a quality organization. [chuckle] And so why is this important? Because in industry, there's this thing known as an "expiration date." What is an expiration date? It's the date past which you cannot use the chemical, the thing. And what's the assumption? The assumption is, a second before midnight on that date, Andrew, you could use that chemical, that acid, that glue, whatever it is in our product; a second before midnight, before the expiration date, you can use that. But a second after midnight, we put this tape and we call it "defective." And so I've worked with companies that are in the chemical business, and they literally have this tape. At the expiration date, we don't use it. A second before midnight, we do. And so what you have is a sense that it goes from good to bad, you know how fast, Andrew?   0:37:15.0 AS: Tick of a clock.   0:37:17.0 BB: Faster than that, Andrew. Zero time.   0:37:21.0 AS: Yeah.   0:37:22.0 BB: Zero time. And so what I ask people is, "Can you think of any phenomenon that happens in zero time?" And people call that's... "Well, the driver was killed instantly." No, it wasn't zero time. "Well, someone is shot." It's not zero time. And so what's cool is, when I ask people to describe a phenomenon, describe any physical phenomenon that happens in zero time, that we go from one location to another, from one state to another in zero time, I've not been stumped on that. Although actually, [chuckle] there are some situations where that happens. Well, the reason that's important for our audience is, that's a demonstration that expiration-date thinking is an organizational construct. It's not a physical construct. Milk goes bad fast. [chuckle] I'll admit, the expiration date on the half gallon of milk, it goes bad fast.   0:38:27.2 BB: But a second before midnight and a second after midnight, it's still the same. So, expiration-date thinking is what acceptability is about; that everything is good, equally good, but once we go across that expiration date, Andrew, then the flavor changes suddenly. And so what I used to kid people is, imagine if that really happened, right? Then we'd have this contest. I'd say, "Andrew, I had a can of Pepsi recently. And have you ever done this, Andrew? You get the can of Pepsi that has the expiration date on it. And if you listen to it at midnight, on the expiration date, you listen closely, you can hear it go from good to bad, Andrew." [chuckle] Would that be awesome? [chuckle] So, I was sharing some of this recently with our good friend, Christina, at The Deming Institute office.   0:39:31.0 AS: Yep.   0:39:32.7 BB: And it happened to be her birthday. And, so I sent her a note and I said, "Happy birthday." And I said, "So, did you change age immediately on the second you were born?" 'Cause she said, 'cause I think she said something like, "My mom reached out to me and she reminded me exactly what time I was born." And I said, "Oh," I said, "so did you feel the change in age as you crossed that?" And she said, she said, "Hi, Bill. Of course, I felt instantly different on my birthday. My mom even told me what time, so I'd know exactly when to feel different." [chuckle] Now, so here's a question for you, Andrew. Can you think of a situation where something changes from one value to another in zero time? In zero time. Again, we don't go from living to dying in zero time. The change of Pepsi doesn't go from one value to another in zero time. The quality of any product is not changing, you go from one side to the other. But can you think of anything that actually happens in zero time: Across that line, it goes from one value to another?   0:41:05.0 AS: Nope, I can't.   0:41:08.8 BB: Oh, come on, Andrew. You ready?   0:41:16.2 AS: Go for it.   0:41:20.0 BB: Did you ever hear of the German novelist, Thomas Mann, M-A-N-N?   0:41:24.0 AS: No.   0:41:25.7 BB: All right. I wrote this down as a closing thought; it may not be the closing thought. We'll just throw it in right now. So, this in an article [chuckle] I wrote for the Lean Management Journal.   0:41:38.0 AS: By the way, it's gotta be the closing thought because we're running out of time. So, perfect.   0:41:43.7 BB: Fantastic! Well, then here's my closing thought, Andrew. You want my closing thought?   0:41:47.1 AS: Do it.   0:41:48.1 BB: All right. So, from an article I wrote for the Lean Management Journal, so here's the quote. "I have witnessed industrial chemicals in full use right up to the expiration date, and then banned from use and tagged for immediate disposal with a passing of the expiration date only seconds before the chemicals were freely used. While they may rapidly sour, it is unlikely that they expire with a big bang, all in keeping with a sentiment of German novelist Thomas Mann's observation about New Year's Eve," Andrew. What he said was, "Time has no divisions to market's passage. There's never a thunderstorm or a blare of trumpets to announce the beginning of a new month or year. Even when the century begins, it is only we mere mortals who ring bells and fire off pistols." So, at midnight on December 31st, a fraction of a second before midnight, we're in 2024 and we go to 2025 in zero time, Andrew. So, legally things change as you go across a line. You go from the United States to Mexico across a line of zero thickness. So, legally things across a line change instantly.   0:43:17.0 AS: Well.   0:43:18.0 BB: A coupon, Andrew, expires at midnight. [laughter]   0:43:22.7 AS: Yep. All right. Well, on behalf of everyone at The Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this discussion. And for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. And if you wanna keep in touch with Bill, as he mentioned at the beginning, just reach out to him on LinkedIn. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming. "People are entitled to joy in work."

Before you start solving a problem, you need to know what, precisely, you're trying to solve. In this episode, John Dues and Andrew Stotz talk about how to figure out the problem on which you will focus your team's efforts. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.2 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we dive deeper into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with John Dues, who is part of the new generation of educators striving to apply Dr. Deming's principles to unleash student joy in learning. The topic for today is, Define The Problem. John, take it away.   0:00:22.9 John Dues: Hey, Andrew. It's good to be back. Yeah. So, we've been going through this improvement model just as a refresher. Two episodes ago we looked at the three phases of performance measurement, research, accountability, and improvement. That was an important frame at the start of this process. And then in the last episode we discussed how we made sure in that first step of the model, we step back and see our system, see the full system in which we work. And I showed you some improvement tools that we use to visualize the improvement team or the group's thinking for each of a set of guiding questions. So, we looked at a system flow chart and that sort of said to us, within our system, kind of saw how things flow into the system, the things that we do, and then the outputs, and the questions there were, what's the largest system to improve on and what's the aim of that system? And then we took a look at an affinity diagram, and we used that just to answer the question, what are the opportunities for improvement within the target system? And then we used this tool called an interrelationship digraph, where we prioritize basically the various opportunities for improvement. And then it's been through this model that everybody can see these four steps that we're talking...   0:01:57.7 AS: Well, for the listeners, they may not be able to see, but for the viewers, yeah.   0:02:01.7 JD: For the listeners, they can't see it. But the model that we've been talking through, for sure, we've been working through this four-step improvement model, and we've spent most of our time on step one, which is set the challenge and direction. And we'll remain here at this point in the process today as well. And then later on in the series, we'll go on to the subsequent steps. So step two, grasp the current condition. Step three, establish your next target condition. Step four, experiment to overcome obstacles. And some of the first episodes in the series, we talked through just a high level overview of each of those things. And then we've also said that we wanna do all of these steps with a team that's made up of somebody that has Profound Knowledge, some number of people that have the authority to work or change or redesign the system, and in some number of people that are working in the system.   0:02:57.3 JD: So that's just kind of a refresher for those that have been following along. And again, in step one of this model, this is where we're at right now, we ask, where do we wanna be in the long run? And so we're really thinking about a longer range goal that will differentiate us from other organizations. So in our case, schools. And it seems nearly impossible at the outset. We've said that. And we've also talked about what's the right time period for this challenge or direction to be set for, in terms of out in the horizon? Then what I said was, somewhere in the neighborhood of six months to three years, sort of anything less than six months, it's just too fast to put the team together and really dive in and do the work that you need to do. Anything beyond three years, it just seems so far that, you now, things can kind of get away from you if you set the vision out that far.   0:03:48.8 JD: Not that it's impossible, but six months to three years seems to be a sweet spot in my perspective. And then I gave this example, we're working on this chronic absenteeism problem. Chronic absenteeism is when a student in a K-12 school is absent for more than 10% of the school year, and coming out of the pandemic, we've talked about a very high number of kids across the country in the United States are chronically absent. And in our particular system, like a lot of high poverty systems, those numbers are particularly stark. So over the last few years since the pandemic, the chronic absenteeism rate in our school system has been hovering right around 50%.   0:04:34.3 AS: It's just so incredible, every time I hear you say that, I just can't believe that.   0:04:38.3 JD: It is incredible, incredible. And we're trying to get that down, that number down to 5%. So it'd be a huge...   0:04:44.0 AS: Which is also an incredible stretch goal.   0:04:47.3 JD: Incredible stretch goal. Seems almost impossible. That's sort of how we've framed things in our school system.   0:04:54.4 AS: So let's stop there just for a second, because I think for the listeners and the viewers, what's your long range? Let's take three years. What is your three-year goal that is nearly impossible? Where do you wanna be? Yeah, I liked it the way, you know, the diagram that you're showing is kind of a mountain, and so why not think, what mountain do you wanna plant your flag on three years from now? And that really is what you're describing, what you guys are focused on is a very challenging goal, but for the listener and the viewer, what's yours?   0:05:31.4 JD: Yeah. Yeah, that's a great point. Yeah, I mean, I think encouraging people to think through how they would step through this process, how they would frame goals within the system that they're working in, I think that's a really important sort of thought process to be going through as you're listening to, at least to our approach.   0:05:49.8 AS: Yep.   0:05:51.1 JD: So at this stage in the process, like I said, we've stepped back. We have this sort of long term goal. We've mapped out our system, we've talked about some opportunities for improvement and prioritize those. So at this stage in the process, the next thing we're gonna do is we're gonna define the problem. We know we have an issue with chronic absenteeism, but we don't necessarily know what the specific problem is that we're going to work on. So they're, like, with See the System, and we had a set of guiding questions, similarly, we have a set of guiding questions that we're asking at this step in the process to find the problem.   0:06:32.1 JD: So the one that we're gonna focus on today is how is the project being funneled from a general to a more specific problem? So again, we've got this general problem area, chronic absenteeism. Some other guiding questions that we'll tackle later, what's the precise problem statement? What are key operational definitions, concepts that we're gonna measure? Who will benefit the most from the improvement effort? What are their needs? And then what's the vision for excellence? So those are all the things that we're tackling in this stage that we're calling Define the Problem. But we're gonna focus just on this one question today, how is the project being funneled from a general to a more specific problem?   0:07:19.1 JD: So, in our case, and we talked about this last time, by this point we've formed an improvement team. So we have an actual group of about 10 people cross-disciplinary, meaning different roles that are, and they're coming from different parts of our system, different departments, all four of our campuses are represented. So this is the improvement team that we've formed to work on this particular problem. And really what we're trying to do in this step is show the importance of this particular attempted improvement. And we're trying to paint a picture for everybody else that's not on the team why energy should be spent here instead of elsewhere. Because there's gonna have to be resources both obviously in people, money, whatever, deployed as a part of this effort. And we have any number of problems like most school systems...   [laughter]   0:08:19.7 JD: That we could focus on. And so we have to really paint the case for why we're gonna focus on chronic absenteeism.   0:08:27.3 AS: I have to tell you a story, John. When I was, I don't know, 10 years ago I went to visit my first boss who was so successful that he bought a piece of land in New Zealand, and it was a farm. And it was 250 square kilometers. So I went to visit him and he had a little house on this big farm, and it had all these mountains. And he looked at me and said, what mountain do you want to climb today? And I said, "That one." And so we climbed up that one, and I was there for five days and we had to take a break in between, 'cause it's pretty exhausting climbing up one of these mountains, but there was endless mountains, and you can't climb 'em all.   0:09:03.2 JD: Yeah.   0:09:03.7 AS: And you only have limited time, and you only have limited energy. So what mountain are you gonna climb? And I think part of what you're talking about, showing the importance of spending the energy here is that, you know, hey, this is a very hard challenge that we want to get to, and we have to explain that we cannot climb two of these mountains at the same time, and we cannot climb all of these mountains over a period of time. We have to really be able to focus and make the argument of why we're planting our flag on that particular mountain.   0:09:35.5 JD: Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. And in terms of the team, one of the things we talked about last week was that, or last episode is that, one of the ways that we use this set of guiding questions for each step in the process is, we're tagging that guiding question to a tool that we use to visualize the group's thinking. So again, we're funneling from this sort of general problem, this mountain to climb to a more specific mountain to climb, so to speak. So we'll keep doing that today. And again, what we're trying to get to is what's the precise problem statement? But we have sort of a general area of focus now, and we're thinking about, are we ready to write that more precise problem statement? Or perhaps is there more study that's needed? And one of the things that we do is we use this tool called a Problem Statement Readiness Check.   0:10:41.0 JD: And, so basically, so the group's been working for about a month and a half, and so we have quite a bit of information that we've gathered about this process thus far. And part of the power of this Problem Statement Readiness Check is it puts all of that information in one place, or at least the most important information. So you can kind of see at the top for folks that are viewing, there's this general problem focus area. And basically this captures the problem as we understand it early in the process. And basically what it says is that our average daily attendance across our four campuses is between 85% and 88%. And currently chronic absenteeism rates are between 43% and 53% depending on the campus. High number of students are excessively absent or habitually truant.   0:11:39.1 JD: So those are sort of officially defined attendance terms in Ohio's attendance laws, basically. And that we... We know that, you know, fairly obvious that missing a high amount of school, missing a lot of school is detrimental to students and their ability to grow and achieve academically. So it's, also when you have, you know, so students that are experiencing these problems require a lot of intervention. And so when you have high numbers, obviously it becomes harder to intervene because it's an intensive process. And when you're interviewing with chronically absent students, school leaders are being pulled away from other things. So that's sort of part of the case that we're making for this being a worthy problem. Although it's not very hard actually to paint this picture.   0:12:35.4 AS: Right.   0:12:35.5 JD: And so we have this focus area. Then what we say is, what insights into the problem focus area are helpful? What learning has the potential to lead to effective solutions? So this is stuff we've done so far. Again, we're kind of summarizing where we are to date. So the leader of this group is saying, well, we created this affinity diagram. We have these six categories of problems that we could focus our attention on: Data, academic systems, communication, transportation, culture and engagement, our intervention systems. And then we use that in a relationship digraph to try to come up with what's the dominant cause of the attendance problem? And if you remember from last time, what we settled on when we looked at that digraph was transportation. But then we said, well, we're not gonna focus on transportation because we already have an improvement team in our system that's working on the transportation issues that we're seeing here in Columbus.   0:13:40.8 JD: The other thing is we're looking at a bucket of questions that remain to be answered. So after we looked at of all the data that we've gathered so far, the conversations that we've had, what questions remain to be answered, what do we still need to know as a team? Maybe what new questions has the problem analysis revealed? So some of those questions are things like, why aren't students coming to school consistently? What does the intervention process look like at each campus? There's variation, we've already found out there's variation in the campus... How the campuses intervene. What does the typical attendance intervention plan look like at the individual student level? Is that intervention process at each campus effective? How do we know? Are we tracking data? So you can start to see how there are a lot of questions to sort of consider even after you've done some study digging into your data.   0:14:37.7 JD: So that's sort of the first part of the problem focus... Sorry, the Problem Statement Readiness Check. So this is a worksheet that we use. And the second part is we have a series of six questions that we ask after the group has talked through that first part of the worksheet. And basically they're just yes/no questions. They're six questions. So the first question is, has our team investigated multiple perspectives on the problem focus area? And basically what we said there is the team basically understands a higher percentage of students are not coming to school consistently, but the team doesn't have a strong understanding of what those causes are. So in that case we checked no, we haven't investigated multiple perspectives. The second question is, have you challenged assumptions our team held about why the problem occurs?   0:15:37.3 JD: So you can imagine anytime you're working in team with or without data, people are gonna have these preconceived notions, "Oh, I know why kids don't come to school." It's this reason or that reason, right? These are assumptions that we have. So in terms of challenging those assumptions with data, with study, we said, no, we haven't done that. The third question is, have you gained useful insight into why previous efforts haven't been as successful as desired? Basically there we said not systematically. We haven't studied this issue for a while, so we checked no there. The fifth question is, has your team gained sufficient insight into students' needs to give you confidence that you know which kinds of improvement will lead to improve student experiences and outcomes? To that we said no. We haven't done a lot of talking to students and families about specific challenges individual students are facing.   0:16:31.5 JD: And then the last question is, have you identified existing school-based practices or processes connected to the problem that might be improved? So that was the one question that we checked yes to. So basically there's this little guidance done at the bottom, then of the worksheet. It says, if the team checks three or more boxes, we'll move on to draft the problem statement. Well, we only draft... Sorry, we only checked one of the six boxes as a yes. The other five were no. So we're basically saying there, we don't have enough information to write the specific problem statement that we're gonna work on. So we have to do something else that's going to give us additional information about our process. So you can see how this thing has, you know, it's starting to be funneled from sort of a general understanding that we have a problem with chronic absenteeism, a problem with students attending school consistently.   0:17:29.8 JD: We think we know generally some of the reasons that's happening, but we haven't done enough study to really understand the specific obstacles that individual students are facing. So, then we, you know, since we're not ready to write the problem statement, we have to think about, well, what do we do to dig in and get sort of additional information? And so in our case, what we decided to do next was a Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle. So this is a way, if properly designed, where we can get some of that additional information from students and families. So that's what we're in the process of doing right now. And it's been really interesting. So what we did was, so we started the PDSA a couple weeks ago. This sort of coincided with the end of our first grading period.   0:18:22.9 JD: We're on trimester, so this was at the end of November. And we knew that parent conferences were coming up during that time. So that would give us a unique chance to talk to some of the students and families that are having attendance issues. So basically what we did was we said, well, we're gonna talk to one student and one family member from each campus that's been chronically absent. And we created a structure for the PDSA. So the plan was, so we have a Dean of Family and Community Engagement at each campus, and they're the point person for this attendance work. And so the guy that's leading this project, he's like the System of Profound Knowledge coach, the improvement coach on this, he created a little interview protocol, and basically then the DFCEs, the family engagement person at each campus took the protocol and sat down with the family member to interview them.   0:19:24.0 JD: And they're basically asking, you know, if the person is missing days of school, they're asking why, what's going on, what are the obstacles? Sometimes, because Ohio counts attendance by hours, so sometimes families are consistently bringing their student late, and those one and two hour misses in the morning add up to days pretty quickly, or you get the vice versa where someone is coming to pick the student up early repeatedly for some reason. And then of course some folks have a combination of these things. But what we said was, let's get some information from specific families. And we made a prediction, we said, you know, if we talk to people about the attendance issue, start to gather some information from them and let them know that, hey, your child, your student has this attendance issue, we all then made predictions for, is this gonna have an impact?   0:20:23.5 JD: Just this little intervention, is this gonna have an impact on the attendance rates? So we're in the middle of this, now we're gathering this data. It's been really fascinating to see the information that was gathered, to see, like, on a day by day level, the specific reasons, not the attendance codes that get put into the system, like drilled down specific data, specific anecdotes about what's happening on any given day that leads to a kid missing all or part of a school day. So this is sort of the first part in our process, PDSA cycle one is just to gather this information to see, you know, get a better sense, a detailed sense of some of the obstacles that our families are facing when it comes to attendance.   0:21:08.9 AS: Like, I got up and I went out and started the car and it didn't start.   0:21:15.4 JD: That's exactly right. That's exactly right. That's a...   0:21:19.6 AS: So I gave up...   0:21:21.8 JD: Oh, sorry, go ahead.   0:21:22.1 AS: So I gave up and I thought, I can't be bothered with this. I've gotta take care of other stuff and whatever.   0:21:28.7 JD: Yeah, it's stuff like that. And we've talked about this bus issue that we're having in Columbus. So it's not uncommon for a bus to come late, an hour late in the morning to a student bus stop.   [overlapping conversation]   0:21:39.4 AS: Do you sit there for an hour, wait for it, or, you know?   0:21:42.9 JD: Tomorrow it's gonna be something like 19 degrees in Ohio. Are you gonna sit out there for an hour when it's 19 degrees and wait for your bus? Right? And maybe you go home and you're right, and the car doesn't start. Or we had a family tell us that the bus stop that the kid is assigned to is dangerous, you know? And so you start to dig into these things and they're very reasonable explanations for attendance issues.   0:22:12.6 AS: Yeah.   0:22:13.2 JD: And so this is a way for us to sort of dig into some of those questions to help us better define the problem. And we're spending a lot of time on these early stages. And what I typically tell people is these early stages, before we ever develop a solution, account for at least 50% of any of these projects, because we wanna be very sure that when we start solutions that the problem is well understood, otherwise if there's misalignment between that problem identification and then the solution, then we're just wasting time and spinning our wheels.   0:22:50.7 AS: What do you say to people, like, "Come on, this is so much work. I mean, let's just solve the problem. Come on, John. You know, it's a problem. We know it's out there. Let's go, let's solve it"?   0:23:00.8 JD: Yeah. I mean, that's actually something that, I mean, there's that. And then when you're in an improvement team, there's, I have many other responsibilities that I need to attend to. And for a team like this that's cross campus, we have to have the meeting somewhere. So we pick a campus, and that means the people at the other three campuses have to travel to the meeting. So there are sort of hardships or at least extra work that's associated with this. But we just sort of keep reminding people like, this deep study is worth it. And the good thing with us, I think, is that we're a very mission-driven organization. That mission orientation is assessed during the interview process. So the vast majority of people that work at United are very bought in and very driven by that mission. And something like this is a very mission-aligned effort. So it's not like we're trying to improve some web traffic or something like that that may be harder to find, maybe important, but maybe harder to find meaning in. This is kids' futures, like improving this...   0:24:16.6 AS: People are generally aligned.   0:24:17.7 JD: Have a significant... What's that?   0:24:19.7 AS: People are generally aligned.   0:24:22.6 JD: People are generally aligned. That's right. Yeah. Yeah. So I'm really interested, like I said, we're in the middle of this PDSA, so I'm really interested in what the outcome is gonna be. We're gonna run this for about 20 days, basically until our winter break here in about a week and a half, gather the data, we're gonna use that to go back and then see if we're ready to write this problem statement, basically.   0:24:44.8 AS: So how would you summarize today's discussion?   0:24:49.0 JD: Yeah. If I was gonna kind of recap where we are, just sort of overall, I'd say the first thing is we, as an organization, senior leadership team, we set this chronic absenteeism as a key priority, right? So that was set at the organizational level, our senior organizational level, this overall challenge. And then in talking with the team, because we're telling them for the first time, hey, this goal is to go from 50-ish percent down to 5%, so it's really important, again, with that team that we frame this as an improvement orientation. This is not an accountability orientation. This isn't an individual person's fault if we don't achieve this metric. This is a team effort. And people have to understand that because people, especially in education, really have this accountability sort of mindset ground in. So we have to sort of...   [overlapping conversation]   0:25:46.8 AS: Which can also bring in defensiveness or...   0:25:50.1 JD: Defensiveness or what's gonna happen if we don't meet these goals, those types of things. So we kind of constantly have to talk about that frame. I think it's important for that challenge to be quantitative. So it's very clear if we have met it, if we're on track, if we didn't meet it, if we're not on track, if we're not moving in the right direction. I think that's really important. I also talked about how long we're spending defining the problem, understanding the problem, understanding the system before we ever got to solutions, before we ever attempted any solutions. This PDSA is not about testing an intervention, it's about gathering information, gathering additional data, which is a fine use of the PDSA. And then the final thing I would say is, the model is then paired with this improvement process. These guiding questions that are tagged to these tools are very helpful, because we have this now written record and people can respond to it.   0:26:53.0 JD: They see it in black and white, and then we can refine it based on the input of the group. And I know that sounds simple, but most of the time we just talk and we don't write stuff down, and we don't have a record, and just makes it harder to see sort of what we said we were gonna do, did we do those things? One thing I didn't mention, in our sort of project and meeting tracker, there's a tab called Journey. And every milestone, every meeting, there's a one-sentence description of what happened, and there's a link to any tool that was created at that meeting. So on one single tab of a spreadsheet, anybody could see the entire process that a particular improvement team went through on their particular project.   0:27:40.3 AS: Excellent. Well, on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for your discussion. And for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. You can find John's book Win-Win: W. Edwards Deming, the System of Profound Knowledge, and the Science of Improving Schools on amazon.com. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming, "People are entitled to joy in work."

In this episode, Bill Bellows and Andrew Stotz dive further into acceptability versus desirability in the quality world. Is it enough that something is "good" - meets requirements - or do you need to focus on degrees of "good"? How can you tell the difference? TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.5 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we dive deeper into the teachings of Dr. W Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with Bill Bellows, who has spent 31 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. Episode, today is episode eight, Beyond Looking Good. Bill, take it away.   0:00:25.4 Bill Bellows: Hi, Andrew. How are you doing?   0:00:29.1 AS: Beyond looking good. So beyond my good looks, that's what you're saying. Okay.   0:00:33.6 BB: No, but it's funny, this beyond looking good and so I could say, Andrew, how you feeling? Oh, I'm feeling good. Right? I'm feeling good. So we have this, and that's part of why I think is funny is how are things? Things are good, things are good.   0:00:49.3 AS: Looking good.   0:00:51.0 BB: And that's what I find is, I mean, and it's not that people are necessarily honest, but when somebody says how was your day? Good. Or it could be the extreme other, and we won't use any foul language, but it's like, but I find it's just a very common, how are you feeling? Oh, I'm feeling good. Or I could say, great, which is better than good. So anyway, so I'm gonna pick up on, well first say that a heavy focus of this series, Misunderstanding Quality, is for you, quality professionals out there around the world that are excited by Deming's work, learning about Deming's work, trying to bring Dr. Deming's ideas to your organization in your quality function.   0:01:41.6 BB: Or it could be, you're elsewhere in the organization and you believe that...you're inspired to realize that there's something about how quality is managed in your organization, whether you're in design or manufacturing, which is inhibiting what you might want otherwise to do. And what I'm hoping is that the examples and concepts presented here can help you, one, absorb the ideas yourself, begin to absorb them, eventually explain them to people at work. At least once a month I'm contacted by someone listening to the podcast who says, hey, they wanna connect with me on LinkedIn, and then quite often I reach out to them and ideally end up in a conversation with them to find out more about what they're trying to do.   0:02:38.7 BB: But what I'm hoping is that this fundamental information, knowledge, wisdom is useful to you and personally learning, but then depending on what you wanna do with it, you have to engage others. And that's why I've been encouraging, and this is what I do with people I mentor, is you have to develop the ability to explain it to others. 'Cause you can't be the only one talking about these differences. You're gonna drive your coworkers nuts. You might get in a jam where somebody's confused by what you're trying to do, and you need help, or you need help in implementation, help in explaining.   0:03:17.6 BB: So I'm gonna go back to acceptability and desirability. And I was in the Finland, the Netherlands and the Sweden about a month ago with friends in each of those countries. And what came up was, again, this acceptability/desirability and that contrast. So acceptability again, as a reminder is, there's no need to know where we are within the requirements. It is absolutely good. All we know is that it meets requirements for whatever the requirements are. It is you're comfortable with good versus bad. I was talking with somebody, some clients today and we were talking about, pass versus fail. And I said, 'cause it's really a pass. Acceptability is a pass-fail system. And what does passing mean?   0:04:17.5 BB: Passing means not failing. It's like, years ago when I was a summer student working for this jet engine company in Connecticut and got together for beers one Friday night with a couple of the executives, and there were a couple of us summer interns there with these directors. Yeah. Senior directors. And one of the senior directors says to us, says, so what's the difference between business and crime? And we're like, this and this and this and this. And I don't know what our answers were, but we. And finally one of them said, no, no, no, no, no, no. He said, the basic difference is crime's illegal.   0:05:03.0 BB: So you end up with what is bad, what is bad is what's not good. And what is good, good is what's not bad. And so what is passing? Passing is not failing. And so when I was explaining to somebody today I was asking him, what's the letter grade? What letter grade? In fact, I asked a very senior NASA executive this question once. What letter grade do they expect for everything they buy that put into their missions? And he said, A plus. And I said, A plus is not the requirement. He said, what's the requirement? I said, D minus. And he is like, nah, it's not D minus. I said, your procurement system is based on things being good or things being bad. He said, yep.   0:05:45.7 BB: I said, well, what is good but passing? Right. Good is not... Good is... To be good is to not be bad, to pass is to not fail. What is crime? What is crime is what's illegal versus legal. It's one or the other. We talked once on the previous podcast about Kepner-Tregoe problem solving, decision making. And part of decision making I mentioned is you come up with a bunch of characteristics of a decision. You're buying a house and you want it to be one story, three bedrooms, two bathrooms, whatever it is. And you put down all the requirements and then you ask for each of those requirements. Is it a must or a want? And a must is yes or no. It has it or it doesn't. So it must have three bedrooms, must be one story. The must could be must be under a million dollars or whatever the number is.   0:06:53.5 BB: And then you get into, well, is that really a must or is that a high weighted want? For our daughter, Allison, I remember taking her out to buy a bike for her birthday one year and she said, well, how much can we spend? And I said, $200. So, what did she say, Andrew? "What if it's 201?" Well, then you get into, well, is that a must or a high weighted want? You know what I say? Depends on how much money's in your wallet. If you don't have $201, it is a must if you're...   0:07:34.7 AS: I thought she was gonna say, if I can get it for 150, can I keep the 50 bucks?   0:07:41.3 BB: But that's it. So acceptability is like treating it as a must. It is absolute. It has to be three bedrooms. And then what is desirability? Desirability is the lower the cost, the better, the higher the performance, the better. And so acceptability is absolute, it is good versus bad. Desirability there's relativeness. And the next thing I wanna say is why should we be interested in desirability? Which also based on what we've talked about before, is to be appreciative of desirability in regard to the Dr. Deming's Red Bead Experiment. Deming Red Bead Experiment, we had red beads and white beads the customer wanted white beads. And then one of the things we looked at was, if all the red beads are gone, can we still improve?   0:08:46.1 BB: And then people would say, well, we can make the white beads faster, we can make them cheaper, but can we make the white beads better? And the huge blind spot and asking that question to audiences on a regular basis is, they get stuck. Well, then we got into, well, what if there's variation in the white beads? So part of desirability is that there's variation in good. And that allows us to go beyond just being good to better. But what is better than? Well, better than is, I mean, what would be better for the organization would be a better appreciation of the white bead variation. One, could prevent red beads from happening in the first place. And so why do we have a gas gauge that goes anywhere from E to full? It allows us to watch the gauge go down and go down and go down.   0:09:39.7 BB: What does that? It's watching variation in good and then getting gas before it runs out. So if we use a run chart and monitor vacuum level in a braze oven if we're monitoring something on a variable way, not just saying it's good or it's bad, that allows us to see trouble coming before it happens. We could use that information to create a control chart and go one step further. And so relative to a given characteristic, what we're doing is trying to prevent non-conformances, trying to prevent bad from happening by monitoring what is good. What we can also do and what I shared is with appreciation of Dr. Taguchi's insights, the idea that the closer we are to that ideal value so when we're at home cutting the piece of wood really close to that line, why do we do that?   0:10:33.7 BB: Because at home we have to get those pieces of wood together and they're not quite square or straight, then that's extra work over there. So those are two aspects of the value proposition for desirability. And then I wanted to mention is, our son is a handyman and a pet sitter. And he is self-employed in both. And the handyman stuff involves and sometimes it involves woodworking. And recently he's doing some work in our house and some really cool stuff. So he experiments in our house, which is great for us. He also experiments in our daughter's condo. So there's great opportunities for him to practice doing something. So he was cutting some long pieces of wood and they weren't, he was very frustrated. They weren't coming out straight. So we called a friend who's a master craftsman over, and he gave us both a lesson on how to, how desirability, how to get a really straight cut, not just anywhere within spec, but you need a really straight cut so they fit together well.   0:11:38.6 BB: Well, this carpenter friend, Alex, shared with me a while ago, years ago, what it's like in the construction industry. 'Cause I explained to him acceptability, desirability, focusing on the target. And in the world of construction, he gets involved, he'll be involved on a team building a multimillion dollar home for six months to a year. And it's not uncommon he's called in to have to deal with everybody else barely meeting requirements. And his job is to go in there and straighten things up because they're not quite right. And that's all this compensation stuff. And that's what with his insights trying to help our son get around that. All right, so, I do wanna share a couple anecdotes from Rocketdyne the world of acceptability and so it was a fun story.   0:12:41.2 BB: I was meeting with a small team and one of them was a senior quality manager and in the quality organization. And he says, you know what the problem is Bill? He says, what's, you know what the problem is? He said, "the problem is the executives VP of quality and as directors are not getting the quality data fast enough." So I said, "well, what data?" And he says, "scrap and rework data. He said, "they're just not getting it fast enough." So I said, "I don't care how fast they get it it's already happened."   [laughter]   0:13:18.9 BB: And I kept saying to him, the speed doesn't matter. And so how many red beads did we have today? Well, we gotta instantly report the number of red beads on a cell phone. No. If you monitor the white bead variation, then that's a means to do that. Also say, when I joined Rocketdyne in 1990, there was a big movement on the space shuttle main engine program. And I don't know what instigated this, but Rocketdyne developed, designed and developed and then produced for many years the space shuttle main engine. I mean the world's first reusable rocket engine. And there was a movement before I got there to change the drawings. And so a set of manufacturing drawings will have a nominal value, let's say 10. And then it might be something must be 10 plus or minus one.   0:14:19.4 BB: And what does that mean in terms of acceptability? It means anything between nine and 11. And then what I learned was they'll say that the number 10, that's the nominal value. And then we have 10 plus or minus one. Well, what matters to the person downstream is not the 10 plus or minus one. What matters to the person downstream is it's gotta be between nine and 11. So no matter what that nominal is, the nominal goes out the window. So there was a movement to get rid of the nominal value. 'Cause now the machinist has to do the math, 10 plus or minus one. Okay? Anything between nine and 11. So we're gonna save you all that trouble and just give you two numbers. The min and the max. And so what is that system? That is a system based on acceptability.   0:15:07.0 BB: And so that was the starting point when I joined. And so what I wanted to add for our listeners, if you're in an organization, this came up recently with one of my clients, and they're talking about the nominal value of that 10. The 10 plus or minus one, or it could be the nominal value is 11 and they'll say 11 plus nothing minus two. And so what does that mean? 11 plus nothing means eleven's the max minus two means nine and 11. So when I saw it doesn't really matter what the nominal value is, 'cause all that's gonna happen is gonna get translated to a minimum and max. And so in this client, they're talking about nominal values, nominal values. And I said, my recommendation is when it comes to desirability, don't say nominal.   0:16:00.3 BB: 'Cause I'm not convinced we use that term the same way. What I would suggest, again, this is for those listening to the podcast on a regular basis, is don't use the word nominal. It's confusing. Use the word target. Say that is the ideal. And the idea, by using the word target, which may not be part of the vocabulary, you can differentiate from nominal, which I find to be confusing and just say that's what we want. I'm gonna give you another fun story relative to acceptability. I was at a supplier conference, so in the room are a couple hundred Rocketdyne suppliers. And the person speaking before me says, and there was some very heavy duty brow beating.   0:16:48.0 BB: And the person ahead of me says, when we give a Rocketdyne employee a job and they sign that it's good, that's their personal warranty, Andrew. That's their personal warranty. So for you suppliers, when you tell us something is good, that's your personal warranty to us. And so that has to be transmitted to your organization. That's personal warranties. We take it seriously. This is the space business, Andrew. So that was going on and there was some heavy duty browbeating. And on the one hand I'm thinking, I wonder what happened recently where somebody said, Andrew, get up there on stage and go browbeat 'em, go browbeat 'em. And so this guy's up there, browbeating, browbeating.   0:17:42.7 AS: We need people to take this serious.   0:17:44.0 BB: Well, this is personal warranty, Andrew. When you say it's good, that's your warranty. So I got up and I told the story of the bowling ball being left in the doorway of the bedroom. And I said, the fact of the matter is, Wilson gave us his personal warranty that the bowling ball was in the bedroom. And just trying to say, 'cause the personal warranty is not a personal warranty of an A plus Andrew. It's not a personal warranty. It's a personal warranty that it's good and what is good, Andrew? Not bad. And so when I hear this talk of personal warranty, it's like it's not all that it's cracked up to be. When you start to look at what is good is what's not bad.   0:18:36.4 AS: By the way, I have a funny one to share in this one. And that is, every time I start my ethics in finance class with a new batch of fourth year finance students here in Thailand, class starts at 9:00 AM and the students think that the time to arrive is somewhere a little bit before or a little bit after nine. And when they arrive at the class at 9:01 or actually just after 9:00, they find the door is locked.   0:19:12.3 BB: Yeah.   0:19:13.3 AS: And then I leave them outside. And then after about five minutes, I go out after they've built up a group of people out there and I come out and I talk to them. I said just so you know I want you to be on time for my class. Don't tell me about traffic. Don't tell me you're busy. I got a full-time job and I'm working like crazy and I'm here for you. I'm not making much money out of this. So show me the respect and be here on time. They come in, they walk in shame, past all their classmates, and then they sit down and then I lock the door again, and of course another batch comes at about 9:05 or 9:10.   0:19:46.0 AS: And then I do the same. And then I bring them in, and then next week they come and they're all there at 8:58, let's say 8:59, but nobody arrives past 9:00. And then in the following weeks, I never locked a door anymore. Curious how things change. And of course, things start to shift back to that range around it, but it just made me think about what I do in trying to communicate that, whether it's right or wrong or whatever. But I like doing it because I want the students, I wanna set the parameters from the beginning. Like, take it seriously.   0:20:26.4 BB: Oh yeah. I go to a daily meeting and it starts exactly on the hour and it's done exactly. And everybody knows that. And the degree to which things are accomplished and 'cause the whole strategy was to develop a cadence that, yeah, no, that's...   0:20:56.8 AS: And I have a hard time. I want to, with my valuation masterclass bootcamp, which I do have classes at 6:00 PM. I'm generally pretty lenient letting students come in, but there's a part of me that has... I've started locking the room after 6:03 or so, and then I'll unlock it five minutes, 10 minutes later and let a few people that are... But I've had some questions in my mind as to whether I should just be hard line and say, it starts at 6:00, if you don't make it, see you next time. Now we also record it so they can watch it. But I don't know, I haven't really figured out whether I should be that tough or not.   0:21:35.0 BB: Yeah. And that's what it comes down to. I think depending on the environment, there could be, I mean, it's about synchronizing watches, right?   0:21:48.9 AS: Well, yeah. And the other thing that you could say is that, well, Andrew, come on if you understand variation, then you understand that there's gonna be some people that are gonna be late, and there's gonna be some people that are gonna be early. You set the target at 6:00 PM what else would you expect? But I guess what I'm thinking is, if for a student they should be thinking, I need to shift my target to be 8:00, sorry, 5:55 if the meeting's at 6:00, that way I could be a little bit late, you know?   0:22:16.2 BB: Exactly.   0:22:16.7 AS: And it's same concept, it's just that shifting that target. So maybe I need to start working on that one.   0:22:25.3 BB: No and it's respect for the other 15 people in the meeting that... you know, and this idea that we are... This meeting is designed for this reason, but it has to fit the work. And, yeah, I mean, so is that necessary for a college class? Again, I mean, if it depends on how much you wanna squeeze in. And five minutes if you're trying to get a whole bunch in and develop a cadence, then, yeah.   0:23:07.6 AS: Well, it also depends. What are you teaching.   0:23:11.4 BB: Exactly.   0:23:12.5 AS: In my Valuation Masterclass about valuing companies, I've decided I'm not teaching Excel. You can go somewhere else and get that, and people ask me for it, and I let them use my Excel model that I've created, but I've just decided that's not what I'm gonna teach. And so in this case, with being an ethics class, I think it is probably important to teach about the importance of time and understanding that. And so for that, but for the bootcamp, Valuation Masterclass Bootcamp, I am trying to teach discipline and helping young people realize you gotta deliver. And so that's it. By the way you're looking good, Bill. So let us summarize beyond looking good. How would you like people to... What would you like them to take away from our discussion on this topic?   0:24:07.3 BB: It goes, this is...I mean, we started off this whole series talking about quality and the eight dimensions of quality and the book and the article by David Garvin of the Harvard Business School. So to first introduce in this series called Misunderstanding Quality, that there are dimensions of quality. And amongst those dimensions were capacity and reliability and repairability. And one was aesthetics, and one was a sense of a reputation that through everything else, you're developing a reputation. Well, one of them was acceptability, and that then was the inspiration to get into the contrast between acceptability and desirability.   0:25:05.6 BB: And there's a lot to that. And so what I found in the beginning I had a little bit in mind based on some things I've seen. And then the more I researched it, the more I saw and what I wanna get into next time is, and these are questions I was asking people in the trip to Europe is, first is, can acceptability - a focus on acceptability explain the incredible reliability of Toyota products? At least that I have experienced. Can you explain that with acceptability? And I don't think so. Next, okay, I'll go back to my notes here.   0:25:57.7 BB: Next is, does your organization, again, for those calling in, the better you understand this distinction between acceptability and desirability. Does your organization distinguish those? Does your quality system... Is your quality system based on acceptability? Does it have acceptability and desirability? That is a question for our audience. What I want to get into next time is, and I think I've mentioned this before, I've read much a great deal about Lean. I've gone to Lean conferences. I've written plenty of articles for the Lean Management Journal involving reading articles and commenting on them. Everything I see within Lean is acceptability. I don't see any mention of desirability. Six Sigma quality is that we wanna have 3.4 defects per million. There's no mention in acceptability, either explicitly or implicitly to this difference between acceptability and desirability nor in Lean.   0:27:04.9 AS: Sorry, can you clarify that for just a second? Okay. So you said Lean was one and Six Sigma was the other, which was focused on which?   0:27:13.4 BB: Well, what I'm saying is that I don't see explicitly... I don't see a call out in the Lean literature a conversation about acceptability and desirability. What I see is plenty of evidence of an acceptability-based quality mindset in Lean, in Six Sigma quality, in Lean Six Sigma, in Operational Excellence, in the Toyota Production System is what I see is a heavy emphasis directly about things being good versus bad. I don't see any inference to desirability that there's something beyond good in that system.   0:28:06.4 BB: And that's what I've been wanting to point out, is I think Dr. Deming's work is unique in its appreciation of that distinction in explaining the difference and the value of understanding when acceptability makes sense, when desirability makes sense. And that's what this whole Misunderstanding Quality series, a big part that I'm trying to introduce through my experiences is, if you're interested in moving your organization or just your personal awareness beyond a good mindset into continual improvement, that's what I'm trying to bring about in this series.   0:28:50.5 AS: Fantastic.   0:28:50.9 BB: That's my story, Andrew, and I'm sticking to it.   0:28:53.7 AS: Yeah. Exciting. Exciting. Well, Bill on behalf...   0:28:58.9 BB: It'll be on my tombstone, acceptability is not desirability.   0:29:01.7 AS: Yeah, exactly. We have accepted the death. It is acceptable. It's not desirable, but... On behalf of everyone at The Deming Institute, I want to thank you, Bill, for this discussion. Again, it's a fun one to hear what you're thinking about. And for listeners, remember to go to Deming.org to continue your journey. Any final thoughts Bill?   0:29:31.4 BB: Keep looking good Andrew, keep looking good.   0:29:34.0 AS: I wanna go beyond looking good. If you wanna keep in touch with Bill, just find him on LinkedIn. He responds. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming. People are entitled to joy in work.

Before you jump into tools and solutions, you need to take a step back. In this episode, John Dues and Andrew Stotz discuss the four questions you need to ask in order to make the system you want to work on visible, and decide on a direction. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.5 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz and I'll be your host as we dive deeper into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today I am continuing my discussion with John Dues, who is part of the new generation of educators striving to apply Dr. Deming's principles to unleash student joy in learning. And the topic for today is, what is the topic for today, John?   0:00:25.4 John Dues: See the System.   0:00:27.3 AS: All right. Well, why don't you take it away?   0:00:30.3 JD: All right. Great. Yeah, it's good to be back. Yeah, just as a quick refresher for people following along in the series, so two episodes ago we briefly talked about the importance of framing the challenge as an improvement goal. And then last episode, if you remember, we went deeper into those three sort of faces of performance measurement. There was research, there was accountability, and then there was improvement. And if you remember, you took the avocado quiz and you got 100% on that quiz. But the whole purpose of sort of taking that time to dive into those three different types of measurement or three different types of goals was this idea that problems arise when measures aren't used for their intended purpose. And what we talked about was, if you're gonna do a research goal, then, you know, the basic goal for research is to contribute to the knowledge base.   0:01:32.4 JD: And for accountability, the purpose of the goal is to determine the application of rewards and sanctions. And then for improvement, the goal is to learn our way to a system that produces a higher level of performance. And basically, at the end of that sort of episode, we established that the challenge or direction should be framed as an improvement goal, in my opinion, and not as an accountability goal, not as a research goal. And then we have this model that we've been working through which is up on the screen for those that are also watching the podcast, and it's this four-step improvement model. So we've outlined these steps. So step one is to set the direction or challenge. That's what's gonna be your improvement goal, not your accountability goal.   0:02:28.7 JD: Step two is to grasp the current condition or conditions on the ground where you are in your organization. Step three is to establish the next target condition. Step four is to experiment, overcome obstacles in the way of meeting that next target condition on the way to that ultimate goal or that direction or challenge that you've set for your organization. And then we've said multiple times that all of the steps are done with this team that's including those working in the system, those with the authority to work on the system, and then someone that has this System of Profound Knowledge lens. That's sort of a quick recap. And so what I thought we could do today is to sort of go back to, actually to step one.   0:03:16.8 JD: So we've gotten an overview of it, and talk about some other things to think about when you're on this particular step. And if you remember in step one of the model, what we're asking is, where do we want to be in the long run? Or what do we as a team or as an organization, what do we wanna accomplish? And we've talked about that this is this longer range goal, and it's a big goal. It may seem even impossible or nearly impossible at the outset, but if we achieve it, what we're saying is this thing, whatever it is, is really gonna differentiate us from other organizations, from other schools in our case, or you know, it could be differentiating you from other businesses or other hospitals or whatever the thing is that you're working in.   0:04:07.9 JD: We said this challenge or direction typically has this sort of long-term timeframe, six months to three years as sort of a rough guide. And then I talked about this example, one of our goals or challenges that we sort of set in our organization is we wanna significantly reduce student chronic absenteeism. If you remember, when we looked at this a couple episodes ago, that number rose significantly coming out of the pandemic. And so it's right around in the 50% range. So 50% of our students are chronically absent, which is a very high number. And we wanna take that all the way down to 5%. So right now as things currently stand, that seems like a very tough, nearly impossible challenge that we've set for the organization.   0:05:07.4 AS: I'm curious about how stretch of a challenge should someone be thinking about in this case? I mean, it's one of the hardest things when you start setting goals, is like, are we thinking about 10 years from now? Are we thinking about one year from now? Are we thinking about, come on guys, let's dream big, let's envision what we could be, or are we talking about realistically we think we can get to this point? How do you think about that?   0:05:32.7 JD: Yeah. I like this six month to three-year timeframe for step one, for the challenge or direction, that sort of ultimate goal that you're reaching for. It's not so long that it seems like it's, you know, there's no urgency. It's not five years, it's not 10 years. But it's not so short that it's gonna be impossible to achieve this tough thing. Six months to three years, when you're talking about a significant organizational effort, you gotta be realistic. There's, you gotta have a team working on this. You have to train people, you have to educate people on why this goal is an important goal. And so I think that all of those things take time. Some infrastructure within your organization has to be set up, resources have to be deployed.   0:06:21.5 JD: And so to be realistic but not so far off into the future, I think that six month to the three-year timeframe is a pretty good one. And then step three is to establish your next target condition. So along the way you're setting these intermediate sort of goals that you're working towards along the way ultimately to reach that challenge or direction. So I like the six month to three-year timeframe. And previously when we talked about set the challenge, almost all of our focus was on that quantitative goal. Like, how are we gonna quantify that challenge? And I talked about this chronic absenteeism example. But during this first step, I think it's also really helpful to take a couple sort of sub-steps. And one of them that we talk about in our organization is See the System.   0:07:16.8 JD: Like literally see the system in which we work. And I've found that it's really helpful to have some questions to ask the team that's working on this, questions like on the outset of, so we've set this challenge, we wanna reduce chronic absenteeism from 52% to 5%. Well, what is the largest system to improve when we're working towards that goal? What's the aim of that particular system? What are the opportunities for improvement within that target system? How will the opportunities for improvement be prioritized? Those are sort of four of the questions we ask at the outset of one of these improvement projects, when we're working towards one of these long-term goals. And when we've started asking those questions, at this point in the process, we formed an improvement team.   0:08:15.9 JD: For something like attendance, it's cross-disciplinary, meaning we have a number of people in a number of different roles. We have four school buildings in our school system, so there's representation from all four school buildings. So it's really a cross-functional team that's working through those particular questions. So I think that's really, really important. And then throughout the process, even if folks aren't a member of the team that's meeting on a regular basis, in this case it's a weekly team meeting, there are other people that are going to be important to gather information from; students and families, for example. That's an obvious one. Other staff members that aren't necessarily members of the team that are meeting every week, but that there are ways to gather their input as well.   0:09:04.5 AS: And in this...   0:09:05.5 JD: Oh, sorry, go ahead.   0:09:06.7 AS: In this graphic you show on the left, some people work on the system, some people work in the system, and then you've got your System of Profound Knowledge coach. Is that what you mean by improvement team or are you just highlighting some roles?   0:09:19.3 JD: Yeah. Well, so the improvement team members should be composed of each of those three groups. So in our particular team there's actually two people that have sort of like enough of the knowledge of the System of Profound Knowledge that they could, I'm one of them and then there's another person that also has that knowledge that's working on this project. And then there's a number of people that are working on the system, working in the system in different ways when it comes to this chronic absenteeism, this attendance problem.   0:10:00.3 AS: Okay.   0:10:01.3 JD: And really what we're thinking about during this See the System step in the process is it's really a funneling process. So, even within just the chronic absenteeism, student attendance realm, there's almost unlimited opportunities for improvement and many different areas where we could focus our efforts. And so we're trying to funnel down, focus down to the most vital areas that will have the biggest impact on this chronic absenteeism problem.   0:10:38.5 JD: And we're also really working hard to make sure that people on the team and will be impacted and responsible for implementing whatever this new theory is, this new improvement theory or this new improvement system, they're a part of the team from the get go. One reason is because they're close to the work and they're gonna inform a lot of the ideas that we try. And ultimately for things that are put in place, they're also the people that are gonna have to implement. So if they were a part of developing those solutions, they're much more likely to sort of be bought in from the get go versus just being told you're gonna do this new thing.   0:11:17.3 AS: Yeah.   0:11:17.9 JD: And I think something that I've found to be very, very critical, when you work with teams like this and you're answering those questions like I talked about, what system are we gonna focus on? What's the aim of that system? Is we have a series of tools that are gonna be known to a lot of people that listen to this podcast, maybe some of them are new to people, but we have this series of tools that we use that help us visualize the group's thinking. I'm a big believer when you're working in groups that you write stuff down and you have people react to it, right?   0:11:53.5 JD: You actually do that. You write it down, can be as simple as chart paper with post-its, and you paste that, you post that to a whiteboard or whatever, the wall, and everybody can see it as it's being made. And you can ask clarifying questions, you can ask for what people are thinking when they put up that idea or that brainstorm, and I just think it's really, really important. And so I think a key part of our improvement process here is that we've matched the tools to these guiding questions.   0:12:29.3 JD: So for this question, we use this tool or this tool because we know we use that particular tool, it's a good way to represent that particular question. So we've provided some of the structure because a lot of times people see the System of Profound Knowledge, and even when they start to grasp that as a management theory or a management philosophy, they need some type of structure beyond that to then work with the team in their organization to answer those questions to, like I said, aggregate the group's thinking and put in into something that's coherently understood by the whole organization.   0:13:12.6 AS: Right.   0:13:14.3 JD: So I thought we could just start with the first two questions. What is the largest system to improve and what is the aim of this system? So when we started working with this team on this chronic absenteeism problem this year, those were the first two questions that we asked. And we use a tool called a System Map to represent our system as we understand it. And then we also worked with the group to write an aim for this attendance work. So this may be a little small on the screen, but the target system is up here as attendance. And then we've written an aim as a group to figure out, oh, I can put this in Slide Mode. That'll make it a little bigger. We've written an aim as a group so that we all know like, what is it that we are aiming for as the attendance team? That's the first thing that we did.   0:14:19.7 JD: So for this particular system, this target system that says the aim of the United Attendance System is to first, or one, define strong attendance for students and staff. Two, ensure that students, families, and staff have a shared understanding of what it means to have strong attendance. And three, create and improve systems that identify and remove barriers to strong attendance for students and staff. So it's not necessarily, this is sort of a qualitative statement, there's not necessarily right and wrong answers, but as we were sitting with the group, it's about a 10-person improvement team. And we just took a Google form and said, what do you think the aim of this work should be? There was like one or two people that included staff, like, we should actually think about staff attendance in addition to student attendance, and the whole group was like, oh yeah, that's a really good idea.   0:15:15.9 JD: And so right from the get go, that became a part of the aim. And you can see how the inclusion of staff in that would maybe change the nature of the improvement effort. Again, it's not right or wrong, but it just, when you explicitly set that aim for the group, there's a much clearer guide for what you're gonna be working on. There's also things in here that may not have been obvious to people. So that first part of the aim is define strong attendance. So, many people may think, well, everybody knows what good attendance is in the school, but that's not true. That's really not true.   0:15:54.3 JD: And the problem is, the main problem is, is because when you think of what's good attendance in your brain, your mental model, what I've found with both students and adults is that there's an association with grade scales. And so when you think about a grade scale, if you get a 90% on a test, for most students would say that's a pretty good grade. In most systems, that's an A minus, right? And so when you say, well, what if a student has 90% attendance, is that good attendance? People say, oh yeah, 90% is good, but 90% means you're missing 10% of the year. So in a traditional 180 school day year, 180 times 10% is 18 days. So when you ask people, is it okay for students to miss 18 days? Almost 100% of them say, no.   0:16:45.0 AS: Yeah. One day every two weeks.   0:16:47.9 JD: Yeah. Basically one day every two weeks. But there's a disconnect between 90% and 18 days for people. And so one of the things that we're building as a framework that defines how many days is sort of reasonable and if you miss so many days per quarter or semester, what's that gonna add up to at the end of the year? And then how's that translate into a percentage? So just little stuff like that becomes more apparent when you start to write this stuff down, when you get input from the group. And then, so we have the aim. And then we also sort of represented the attendance system in the System Map. So on the left hand side of our System Map, we have the contributions and conditions of the attendance system. So there's things like Ohio Attendance Laws that we have to attend to.   0:17:37.9 JD: There are things like family dynamics and stability and beliefs, that's gonna contribute to attendance at our schools. There's sort of health perceptions, especially coming out of COVID. We trained people to sort of be more cautious and keep kids at home during the pandemic. Well, some of those habits took and there's sort of a different, for a lot of people there's a different interpretation of when you should keep a kid home versus when they should be in school. And so all of these things sort of contribute to what we're seeing in our system. And then there's all these core activities that we do that impact attendance. Now, one thing that's really interesting with the core activities is that when the group originally sat down, a lot of the core activities had to do very explicitly with our attendance systems.   0:18:28.8 JD: Like at what point is a student considered truant, truancy systems, the attendance tracking systems. And this is one of the areas where I pushed the group to think, well, what are all of the core activities that we do as a school that contribute to a kid coming to attendance, I think... Or sorry, coming to school, and effect their attendance. Now, could some of those attendance systems have an impact? Yeah. And you can see that attendance intervention systems makes up one of these sort of core activity boxes here in the middle. But there's many other things like for example, student and family onboarding. Like, how was a student brought and their family brought into the school community? Do they feel welcome? Do they make a connection to a staff member? Their school culture and trust, is it safe? Do I have friends in my classroom?   0:19:20.2 JD: There's academic systems. Are the classes engaging? Do I want to go to science class because we do experiments or whatever? And so you can see there's many other core activities just besides the core attendance systems that influence attendance. Some of the other ones we have on here are health and wellness and transportation, 'cause I've spoke before that that's a big problem in Columbus right now. And then, so we have these sort of inputs, the contributions and conditions, and then things happen while the kids are at school. And then there's these positive and negative outputs, right, that our system is producing. A positive output would be student academic growth, a negative on the flip side would be student academic stagnation.   0:20:04.8 JD: And then as you sort of go up from the outputs, you have to think about sort of how are we collecting feedback from our constituents, our families, our students. And then how do we use that information to design and redesign our system? And then it sort of loops back, sort of forms a feedback loop to the contributions and conditions. So this may seem like, is it worth the time or not? But it really is very helpful at the outset to sort of represent your system visually. So you have, this gives you an idea of all the different things going on in your system, in this case, our attendance system. And it also starts to give us ideas where we might focus our efforts because we have a, like a comprehensive picture of what these core activities are in our organization.   0:20:57.3 AS: When I look at this, I just think, no wonder it's so hard to improve. When you look at the system and all the different aspects and when you bring someone into this group and they say, wait a minute, we didn't think about staff or as an example, or wait a minute, we didn't think about transportation, oh, yeah. And then you realize like how big the system is, how interdependent it is and how difficult it is to really make lasting change. Whereas it's kind of just natural state that all these things fall into place and bring, I wouldn't say stagnation, but they bring the current state.   0:21:36.2 JD: Yeah. I mean, it certainly helps you understand the complexity level, right? Yeah.   0:21:43.7 AS: It also makes you think that once you've gone through this, you've got everything there, then you have to really think as a team, where can we have the most influence or what is the area that we think has the biggest, or is the leading item that if we could fix this, it can impact other parts, 'cause when you look at what you're putting up on the screen, it's just overwhelming. Like, we can't do all this.   0:22:11.4 JD: Nope. And we're not gonna focus on all of these things. So as a part of this improvement model and this improvement process that's sort of nested within the model, that's the whole purpose, is to sort of represent the whole system and then start to narrow the focus of the team. And that's a perfect segue because the next two questions that we're asking when we're trying to see the system is, what are the opportunities for improvement within the target system and how will the opportunities for improvement be prioritized? So probably many people on here will be familiar with something that looks like this. And again, there are certainly places for technological resources, but I will say the vast majority of the work I do with improvement teams is done with chart paper like this, post-it notes and a marker.   0:23:16.7 JD: You can be pretty powerful when you're armed with those tools when you have the System of Profound Knowledge philosophy. But basically what we did was just post that question right on top of the chart paper. What are the opportunities for improvement within the United Schools system of attendance? And then all of these blue and pink post-its, which you probably can't read, but those are just the people on the team answering those questions. Basically one idea per post-it note. And then we basically took those ideas and kind of grouped them categorically. And then once it sort of emerged what the categories were, they were given these labels, these category headings.   0:24:04.6 JD: So we have data, we have about four post-it notes about data, academic systems, communication. That's a big one, you can see has a lot of post-it notes, not surprising. Transportation, it's a pretty big category and that's on the top of everybody's mind in Columbus right now. We have sort of improvement and intervention ideas and then we have culture and engagement. So once we brainstorm, we categorize, put them in these affinity groups, basically. And then from there, and see, it's a tool. You can see this, this isn't just people sit around and talk. They have to write their ideas and then there's actually a tool that we use to organize those ideas. And then we store this in our project and meeting tracker so people can refer back to this. And then we use this information to help us complete subsequent steps.   0:24:56.2 AS: So was this a source of the chart that you showed us prior?   0:25:03.0 JD: When you say source of the chart...   0:25:06.3 AS: The layout of the system that you showed previously that had all these different things in it, did that originate from this discussion with post-it notes and putting stuff up on the wall and then later you put that into that, or is that different?   0:25:18.4 JD: System Map happened first. So I'm actually going in like sequential order. So the System Map happened first and then the affinity diagram.   0:25:26.3 AS: Now it's opportunities. Okay. Yep.   0:25:28.5 JD: Yep. Now it's opportunities. Once we understand what our system looks like, what are those opportunities for improvement? Then what we did is we said, how will the opportunities for improvement be prioritized? And we created this tool, it's called an Interrelationship Dye Graph. So we basically took the categories from the affinity diagram and those are these boxes here. So you have transportation, improvement and intervention, culture and engagement, academic systems, communication and data. And basically we systematically go around the circle and the first question we say is, is there a relationship between transportation and improvement and intervention? And if the group sort of consensus is, yep, those two things, there's a relationship, then we say, which one is impacting the other thing the most? And we draw an arrow away from that sort of dominant cause.   0:26:35.8 JD: So you can see transportation, that group thought transportation was having an impact on improvement and intervention. And then you just basically keep doing that for each of the categories. Then we compare transportation and culture and engagement. We ask those same two questions about what, is there a relationship and if so, what's the directionality of the relationship? We go around the circle until we've done that with every one of these categories. And then we basically tally up the number of "in" arrows versus the number of "out" arrows. And the thing with the most out arrows is sort of starred. And that's thought of as the dominant cause. Now, you have to know context, what this team is talking about and thinking about, 'cause there's not a lot of information just right on this page.   0:27:29.2 JD: But you might ask like, why is transportation having such an impact on improvement and intervention? Well, or why is transportation having an impact on culture and engagement? It's because the transportation system right now is so flawed in Columbus, buses aren't showing up at all sometimes, kids don't get picked up, so their parents have to bring them in. They're often an hour, two hours late to school. And so what people are saying is there's so many of those problems being caused by transportation right now that it's impacting the ability to do interventions with the kids, for example, or it's impacting the ability to build culture and engagement 'cause kids are constantly having to be making up school and making up work and those types of things. So...   0:28:16.8 AS: And in Thailand, when we have problems like that, the free market solves it because we can get, people can apply to transport through vans and other activities. But, well, is it a socialist state of Ohio these days or what's going on?   0:28:33.4 JD: Well, I would say there are various transportation possibilities. I would say there are no great systems for, you've been assigned and you've opted to ride the school bus and it doesn't come on a particular day, there's no sort of like on-demand on that particular day type of solution for the kid to take besides the parent taking them or that type of thing, so, unfortunately.   0:29:01.4 AS: Just a funny, a fun story. When I was a kid, we grew up, the piece of land that our development was built on was a piece of farmer Barlow's land that he sold off in parcels. And we worked in his farm on the summertime. And then he drove the bus to school during the wintertime. So see Farmer Barlow right there and you get on the bus and he showed up every single day. I don't think Farmer Barlow...   0:29:22.5 JD: I was gonna say...   0:29:22.8 AS: Ever missed a day.   0:29:24.3 JD: I know a lot of farmers and I'm assuming that bus driver was pretty reliable.   0:29:27.4 AS: Yeah.   0:29:28.3 JD: So yeah, unfortunately that's just not the case right now. So, but context's also important. So we actually have a few different improvement teams going on in our school system right now. And one of them is transportation. So as a group, we sort of decided like, while transportation is having a large impact this year, it's not the thing for this group to work on because there is a transportation improvement project also going on, but there's also an acknowledgement that there's gonna be overlap between those two things. And as the group talked about knowing the kids and knowing the students, it's certainly not the only reason kids are absent. And I think that someone in the group actually said even if transportation was perfect, we would still have this chronic absenteeism problem. So there are other things that we need to focus on and work on, so.   0:30:21.1 AS: Great.   0:30:21.3 JD: Those are just some examples of tools and you know, visualizing the thinking of the group and you have to know your system. You can't just sort of go straight off the tools, there's other sort of analysis that has to happen along the way. And so that's kind of where I wanted to go today. And I think sort of wrapping up See the System is where we're at now. So I can kind of wrap that up and we can go from there.   0:30:48.4 AS: Fantastic. If you had it in one simple statement that could wrap up what we talked about today, what do you think is the most valuable thing for people to take away from this discussion?   0:31:03.1 JD: From this discussion? I think there is a desire, an impulse almost to jump in and create solutions. But I think it's... What I've seen, it's very important to step back and make sure you really see the system and do a number of things around seeing the system. Next time we'll talk about defining the problem, to really make sure you do those things before you start jumping to solutions. And in fact, about 50% of the work or more in our improvement process occurs before we ever even talk about possible solutions. And I think it goes to that old Einstein quote where it's like, if I had an hour to save the world, I'd spend 55 minutes, make sure I understand and define the problem and five minutes. You know, putting that solution into action.   0:32:00.3 JD: I'm sure I'm messing up the quote, but you get the gist of it. So I think what we've seen is we set this challenge at the organizational level, that we have to understand the difference of those three faces of performance improvement or performance measurement. We wanna focus the challenge or direction, we wanna frame it as an improvement goal. And it's important to do that and it's important to make that ambitious, to quantify that. But then there's these other sort of qualitative things that we need to step back and do that allow us to see our system. And there's, you know, we went through some guiding questions and some related tools that can help put this into action with an actual team that you're working with in your system. And these tools are not education specific. You can use these in any type of organization.   0:32:45.0 AS: I'm gonna sum it up in five words. Slow down to speed up.   0:32:48.7 JD: I like that. Slow is smooth and smooth is fast.   0:32:52.7 AS: Smooth is fast.   0:32:54.3 JD: I like it. Yep.   0:32:55.4 AS: So John, on behalf of everyone at The Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this discussion. And for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. You can find John's book, Win-Win: W. Edwards Deming, the System of Profound Knowledge and the Science of Improving Schools on amazon.com. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'm gonna leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming, people are entitled to joy in work.  

John Dues and Andrew Stotz are diving deeper into the improvement model that John is building with his team. In this episode, learn the three ways to think about an improvement frame for your big challenge.  TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.6 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz and I'll be your host as we dive deeper into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today I'm continuing my discussion with John Dues, who is part of the new generation of educators striving to apply Dr. Deming's principles to unleash student joy in learning. And the topic for today is Frame the Challenge. John, take it away.   0:00:23.6 John Dues: Hey Andrew, it's good to be back. Yeah, we're gonna talk about Framing the Challenge today. We kicked off a new series a couple of episodes ago. I introduced this improvement model that we can use to set ambitious goals backed with this sound methodology. Make this disclaimer again, we're sort of building the plane while we are flying it. So this improvement model is new at United Schools where I work. And so again, we're actually letting listeners sort of see it as it's being built and first put to use. And so I think just starting out with a quick recap of the model is a good place to start. So what is this improvement model that we've been looking at? I'll pull up my screen so we can share a visual of the model for those that are watching. Right. Can you see that all right?   0:01:21.2 AS: Yep.   0:01:21.3 JD: Great. Give me one second. All right. So we have this improvement model. Basically the core idea of the model is it gives us the scientific way of thinking. And remember, we talked about we're working to close this gap between current conditions in our organizations and future aspirations. In order to close this gap, we're walking through the four steps on the model. So first, we set the challenge of direction. That's really where we focused our time last episode. The second step is to grasp the current condition. The third step is to establish the next target condition. And then the fourth step is to experiment to overcome obstacles. And that's where we spend most of our time in this four-step process. And then the other thing we've talked about is we do it with this team. The people working in the system, that's one part of the system, one part of the team.   0:02:19.8 JD: And we've talked about this in our case. This can be students, it can be teachers, whoever the frontline people are in your organization. Then there's those with the authority to work on the system, to make changes to the design or the architecture of the system. That could be a teacher in a classroom, or we've said the principal of a school, or maybe the superintendent of a system of schools. And then one of the innovations that we've made to this improvement model is that that third group or that third person on the team is someone that has Profound Knowledge, someone that's using Deming's principles to guide the work. So that's the basic model that we looked at in the first episode and...   0:03:11.8 AS: And I would just highlight... By the way, can you put it on slideshow?   0:03:15.3 JD: Sure.   0:03:15.4 AS: And I've been reading Mike Rother's book, rereading his book on Toyota Kata and stuff. And so this has really got me back to it. But what you're doing is applying this and helping us understand it as you're putting it into action at your school, right?   0:03:35.0 JD: Yeah, we've had an improvement model. And I think... Yeah, so like it says down in the right hand corner, that this model, it's based on Mike Rother's work, the Toyota Kata work. I think one thing that was missing from our model previously was like, how do you set this challenge or direction? How do you do that in an ambitious but reasonable way? And I think Mike Rother's sort of model speaks to this. So that's why I like his four-step model. I also like the four steps because it's pretty simple. It's not 15 steps. It's not 20 steps. It's four steps. Now there are some steps that you have to learn and stuff like that. There are different pieces to each of the steps, but I like that it's four steps. It's sort of easy to remember. It's memorable. And I think the innovation that we've done so far is who is the team that's working through this? And I think to frame it as the people working in the system, the people working on the system, and then someone with Profound Knowledge, I think that's an innovation, from what I've read about Mike Rother's work.   0:04:39.6 AS: Yep.   0:04:40.4 JD: Yeah. And so to continue the recap from last time, I think in the last episode, so we introduced the model two episodes ago. And then last episode, what we said we were gonna do is start walking through each of the steps, episode by episode, and do a deeper dive into each of the steps. And we did that with step one last time. So we did Set the Challenge last time. And just as a refresher, this is that longer range goal that would differentiate us from other schools in our case, if we achieve it. But remember, we also said it seems nearly impossible at the outset. This is something that's off in the horizon. It's probably gonna take at least six months, probably more like two or three years. And then I gave this example at United where I am. So we're a school system. One of the challenges that we've set is to reduce our chronic absenteeism from 52%. So that's sort of the current condition. And we wanna bring that down to 5%. And there's this huge gap between those things. Obviously, we talked about an order of magnitude, and we don't quite know how to get there right now.   0:05:48.7 AS: Yeah, I think that's the point is we don't know how to get there right now.   0:05:57.6 JD: Yeah. Yeah. And I think... And so what I originally had planned to do is to go on to step two. And I think we're gonna do that next. But I wanted to pause because last time we briefly touched on this idea of Framing the Challenge as an improvement goal. And so with this episode, what I wanna do first before we go on to step two is talk about how to sort of think about that framing. And I sort of have studied a little bit of performance management from healthcare specifically. And there's really these three phases of performance management. When you're setting a goal, there's sort of performance measurement that has a research orientation. There's performance measurement that has an accountability orientation. And there's performance management that has an improvement orientation. And I think it's really important to understand the difference between those three types of measurement because I think conflation of those three things can derail and often derail improvement efforts. And in fact, as I was doing some research for this episode, I read this quote in one of the journal articles that I was sort of reviewing. It said, "the problem with measurement is that it can be a loaded gun, dangerous if misused, and at least threatening if pointed in the wrong direction."   [laughter]   0:07:19.6 JD: Right. So, when I read that I was like, this is important enough to take a pause and do a little bit deeper dive into that, you know, the differences between the three that we sort of got into on a surface level last time.   0:07:33.5 AS: One of the things that I like to say these days when I talk to people about measurement is measurement... If the subject being measured, let's say a table, I'm gonna measure the length of a table versus measuring the performance of an individual as an example. If the subject being measured knows, is aware that they're being measured, you're gonna have a problem.   0:08:02.0 JD: Yeah, I think that's very well put. And...   0:08:07.5 AS: The table doesn't care.   0:08:09.3 JD: The table doesn't care, but people always do. No doubt. No doubt. So I thought it'd be... I put together a table for those that are watching 'cause there is a lot of nuance to this and we'll kind of walk through this step by step, sort of the differences between goals or measurement for research, measurement for accountability, and then measurement for improvement. So I think just... I came up with these dimensions in some of the research I was doing. So, what's the purpose of each of those? What questions are you trying to answer? What are some example questions that are answered with that type of measurement? What's actually getting measured? How often is it getting measured? And then why does quality improvement or quality measurement matter in that particular area? So let's start with the purpose first. So when we're thinking about measurement for research, what we're really trying to do is contribute to some knowledge base, right?   0:09:01.8 JD: You know, I think the classic example is, what a university professor is often doing in their research. The second type of measurement is measurement for accountability. And really there, what we talked about last time is the purpose is to determine the application of rewards and sanctions or rewards and punishments. And that's really juxtaposed against measurement for improvement, which is... The purpose there is to learn our way to a system that produces a higher level of performance, right? And so let's look at measurement for research. We talked about the purpose being contributing to the knowledge base. If the questions that we're asking are about constructs or relationships between constructs or theories, then research is probably the direction we wanna go. An example question would be what's the relationship between two conceptual variables and what gets measured is... Could be numerous latent variables, but how often is this measurement happening? Typically once or twice during a study. And what we're trying to do is detect a relationship where they exist, right?   0:10:16.8 AS: So it could be... Like in a school, it could be a relationship between being late, the late rate and the absenteeism rate.   0:10:29.9 JD: Yeah. I mean, you could do research into why is it that student... Why are students chronically absent? You could do research into what's the best way scientifically to teach reading, right? And so you're gonna sort of come up with some answers there, at least answers that are sort of coming out of a lab, right? And a lot of times measurement for research or research goal or research study, that can be helpful to sort of initially point you in the right direction. You might do a literature review when you're trying to come up with solutions in your particular context.   0:11:10.3 AS: And it's important to remember that surveys properly done are a great form of research. So not only going back and seeing what's already been... What is the knowledge base on attendance, but also trying to do some research into what do students or teachers or parents think are root causes as an example.   0:11:33.3 JD: Sure.   0:11:34.8 AS: Okay. Great.   0:11:35.5 JD: Gives you a starting point, right? And so you certainly need measurement for research for sure. In that second bucket, we have measurement for accountability. And this is probably the thing that teachers and educators are most used to because there's accountability systems in all 50 states, right? And remember, we said the purpose is to determine who should be rewarded and who should be sanctioned. That's the purpose of an accountability measure. It's gonna answer questions about merit or status or accomplishment. It could be of someone like an individual teacher in a classroom, or perhaps about a school, for example. It's gonna answer questions like who's performing well and who isn't, who should be considered knowledgeable enough to do whatever, something X, right? But when we're talking about measurements, they're typically end-of-the-line outcomes, usually once per year after the fact. I've given state tests as an example multiple times. That's a very typical accountability measure end-of-the-line outcome. And why it's important to have quality measurement for accountability is that we can assign consequences based on measurement that lacks sufficient technical rigor so.   0:12:56.0 AS: Consequences as in rewards and sanctions?   0:13:00.4 JD: Could be... Yeah, consequences as in rewards and sanctions. And so there's technical guides that go with accountability systems. So how is the state, for example, calculating all of these different measures that show up on a school report card, test scores, value-added progress scores, chronic absenteeism rates? All those things have to be well-defined. Data has to be collected systematically. And it has to be done the same across the entire system so that rewards and sanctions are meted out equally amongst all the districts and schools and classrooms. But those two things are very different than measurement for improvement. And that's where I focus most of my time and where these talks really, really focus. And again, we said the purpose is to learn our way to a system that produces a higher level of performance.   0:13:48.4 JD: So we're talking about questions about specific changes as potential improvements to our systems. So some questions might be, are the changes I'm making leading to improvement? How are my changes affecting other parts of my system? And really, we're talking about outcomes and processes relevant to the object of change in terms of what gets measured. And that's happening... Those measurements for outcomes or processes are happening frequently as the practice or as the process occurs, right? Because we want feedback on a much more frequent basis than once or twice per study or at the end of the school year. That's one of the advantages here of measurement for improvement. And why does quality measurement matter in this particular area? Well, we wanna learn which changes are an improvement without wasting resources or will. Those are both very finite things in organizations, schools are... That's the same in schools.   0:14:55.2 AS: Will as in energy towards this objective, is that what you mean by will?   0:15:01.7 JD: Yeah. So two finite things, resources, which could be time or money. But will, I literally mean the will of the people, the will of the frontline people that you have to get on board with whatever this change is gonna be. And if you're moving between this thing and that, you sort of use up that will for good...   0:15:23.4 AS: It seems you have depleted the will of the people.   0:15:27.4 JD: And that happens all the time, especially where you're in a service business like education, the frontline people are being burned out all the time, teachers, in hospitals it's nurses and other folks in other industries. So that's the basic overview. And then I think one of the key things here is that there are some real measurement limitations when it comes to accountability measures and research measures or goals, when we're thinking about organizational improvement.   0:16:08.5 JD: I think the key limitation for accountability goals is that... The key limitation for improvement is that it does not illuminate why the outcomes occur or what should be done to change them when we're thinking about accountability system. For research, the key limitation for improvement is that it is impractical to administer it and not designed to inform changes in practice. So those are some real limitations. But what often happens, I think... And I should say again, like we said at the outset, that the three types of measurement are complementary. Like we need each of these three different types of performance measurement. But I think what happens is that problems arise when they're not used for their intended purpose. Remember, we said research, we wanna contribute to the knowledge base, that's the purpose. For accountability, application of award and sanctions. And for improvement, there we're actually learning our way to a better system, right? So, I thought it would be useful here. I may put you through like a little quiz here to apply the purposes of measurement to the right scenario. So, I have three situations here. They're unrelated to education. So, there's no pressure there. So, I'll read the three situations and then you're gonna tell me how would you... Which of the measurement purposes would you use?   0:17:47.7 AS: So, research, accountability, or improvement.   0:17:49.2 JD: Research, accountability, or improvement so.   0:17:53.6 AS: And I'm doing this on behalf of our listeners and readers so... And listeners and viewers.   0:17:55.7 JD: Everyone yeah.   0:17:56.7 AS: So, pay attention ladies and gentlemen, 'cause my answers may be wrong, but yours may be right. Okay.   0:18:01.7 JD: This is the check for understanding. This is a true education exercise here. And we're gonna be talking about avocados, right? So, there's no prior knowledge needed. So, I'll read through the first three situations, give you a chance to think, and I can repeat them if necessary, and you kind of think between those three. So, the first situation is rank the grocery stores in Columbus, Ohio, according to the quality of their avocados. So, would you use measurement for accountability, measurement for research, measurement for improvement? That's the first situation. The second situation is understand the relationship between weather, soil, acidity, and the eventual quality of an avocado grown in California. And the third situation is improve the quality of avocados on sale across all stores in Columbus. So, let's go back to that first situation. So, if you're gonna rank the grocery stores in Columbus according to the quality of their avocados, what type of measurement orientation makes the most sense?   0:19:15.5 AS: So I'm thinking accountability.   0:19:20.0 JD: Yeah, that's exactly right. Accountability, it's basically a grading system for avocados. You think how meat gets graded, it's grade A meat. That's really an accountability system.   0:19:33.6 AS: Okay, so listeners, viewers, did you get that one right? These are tough. John's a tough teacher. All right. Next one.   0:19:39.0 JD: You're one for one, and you have A grade schools, right? So you have A grade avocados, and that's an accountability measure. The second one was you're understanding the relationship between weather, soil, acidity, and the eventual quality of an avocado grown in California.   0:20:00.2 AS: Ladies and gentlemen, is this research, accountability, and improvement? Well, we've already eliminated accountability, so it's got to be either research or improvement. And if I get this one right, then I'm gonna get the third one right naturally. And I would say that sounds to me more like research.   0:20:15.8 JD: Yeah, that's exactly right. Research, right? So 'cause you're experimenting to see how the manipulation of variables, in this case weather, like the pH level of soil, acidity, impact the quality of an avocado. So you're basically a researcher trying to figure out what's the best combination of those things that gives you the best avocado. But this experimenting is gonna take probably years as you adjust those variables, right? And the last...   0:20:46.5 AS: Yeah, avocados don't grow so fast.   0:20:50.2 JD: They don't grow so fast, yeah. And then the third situation was you wanna improve the quality of avocados on sale across all stores in Columbus. There's only one left, so it's got to be...   0:21:03.5 AS: Well you used the word improve in it, so I think it's improvement orientation, huh?   0:21:06.8 JD: There you go. That's a giveaway. So aim is the quality of the avocado. So the basic theory of change is something like maybe improving the transport time from the field to the store. So there you can see that it's not like one is bad in terms of a measurement orientation and one is good. It's just... Is it being applied to the appropriate situation?   0:21:35.6 JD: There are certainly appropriate situations for accountability, appropriate situations for research and appropriate situations for improvement. So basically to sort of wrap this up, I mean, I thought it was really important because last time we talked, when you set the challenge and then it's gonna be something like a vision far out into the future, maybe two or three years, it's gonna be really important that that challenge is framed correctly because you're gonna be working on this thing for a long time. So with the model, we now have a way to bridge the gap between conditions and future aspirations. There's always gonna be a gap. We now have this model that gives us the scientific way of thinking and working to close the gap. And then we've said it's the responsibility of upper management to set this overall challenge as a key priority.   0:22:37.5 JD: And then we've said it's really important to understand the difference between these three types of performance measurement because conflation of the three can derail our improvement efforts. So the key takeaway here is you wanna frame this challenge or this far out direction that we're heading in as an organization as an improvement goal. And that's gonna orient the work. It's gonna orient the types of questions that you're asking. It's gonna orient the people, and the outcomes and processes that they're tracking. It's gonna orient your measurement system. You're gonna have to come up with frequent process and outcome measures that let you know how you're doing along the way. And the purpose of all of this is to learn our way to a better system. That's the purpose of measurement for improvement.   0:23:34.1 AS: That's great. A great summary. I wanna ask a question. Recently I've been teaching my corporate strategy course and I've been talking about the teachings of Richard Rumelt, who wrote the book called Good Strategy Bad Strategy, which is such a great book on strategy. But one of the things he complains about when he says his bad strategy is just setting an aspirational goal. Because as we learned from Dr. Deming, by what method? Like now, so there's... You've got to have a vision. You've got to have an aspiration of where you're going. But what he really focuses on... I think we're gonna talk about this in next sections. He really focuses on, have we really identified what the problem is?   0:24:21.7 AS: Like, what is the constraint? What is the thing that is holding us back from getting there? And what ends up happening is, when you clearly articulate the problem, what happens is it focuses... It becomes hard. Because to solve that problem, you need new resources. You need to get rid of old stuff. You've got to make substantial changes. And so it's much more comfortable for people to set strategies that are based upon wonderful visions. But never really deal with the problem. And then the workers in the companies, an employee in a company just looks up and goes, what did management just do for that long weekend? They did a weekend getaway to do their corporate strategy. And then they just came up with a fluffy vision of whatever with no help for us of how do we deal with the hardest problem is that we can't beat our competitor with the technology that we have. And we're never gonna get to that goal if we can't solve that problem.   0:25:28.7 JD: Yeah. And that's really the essence of the steps two, three, and four. I mean, the very next thing that we're gonna talk about is one, what's the current situation on the ground? Now we have this aspiration, but what's actually happening? For whatever data we have, whatever time period, 10 years, five years, whatever it is, we're gonna look at that data in a way that gives us a very firm understanding. And then remember, there's that crack in the model. That's the threshold of knowledge. So right up front, we're acknowledging.   0:25:58.0 AS: We don't know how to get over this. We don't know what's blocking us. We don't know...   0:26:03.3 JD: Yeah. We may have some ideas, but... Some initial ideas, but we do not know how to solve this chronic absenteeism problem. And that's where the experimentation comes in.   0:26:11.4 AS: So let me ask you one last question before we go. This is completely selfish, but also for the listeners and viewers out there, that is, I always ask my students this question in corporate strategy, should corporate strategy be kind of secretive in the sense that you're trying to build a competitive advantage and therefore some of the best battle attacks in war were kept secret. Stonewall Jackson was famous in his Shenandoah Valley campaign for not letting anybody know what he was gonna do the next morning. And then... Or should it be public? Like your number of 50 to five is pretty scary. And I'm just curious, what are your thoughts on that?   0:27:00.4 JD: Well, if you're in war, I think you should keep it secret. But pretty much anywhere else, I think public. Now that'd be my opinion. Now I'm in a school setting. I acknowledge that. But I've also seen...   0:27:11.4 AS: This is my quiz for you, by the way.   0:27:14.7 JD: What's that?   0:27:15.6 AS: This is my quiz for you.   0:27:15.7 JD: Your quiz for me. Yeah. Well, I have seen... And I've had the same thought. I think it was one of the founders of Toyota, or maybe someone that was an early CEO basically said, well, you give away your playbook basically. And he's like, well, just because someone has my playbook does not mean they can do it. And so education is a different orientation. There's not corporate secrets. And we're very open, we often share our practices. But I've often been on the...   0:27:45.2 AS: If you could get from 50 to five, you would want the world to know.   0:27:48.8 JD: I would want the world to know. I want everybody to do it. But I've been on the other side of this where I've gone to school and I've reached out to people get a manual or an artifact or something that they have that they do really well at their school system. And I look at it and I'm like, I don't know what to do with this. Right? So it's something altogether different to have the thing and then be able to do it. In our case, it's gonna benefit kids. We're gonna share it as far and wide as possible. So yeah, I think the setting matters. If I'm... The Union Army fighting Stonewall Jackson, then I'm gonna keep my secrets secret, my battle plan secret. But for most of the things I'm gonna share.   0:28:32.9 AS: Nathaniel Banks taking on Jackson. It was a rough series of battles for him. So I'll close out with my thoughts on this, which is that, yeah, I think ultimately once you've decided on what's your goal, where you wanna be, then I think you've got to make it public. And the reason why is because you need your employees to deliver that. It can't be... Everybody needs to be bought in. But even more importantly from a marketing and a relationship with customers, suppliers and others, they need to feel that vision. And they need to feel that mission. I think another great book is Start With Why. And that is why are we doing this? And I just read a great book on corporate strategy that is called Corporate Strategy Demystified.   0:29:25.5 AS: But it's just great because it was written in 2006. So he's talking about the battle between Apple and Compaq and Dell and all of these and IBM. And he doesn't know the outcome that Apple ends up being this multi-trillion dollar business. And basically his last sentence that I read in the last chapter is, it's over for Apple. They just can't compete in this space. And what he missed... This is what I'm teaching tonight, what he missed was the trusting connection that the customers had to Apple, to Apple's mission. Somehow Steve Jobs was able to create that mission and get it out to the world. And in the valley of death, when they were going through the worst time and it didn't seem like they were ever going to be able to do anything, it was customers that stuck with them because they believed in the mission of what they communicated. And it is that total, let's say intangible, that is very hard to measure and very hard to understand. But this is what I got when I was reading that book from 3:00 AM 'till 4:00 AM This morning, John.   0:30:44.4 JD: Whoever that author is was a small miss, a small miss.   0:30:48.8 AS: Yeah. And he's a brilliant guy. And so it's also a great point that just stick with your vision 'cause people's commitment to Apple and all that is so so strong. So being public about what you're doing and sharing it is critical because the last thing, as you said, even if somebody else has your playbook, I like to tell people that if somebody was working at General Motors and they had all the list of all the parts for Cadillac or whatever it is that they're building, and then they went to Toyota and said, build this, just because you have a list of parts and you have that operating system doesn't mean that they can build it because the product was actually designed for the operating system. And it's that entanglement in the actual process of production that makes that corporate strategy almost impossible to duplicate, even if you have the playbook.   0:31:41.8 JD: Yep. Yeah, that's it right there, I think. That's it.   0:31:46.5 AS: So fantastic. Well, on behalf of everyone at The Deming Institute, I wanna thank you again for this discussion. And for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. You can find John's book, Win-Win: W. Edwards Deming, The System of Profound Knowledge and the Science of Improving Schools on amazon.com. This is your host, Andrew Stotz. And I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming. "People are entitled to joy in work" and in school.  

In this episode, Bill Bellows and Andrew Stotz explore the intersection of variation and quality through awareness of the "Paradigms of Variation.” In a progression from acceptability to desirability, Bill created this 4-part model to offer economic insights for differentiating “Zero Defect” quality from “Loss Function" quality," with the aim of avoiding confusion between precision and accuracy when desirability is the choice.   Learn how to decide which paradigm your quality management system fits into! TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.5 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz and I'll be your host as we dive deeper into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today I'm continuing my discussion with Bill Bellows, who has spent 31 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. This is episode 7, The Paradigms of Variation. Bill, take it away.   0:00:30.3 Bill Bellows: Thank you, Andrew, and welcome to our listeners, as well as viewers, if you have access to the viewing version. Yeah, so I went back and listened to Episode 6. I'm going out bike riding 2-3 hours a day, so I listened to the podcast, listened to other things, stop and write down. Let me go write that down. And, so, we're going to pick up today on some major themes. And, what I keep coming back to is, is I think the difference between acceptability and desirability is the difference between how most companies operate and how a company inspired by Dr. Deming would operate.   0:01:29.3 BB: And, I just think of, if there was no difference between the two, then... Well, lemme even back up. I mentioned last time we were talking about why my wife and I buy Toyotas. And, yes, we've had one terrible buy, which I continue to talk about. [laughter] And, it's fun because it's just a reminder that even a company like Toyota can deliver a really lousy product, which we were unfortunate to have purchased. And, we're not the only ones that, and they've rebounded and they've apologized, they've had issues. There's no doubt about that. They have issues, but they have notably been inspired by Dr. Deming.   0:02:30.6 BB: The one thing I brought up last time was relative on this thinking of acceptability, desirability, where acceptability is looking at things and saying it's a quality system of good and bad. It's acceptable, which is good and unacceptable is not good. And, that's how most organizations view quality. Again, the focus of this series is Misunderstanding Quality. Our previous series was broadly looking at implications for Dr. Deming's ideas. And, here our focus is quality. And, so what I'm trying to get across here is quality management, traditional quality management.   0:03:17.4 BB: In most organizations, in all organizations I've ever interacted with is acceptability basis, good parts and bad parts. It's a measurement system of it meets requirements, we ship it, if it meets requirements, we buy it. And, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but I don't think a system focused on acceptability can explain... To me, it does not explain the incredible reliability I have personally experienced in Toyota products.   0:03:46.9 BB: Now, I'm working with a graduate student and I wanna pursue that as a research topic in the spring, 'cause for all I know, the reliability of components in all cars has improved. I don't know if it's, I only by Toyota, 'cause so this woman I've met recently and I'm mentoring her and we're working on a research project. And, I thought recently, I'd like... And, I'm not sure how to do this, but I just know, I think I've mentioned I worked at my father's gas station back in the '70s and I remember replacing water pumps and alternators and all this stuff. This was before Japanese cars were everywhere. There were Japanese cars, but not like you see today.   0:04:33.3 BB: And, so I'm just used to all those components being routinely replaced. And, all I know is I don't routinely replace anything but the battery and the tires and change the oil. I think that's about it. Everything else is pretty good. But, I do think the differentiation between Toyota and most other companies is their appreciation of desirability and how to manage desirability. And, that's why I keep coming back to this as a theme for these sessions. And, what I think is a differentiation between a Deming view of quality and all other views of quality. What I tried to say last time is I just give you indications of a focus on acceptability. It's a quality system which looks at things that are good or things that are bad. It's, last time we talked about category thinking. It's black and white thinking. If the parts are good, then the mindset, if they're good, then they fit.   0:05:38.4 BB: Well, with a focus on continuum thinking, then you have the understanding that there's variation in good. And, that leads to variation in fit and variation in performance. And, that's a sense of things are relatively good, not absolutely good, whereas black and white category thinking is acceptability. They're all good. And, if they're all good, then they should all fit. I was, when I was at Rocketdyne, met, and the one thing I wanted to point out is... Again, as I said in the past, so much of what I'm sharing with the audience and people I've met through these podcasts or people I'm mentoring, helping them bring these ideas to their respective organizations or their consultants, whatever it is.   0:06:29.0 BB: And, so I like to provide examples in here for things for them to go off and try. You at the end of each podcast encourage them to reach out to me, a number of them have, and from that I've learned a great deal. And, so one guy was... A guy I was working with at Rocketdyne, he was at a site that did final assembly of rocket engine components. And, so one thing I'd say is the people who... And for those listening, if you wanna find people in your organization that would really value the difference between an acceptability focus and a desirability focus, find the people that do assembly, find the people that put things together. 'Cause the ones that machine the holes, they think all the holes are good. People that make the tubes, all the tubes are good. But, find the people that are trying to put the tubes into the holes. Those are the people I loved working with because they were the ones that felt the difference every day.   0:07:31.1 BB: And, so I was in a workshop for a week or so. And there's two people ahead of me. They came from this final assembly operation of Rocketdyne. And, during a break, I was trying to clarify some of the things I had said and I used, I shared with them an example of how when we focused on not the tubes by themselves or the holes by themselves, that we focused on how well the tubes go into the holes, which has a lot to do with the clearance between them and the idea that nobody owns the clearance. One person owns one part, one owns another. And, what we realized is if we focused on the relationship, what a big difference it made. So I'm explaining it to him and he turns to me and he says, he's like, "Oh, my God," he says, "I've got hundreds of turbine blades and a bunch of turbine wheels and the blades slide into the wheel." And he says, "I can't get the blades onto the wheel."   0:08:31.0 BB: And I said, "But they're all good." He says, "They're all good." But he said, "Well, what you're now explaining to me is why they don't go together. Why I have this headache." So I said, "Well, do you know where the blades come from?" He says, "yeah". And I said, "Do you know where the wheels come from?" He says, "yeah". I said, "Well, why don't you call them up and talk to them?" He says, "There's no reason for a phone call 'cause all they're going to say is, "Why are you calling me? They're all good." So, he just walked away with his head exploding 'cause he's got all these things.   0:09:05.8 BB: And, so I use that for our listeners is if you want to find people that would really resonate with the difference between acceptable and desirable, talk to the people that have to put things together. There you will find... And, so my strategy was, get them smart. Now they have to be patient with the people upstream 'cause the people upstream are not deliberately doing what they're doing to them. So, what you don't want to do is have them get... You want their consciousness to go up but you now wanna use them to talk to the component people. Now you've got a conversation. Otherwise, the component people say, "Why are you talking to me? Everything I do is good."   0:09:51.6 BB: So, I just want to talk at this point, just to reinforce that I think there's something going on with Toyota that is very intentional about managing desirability when it makes sense using acceptability. So, it's a choice. And, so indications of a focus on desirability is when you look at options that are acceptable and you say, "Of all these apples, I want this one. It's the ripest. Of all these donuts, I want this one. It's got the most sprinkles. Of all these parking spots, I want this one. It's a little bit wider than the other. I want this surgeon. I want this professor for this course."   0:10:33.8 BB: All right. So, what we're saying "is of all the choices, I want this one". So, some new ideas I want to get into tonight are the Paradigms of Variation A, B, C, D, and E. Paradigm A we looked at in the past. That's just acceptability. Does it meet requirements or not? The quality focus is achieving zero defects. And tonight I want to get into B and C. The next time we'll look at D and E. In explaining these ideas recently to someone who listened to one of our previous podcasts and were focusing on, he started asking about decision making. And that got me thinking about, of course, I took years ago decision making with Kepner and Tregoe. And there they talk about decisions. We're gonna look, we're gonna go buy a car, go buy a house. We're gonna make a decision.   0:11:29.4 BB: And, once you decide on the decision, you then list the criteria of the decision. And you come up with all the things you want in this decision. And then you look at each of them and you say, "is it a must or a want"? And let's say you're looking at houses. It could be a lot of houses to go look at. What makes this focus on acceptability, it's musts and wants. And must is very much acceptability. So you say: "We're looking for a house that must be one story, it must be in the middle of the block. The house must be in the middle of the block. It must have four bedrooms, must have two bathrooms". So now when you're looking at all these houses, acceptability says "I'm only gonna look at the ones that meet those requirements". And, so now the strategy is to go from hundreds of options down to an order of magnitude less.   0:12:25.1 BB: Now we're going to get it down to maybe 20. Now you look at the wants. So you've got an original list of all the things, the criteria, and you look at each one and say, "is it a must, is it a want"? And what I've just said is the first screening is all the ones that pass the must get into the next category. Well, with the Kepner-Tregoe folks, they talk about must, which is acceptability, and the wants are about desirability.   0:12:51.4 BB: And then here it ties into Dr. Taguchi's mindset, and we'll look at Taguchi in a future session. Taguchi looks at a characteristic of quality, such as the diameter of a hole, the performance of an automobile, miles per gallon. And he says, in terms of desirability, there's three different targets. There is desirability, I want the smallest possible value. So, if you're buying a house, it could be, I want the lowest possible electric bills where zero is the goal. It's not gonna be zero, but I'm looking, of all the ones that pass the must, now I'm looking at all the houses, and I'm saying "I want the lowest possible electric bill". That's a Smaller-is-Best.   0:13:35.9 BB: Larger-is-Best is I want something which is as big as possible. It could be I want the most roof facing the sun, in case I put solar in. That's a Larger-is-Best characteristic, where Taguchi would say the ideal is infinity, but the bigger, the better, as opposed to Smaller-is-Better. And, the other characteristic is what Taguchi calls Nominal-is-Best, is I have an ideal single value in mind. And in each case, the reason I point that out is that desirability is about going past acceptability and saying amongst all the things that are acceptable, I want the smallest, I want the largest, or I want this. It is a preference for one of those.   0:14:19.4 BB: So, I thought... I was using that to explain to this friend the other day, and I thought that would be nice to tie in here. That desirability is a focus on of all the things that meet requirements, now I want to go one step further. That's just not enough. All right, so now let's get into Paradigms B and C. And I want to use an exercise we used in the first series. And, the idea for our audience is imagine a quality characteristic having a lower requirement, a minimum, otherwise known as the lower spec, the lower tolerance. So, there's a minimum value, and then there's a maximum value. And, when I do this in my classes, I say "let's say the quality characteristic is the outer diameter of a tube." And, then so what I'd like the audience to appreciate is we've got a min and a max.   0:15:18.9 BB: And, then imagine your job as listener is to make the decision as to who to buy from. And. let's say we've got two suppliers that are ready to provide us with their product, these tubes that we're gonna buy. And, your job as a listener is to make the decision as to who to buy from. Who are we going to buy from? And, so we go off and we tell them, "Here's the min, here's the max," and they come back. And, they each give us a distribution. And, so what I'd like the audience to think about is a distribution. Just think very simply of two normal distributions, two Gaussian distributions. And, let's say the first distribution goes all the way from the min to the max. It takes up the entire range.   0:16:08.5 AS: So wide and flat.   0:16:12.1 BB: Wide and flat. That's supplier one. And supplier two, let's say is maybe three quarters of the way over. It's incredibly uniform. It uses a very small fraction of the tolerance. So that's tall and narrow. That's distribution two as opposed to wide and flat. So, imagine we've got those two to buy from. But imagine also, and this is a highly idealized scenario. And, I use this and this is why I want to share it with our audience. Because it becomes a great way of diving into what I think is a lot of confusion about meeting requirements. And, so what I want you to imagine is that no matter who you buy from, they both promise that they will deliver at the same price per tube.   0:17:00.8 BB: So, no matter who you buy from, price-wise, they are identical. To which I'd say that's highly idealized, but that's a given. Criteria number two, the delivery rates are the same. So, we cannot differentiate on delivery. We cannot differentiate on price. The third condition we find out is that everything they deliver meets requirements, 100%. So, if there is any scrap and rework, they don't ship that to us. So, everything they deliver meets requirements. And, again, that's highly idealized.   0:17:41.6 BB: Number four is the distributions are in control. And, that means that the processes are predictable and stable. And, that's guaranteed. So, imagine these distributions day by day every order is the same shape, the same average, the same amount of variation. Also, it will never change. It will never change. And, the other thing I want to point out in this fourth point here is that your job as the buyer is to buy these. They are used as is within our organization. , 0:18:15.5 BB: And, the fifth point is that there's a min and a max. And, so I've been using this exercise for, gosh, going back to 1995, and I throw it out there and then I show them the distributions. I say "same price, same schedule, delivery rate, everything meets requirements, distributions never change shape or location. You're going to use as is. And there's the min, there's the max. Who do you buy from?" And, I give people not only do we buy from one or two, but I also say I'll give you a third option.   0:18:51.5 BB: The third option is it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. So, what I find is that three quarters of the audience will take distribution two, the narrow one. And when I ask them, why do you like distribution two? They say, "because it has less variation". I then say, "From what?" Then they say, "From each other." And, that's what a standard deviation is, variation from each other. So roughly 75% plus and minus...   [overlapping conversation]   0:19:25.8 AS: When you say of each other, you're talking about each other curve or each other item in the...   0:19:31.3 BB: Each other tube.  So, the amount of variation from all the tubes are close together, so the variation from each other.   0:19:38.6 AS: Okay. Each item. Yeah, okay.   0:19:41.8 BB: Standard deviation is the average variation from the average value. So, when I ask them, why do you like two? Okay, and then I asked the ones who take the wide one in the middle, I say, "why do you like that one," and they say because... And, actually, we'll come back to that. This is pretty funny. They will take that, but a very small percent say it doesn't matter, and here's what's interesting, if I didn't show the distributions, if all I did was say there's two suppliers out there, the same price, same schedule, that guarantee zero defects, the results will never change. Here's the min, here's the max, I'm willing to bet if I didn't show the distributions, people would say "it doesn't matter, I'll take either one". But, as soon as I show them the distributions, they want the narrow one. And, I use this for our attendees, this is a great way to show people that they really don't believe in tolerances, 'cause as soon as you go past meeting requirements, what you're really saying is, there's a higher bar.   0:21:05.6 AS: Okay, so requirements would be... Or, tolerances would be the extremes of that flat, wide curve. And, any one of those outcomes meets the tolerance.   0:21:17.5 BB: Yes, and so for companies that are striving to meet requirements, why is it when I give you two distributions that meet requirements... Why is it when I show you the distributions, and I'm willing to bet if I don't show you the distributions and all you know is they're 100% good, then you say "well, it doesn't matter," Well then what changes when I show you the distributions?   0:21:43.6 AS: I know why I'd choose the narrow one.   0:21:48.1 BB: Go ahead.   0:21:49.1 AS: I know how damn hard it is to reduce variation and I forget about any tolerance of anything, if I have two companies that show me a wide distribution, and another one shows me a narrow one, and let's say it's accurate. I'm much more impressed with how a company can do the same exact output as another company, the same product that they're trying to deliver, but they are producing a much more narrow range of outcome, which could be that they just have automation in their production line and the other one has manual.   0:22:27.4 BB: And, I have seen that within Rocketdyne, I've seen processes do that. I have seen the wide become the narrow through automation. Yeah. Okay, so hold that thought then. So, what I do in my graduate classes is I show that... Not only do I give them two options, I give them four options. So, I throw in two other distributions, but really what it comes down to is the wide one versus the narrow one, and then the other two, I throw in there that usually aren't taken, they're distractions. All right, so what I'll do in a graduate class in quality management is to show that and get the results I just showed. If I present the same exercise and then say, "imagine the average value of distribution one, the middle of distribution one, imagine that is the ideal value".   0:23:24.7 AS: That, you're talking about the wide and flat.   0:23:28.4 BB: Yes. So, all I do is I go back to the entire exercise and now I add in a line at the average of the wide distribution, and then go through and ask one more time, who would you take.   0:23:46.3 AS: So, now the dilemma that the listener has is that now we have a, within limits, within tolerances, we have a wide but flat distribution that's centered on the middle point between the upper and lower tolerance.   0:24:06.4 BB: Yeah, yes.   0:24:08.8 AS: And, then we have... Go ahead.   0:24:11.7 BB: Well, yeah, that is distribution one, same as the first part, we went through this, and all I'm doing now is saying, "imagine the average value of the middle is said to be the ideal value".   0:24:29.4 AS: And, now you're gonna tell us that the narrow one is not on that central or ideal value.   0:24:36.2 BB: No, that is still where it is at the three-quarter point, all I've done is now said, this is desirability. I'm now saying "that is the ideal value, that is the target, that is the value we prefer". And, people still take the narrowest distribution number two.   0:24:58.8 AS: I wouldn't take the narrow one because I would think that the company would have to prove to me that they can shift that narrow curve.   0:25:06.6 BB: Well, okay, and I'm glad you brought that up because according to the explanation I gave of equal price, equal schedule, meets requirements. I deliberately put in the criteria that you have to use them as is. So, now I'm forcing people to choose between the narrowest one over there at the three-quarter point, and the wide one on target. And, there's no doubt if I gave them the option of taking the narrow distribution and sliding it over, they would. Every single person would do that. But, when I give you a choice of, okay, now what? So, two things here, one is, is it calling out the ideal of value, 'cause desirability is not just beyond acceptability, it is saying, "I desire this value, I want this parking spot, I want this apple, I want this value". And, that's something we've been alluding to earlier, but that's what I wanna call out today is that...   0:26:13.7 BB: So, in other words, when I presented the exercise of the two distributions, without calling out what's desirable, all I'm doing is saying they're both acceptable, which do you prefer? But, instead of saying it doesn't matter, I'd like the narrowest one, and it may well be what people are doing is exactly what you're saying is the narrowest one seems better and easily could be for what you explained.   0:26:40.8 BB: But, what's interesting is, even when I call out what's desirable as the value, people will take the narrowest distribution, and so now what I wanna add to our prior conversation is Paradigm A, acceptability, the Paradigm A response would be, it doesn't matter. Choosing the narrowest one, otherwise known as precision, we're very precisely hitting that value, small standard deviation, that's what I refer to as Paradigm B, piece-to -piece consistency. Paradigm C is desirability being on the ideal value, that's piece-to-target consistency. And, in Dr. Taguchi's work, what he's talking about is the impact downstream of not just looking at the tubes, but when you look at how the tubes are inserted into a hole, perhaps, then what he's saying is that the reason you would call out the desirable value is what you're saying is how this tube integrates in a bigger system matters, which is why I want this value.   0:27:54.2 AS: Okay, so let's go back, A, meet requirements, that's acceptability. Anything within those tolerances we can accept. B is a narrow distribution, what you called precision or piece-to -piece consistency. And what was C?   0:28:12.8 BB: C is, I'll take the wide distribution where the average value is on target, that's piece- to-target consistency. Otherwise known as accuracy.   0:28:27.3 AS: Okay. Target consistency, otherwise known as accuracy. All right, and then precision around D is precision around the ideal value.   0:28:37.7 BB: Well, for those that want to take the narrowest one and slide it over, what you're now doing is saying, "I'm gonna start with precision, and I'm going to focus on the ideal". Now, what you're doing is saying, "step one is precision, step two is accuracy".   0:28:56.4 AS: Okay. And step three or D?   0:29:00.9 BB: Paradigm D?   0:29:02.7 AS: Yeah.   0:29:02.7 BB: Is that what you're... Yeah. Paradigm D would be the ability to produce, to move the distribution as needed to different locations.   0:29:17.4 AS: The narrow distribution?   0:29:18.9 BB: Yes, and so I'll give you an example in terms of, let's say tennis, Paradigm A in tennis is just to get the ball across the net. I just wanna get it somewhere on the other side of the court, right. Now that may be okay if you and I are neighbors, but that doesn't get us into professional level. Paradigm B, is I can hit it consistently to one place on your side of the court. Now, I can't control that location, but boy, I can get that location every single time. Next thing you know, you know exactly where the ball is going, and that's Paradigm B.  Paradigm C is I can move it to where I want it to go, which you will eventually figure out, so I can control where it goes. Paradigm D is I can consistently hit any side of the court on the fly.   0:30:11.0 BB: So, Paradigm D is I can take that narrow distribution and move it around for different customers, different applications, and Dr. Taguchi refers to that as Technology Development, and what Taguchi is talking about is developing a technology which has incredible precision in providing your sales people the ability to move the next move it to accuracy and to sell that product by tuning it to different customers as you would in sports, move the ball around to the other side of the court. So now you're going to the point that you've got incredible precision, and now you've got “on demand accuracy,” that's Paradigm D.  Paradigm C is I can do one-size-fits-all which is, which may be all you need for the application.   0:31:06.9 AS: I wanna separate the Paradigm B, the narrow distribution and that's precision around some value versus Paradigm D is precision around the ideal value.   0:31:20.7 BB: And, the idea is that desirability is about an ideal value. And, so if we're talking piece-to-piece consistency, that means it's uniform, but I'm not paying attention to... I have a value in mind that I want. And that's the difference between Dr. Taguchi's work, I mean, it's the ability to be precise. Again, accuracy, desirability is I have an ideal value in mind. And acceptability is it doesn't really matter.  Precision is uniformity without accuracy. And so, if you are... What Dr. Taguchi is talking about is, is depending on how what you're delivering integrates, being consistent may cause the person downstream to consistently need a hammer to get the tube into the hole.   0:32:24.2 BB: So, it's consistent, but what you're now saying, what Taguchi is saying is, if you pay attention to where you are within requirement, which is desirability, then you can improve integration. And, that is my explanation for why Toyota's products have incredibly reliability, that they are focusing on integration, not just uniformity and precision by itself.   0:32:49.8 AS: I would love to put this in the context of a dart thrower. The Paradigm A meeting requirability or acceptability, they stand way behind and they throw and they hit the overall dart board.   0:33:04.3 BB: Dart board. It's on the board. Yes.   0:33:07.2 AS: And, the narrow distribution is, well, they hit the same spot over to the left, right towards the edge, they hit that spot consistently. And, then basically, I'm gonna jump to D just because I'm imagining that I'm just gonna ask the guy, Hey, can you just move over just a little bit, and I'mma move them over about a half a foot, and when I do, you're gonna start throwing that dart right at the same location, but over to the right, meaning at the target. The center of the dart...   0:33:43.9 BB: The bull's eye. Yeah. Yeah, well, that's... And you call that C or D?   0:33:47.6 AS: I call that D.   0:33:49.5 BB: No, I would say, let's call that C being on target, meaning that C is, for games of darts where the most points are being on the bull's eye, that's Paradigm C.   0:34:04.0 AS: So accuracy, yeah.   0:34:05.4 BB: Paradigm D would be a game in which the ideal value changes. So now, okay, now I watch the... When I play darts, I'm sure there's lots of darts games, but one game we used to play it in our cellar at home was baseball. So, the dart board is divided into has numbers one, two, three through, and you'd go to... There'd be a wedge number one, a wedge number two, a wedge number three, that's Paradigm D that I could hit the different wedges on demand. But that's what it is. So A is anywhere in. B is consistent, precision, but again, the idea is if you can move that, but now what we're talking about is, is there an impulse to move it or are we happy just being precise? What Taguchi's talking about is the value proposition of desirability is to take precision, take that uniformity and move it to the ideal value, and what you've just done and doing so, you're now focusing on not this characteristic in isolation, you're now focusing on how this characteristic meshes with another characteristic. And, it's not just one thing in isolation, one thing in isolation does not give you a highly reliable automobile.   0:35:38.9 AS: Is there anything you wanna add to that, or are you ready to sum it up?   0:35:45.0 BB: No, that's it. The big summation is, we've been building up to the contrast between acceptable and desirable. I just wanted to add some more fidelity. Desirable is I have a value in mind, which Dr. Taguchi referred to as a target. So, for people at home, in the kitchen, the target value could be exactly one cup of flour. We talked earlier about our daughter, when she worked in a coffee shop and then, and at home she'd give us these recipes for making coffee and it'd be dad, exactly this amount of coffee and exactly that. And, we had a scale, it wasn't just anywhere between. She'd say "dad, you have to get a scale." I mean she was... We started calling her the coffee snob, 'cause it was very, this amount, this amount. So, in the kitchen then it's about precisely one cup. Precisely one this. And that's desirability.   0:36:40.6 AS: And, I was just thinking, the best word for that is bull's eye!   0:36:48.3 BB: Yes.   0:36:48.8 AS: You hit it right on the spot.   0:36:50.6 BB: Yeah.   0:36:51.6 AS: Great. Well, Bill, on behalf of everyone at The Deming Institute, I wanna thank you again for this discussion. It was not only acceptable, it was desirable. For listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. And, if you want to keep in touch with Bill, just find him on LinkedIn. He'll reply. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming, "people are entitled to joy in work."

Many companies strive to automate by using more technology and fewer humans. But does their productivity really improve? Does it keep them agile? In this episode, Jacob Stoller and Andrew Stotz share stories of companies that improve productivity because they focus on processes instead of tech alone. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.3 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we dive deeper into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I continue my conversation with Jacob Stoller, Shingo Prize-winning author of The Lean CEO and Productivity Reimagined, which explores applying Lean and Deming management principles at the enterprise level. The topic for today is myth number five, the Myth of Tech Omnipotence. Jacob, take it away.   0:00:29.8 Jacob Stoller: Great, Andrew. Thanks. Great to be here again. Yeah. Tech omnipotence. Well, it's quite a myth. We sort of worship technology. We have for a long time, and we tend to think it can solve all our problems, and sometimes we get a little too optimistic about it. What I wanna talk about is in the context of companies adopting technology and go through some of the stories about that and how that relates to productivity. Really, the myth of tech omnipotence is kind of like a corollary to the the myth of segmented success. In other words, people have believed that you can take a chunk of a company. Now we'll take Dr. Deming's pyramid, and we take a chunk out of that and say, oh, well, that fits so and so in the org chart, let's automate that.   0:01:28.1 JS: And they don't consider what happens to the rest of the organization. It's just this idea that you can superimpose automation. So this has a long checkered history. And the way technology gets justified in organizations is generally what it's been, is reducing headcount. And I used to work in a tech firm, and we used to do this. We would do these studies, not really a study, but you do a questionnaire and you figure out if we adopt this, if we automate this workflow, let's just say, I don't know, it's accounts payable. So you automate accounts payable and you say, well, you got so many people involved, we think we could cut this by three people or something like that. So that becomes your business case. Now, they had categories in these little questionnaires where you would try to get other benefits from the technology, but they tended to be what they call soft benefits.   0:02:35.4 JS: And you know what that word means. Soft benefits means, well, okay, nice to have, but it's not going to get budget money or it's not gonna get approved. So anyway that's really been the kind of standard way of getting tech projects justified. And that goes through pretty much any industry. So what would happen is people adopt these technologies without looking at the whole system. And guess what? You put the software in, you start to implement it, and you run into problems. Doesn't quite work. Doesn't work the way it was supposed to. And so the tech people tended and still do tend to blame the company. They say, well, they had user problems. Users weren't really adjusting to it. These people are sort of way behind. We're a tech company. We've automated the same process for 50 different companies, we know what's good for them. We have to educate them, but they don't seem to want to be educated. So that was kind of the way it was. And I'll give you an extreme example. I did some freelance work for research firm, and one of the studies I worked on, I'm not making this up, it was called Aligning the Business with IT. So it was trying to get people to smarten up with their business and align it to what the smart people are doing with IT. So that's how extreme that kind of feeling was.   0:04:17.3 AS: As opposed to maybe aligning with the customer or something like that.   0:04:21.1 JS: Well, yeah, wouldn't that be crazy? Or how about aligning IT with the business? Finding out what the business wants. So anyway, that whole way of thinking has had, it's sort of filtered into manufacturing in the same way. And I found this out really researching Productivity Reimagined as I interviewed Ben Armstrong from MIT Industrial Performance Center. And what I learned from him is the whole history of automation and manufacturing in North America. And really, what he told me is that between 1990 and 2010, there were increases in productivity, but those were always from reducing headcount. They never found ways to actually grow the value of the business by using automation. So around 2010 or leading up to 2010, manufacturing started to change, and we started to transition into what they call a high-mix, low-volume type of markets.   0:05:33.3 JS: And I've talked to manufacturers that have said, 10 years ago, I only had to make two or three variations of this part, now I have to make 50 or 60. So you're getting shorter product cycles, larger mix. And the big buzzword now in manufacturing is agility. You've gotta be agile. So there was a study MIT, I think this Performance Center did a study. And they found that when you actually try to grow productivity, and this is really since 2010, you actually lose agility at the same time. You're kind of caught in that situation because you can't... That you lose agility when you let go of people. But that was the only way they could increase productivity. Does that make sense?   0:06:29.1 AS: Yeah. So I'm thinking about that's interesting because agility means being flexible, being able to accommodate. And when you think about the typical automation, it's about repetitive, repetitive, repetitive.   0:06:46.5 JS: Yeah.   0:06:47.3 AS: And so I can kind of get that picture about the agility versus, let's say automation or repetitive processes.   0:06:56.3 JS: Yeah. And I think that people are longing for this golden age. You go from the 1920s to 1960s, and manufacturers made incredible gains in productivity with automation. You put in these huge welding lines where they just weld. You look at the body welding, say in a plant, and it's at lightning speed. There's no question about that. But they basically ran into a plateau with that. And one of the robotics companies told me, he said, we learned decades ago how to automate these mass production processes, but now we're getting into a different kind of age where as somebody put it, we're moving from the industrial mass production age into what they call the process age, where processes are becoming more and more important. So to...   0:07:50.8 AS: And I'm thinking about the automation. I've seen videos on like online about let's say a fulfillment center with all these little robots going around and picking, putting things on them and packaging them, and all of that. So I'm thinking, well, automation has become definitely more maybe, I don't know if the words agile, but it's definitely, it's gone beyond like just automating one little part of the process.   0:08:21.4 JS: Yeah. It's gone away from the let's replace people type scenario. And so what the fastest growing segment right now in robotics is collaborative robots, which can work with people. So to put it very simply, instead of a human replacement, they're becoming tools. But these things are amazing. A worker online on the shop floor can programming these, and they have to be able to because things are changing so fast. So a worker, a welder can actually hold the robotic arm and guide it through a weld and thereby program it so it can learn how to do that weld. So then you can get the robot doing all the dangerous parts. If they're welding something large where they might have to get up on scaffolds or something, they might be able to get the robot to do some of the more dangerous types of positions. So that's when you get the real benefit.   0:09:27.7 AS: Yeah. I would think like in a paint booth, which we had in factories I worked at, now you can seal it off and have a robot in there, and all of a sudden lung problems and other things like that just go away.   0:09:40.8 JS: Interesting. Well, so anyway, we're still in a, I think in a rough spot generally with manufacturing because between 2010 and present day, at least in North America, productivity's gone down. And it's because people haven't been able to... They've depended on those people to keep their agility, but they haven't learned how to add value.   0:10:08.3 AS: Can you discuss that just for a second about productivity going down? That's a little bit of an odd thing because I think most people think that productivity's probably going up. What is the measure you're talking about, and how long and why is that happening?   0:10:23.5 JS: I think it's basically... At least I'd have to look at the study that they have, but it's basically output in proportion to the number of hours. I think that's pretty well accepted. So they're losing ground as the demands for agility are increasing. And their attempts to automate have been, caused problems. You automate and you lose your people, and then you're gonna have a heck of a time getting them back right now because that's really hard in manufacturing. But yeah, I would have to look at the study in detail to understand how they got that number, but I was taking it on faith that this is from Ben Armstrong, who's the director of the Industrial Performance Center.   0:11:11.8 AS: Yeah. You just mentioned something that I was just recently talking with another person about, and that was, one of the downsides of an aging workforce is that you're losing really senior people and you're replacing 'em with people that may not have the skills. Also, US kind of is notorious in America for a declining education. And with education coming down for the last 30 years or so, it's also hard to find, let's say, engineers and people that... There's not a deep market in some of these places where there's need. So that's a real challenge that businesses are facing.   0:11:55.2 JS: It is. Yeah.   0:11:56.3 JS: Yeah. And now what they're doing is they're looking at manufacturing from that standpoint. They're now acknowledging that the scarce resource is the human. And we have to actually build, if we're gonna automate, we have to build those processes around people. And that's... I'm gonna just read you a description here. There's, I think you heard of Technology 4.0, where they talked about putting sensors all over the place and having smart factories and that kind of thing.   0:12:27.7 AS: Yeah.   0:12:28.3 JS: Well, we now have something called Industry 5.0, and I'm just trying to get the wording here 'cause this has been around for a couple years, but it's on the EU website. It says it's "a vision that places the wellbeing of the worker at the center of the production process and uses new technologies to provide prosperity beyond jobs and growth while respecting the production limits of the planet." So they're really trying to center technology around that so you're not doing your sort of environmental and your DEI and all that independently of your production, it's all integrated part of it, which is I think something I'm sure Dr. Deming would have advocated.   0:13:17.8 AS: I'm still kind of fascinated by the productivity, and I just look at here in Asia, productivity is just rising. Education levels are rising. Engineering skills are rising. Competency in certain areas, specialties is just rising. And I oftentimes, I think that one of the things why this... One of the reasons why this is a good discussion that we're having is because in the West, in particular in the US, there's a new challenge. And that is how do you bring business... How do you bring jobs back to the economy when you're facing a very, very different workforce from when, let's say I left Ohio in 1985, roughly. It's a very different workforce nowadays.   0:14:07.1 JS: Well, yeah. And I think a lot of the offshoring arguments were about, well, we'll keep the smart jobs here 'cause we're all well educated and we'll export the low paying, less skilled jobs abroad, and we'll all win. But now, of course, we're finding that people overseas are getting darn well educated, so you can't have a more expensive labor force and have people that maybe aren't even as well educated.   0:14:40.0 AS: Yeah.   0:14:40.2 JS: So it's... Yeah, I think the West is in a very tight spot right now.   0:14:45.3 AS: Yeah. So speaking of automation and technology, I was just typing as you were speaking, and looking at productivity, it says... I was using ChatGPT and that says, US productivity growth average 2.7 annually from 2000 to 2007, but slowed to 1.4% from 2007 to 2019. There was a brief pickup in 2020, and then it's been slow since then. And they talked about this productivity paradox that I think is what you're referencing what Ben is saying.   0:15:21.3 JS: Solow's paradox? Yeah.   0:15:22.6 AS: Yeah. So that's interesting. Yep.   0:15:25.8 JS: Yeah. Solow's paradox, what does it say, that you can see the impact of technology everywhere except in the productivity numbers. I think that's what he said.   0:15:36.8 AS: Yeah, so he said that...   0:15:37.2 JS: He said that by the way in 1987. So anyway, yeah, maybe we're slow learners or something like that. But no, that's really fascinating. But I think that there's a difference between GDP growth and the growth of productivity in manufacturing. I think probably the ones that Ben Armstrong quoted were a little closer to actual manufacturing. But right now, GDP includes financial intermediation, it includes... If you own a home in North America, they include imputed rent, the rent you would have been paying as part of the GDP. So I think there's a bit of inflation, I guess, in the GDP over the years. So I think we have to take that sometimes with a little bit of a grain of salt and look a little more carefully at what the numbers are telling us.   0:16:32.8 AS: Yeah. The main ways that we typically look at it outside of GDP is like non-farm productivity, like non-farm worker, what's the output? And the other one is total factor of productivity. So yeah, GDP can be quite distorted for sure.   0:16:50.4 JS: Yeah, for sure. And anyway, and also just taking GDP per worker can be a very misleading number.   0:17:00.5 AS: Yeah.   0:17:01.3 JS: But anyway, yeah, it's fascinating. But again, the myth is... This myth that technology will solve everything is all over the place. I think with autonomous vehicles, the idea of being able to replace drivers is a just enormous economic cherry, I guess, that everybody wants to pick. You think about it what that would mean if you could... If you bought a car and then you could rent it out as a taxi at night, or what it would do to Uber if they didn't have to have people driving the cars. It's just enormous. But it's been very, very frustrating to get to that point. And when you look at a lot of the forecasts, it's still a long way away. So I think we have to be more conservative about that and talk about more the benefits really of technology and people working together. And I think the automatic driving features they have on cars now are fantastic. You can make a car a lot safer. You can slow down if you're tailgating somebody, it alerts you of just even the simple things that if there's a car to your left passing on the freeway, you get an alert, and that's... This is all really, really good stuff, but I still think that the self-driving part is maybe longer off than people think.   0:18:39.4 AS: Yeah. I think regulators too get panicked and then people want action when there's an accident or something like that. You also mentioned something about the computing power that's required for some of what this is doing, and that's a fascinating topic because it's funny, it's just amazing how much computing power is really going to be required over the next 10, 20 years.   0:19:05.0 JS: Yeah. I think there's a bell curve around some of this stuff, and I'm just gonna talk and I'm gonna jump to regenerative AI, which everybody is talking about. And they're saying, how long before I can have regenerative AI write a document that we could actually be held liable for? It can write documents, but you can't trust it. So they keep trying to improve it, but it's a kind of an exponential problem here where the wider you make your bell curve, the exponentially more power you need to do that. To the point where Microsoft is talking about buying Three Mile Island nuclear plant and rebuilding it to power all this AI stuff. So it's just phenomenal amount of power. I think that's somewhat... I don't know, relying purely on more computer power seems like it might not be a winning strategy.   0:20:13.3 AS: Yeah. It's the regenerative AI and all that's going on is also... I like to say when proponents talk about it and its strengths, which it definitely has strengths, I'm not arguing against that, I use ChatGPT almost every day. And I can say I used to have an editor sit next to me a lot of times and now I don't need that because I can go back and forth. But what I can say is that when a proponent of AI gets accused of murder and they're innocent and they're gonna go before a judge, is that proponent of AI gonna use purely AI to build their defense or would they prefer to have a lawyer who's using AI as a tool. I think I would argue we're far away from the trust level of being able to walk in there and say, I trust AI to get me out of this situation that I've been accused of murder and I'm innocent and it can get me out. There's no way any of the proponents of AI would take on that I would argue.   0:21:23.3 JS: Yeah. Well, it's interesting. I very recently had to write an affidavit and my lawyer was being a little slow on it, so I tried ChatGPT just for the heck of it and I created what I thought was pretty convincing. I gave it the facts and it gave a pretty convincing sounding affidavit, but then the lawyer did it and I saw what she did and it was so much... She had it... It was almost a human touch to it. It almost looked a little less like an affidavit. It was more of a sort of a document that had some meaning to it. That was an eyeopener for me.   0:22:10.8 AS: Yeah. Yeah. Interesting.   0:22:13.6 JS: But anyway, yeah, I'm wondering if we could jump back to automation and manufacturing because there's a story I wanted to share with you about some of the followers here of Toyota and, of course, company that's strongly dedicated to Deming's principles as well. And this is a company called Parker Hannifin. And what they do, and this is in the Lean tradition, is they're very conservative about adopting robots or any kind of automation. And they realize, when you bring in robots, you're bringing in software, you have to upgrade the software, you have to maintain it, you gotta train people, there's a risk of obsolescence or whatever, there's all that risk. So you really wanna be very, very careful. So what they do at Parker is you have to, but if you're gonna present a business case for a robot, you gotta be able to show that that's the only way that you can get the improvements you want.   0:23:22.3 JS: And by the way, you gotta have a target. You don't just say I wanna automate this, you say I wanna make this process better, here's how. So I got an example from Stephen Moore who's... He's retired now, but he was the VP I think of operations. So he was certainly the top person in terms of all the Lean initiatives that they did. But he told me and gave me an example. He said that somebody came to them, they had a cell with three people and they wanted to use the robot, one, so that they could reduce from three to two because they needed another person in another area. And secondly, there was a safety problem with that cell with loading and unloading the machines. So they came to Stephen and Stephen said, okay, let's divide our team into two groups. One group can sort out, plan the robotic implementation, how it's going to be done. The other group is gonna see if they can achieve the same objectives without a robot. So by the end of the week, the team that was without the robot team was able to achieve both objectives. They were able to reduce it down to two people and they solved the safety problem over the loading. So just by thinking it out by really going deeply into the process, they were able to do everything that people expected the automation to do.   0:24:58.3 JS: So that is a philosophy, I think is a lesson I think to anybody that's automating. 'Cause remember, we've got lots of companies that are just thinking about replacing people, whereas Parker Hannifin is talking about increasing the value of processes. They're concerned about safety here as well as headcount. And very often, they're looking at processes to improve the quality. So we've gotta look with a broader lens.   0:25:29.1 AS: That's fascinating. And for those people that don't know Parker Hannifin, I had mentioned before that was one of my father's big accounts when he was working in DuPont in the old days.   0:25:37.4 JS: Oh yeah.   0:25:38.4 AS: He was living in Cleveland. We were living... I grew up near Cleveland. But Parker Hannifin is about a $77 billion company. It's got a net profit margin of 14% versus the industry average of about 11%, which is already pretty high. And that's pretty impressive. But what's really impressive about Parker Hannifin is that it is the 11th most... If you look at all companies in America and you ask them which has been consecutively producing dividends since 1957, so about 66 years, Parker Hannifin has been producing an annual dividend. And in fact, they've been increasing that dividend ever so slightly every single year for 66 years. That is a very, very impressive feat. And very few companies are out there. In fact, only 10 companies are better than that, that are listed in the stock market. So there's some fun information from a finance guy.   0:26:35.4 JS: Well, of course, and the fact they've... We talked about some of the productivity challenges in the last while and the fact that they've sustained this. We're talking post 2010 when the productivity has been slowing down, and they've clearly kept things going, which is... We've seen that with Toyota and a lot of companies that follow these principles. It's a way of sustainable growth.   0:27:03.3 AS: Yeah. One of the things about Toyota is it's so fascinating is that they're not sold on automation, they're sold on improving processes. And if automation can help that, that's impressive. That do it, but otherwise, fix the process before you automate.   0:27:21.5 JS: Absolutely. And that's again I think this isolation of operations is a sort of a black box of the corporation where people sit in the boardroom and they just say to the operations person, well, that's your problem, solve it. We don't wanna know about it. So they see things outside the box in a sort of a financial lens. I think we talked about that in myth two.   0:27:45.2 AS: Yeah.   0:27:45.8 JS: Whereas the things that go on with process actually defy financial logic. We're improving quality and productivity and timeline very often too, delivery at the same time.   0:28:03.3 AS: Yeah.   0:28:04.2 JS: 'Cause it's a better process. It's simpler, it's better and it's a powerful concept. But I think a lot of people that are not inside process or not inside operations, aren't aware of that.   0:28:17.8 AS: Yeah. So how would you sum up what you want people to take away from this discussion?   0:28:25.3 JS: Okay. Well, I think there are a few, I guess, bullet points I would emphasise. First of all, there's no question that technology has potential to help companies get significant productivity gains. But you shouldn't see it as a technology-only solution, I think again like we were saying, you have to look at it as a way of improving processes and that's where the power of it really is. I think it shouldn't be about replacing people, but it should be combining the strengths of people and the strengths of technology. I think that's where a lot of the high potential is right now. But that means you've got to know how to optimize your process. And that's what Dr. Deming, what the Lean folks all work very hard on. And I kind of think this is a time when companies maybe need to think more seriously about that. And finally, last but not least, I think one of the wonderful things about technology is you can use it to remove the dull, dangerous aspects of work and you can make the jobs more, you know, safer and more human, I guess, more friendly for human workers by using technology. So I think that's a big hope there.   0:29:55.5 AS: Well, that's a great discussion of myth number five, The Myth of Tech Omnipotence. Jacob, on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute, I wanna thank you again for this discussion. And for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. You can find Jacob's book Productivity Reimagined at jacobstoller.com. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming and I hope you're living it right now. "People are entitled to joy in work."

Traditional management uses "carrots," like bonuses, and "sticks", like Performance Improvement Plans, to motivate employees. But are humans really built that way? In this episode, Jacob Stoller and Andrew Stotz dive into the myth surrounding that approach and talk about what actually motivates people at work. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.7 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we dive deeper into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with Jacob Stoller, Shingo-Prize winning author of The Lean CEO and Productivity Reimagined, which explores applying Lean and Deming management principles at the enterprise level. The topic for today is myth number four, the myth of sticks and carrots. Jacob, take it away.   0:00:46.2 JS: Thank you, Andrew, and great to continue our conversation. Yeah, it is widely believed that people are motivated by threats and rewards. And to demonstrate that, all you have to do is go into an HR department and look at the job descriptions and the reward programs. And it's all assumes that people are motivated by externalities, right? And that goes back, actually, it's a very, very old way of looking at the world, that there's a term, it's a bit of Latin here, homo economicus. And it's the idea that humans are sort of goal seeking creatures. They seek what's better for them, and it's all material. They'll seek their material gain, and they will behave in very predictable ways, according to that. So you can set up external motivators, mainly money, and you can regulate the way people will behave.   0:01:38.2 JS: So that's the assumption that many businesses are built on. But science has proven that that's not the way human humans work. There've been a number... And starting really in the 1950s, a number of scientists have sort of poked serious holes in that thinking. One of them is Edward Deci, who talked about motivation and did a number of experiments to see that, to find out that people, you know, their motive for doing tasks really kind of transcends rewards. Often they'll do something, for the satisfaction of doing it, in spite of the rewards being greater. We have Frederick Herzberg who developed something called Hygiene Theory. And that's really that... He determined in an organization that money can't actually be a positive motivator. It can't motivate positive behavior, but lack of money can motivate negative behavior.   0:02:49.6 JS: So, you know, and a number of experiments to support that. And then we have, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, hard to pronounce, who talks about joy at work and really did experiments and kind of proved that joy at work isn't just some kind of fancy idea that somebody had. But it's actually a scientifically proven principle. Whereas when people have joy at work and they're fully engaged in their work, they do much higher quality work. So that's kind of the background really here. So what we want, when we manage, is we want people to be intrinsically motivated so that they do their best work. And Deming principles are very, very, I think representative of that. I think Dr. Deming understood that people are motivated when they feel a part of something, when they contribute, when they feel that their team members around them are supporting them. And so that's what we try to do. And Lean eorld tries to do that, and we try to do that with Deming principles.   0:04:06.8 AS: You know, when I start off my discussion on this with students and people that I teach in seminars and the like, I always ask them, you know, which, do you believe in, a carrot or a stick? Do you think more people are motivated by rewards or punishments? And it's a great...   0:04:18.1 Jacob Stoller: Oh, okay.   0:04:24.1 AS: Way to kick off a conversation. But, you know, obviously we're gonna get some people that say, I want people to be feeling, you know, positive rewards and feel positive. And then you have the other people that... What I invariably find is that people who are running large companies with lots of employees, it's sticks. Yes, because...   0:04:40.4 JS: Interesting.   0:04:41.8 AS: It's overwhelming. And then when I think about where it's easiest to do joy in work, and where it's easiest to get the intrinsic motivation is, you know, smaller companies where everybody's close and they're really working together. And that's a dilemma that I never really have had a great reconciling of, but I'm interested to learn more about it from the direction that you're coming. So continue on. But that's just something I have in my mind when heard you talk about it.   0:05:13.1 JS: It's tough to do with a big company, but I wanna tell you a big company story. And actually I'm gonna read, a page or two of the book just because it's, I don't want to, it's a complicated story and I wanna make sure you get all the...   0:05:32.5 AS: Well, you've it written so well. So might as well do that.   0:05:36.1 JS: Well, like, gosh, let's hope so. Let's hope so. But, anyway, this is actually by coincidence. I just, what appeared, this morning on their podcast, so, of this company called Barry-Wehmiller. So, but the CEO of Barry-Wehmiller is a gentleman named Bob Chapman. And he's become quite well known in the Lean world and outside of the Lean world because as a pioneer of what we could call human-centric leadership. So he believes in treating people in the company like family members. But he didn't start out that way. He started with a very traditional background. He took over his father's business and he had a typical MBA background with accounting. And so he grew that company in a traditional way. You know, it started, as one company, and it started really by acquisition.   0:06:25.5 JS: He got very, very good at finding undervalued companies and developing them. So the company grew and it became a sort of a multinational, diversified manufacturer of various kinds of machinery. And so he was a huge success. I mean, he was written up in Harvard Business Review, all this kind of stuff, but he had a feeling, he was very much a family man too, and he had a feeling that something wasn't quite right in the companies that he was running. And he's a... Bob is a very... He watches people, he's very sensitive about body language. And he told me of a time he was in the cafeteria of a company, and it was sort of basketball season, you know, March Madness. That's when the university teams, you know, have their finals and all that, and everybody's betting on them, you know, it's a big deal.   0:07:21.9 JS: So he remembers being in there, and the people in the cafeteria all just having a great time and watching them chatter. And then, he watched the... When the clock sort of moved, so it's a few minutes to having to go back to work, he said the body language changed, all of a sudden they just weren't that happy. You know, it just, all the joy kind of drained out of them. And then they went off to their jobs. And Bob said, you know, this is wrong. You know, that it shouldn't be this way. And he was a family man. He said, I wouldn't want my children who I care about to be working in this kind of environment. So how can we care for the people and how can we actually make that work? So here's what I'm gonna start to read, because here's where it gets complicated.   0:08:08.6 JS: "Chapman vowed to change how people were led at Barry-Wehmiller. His business background, however, didn't provide any help for this. 'When I was in business school, I was never taught to care,' he said. 'It was about creating economic value. It was all business models, market cap, market share. I don't remember in my undergraduate in accounting or my graduate school ever learning to care or inspire the people I had the privilege to lead. And I never read, never was told, never heard that the way I would run Barry-Wehmiller would impact the way people go home and treat their families and their health. But the biggest thing we've learned is that the way we learn impacts the way people live.' Working with a group of team members from across the organization, he developed a set of principles called the Guiding Principles of Leadership, or GPL, which put caring for people as front and center to the job for all leaders in the company.   0:09:05.2 JS: "But the question remained, how do we organize the work in a way that gives workers the experience of working in a caring environment? It happened that Barry-Wehmiller had recently acquired a Baltimore based manufacturer of corrugated paper machines called MarquipWardUnited the company had implemented a number of Lean tools and practices under the leadership of Jerry Solomon, who was also the author of several books on Lean accounting. In Chapman's first meeting with Solomon, he introduced him to the Guiding Principles of Leadership and Solomon immediately saw a connection with the challenges companies face when trying to create a Lean culture. Most companies practicing Lean, he noted, never get to the culture piece. The same concern that caused the Shingo Institute to revise its model in 2008." And by the way, I have to interject here. That was covered in a previous chapter, how Shingo Institute found that they had left out the people and the caring part.   0:10:14.4 JS: And that had caused a lot of companies that had adopted Shingo principles to actually, and had won Shingo prizes to actually fall off the ladder, so to speak. But that's another story. Anyway, "Solomon," Jerry Solomon, this is the, from MarquipWardUnited "felt that what the company needed was what he called a delivery mechanism to integrate the Guiding Principles of Leadership with the company's day-to-Day operations. How, for example, does a supervisor in the shop floor interact with the people doing the work? Solomon felt that Lean and GPL were an ideal fit. Chapman was skeptical, though, 'cause he'd heard that Lean is purely about reducing waste and increasing profits, but not about leading people ... passed.   0:11:06.2 JS: And the group that was working on it, this company in Green Bay, actually was ready to report on some of their results. So they invited Bob Chapman and Jerry to come, to fly in to see the report. So what they got was a sort of a typical consultant's report. They said, well, we've implemented this thing and we've got, we've shortened the lead time, we've reduced the defects, whatever. And Chapman's reaction was actually different than what you would expect. He was very, very upset. 'Cause he said, this is supposed to be about people and Guiding Principles of Leadership. That's what you told me Lean was about. But here all I hear is a bunch of numbers. So he was quite upset. He left the room, actually. And they sort of calmed him down, and they said, Bob, please give us another chance.   0:12:03.6 JS: And it so happened that, the next morning there was going to be a report out from people that were actually on the team that had made the improvements. So Bob says, okay, I'll give you another chance, but I want the people that were actually working on that project to come and report to the presidents. So, an incredible setup. You know, you can imagine, you have these people 7 o'clock in the morning. Well, that's not hard for you to imagine, with the hours you keep. But anyway, 7 in the morning, you have all the principals, presidents of these companies, and you have, a couple of, people in the team and a guy who's never presented to a group like that, getting up in front of a whole group of CEOs. So he had some notes, and he went through his presentation, which was very sort of, you know, what you would expect.   0:12:54.2 JS: It was, yeah, we've got the, pretty much what the consultants had said the day before, right? Yeah. We cut the lead time. We did this. And, Bob listened patiently. He said he listened for about 10 minutes, and then he says, and he says, I don't know where this came from. He stood up and said, Steve, that's the name of the guy presenting. How did this change your life? And there was a silence. And you imagine, right? All the CEOs and or the presidents. And then, and this guy who has never presented to a group like that. And Steve just sort of blurted out, my wife is talking to me more. And Bob said, help me, Steve. I don't understand. Please, please explain this. And Steve then went ahead and told, what Bob said was one of the most moving stories he'd ever heard, you know, and what Steve said is, well, Bob, you know how it is.   0:13:53.9 JS: You go to work and, you know, you punch in your clock. And then they give you some things to do. They give you a list of things to do, but they don't give you any support or anything, or they don't give you the tools you need, but you sort of figure it out. You know, you get through the day and you get nine out of 10 things, right? But then maybe that 10th thing you'll run into some problem. He said, and immediately what they do, they never thank you for the things you did right. They jump on you for the problem you have, that you confronted. They tell you, you didn't do things right. And then they complain about your salary and how they have to pay overtime and all these kinds of things.   0:14:41.6 JS: And he said, you know, at the end of the day, I wasn't feeling too good about myself. And I'd go home and I think it was rubbing off on me. I wasn't being very nice to my wife and she wasn't talking to me. But he said, now with this program we have, the Guiding Principles of Leadership with Lean, people, I'm part of something. I'm part of a team. We've worked on some things and I can see the results. And when I ask questions, these engineers are answering my questions. And when I say things, they listen to me. And, you know, we've got the satisfaction of this project where we see the flow now really working out in this area. So I go home and I'm feeling better about myself. And I think I'm nicer to my wife and she's talking to me. And at that point, Bob Chapman turned to Jerry Solomon and he said, we have a new metric for Lean's success. It's going to be the reduction of the divorce rate in America.   0:15:41.7 JS: So that's, I think, very, very central. That story to everything we're talking about here with intrinsic motivation. Because it's not about money. It's, you know, you've gotta pay people decently and then they have to be able to support their families. But it's about respect. It's about seeing yourself accomplish things. And this isn't just a frill, this is a basic human need. I think Dr. Deming recognized that. And he has a wonderful diagram in The New Economics where he talks about, he calls it Forces of Destruction. You know that diagram?   0:16:23.1 AS: Yeah.   0:16:27.5 JS: Yeah. It's the... How the school system and then the job environments just basically wear a person down, wear down their will and their enthusiasm. And, you know what, another CEO pointed out to me that, very interestingly, he said, we have a crisis in this country because people don't have purpose in their work. So they go from job to job when they don't like their job. It's, he said, it's like changing an app. Something goes wrong, they change it, but they got no purpose in their work.   0:17:03.3 JS: And this company, I should I call them out, 'cause he, mention his name is Mark Borsari. And it's a company that makes wire brushes in Massachusetts. But they do, you know... He said, you really have to find the purpose in the interactions of people. It's in the people and it's in the processes. You don't get people excited about wire brushes. You get people excited about being part of a work environment where your opinion is respected and where you can make improvements. So, he said, that's what people need in the workplace right now. And he said, the result is that people, you know, we have people just depressed and upset and, you know, it's a crisis that's perhaps underestimated, but really needs to be addressed. So that's why I feel maybe so passionate about this sticks and carrots myth, because I see how destructive it is to human beings. And I've experienced some of that myself in, you know, my early days in corporate life where you're kind of blamed and evaluated for things that often you have no control over. And it's, you know, you look at something like the Red Bead Game. There are people that actually live that.   0:18:31.0 AS: Just to highlight for the listeners and the viewers, the book that Bob Chapman wrote is called Everybody Matters: The Extraordinary Power of Caring for Your People Like Family, very highly rated on Amazon. And it looks like it's also in audible form, which would be a fun one. And you also mentioned about Jerry Solomon, his book, Who's Counting is another one on the topic.   0:18:32.5 AS: But you know, I was thinking about this for a moment. And I was thinking, you know, I was kind of inoculated to this, I was vaccinated against negative thinking by two things that happened to me when I was young. The first one is, you know, I went into rehab as as a young guy with drug addiction. And I came out of that when I was almost 18. And from that point till today, I've been drug free, alcohol free. And so I had to kind of face all the demons that I had, you know, accumulated at that time, but I left it with a really positive outlook on life.   0:19:29.7 AS: Like I wanted happiness.   0:19:29.8 JS: Interesting.   0:19:29.9 AS: I wanted serenity. And then and then I went to work... I went studied, enjoyed that, I went to work for Pepsi, I really enjoyed it. And then I met Dr. Deming when I was, you know, 24. And and he told me, you know, we should have joy in work. And from that moment on, it's like, that's what I wanted in life. And so I never, I never got caught up in this idea when I worked at Big Bank, you know, Citibank and other places, I just never, nobody could ever convince me that, you know, I should be unhappy with what I'm doing.   0:20:05.5 AS: Like, I really, really enjoyed it. And then I was just thinking about how painful it is, if you haven't been inoculated from the beginning, to have to go through this, and then you end up with, you know, it's it's 9 to 5, it's painful work, it's called work for a reason, it's hard, you know. And I think that before I come to the next questions, you know, about the question we always get on the topic of carrots and sticks, what do we do instead?   0:20:30.6 AS: Before I talk about that, I think I really wanna highlight that what's important is getting your thinking right about this. Whether it's the thinking about I wanna treat people like a family, I want people to enjoy work, I want work to be a source of pride, I want people to wanna work here. You know, if you can get those thoughts right, the solutions to the carrots and sticks, and how do we evaluate and all of those questions, you know, can kind of, they wither away to some extent. What are your thoughts on that?   0:21:02.4 JS: Well, I think Jerry Solomon said it very well, actually. He said, you need a delivery mechanism. And Lean provided that, you know, it has a bunch of tools and organizing principles. So does the Deming's System of Profound Knowledge, right, and the various frameworks that Dr. Deming put together. So that provides that kind of framework. It's not easy to do. I think one of the big hurdles, and this is kind of central to my book is that you're dealing with a lot of unlearning. And they say that it's harder to unlearn something than it is to learn new skills. So we really can't afford to underestimate that.   0:21:51.1 JS: And I think when we have managers and leaders facing massive unlearning challenges, I think what's needed is compassion, you know, we shouldn't be putting them down for applying what they learned, we should be understanding about the changes. And I think Dr. Deming, you know, from the stories I've heard was very good about that.   0:22:00.0 AS: Well, he had something he would say, which was kind of one of his methods of compassions, but I remember him saying, how could they know? How could they know, you know, like, they were brought up in this system, as you've just said, and so, but it's based upon the carrot and sticks and all of these different things. But I'm curious, you know, which I think we at some point we'll get to in our discussion is the, there's listeners and viewers out there. It's like, okay, Jacob, totally agree with you. Andrew, totally agree with you. I want people to have joy in work. But you know, I'm constrained by, you know, the performance appraisals that I got to do.   0:23:07.3 AS: I'm constrained by the punishments and rewards that my company does. And or a leader of a company says, if I let these things go, we're gonna fall apart. How do you respond to that?   0:23:11.6 JS: Well, gosh, I mean, I think you have to just look at the case studies of people that have let that go. And that's why I emphasize I one of the points I emphasize in the book with advice for companies moving forward is a very first step before you do anything is go visit companies that have been successful. You know, go visit Bama Foods, where they have a great culture. Go watch how people interact with people. Go to some of the great Lean companies. All these companies understand that the best gift they can give their employees is to allow them to share what they've learned with other people. It's a great motivator for people. So it's a real win win. So I think it begins with that you've got to see it first. And then you can start to assess where you stand.   0:24:13.6 JS: But we're talking about a transformation here, as Dr. Deming said. We're not talking about implementing a few tricks that we can superimpose on our management system. You've got to manage it completely differently to actually get this kind of intrinsic motivation to be a driving force in your workplace.   0:24:19.2 AS: It just made me think that I wanna come up with the five happiest companies in Bangkok and do a tour and take my students out and my teams out and my company managers out and let's go, you know, see how they're turning on intrinsic motivation, you know. And one thing about Thailand that's interesting is that what people want from work is very different than in the West.   0:24:50.1 JS: Right.   0:24:51.2 AS: And what people want from work is good relationships, harmony.   0:24:57.6 JS: Really.   0:24:57.8 AS: They want connection. They want meaning, more meaning from their work than the typical Western.   0:25:05.8 JS: Isn't that interesting? Interesting.   0:25:05.9 AS: And so when I see and I rail sometimes on to my students about, you know, be very careful about bringing this KPI disease into Thailand, where all of a sudden, you're setting up the Thai people to go against each other, which takes away from what is a core strength is their desire and ability to get along.   0:25:33.3 JS: Isn't that interesting? Wow, so they got a head start.   0:25:42.5 AS: Yeah. My first move to Thailand in 1992, I taught an MBA class. And the first thing I did is what was done with me in my MBA class is say, all right, here's a case study, break into groups, and then, you know, and then they came back and, and then after getting to know them in my first semester that I taught, now I've been teaching for 32 years in Thailand. The first lesson I learned is Thais do not need group work. They need individual work. And because they need to kind of flex that muscle.   0:26:08.8 AS: And then I thought, well, why are we do so much group work in America? Well, because it's Americans are trained and taught from the beginning to think independently, have their own idea, watch out for themselves. And they need help in, let's say, MBA classes to work together.   0:26:26.8 JS: Isn't that interesting?   0:26:26.9 AS: And so what I just saw was a very different dynamic.   0:26:30.3 JS: Wow.   0:26:30.9 AS: And it helped me also to understand that we... The good side of the American, let's say, I know, American worker, I know Americans, just 'cause that's where I grew up. But the good side of that is that there is a lot of independent thinking, they can come up with the good systems and all of that.   0:26:47.3 JS: Sure.   0:26:48.9 AS: But the bad side is that they're oftentimes fired up to be in competition with each other. And KPIs just ignite that fire that just...   0:26:58.2 JS: They do.   0:26:58.3 AS: Really causes, you know, a lot of damage.   0:27:00.5 JS: Well, I got to ask you something, then, do you think that that East versus West kind of mindset is why Dr. Deming's ideas were taken up in Japan when they had been kind of ignored in the US?   0:27:16.9 AS: Yeah, I mean, I definitely I mean, Japan is like an extreme example of Asia and trying to have harmony and everybody, the bigger mission is the company, the bigger mission is the community, the bigger mission is the country. I would say that Japan is like the ultimate in that. Thailand is less so there's more independence and people don't have to be completely allegiant to those things. But still, that desire to be happy at work is there, you know, I think it's there more, it's more innate, for some reason in Thailand, than I saw it in America.   0:27:55.8 AS: And I always explain that, when I worked in America, I think I never went out on a weekend with my colleagues.   0:28:04.5 JS: Really. Interesting.   0:28:05.3 AS: And in Thailand is a very common thing to arrange activities together with your workmates, and go bowling and do this and do that. And I thought, I saw that everywhere. And I was pretty, you know, that just was fascinating to me. So I really, you know, this discussion is all about opening up people's minds, that carrots and sticks are not the only way. And as you said, it's a transformation, it takes time, you got to think about it, you got to reconcile it.   0:28:37.8 JS: Well, and that brings up another really important point, Andrew. And that is that teamwork, team productivity really makes the difference in a company. And when you think about it, you've got a whole bunch of individuals that productivity is very often not gonna add up for reasons, you know, that we've already talked about, you know, it's not part of the system. So team productivity becomes really, really essential. But team productivity, and Kelly Allen actually pointed this out really well to me. And I mean, I'm gonna just look in my notes here to get his words exactly, 'cause he said it so well.   0:29:21.0 JS: Let's see here. And here's Kelly, "a useful operational definition of a team is the collaborative and coordinated efforts of people working together in an atmosphere of voluntary trust." So you got to build that. And, you know, that's kind of tough to do in a lot of North American companies.   0:29:48.5 AS: Yeah. It's such a great point. And I think I've recently been teaching a corporate strategy. And I talk about Michael Porter and all the he's taught about strategy. But one of the things that he mentions towards the end of his books is the idea of fit. And he's talking about how do the pieces fit together in the company. And everybody knows that feeling when the when the process before you or the process after you in your company is being run by somebody that you have a good fit with. It's like everything comes together. And so I think what I realize now is that the power of that coordination that Kelly Allen's talking about is all about how do we get these pieces fit together, working together, coordinating together. That's the magic.   0:30:37.3 AS: Interesting. But Porter, I mean, he talked about a lot of I think, you know, it's been a long time since I've looked at his books, but a lot of his stuff was either or, right? I mean, you know, you decide, am I gonna be a price leader or am I gonna be a quality leader? And I think a lot of what he did disregarded, you know, Deming's Chain Reaction, you know, where he where you actually invest in both. So I mean, that's got a problem and with strategy people in general. Now, I know you've taught strategy. So maybe you're gonna take me apart on this one. But it seems to me that the strategy folks are really missing something.   0:31:29.1 AS: Well, I think most people are missing the type of stuff that Dr. Deming's talking about, but I use an example of McDonald's and Starbucks.   0:31:35.5 JS: Okay.   0:31:37.3 AS: You know, one is a low cost leader. And one is a premium, you know, differentiated, you know, product and service. And we all know which one's which. So which one leads to a sustainable competitive advantage? Which one is better? I always talk to my students. And I say, the fact is, is that both of them have led to a competitive advantage. So part of what, you know, I would say, when I think about corporate strategy, from my perspective, is figure out the direction that fits your DNA, and then pursue that, whether that's about making, you know, I like to tell my students that think of a company run by an engineer, who may be focused on the processes and all that, who may create a very efficient operation, versus a business, let's say run by a marketing or sales person who has a much better contacting and messaging to the customer. Those two business owners should be developing their corporate strategy around their DNA, you know, and if they do that right, that, in theory, should lead to some competitive advantage.   0:31:58.9 AS: And to me, competitive advantage is how do we make sure that our company creates a level of profitability that is higher than the industry average over a sustained period of time. If we think we're doing a corporate strategy that works, and we're making a very low amount of profitability, I think that there's enough reason to argue that that's probably not achieving a competitive advantage.   0:32:37.1 JS: Yeah. And I think we have to put the word sustainable competitive advantage. But along the McDonald's, Starbucks, though, I have a very interesting twist. And I think this was done locally in Canada. But somebody did a blind test of coffees from various outlets to see what rated the highest. And I have to tell you that McDonald's coffee rated very high, higher than Starbucks. So...   0:33:47.1 AS: But it's definitely the case in Bangkok that McDonald's coffee is fantastic.   0:33:50.8 JS: Really.   0:33:51.8 AS: I happen to know very much about that. But I highly recommend that.   0:33:55.7 JS: Yeah. Well, I think we're, you know, we are focusing in this book, essentially on, you know, productivity. Now, marketing, marketing strategy and stuff like that is yeah, I'll acknowledge that. Sure. And that's maybe, you know, I think what Michael Porter was talking about it's very true in terms of marketing. But in terms of quality, output of quality, I think that's where the Deming magic and the Lean magic all come into play.   0:34:12.2 AS: Yeah, I mean, it took me a long time to figure out that what Dr. Deming saying is, if we are continually improving our products and service and our quality, we're driving down costs, and we're making people happier, and we're bringing more value to the market. How... Shall we wrap this up? And how would you summarize what you want people to take away from this?   0:34:26.1 JS: I would say that intrinsic motivation is underestimated in workplaces, it's misunderstood. It's not reflected in the way most companies are organized or their strategies. So it's a big learning curve for companies to create the kind of environment where intrinsic motivation is connected with the workplace. But I think it's worthwhile, it's a very, very important thing. And we have a lot of unhappiness in society. And a lot of it can be traced to a lack of that. So, you know, I hope that more companies will see the importance of this.   0:35:16.6 AS: You know, it's my, my friend who never... He was helping me when I was writing my book, Transform your Business with Dr. Deming's 14 points.   0:36:02.2 JS: That's a great book.   0:36:02.7 AS: And he was editing a book.   0:36:02.8 JS: I love that book, by the way.   0:36:04.3 AS: Thank you. I was trying to make it as simple as possible for the 14 points. But my friend, as he was helping me edit it, he turned to me after many hours of working together over many weeks, he said to me, I figured it out. Dr. Deming is a humanist, he cares about people. And that was just so funny, because he thought going into it, it's all gonna be about, you know, charts and graphs and statistics. And I think that's, you know, that's the key, it's the mindset. I wanna wrap up by by just going through some of Dr. Deming's 14 points that apply to what we're talking about. And, you know...   0:36:39.2 JS: Great.   0:36:39.6 AS: The question really is, you know, when my friend said that Dr. Deming was a humanist, it's 'cause as he started working on the 14 points with me, he started to realize, just listen to these points. Here's point number eight, drive out fear. Yeah, that's critical to having a joyful workplace. Number nine, break down barriers between department. That's the source of so much trouble for people at work is that they're working in silos. Number 10, eliminate slogans and targets and exhortations. Stop focusing on pushing the workers constantly. Figure out how to improve the system.   0:37:10.2 AS: Number 11, eliminate work standards or quotas, eliminate management by objective, management by numbers, substitute leadership. And number 12, remove barriers that rob the hourly worker of the right to pride of workmanship. Remove barriers that rob people in management and engineering of their right of pride of workmanship. My goodness, from eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, all focused on this concept of intrinsic motivation. And to me, that thinking, changing that thinking is what's so critical. Anything you would add as we wrap up?   0:37:25.0 JS: Yeah, I will add one thing to that. And this is very strongly in the book. That is why the first step if you're gonna transform your company is making everybody feel safe. That's got to be the first step, even before you start training them with methods and things like that. You have to build safety, then you can build trust.   0:37:47.2 AS: Fantastic. Well, Jacob, on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute, I wanna thank you again for this discussion. And for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. So much happening there. You can find Jacob's book, Productivity Reimagined at jacobstoller.com. And this is your host, Andrew Stotz. And I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming that I just never stop talking about. And today we talked about it a lot. And that is, "People are entitled to joy in work."  

In this episode, Jacob Stoller and Andrew Stotz discuss the myth that managers need to know everything in order to manage. What happens when you ask non-managers for feedback? TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.2 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W Edwards Deming. Today I'm continuing my discussion with Jacob Stoller, a Shingo-Prize-winning author of The Lean CEO and also Productivity Reimagined, which explores how to apply the Lean and Deming management style at the enterprise level. The topic for today is Myth Three: The Top-down Knowledge Myth. Jacob, take it away.   0:00:31.2 Jacob Stoller: Okay. Great to be here again, Andrew. And, yeah, the myth we're gonna talk about is this notion that managers can make their workers and their people more productive by telling them exactly what to do. And that's surprisingly prevalent in the workplace. But I wanna start out by just saying how this relates to the other myths that we were talking about, 'cause we started with this, what Dr. Deming calls the "pyramid," the org-structure type or...   0:01:08.9 AS: Organizational chart.   0:01:09.9 JS: Paradigm idea, yeah, the organizational structure that says that everything is a independent component, right? You got your different departments, they all work independently, we optimize each, and we optimize the whole, right? So, from that, it naturally follows. And we did Myth Number Two that we can follow financial logic, 'cause financial logic fits nicely into that structure. And of course, we saw last time that all the shortcomings and problems you get when you follow that kind of thinking. So, the third myth is we get to top-down knowledge. And again, that follows from the pyramid structure. If it were true that interdependent components weren't interdependent, that everything could act independently, it would certainly follow that you could have knowledge about those components taught in school and that it would all make sense. I think it's the interdependence that really shoots that whole thing down of top-down knowledge. So... Sorry. Yeah.   0:02:16.3 AS: Go ahead.   0:02:18.8 JS: I wanted to start with a bit of a story just to illustrate how prevalent this is. I was doing a workshop with a small excavation company, and we were looking at ways to make them more effective and serve more customers, grow more effectively, and stuff like that. I did an exercise with them, and we looked at where maybe the waste was taking place the most. And they were driving trucks around a lot. This was a rural area, so there was a lot of mileage that was perhaps being wasted. So, we did an exercise with tracking value and non-value mileage. If you're going to a customer, that's adding value. But if you take a detour to have lunch or something, well, that doesn't add value to the customer, right?   0:03:08.8 JS: So, we were exploring those things, and that exercise worked out really well. They made some big changes, and it actually really helped the company grow. They started posting little notes in the trucks talking about, "Remember, value versus non-value." They were tracking it. And it was really interesting. But the success was largely due to one participant. And I'm sure you've seen this, Andrew, in workshops where somebody really seems to get it. And he had all these ideas, a very, very thoughtful guy, and we were just writing down his suggestions. He had a lot to do with that. But after the workshop, I sat down with him when we were chatting, and he told me that he'd been in the construction business for 15 years, and nobody had ever asked him for his opinion about how work was done. Never.   0:04:04.7 AS: Incredible.   0:04:07.1 JS: I was just stunned by that. This guy was so good. [laughter] When you think about that, it's pretty typical. And I think it's really, people are, managers are taught that it's their job to tell people what to do. And often that puts them in a tough spot. Often they have to be in a role where maybe that they're not that comfortable, because maybe they know deep down inside that there's a lot of knowledge out there that they're not aware of.   0:04:41.3 AS: Yeah, it's interesting. It reminds me when I was a first time supervisor at Pepsi, and I worked in the Torrance factory in Los Angeles, in Torrance, California, and then I worked in the Buena Park factory. And at Buena Park, I was given control of the warehouse. In both cases, I was a warehouse supervisor.   0:05:02.9 JS: Right.   0:05:03.1 AS: And I remember I worked with the union workers who were all moving the product all day long. And I just constantly focused on improvement and that type of thing, and talking to them, and trying to figure out how can we do this better, faster, cheaper and with less injury and all of that. And when I left, it was two years, it was maybe a year and a half that I was at that facility. And one of the guys that had been there, he said... He came up to me, he said, "25 years I've been here, and nobody really listened to us the way you did."   0:05:41.0 JS: Oh, wow. Well, that's a hint.   0:05:41.8 AS: And it just made me realize, "How can it be?" Now, I know Pepsi was taking first-time graduates out of school and putting them in this job, and... I don't know. But I just was... I was baffled by that. So, at first blush you would think you'd never hear that. People are always talking, but people aren't always talking. That's not that common.   0:06:03.1 JS: Yeah, for sure. And it's so really deeply entrenched in the system that it's very, very hard to break. One of them, I talked to a couple of companies that actually went through transformations, and this was with Lean, where they transformed their managers as a lot of Lean companies do. And I know Deming companies do this as well, where they changed their role from being someone that tells people what to do, to somebody who actually is a coach and an enabler, and draws people out and uses their knowledge and encourages them to solve their own problems, whether it's PDSA or whatever methods they support. And both of these companies lost half their management team through that transition. But both of the leaders admitted, they were honest enough to admit, that the reason why they lost the managed, they blamed themselves. They said, "It's 'cause we as the top leaders didn't prepare those people for the change." So, that was interesting as well.   0:07:17.6 AS: I want to go back and just revisit... Myth Number One was the myth of segmented success. The idea that, "Hey, we can get the most out of this if we segment everybody and have everybody do the best they can in each of those areas." Dr. Deming often said that we're destroyed by best efforts. And part of that's one of the things he was saying was that it doesn't work. Segmented success doesn't maximize or optimize the output for a system. The second one was the myth of the bottom line, and that was the idea that just measuring financial numbers doesn't tell you about productivity, and just measuring financial numbers doesn't give you success. And then the third one was, that we're talking about now, is the Myth Number Three, is top-down knowledge myth. And so, I'm curious. Tell us a little bit more about what you mean by "top-down knowledge myth."   0:08:17.7 JS: Essentially it's knowledge from outside the workplace being... How do I wanna say it?   0:08:26.0 AS: Pushed down. [laughter]   0:08:28.0 JS: Pushed down, imported, or imported into the workplace, imposed into the workplace. It's really that idea that something from outside can be valid. And it certainly can, to a degree. You can have instructions on how to operate a machine. You can have all kinds of instructions that are determined from outside, but there's a limit to that kind of knowledge. And when you really wanna improve quality, it really does take a lot more input. But I think there are many... This is one of the myths I think that there are very many different sides to. And one of the sides is that what I call the... It's related to variation, but it's really what I call the "granularity problem." And it's the fact that problems are not these nice, big omnibus types of items that a manager can solve. They tend to be hundreds of problems, or thousands.   0:09:37.0 JS: And so, when you've seen transformations, for example, in hospitals, I think that's an environment we can all understand, again, it's because of many, many different improvements that they become better. One example that I was given is, let's suppose you have a medication error problem. That's really, really common in hospitals now, right? But medication error is, it's not one thing. It could be because of the label, labeling on the bottles. It could be the lighting when people are reading the medications. It could be the way they're arranged on trays. It could be the way they're stored. It could be in the supply chains. The really successful healthcare transformations have been by getting thousands of improvements. And I mean literally thousands of improvements from employees who live with those processes every day. Managers can never [chuckle] know all these hundreds and thousands of things, especially, they can't be everywhere. So, really, the answer is that you do need an army of problem solvers to really get the kind of excellence that we want.   0:10:56.0 AS: Dr. Deming had a quote that he said which was, "A system cannot understand itself." And he's talking about, you got to understand... Sometimes it takes someone from outside looking at the system. And that's different from what you're talking about, which is the idea of someone at the top of the organization saying, "I know how to do this, here's what you guys got to do, and here's how you solve it," without really working with the workers and helping understand what's really going on. And I think what you're saying in this too is the idea that people who are empowered at the work level to try to figure out what's the best way to organize this with some support from above, that's management in that sense is a supporting function to give them ideas. If there's a person that understands quality or Lean, or they understand Deming's teachings, then that outside person can also give that team resources and ideas that they may not typically have. But the idea that a senior executive could be sitting up at the top of the company and then being able to look down and say, "Here's how to do each of these areas," is just impractical.   0:12:12.3 JS: Oh, yeah. And I think Dr. Deming was... He was giving managers, I think, a very challenging task to understand systems and to know, 'cause you're responsible for the system if you're management. So, you really have to know when you have to be constantly getting feedback from people who are working in the system and trying to improve their work within the system. So, yeah, it's got to be a definite give and take. And in Lean, they call that "catchball," where there's a constant back and forth between the managers and the workers in terms of the problems they're having and what needs to be done to help them. So, yeah, it's very tuned in to each other.   0:12:55.0 AS: Yeah, and I would say, from my experience in most companies, management's not really trying to help them. Each unit's fending for itself and trying to figure it out, and they're not really getting that much support from management. And so, the idea being that with the proper support and encouragement to learn and improve, the teams that we have in our businesses can achieve amazing things. And this goes back to also to the concept of intrinsic motivation versus extrinsic. And I think what Dr. Deming, what was appealing to me about Dr. Deming when I first started learning about it, was he was talking about "unleash the intrinsic motivation of people, and you will unleash something that is just amazing." And the desire to improve is going to be far better than... And that's why sometimes he would just say, "Throw out your appraisal system," or "Throw out these things, get rid of them," because what you'll find is you're gonna unleash the passions and desires and the intrinsic motivations. And so, that's another thing I'm thinking about when I'm hearing Myth Three: The Top-down Knowledge Myth. It just, it doesn't unleash that intrinsic motivation.   0:14:16.8 JS: Well, it's interesting, this thing was really studied by the Shingo Institute, where they, they, about, as I think you may know, they give out something called the "Shingo Prize for Excellence in Manufacturing." They also give prizes for books too, which I was fortunate to receive. But they had for years been giving the Shingo Prize to excellent manufacturers leading up to 2007 or so. But they found out that most of the people that had got the Shingo Prize had essentially fallen off the ladder. So, they did a very detailed study, interviewed all kinds of organizations: Ones that had fallen off the ladders, so to speak, and ones that had actually maintained the kind of excellence that they had won their prize for.   0:15:20.5 JS: And they found that the ones that had fallen off the ladder had a top-down engineered approach, whereas the ones that had been successful were much more respectful of their people and getting a lot more feedback from the people, the sort of the respect-for-people-type idea that Toyota has. So, really, what they were saying is that the top-down approach, you might be able to fix up your factory and get really good ratings for a while and you have great processes, but in the long run it's not sustainable. So, they changed their criteria so that now, to get a Shingo Prize in manufacturing, you really have to show culture; you have to show how you're listening to your people, the whole thing. So, it's very different now.   0:16:12.0 AS: Yeah. And it's interesting, we have a company in Thailand that the company and its subsidiaries won the Japanese Deming Prize. And there was 11 companies total in this group that won the prize at different years as they implemented throughout the whole organization. And then a couple years later, the CEO resigned. He retired; he reached the end of his time. And the new CEO came in. He wasn't so turned on by the teachings of Dr. Deming, and he saw a new way of doing things. And so, he basically dumped all that.   0:16:57.0 JS: Oh, really?   0:16:57.8 AS: And it's tragic. It's a tragic story. And the lesson that I learned from that is, one of the strengths of a family business is the ability to try to build that constitution or that commitment to "What do we stand for?" Whereas in a publicly listed business where you're getting turnover of CEOs every four, six years, or whatever, in just the case of Starbucks recently, we just saw turnover happen very, very quickly. And the new CEO could go a completely different direction. And so, when I talk to people about Deming's teachings, I say that family businesses have a competitive advantage in implementing it. And I think Toyota is the ultimate family business in Asia, right?   0:17:50.9 JS: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, pride in the family name, and that's... Yeah, and a lot of the interviews I did were businesses like that, where there was a desire to do more than make money, to have a purpose, sustain the family name and that kind of thing. So, yeah, for sure.   0:18:10.0 AS: So, let's wrap this up with you giving us a final recap of what we need to be thinking about when it comes to the Myth Number Three: The Top-down Knowledge Myth.   0:18:24.0 JS: Okay. Well, I think essentially people need to understand that there are limits to what a manager can actually know. And I think the healthcare example, this illustrates that very well. I think they also need to understand that what you ultimately want if you wanna maximize productivity is team productivity. It's the productivity of the group. And people are motivated. You were talking about intrinsic motivation. Part of that comes from actually working together as a team. So, you need to create the kind of trust where information flows freely, and where somebody doesn't hoard their own knowledge but is willing to share it with others, because they don't feel they're in competition with each other. So, again, that's related to driving out fear. So, everything's really interrelated. But I think we have to accept knowledge as something part of a shared collaborative work environment, where everybody wins if knowledge flows freely. And people have to be willing to admit that what they've learned in the past, what they've learned in school has limits in how it can be applicable. And those limits have to be respected. And you have to be willing to listen to every employee, not just the ones that have degrees.   0:20:00.8 AS: All right. Well, that's a great recap. And, Jacob, on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute, I wanna thank you again for this discussion. And for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. And you can find Jacob's book, Productivity Reimagined at jacobstoller.com. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming: "People are entitled to joy in work."

Is quality simply a matter of two categories: good and bad? But then how do you get to "better"? In this episode, Bill Bellows and Andrew Stotz discuss categories and continuum thinking. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.4 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz and I'll be your host as we dive deeper into the teachings of Dr. W Edwards Deming. Today I'm continuing my discussion with Bill Bellows who has spent 31 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. And today is episode six, Category Thinking and Continuum Thinking. Bill, take it away.   0:00:27.9 Bill Bellows: Welcome Andrew great to see you again. All right, so in podcast five, I went back and it was just posted by The Deming Institute. And I just wanna clarify again on the topic of acceptability and desirability. Where we're going tonight is looking at acceptability and desirability in a little bit more detail, a little bit differently, but those are still the prevailing themes. And again, I just wanna reinforce that none of this is to imply that desirability is better than acceptability. What's important is to be aware of when I'm using acceptability thinking. And when I'm using desirability thinking and use the one that makes the most sense in that situation. We were talking earlier about companies whose products we enjoy using and we're loyal to them. And I mentioned that my wife and I have developed a loyalty to Toyota products.   0:01:40.4 BB: Going back to 1989 was our first Toyota product. And I knew I wanted a pickup truck. 'Cause I was borrowing a pickup truck from a number of friends and I thought, I really like a pickup truck. There's a lot you can do with a pickup truck. So, I knew I wanted a pickup truck. And I knew from having worked in my father's gas station, I had reason to believe I wanted a Japanese pickup truck and not an American pickup truck. So, I then it was a question of is it a Mazda, Toyota.   0:02:11.1 AS: Nissan.   0:02:13.2 BB: Sorry Nissan. And I looked at all of them and yeah I just all I knew is I was gonna be one of those. And I think the major reason I went with... My wife and I went with a Toyota... I don't think the prices were that different. But it just had a, it was the styling was a little bit better. But I did not... That's why I bought it.   0:02:46.5 AS: The loyalty wasn't built yet.   0:02:49.0 BB: No I knew to stay away... I knew I had seen plenty of examples of... Well, I had traded in my first car that my father, my parents got me when I was in college was a 1975 Chevy Nova. Four door Chevy Nova. And the reason four doors is important is a... If it was a two door, the door would be longer. But it was a four door. By the time I gave that car to a friend, the engine was running beautifully but the body was falling apart. And, so, by the time I sold it to get the pickup truck, in order to get out of it, I'd have to throw my shoulder into the driver's door. Why? Because the door droop was so great that when you close the door, I mean the door drooped and this is not a four door, this is a two door. So, imagine if it was a two door the door would be even heavier. So, on a four door, the door drooped. And, so, when you closed it, you'd had to lift it and then close it in order to get out you had to... Oh, it's just my wife couldn't drive. It was just a nuisance.   0:04:17.6 AS: And, that in '75 was just about when the Japanese were really starting to go after the US car makers. And but I want to tell you just a quick one. I can't remember if I've told you, but I used to have a 1963 Lincoln Continental here in beautiful Bangkok. And I owned it for 10 years. And then eventually I sold it. But what a beautiful car. And people always ask me the same thing and they said, isn't it hard to take care of? And I said, you gotta remember back in those days, cars were simple.   0:04:49.1 BB: Yeah, yeah. So, the... So, with... So, the experience of 14 years or so, with the '75 Chevy Nova. And the door was like the straw that broke the camel's back. It just done with this, all right. So, we're gonna buy Japanese, bought a Toyota. That was the first one. And I think I've mentioned in the first podcast I mentioned that we had a 1998 Toyota Sienna, which is their first, it was their Toyota third attempt at a minivan. The first one I think was underpowered, the second one... And we knew we wanted a minivan. It was time, the kids were getting a little bit bigger. It was time for minivan. And just as we were ready to go buy it, they had a... I think a competitor came out with dual sliding doors. Dual sliding doors. And, so, instead of Toyota coming out with a one sliding door, they stepped back. I think Chrysler came out with two sliding doors. And they figured we can't come to market with one sliding door. They've got two sliding doors. So, then we waited another year and they finally came out and given all of our delight with the Toyota pickup truck, boom, that's what we wanted. And then the transmission failed, six months later with 10,000 miles in the car.   0:06:18.5 BB: And I have a photo of that. Not only did the transmission fail at 10,000 miles, but it failed on Christmas morning on our way to see friends about an hour away. And this guy, people were going to see, he knew I loved Toyota. And when he drove to pick us up, we transferred everything from that to his Ford F-150. He says to me... So, then we had to have the car towed on a flatbed to his house and the next day to the dealership, what a nuisance headache. But when he showed up, he looks at me knowing that I like Toyota. And he says, how's this data point change your theory about Toyota?   0:07:06.5 AS: I thought he was gonna say, if it was me, I would've said pop in the back.   0:07:12.6 BB: And I was like, yeah, that really hurts. Well when I shared that story with students at Northwestern's Business School, the Kellogg Business School, their advice and these are students that had worked in all different industries from Coke to banking, and a number of 'em have worked in the auto industry. And their advice was, I said, Professor Bellows never buy anyone's first model year, even Toyota. Now I have a friend who he and his wife bought the same model year Toyota Sienna. They did not have a problem.  Oe did. When I met at a Deming conference, a guy who worked in Georgetown, Kentucky which is where the Sienna was made. And, so, I met him at a conference and when he said he worked for Toyota, I said, oh, my wife and I buy nothing but Toyotas. He says, oh. And I said, we have a first model...   0:08:08.6 BB: Year Sienna. And everything was good. And then I'm thinking, I'm gonna ask the guy a question. And I looked straight in his eyes. We were pretty close together. And I'm about to ask him a question. I'm looking straight in his eyes and I said, we got a Toyota Sienna. He says, how do you like it? And I looked right at him and I said, the transmission failed at 10,000 miles. And he rolled his eyes. And I said, so, you know about this. It wasn't a look of shock. It was, yeah, all right. So, I said, all right, all right. Your expression just told me that you know something about this. I said, what's up? He says, we tried. This is so cool. He says, we tried to save a few pennies on a bearing.   0:09:00.8 BB: I said, you did but what you did cost me more than you saved. So, yeah you guys saved a few pennies on a bearing and cost my wife weeks of aggravation to have it towed from where it happened to the place we were going because it Christmas Day, it broke. Everything's shut down on Christmas days. You can't have it right? And, so, we had it towed, had to get a rental car. Then they're complaining about, we had... Who authorized this rental car? We only pay... It was just headache after headache. But we still buy Toyota Andrew. We still buy Toyota. Why? Because I'm afraid to buy from anybody else. Well, part of the reason I wanted to share that with our audience is I buy Toyota products based on value. And I believe that the best value we get in transportation, personal transportation is the money we spend buying a Toyota most often brand new. We've also bought some used, got great use out of them, never had a problem, anything like what I just shared with you. And that's having owned five or six different Toyotas. I mean, right now in our family we have three of them.   0:10:16.7 AS: I think I need to correct you.   0:10:19.1 BB: Go ahead.   0:10:19.9 AS: You buy Toyotas on value and values.   0:10:25.7 BB: Yes!   0:10:28.2 AS: You're aligned with their values and therefore you're willing to look beyond the mistakes and problems that it comes with every product, every service, every company, because you're aligned with their values.   0:10:42.2 BB: Well, what's funny is when we bought the Sienna and we're talking with 'em, doing the driving and signed agree to buy it, that's the color we want. We want these seats, blah, blah, blah. And then you go talk to the closer and the closer's a guy, the gal at the dealership that wants to add on the undercoating and the this and the this and the this and the this. And he wanted to sell us at a premium price, this extended warranty and I dunno what it costs, but I said, I've done a whole lot of research. And he says to me it's so funny. He says, when these things break down, a circuit board breaks and that'll cost you this and this and this, and, so, I'm gonna sign you up for the insurance policy, the extra coverage. And I said, no, and he is going on and on. And I said, look it, I've done a lot of research into how they're made and I said, and the values of that organization. So, I said, the reason we buy Toyota is that I have an understanding, a pretty damn good understanding of how they manage the product, the pieces and how it all comes together. And he's pushing back at me. Finally, I said, I teach university courses on how Toyota operates and their quality system.   0:12:14.8 BB: So, we didn't get the extra coverage. Now it was still covered under warranty, so, it was kind of laughable that. But anyways, the reason I bring that up is that...   0:12:27.3 AS: Before you do that, I want to just say for the listeners and viewers out there, what is the messaging from a corporate strategy perspective? And that is have values that you stand for. Communicate those to the market, stay loyal to them and the customers who align with those values will stick with you through the hard times that you're gonna definitely have. There's a quote by Alexander Hamilton says, "those who stand for nothing, fall for everything." If you do not stand for a clear set of values that the market can perceive, then people are gonna fall away from you as soon as times get tough.   0:13:07.2 BB: Oh yeah. And I...I, I. It's about that and that's why I've read lots about Toyota. How they operate written by people outside of Toyota trying to explain it, people inside of Toyota and their explanations. But part of the reason I bring this up is my fascination, my interest in Dr. Deming's philosophy, is a great deal to do with his system is based on an incredible appreciation of the difference between acceptability and desirability. All other quality management systems, whether it's the quality management within Lean is acceptability based, good parts and bad parts, Operational Excellence, Six Sigma Quality. In fact, there's a quote at the end of chapter 10 in "The New Economics". And chapter 10 was the original last chapter until the third edition came out. In which case there's chapter 11 written in large part by Kelly Allen, a good friend.   0:14:15.1 BB: And when chapter 10 was the end I thought it was pretty cool that at the very end of chapter 10. The last few pages of chapter 10 of “The New Economics” are about Dr. Taguchi's loss function. And this is what turned me on to Dr. Taguchi, was finding “The New Economics" in a brick and mortar bookstore. I knew from ASQ Quality Progress that this was coming out. So, I remember when it came out, this was before Amazon, going to the bookstore. Going through it and saying what does this guy think about Taguchi? Because Taguchi was my, the one I really idolized. And I opened it up and I turned to chapter 10 and it's all about the loss function, the problem and I thought this is way cool. So, the closing quote... The closing... The last sentence in chapter 10 which again was the original last chapter until third edition came out, is the following "Conformance to specifications," that's acceptability, "zero defects," that's acceptability. "Six Sigma quality," which is acceptability "and all other specification-based nostrums all miss the point, ,stated by Donald J. Wheeler."   0:15:42.6 BB: So, then I looked up, but what is a nostrum? And Dr. Deming not Dr. Deming a nostrum is defined as “quack medicine.”  So, "Conformance to specifications, zero defect, Six Sigma quality, and all other specification-based nostrums all miss the point." And, so, I wrote an article about this, gosh, 20 years ago. I said, what's the point? And my explanation, the point is, all of them are about managing parts in isolation. Looking at things in isolation. Again that's acceptability. And as I said earlier, I'm not saying acceptability is bad, I'm just saying acceptability is not desirability. And the other thing I wanna add is, why do I... My wife and I love Toyota products. I've got reason to believe through a lot of research and talking, sharing the ideas that we talk about in these podcasts with people within Toyota. And they have a desirability focus that nobody else... That I'm not aware of anybody else has.   0:16:54.9 BB: And, that's having presented around the world doing classes, at Kellogg Business School, at university. Yeah, the Kellogg Business School Northwestern University. I teach online classes at Cal State Northridge, Southern Utah University. I've lectured at many universities. And I never had anyone come to me working in industry saying, Bill, what you're talking about, we practice where I work. No. And, so, for those that are pursuing the Toyota Production System stuff. My response is, I don't buy Toyota products because they use the Toyota Production System. Now, that may help with getting the car to market faster. But I don't believe the Toyota Production System is why people buy Toyota products. I believe Toyota's quality management system... At least I buy Toyotas because I believe their quality management system, inspired by Dr. Taguchi, inspired by Dr. Deming, is providing something that nobody else has in many industries. All right. So, I wanted to get that out.   0:18:06.7 AS: So, are you saying Toyota Production System is more of a tool that is in their toolbox of quality management system?   0:18:18.4 BB: Um, the Toyota Production System is classic Industrial Engineering.   0:18:26.8 AS: Right.   0:18:27.0 BB: It's how to...   0:18:28.3 AS: It's a natural.   0:18:30.5 BB: How to improve flow, how to improve throughput by minimizing number of steps, by minimizing inventory. It's highly credited to Taiichi Ohno, who was mentored by the founder of the Toyota Motor Company. And it's all about, they don't have a lot of money. So, we need minimal inventory, minimum steps. So, it's like... So, the Toyota Production System is an efficiency based system based on, we don't have a lot of money, we're not gonna buy a lot of inventory. But the quality aspect of the Toyota Production System everywhere, everything I've written, everything I've read by people describing the Toyota Production System it's all explained by acceptability. So, that they may be moving things closer together so people don't walk so far.   0:19:27.8 BB: But what I'm looking at with Dr. Deming's work inspired by Dr. Taguchi is what is it about the quality system that causes those parts to come together so well and the products to perform so well? So, it's not just having the parts when I reach out, the part is there, but those parts integrate better. I've mentioned in the first podcast series that Toyota had 100% snap-fit pickup truck in 1969 at a time when Ford was banging things together using rubber mallets to get the parts together. They took apart and assembled a Toyota pickup truck twice 'cause they didn't believe the results the first time the parts went together without mallets. That's what I'm talking about, that within that system, the ability for the parts to come together to work together cannot be explained by an acceptability based system. And, so, having spoken with people and having the opportunity to share with people within Toyota the ideas we talk about inspired by Dr. Deming, I've learned that they do desirability in a way that nobody... I'm not aware of anyone else having done.   0:20:48.5 BB: All right, so, what I want to get into, add to the discussion tonight, relative to category thinking, is this idea of category thinking, continuum thinking. Category thinking quite simply is putting things in categories. So, in acceptability we have two categories, good or bad, or maybe three categories. It's good or it's scrap or it's rework. So, category thinking is generically putting things into categories. And so, we could look at category... Categories could be... There could be two categories, three categories.   0:21:27.1 BB: It's been a while since I've gone to see a movie, but I believe they still have a rating system of PG, PG-13, R, R-17, maybe X. Those are categories. Fruits and vegetables. Those are two high level categories. Within each of those categories, we have types of, we have apples and oranges, and within them we have types of apples. That's all category thinking. You go into a supermarket and every aisle... There's the cereal aisle. That's a category. There's the canned goods, those are categories. Religions - talk about categories. So, every religion you look at is its own category. And, then within those categories they have subcategories. How about music? How many categories in music are there Andrew?   0:22:18.9 AS: Well, it gets all messed up on my iTunes where I'm like, that's not heavy metal. That's rock.   0:22:28.6 BB: Yeah. And then there's types of rock. In the beginning it was rock and roll, and then there's types of rock and roll.   0:22:34.0 AS: Progressive rock.   0:22:34.0 BB: Progressive rock. And then we have people... So, what category would we put... I think somebody asked Lucinda Williams, we're going to see her in a few weeks. So, what category? Well, she doesn't fit a category. So, that's category thinking. Category thinking is putting things in categories. We could say, where did you go to college? That's a category. These are USC grads, those are Cal State grads. And, part of the point I want to make is that we use category thinking all the time. Putting people in categories is what we do. Such as you and our daughter are Cal State graduates.   0:23:17.6 BB: And, so, what degrees do they have? Those are categories. So, I don't know what we would do if we couldn't put things in the categories. So, I don't think category, putting people in category is not a bad thing. Now, when you start to associate values with the categories, now we're getting into racism or sexism and then, okay. But this idea that putting people in categories is a bad thing, I'd say category thinking is our simple way of organizing everything around us and these little file cabinets. Now added to that is when you put four or five things into a category, then what you're implying is that they're all the same. And that gets into acceptability.   0:24:12.8 BB: So, if this is a good part, that's a good part. That's a bad part. That's a good part. So, all the good parts go into the good part category. Then we say, oh, these are all good. Then we get into the sense of, and they're interchangeable. Well, maybe not. And that has to do with what I call continuum thinking. All right, so before we get to continuum thinking, Andrew, remember the question. What do you call the person who graduates last in their class of medical school?   0:24:43.3 AS: I don't remember that.   0:24:45.2 BB: Okay, so take a wild guess, Andrew, putting the pressure on, what do you call the person that graduates last in his or her class in medical school?   0:24:55.7 AS: Surgeon general.   0:24:56.9 BB: What's cool is that's a question I've been able to ask all around the world. Now, depending on where I go, I can't talk about baseball because they don't understand baseball. Or depending on where I go, I can't say soccer or I have to say football. Then if I say football, I have to say, well, I mean your football, not American football. But what's neat about this question, what do you call the person that graduates last in their class in medical school, that's "doctor." That's also acceptability thinking. From the first in class to the last in class, they all met requirements. Andrew, you know what that is? Acceptability. So, category thinking is a form... Acceptability is a form of category thinking. All right. Now I'm gonna give you three numbers and I'm going to ask you which two of the three are closest to being the same. You ready?   0:25:58.0 AS: Yep.   0:26:01.7 BB: 5.001, 5.999 and 6.001.   0:26:11.1 AS: 5.999 and 6.001.   0:26:17.6 BB: Are close to being the same?   0:26:18.8 AS: Yeah.   0:26:20.2 S3: That's what most people think. Okay. But...   0:26:25.7 AS: One's a six and one's a five. That's a problem.   0:26:29.5 BB: All right. And, so, again, the numbers were 5.001, 5.999 and 6.001. And the question is, which two of the three are close to being the same? And, what most people will say is 5.999 and 6.001, which infers that what does same mean?   0:26:48.5 AS: The integers?   0:26:49.1 BB: If you answered.   0:26:49.9 AS: I looked at the integers at the end rather than the whole number at the beginning.   0:26:56.7 BB: But is it safe to say you chose those numbers by saying they were closest together?   0:27:01.6 AS: Correct. Yes.   0:27:03.2 BB: So, in your case you're saying, if I plot those numbers from zero to infinity. Then those two are really close together. That's one definition of same is proximity. But, same could also be, they begin with five, in which case the first two are close to being the same. 'cause they both begin with five or they're both less than six. Or, I could say 5.001 and 6.001, because they both end in .001. So, it turns out there's three answers to the question. But the answer of the last two and proximity is what category is what continuum thinking is about. On a continuum these two are closest together. All right.   0:27:51.2 AS: And I have to tell you, we're gonna be running out of time, so we gotta wrap this up.   0:27:55.4 BB: All right. So, when I asked you the question, what do you call the person who graduates last in their class of medical school? And you said doctor, that's category thinking. If you used... Well actually the thing is, if I ask, what do you call the person who graduates last in their class at the United States, US Army's Military Academy, known as West Point, one answer is Second Lieutenant. 'cause they're all Second Lieutenants. But West Point uses continuum thinking to define the very last person in their class. So, it's the last person in class is not called second lieutenant. The last person in the class is called goat, as in the animal.   0:28:43.2 BB: And a very famous goat at West Point, who from my reading, was very proud to have graduated last because there's... I think Mike Pompeo, who was Secretary of State under president Trump, was first in his class at West Point, first in his class. A very famous, I wanna be the last person in my graduating class at West Point was George Custer. You've heard of him?   0:29:14.3 AS: Yep.   0:29:15.5 BB: And, he was deliberately lazy, so he wanted to be the very last person in his class. But that's, but the idea is that category thinking says they're all Second Lieutenants, they're all doctors. Continuum thinking is when you say this is the first, this is the second, this is the third. And when you come up, when you start to order them and say, the last one is goat, that's looking at things on a continuum, which is continuum thinking. Well, given that most quality systems, including Boeing's Advanced Quality System, are based on category thinking and category thinking, you have good parts and bad parts. When I ask a question as I brought up in the podcast five. I said I go to audiences and ask, how much time do you spend discussing parts which are good, that arrive on time? And the answer is none. And I say, well why is that? 'Cause in that system they're focusing on taking things from bad to good. And then what? Stopping at good.   0:30:20.0 BB: Well, part of the thing I wanna get across in this episode is the reason we're stuck in that model of stopping at good is because the quality system is based on category thinking of bad and good. And in a world of good and bad, there is no better. In a world of short and tall, there is no taller. And, so, continuum thinking allows us to go beyond that. And, so, going back to Dr. Deming's quote, conformance requirements, which is category thinking, zero defect, Six Sigma quality, those are all category based systems, which means it's good parts and bad parts. But then I come back to how does a system which is based on good parts and bad parts deliver such incredible reliability in the products? And, I believe it's because they're using continuum thinking. Not... And again not continuum thinking everywhere, but I think they have very judiciously figured out where to use continuum thinking and that is their differentiator. In my admiration for Dr. Deming's System of Profound Knowledge is, I've not come across any other type of management theory, which has that level of fidelity to explain that. And, in order to practice continuum thinking, implement it, you have to work together.   0:31:43.9 AS: And I'm gonna wrap this up by... One of the revelations that I come upon when I listen to what you're saying is. That's also what makes Deming's teachings sometimes hard to grasp, because there is no clear category and there is no clear beginning and end. There is no certification and therefore it's just hard for us who are used to being in categories to grasp. And that's my conclusion what I draw from everything you've just said.   0:32:16.6 BB: Well and let me add to that, really appreciate you saying that. Let me add to that,much of what I was doing at Rocketdyne... When I began to appreciate that the reason I was focusing on solving problems, solving problems and the problems we didn't solve were the problems where the customer, NASA said, we're gonna take this work and take it to the company down the street because you guys can't make it happen.  And, that scared the hell out of me that we're gonna lose this work to competitors because... And when I looked at it, was why are we stuck?  And I looked at Dr. Deming's work, the reason we're stuck is we're... 'cause our quality system is based on good parts and bad parts. We're waiting for trouble to happen. And, so, but still what I found is, and when I started to focus on... I went from being 100% Taguchi to more about Dr. Deming's work and trying to come up with everyday examples to make Dr. Deming's work more accessible.   0:33:16.9 BB: So, in Dr. Deming's work, you're not gonna find category thinking, continuum thinking. So many of the concepts we talk about in this series, in the prior series are... I refer to them as InThinking Concepts, just trying to make it easier for people to begin to absorb the brilliance of Dr. Deming's work. Because, I think absent that, when he says quality, what kind of quality is he talking about? Acceptability quality, desirability quality. So, I'm with you, I think the work is brilliant. I'm just hoping through our conversations and these podcasts that we can make his work far more accessible.   0:33:56.4 AS: Yep. Well, I think we're doing that. And Bill, on behalf of everyone at The Deming Institute and the audience, I wanna thank you again for this discussion. For listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. Of course, if you wanna keep in touch with Bill, just find him on LinkedIn. This is your host Andrew Stotz. And I'm gonna leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming. "People are entitled to joy in work."

Is your financial bottom line the true story of your organization? In this episode, Jacob Stoller and Andrew Stotz take on the myth of the bottom line - maybe it doesn't tell you what you think it does. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.5 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with Jacob Stoller, a Shingo prize winning author of "The Lean CEO" and also "Productivity Reimagined" which explores how to apply the Lean and Deming management style at the enterprise level. The topic for today is myth number two, the Myth of the Bottom Line. Jacob, take it away.   0:00:32.7 Jacob Stoller: Thank you, Andrew. Great to be back here with you. Yeah, the myth of the bottom line, it is widely believed that if you look at the financials, that tells you everything you need to know about the productivity in your organization. And it's almost when you think what we talked about last time, so that the pyramid, the idea that the whole equals the sum of the parts, I think the myth of the bottom line is really kind of flows naturally out of that. If you believe in this pyramid that Dr. Deming was so critical of, the myth of the bottom line seems to make sense. Just that dollars flow through, you save a dollar here, it's all going to add up.   0:01:23.8 JS: So the problem with that is that productivity as we've learned from Dr. Deming, is actually determined by lots of non-financial factors. And what the bottom line gives you is a kind of an oversimplified, I guess, aggregated view. So you take the total sales of a company and you divide it by the number of employees. You can call that productivity, but it's not really productivity, 'cause productivity, strictly speaking, comes from making increasing output with a set of inputs. So you go from time A to time B, are we making more while keeping all our fixed costs constant? So there are things that get in the way of measuring that and one of the big ones is something called price recovery. So if you look at profitability, it's really a combination of price recovery and productivity. But price recovery would be any change in cost, any kind of financial cost during or between the two periods that you're measuring.   0:02:45.7 JS: So if you've got say the cost of labor, cost of materials, facility costs, energy costs, all these things can change between two time periods. And at the same time, maybe your selling price changes. So it turns out that factoring all those things out is much more difficult than you would think. It doesn't come easily using ERP systems in those things. And one of the pioneers of Lean accounting [0:03:16.8] ____ explained to me how he, when he first realized this, how much work it was to actually just separate all these price recovery factors from the total that contributed to productivity. So it's not that easy to even get to productivity and really get an accurate figure on it.   0:03:39.1 AS: It's interesting. I'm a financial guy, so I look at the P&L all the time of so many companies. So I think I've got some fun stuff that we can talk about, but was there something more you were gonna wrap that up with?   0:03:51.9 JS: Well, yeah, I think what happens with that is you get a sort of a cultural divide, because executives, I'm told, typically see operations as a black box. They'll say, well, okay, someone worries about process and manufacturing process, or it could be in any field. It could be medical, it could be something else, but that's something that operations worries about, so we'll let them do that. So they're left, these executives, with only one language, and that's financial language to understand things. And that's basically the iron law there is you get what you pay for. So we wanna get better quality, okay, we invest in it, that costs money. We wanna get faster delivery times, well, we'll pay money for that. And we wanna lower cost, well, then we better get rid of some people.   0:04:51.7 JS: So these things are all looked at sort of transactionally from the outside, not inside this black box of process. But inside that black box, that's where all the magic happens. That's where the Deming chain reaction happens. The fact that when we invest in quality, costs are gonna go down, but you tell that to an accountant, they'll tell you you're nuts. So it's really, I think there's a big challenge there of getting people to understand that the laws of that really determine productivity are not purely financial. And people need to... I think a lot of people need to broaden their thinking to understand that.   0:05:43.0 AS: Maybe out having looked at the financial statements of thousands of companies and have valued thousands of companies in my life, let's look from a top down, first of all. So people organize, people give money, give capital to companies, because they expect to get some return from that capital. Some people care about what that company does, others don't care, but that's the first step. And so the company gets capital that they deploy and they organize their business however they want, and ultimately they generate revenue. Now, revenue is price times quantity. And I think the first thing that supports what you're talking about is that, if a manager of a company says, our revenue went up 20% last year, and it was all driven by increasing prices only, well, that's... If you could sustain that, that would be fantastic, but it's quite likely when you increase prices, you're gonna have a knock on effect of your demand falling as your competitors have lower prices. But then, what you could say is that that company really didn't change anything about the way it's operating, it's output, it's productivity. Would that be correct in saying that in your mind?   0:06:56.9 JS: Yeah, it would be correct, and I think that a lot of the companies that are protected from... We got stories about this that are protected price wise and are able to kind of raise their prices at will, actually get very sloppy with their operations, and they don't increase their productivity. So I would say to your clients or whoever when you're analyzing that, that what productivity growth will give you is sustainable improvement over time. Productivity is the one thing that every company has control over, and you can control it year after year, but it's long term. It's a long term prospect. So that's... If you're managing quarter by quarter, that's maybe not gonna be so attractive.   0:07:52.0 AS: Yeah. So I think that's a great point about the long-term nature of trying to improve your productivity, because anybody can be a one hit wonder and increase price, let's say, and then tell everybody, "hey, we got more revenue, or we got more profit." Now let's look at the other side. So the P&L, the profit and loss statement, or the income statement is revenue minus costs, equal profit. There's a second aspect, is that a top level executive who come in and say, "I'm slashing the marketing budget, and I'm slashing the cost related to our operations and all that," and in the end, they would get an increased... Increase in profit. But they may get that at the sacrifice of future growth of let's say the image, the brand image of the company as an example, which doesn't necessarily have to do with the black box of actually making the product, but does have to do with creating a bottom line that looks great, but sacrificing the future bottom line. What are your thoughts about that?   0:08:55.1 JS: That's a great point. Yeah, of course, Dr. Deming would tell us to look at the system. They're all interdependent, marketing, sales, production and everything. But when I said black box, I mean, yeah, it does conjure sort of an image of manufacturing, but that same black box thinking, I think needs to spread through the entire company. And some of these really mature companies, Lean companies and Deming companies too, they're thinking everything as within that operational framework. Because it's operations within that, that you have your complex adaptive system. Financial, pure finance is not really in the same way... The laws of finance are not... Don't reflect that kind of complexity.   0:09:45.0 AS: I would like to just define this black box, because what you're... When we think of it of a black box, we think, okay, people just look at it, and they don't really know what's going on inside. But you're saying that that's the way a senior executive oftentimes comes in and they don't even know what's really going on. I remember when I worked for Pepsi in the factory, that the factory manager was even out of touch with what was happening on the floor. He wasn't out there all the time. So when you're talking about black box, you're talking about kind of people looking from the outside in, but inside that black box is where all this productivity work is being done of how do we get more efficient in what we do, use less resources, and get a better outcome? How do we hit the specifications or the desire product that the customer needs. Which is one of the great things about capitalism is that you're actually trying to reduce the resources that you're putting in to create an output.   0:10:43.4 JS: Yeah, exactly. Well, I would expand the black box again. It can be anything, it can be in your accounting department. So the black box really is process. It's the whole concept of process. So it's not a physical entity at all, or a plant floor, it can be everything in the company, but yeah, you can look at... You can take same kind of principles and say, "how come it takes you 10 days to close our books at the end of the month? Can we shrink that down to three?" So we can use the same principles anywhere in the organization. And similarly, we can use these principles in healthcare and services industries and just about anything. So yeah, so the black box is a very conceptual idea.   0:11:33.4 AS: The process, the systems.   0:11:33.4 JS: Yeah.   0:11:37.0 AS: The other thing I always tell my finance students on first day, the first thing I put up on wall, on the board is, "finance adds no value." Which is a very disappointing thing for undergrads in finance. But what I try to show them is that, finance is a feedback. It's a tool for feedback. And the feedback in this case is financial feedback. And with that financial feedback, it's information that the management team can use to create value, to make better decisions, ultimately about the business and what they're doing. And so for those people that think that finance is something that creates value in a business, I always say it's a support function. And when it's done really well, it's a fantastic support function to give feedback of, here is the big picture of what we're producing, whether that's looking at the cost accounting on a production line, or whether that's looking at the overall company. So finance adds no value is one of the things I always say to kind of wake my students up to see that really, finance can be great if it's supporting the CEO and the management team at making good decisions.   0:12:47.8 JS: That's a great point, Andrew. And of course that's said often in the Lean world. When they separate out, muda, which they call waste, they have... Well, they have necessary waste and unnecessary waste. Unnecessary waste is too many steps in a process or whatever, but the necessary waste is things like finance, and it's not just finance, but it's things like having an HR department. Because HR is not actually making any products for your company. So all these support functions, administration, even executive management would be considered to be not adding value in that framework. So I think what you're saying makes perfect sense.   0:13:38.4 AS: I came across a company when I was a young analyst here in Thailand, and it's a factory. And I was looking at the financials, and I was seeing that the profitability was rising quite fast, and the cash conversion cycle basically went negative, which I've never seen a factory have negative cash conversion cycle. So I called up the company and asked if I could come out as a analyst. I went out to visit the CEO and the management team and went around and I asked him, "how did you get your cash conversion cycle to be so low?" He said, "well, we focused on reducing an inventory in our business." And I said, "how long did it take you?" He said, "it took us about five years." And he said, "but I really gave the responsibility to each team leader and each team to think about how they could reduce the inventory in their area."   0:14:27.4 AS: And that was, first of all, a lesson in focus. If you focus on one thing and it's the right thing, let's say, let's assume that was the right thing at that time, you can get there. But the reason why I'm telling you this story is 'cause he told me another thing that was interesting. He said, "we have a... Each area we have a profit and loss statement for, and we try to get people to think about that." But I said, "how do you handle the overhead of management, the cost of management?" He said, "we list out the exact cost of management and we post it on the wall, and then we calculate it per area so that everybody knows how the management cost is hitting their P&L. And then we challenged them to help push us to drive down that overhead." And I was like, that's pretty transparent, I thought, in a Thai factory.   0:15:18.2 JS: Well, that is interesting and I'd be curious. A lot of companies use standard cost accounting and what often happens is inventory actually... When they reduce inventory, that's an asset right? On the balance sheet, and they take a hit from reducing inventory. So I'd like to know how your client dealt with that, or if they had to deal with it.   0:15:42.1 AS: I am not sure how he did the accounting, but I know that many, many companies in Thailand do not use standard cost accounting, just because it's a pretty advanced thing. And I think that they're pretty simple in some of their operations. Not all, but yeah.   0:16:00.8 JS: Yeah. Okay. Well, no, standard cost accounting is just not a good way if you're interested in maximizing your productivity, because it basically hides the... It hides the true cost of inventory. It postpones them to a later year. So when you sell the product, then you're paying the carrying costs of the inventory, which is crazy. So somebody overproduces, they don't take the hit for that.   0:16:25.3 AS: Right. One last thing from me, and then maybe we'll wrap it up by thinking about the takeaway of what we want the listeners to be able to do from this discussion. But I just, since it's myth number two, the myth of the bottom line, I wanna address another myth that I always talk to about my students, and that is that the goal... This is the myth, "the goal of the management is to maximize profit." And I teach my students that if we wanna look at the financial goal of the management of a company, it is not to maximize profit. And if anybody says that, I always stop them and say that "actually, the goal of the management is to maximize value. And value is a function of profit and risk in the calculations that we use in the world of finance." So you can... A manager, two managers of different companies, but let's say competing companies, they could be, one could be getting a huge amount of future cash flows coming in, but they could be doing it through bribery, let's say.   0:17:28.8 JS: Yeah.   0:17:29.6 AS: And that is raising the risk secretly behind the scenes. And so the ultimate, the value that's being created in that company is going to disappear. Another good example is Amazon. When Amazon listed in the stock market, it went seven years with losses. So was it doing the wrong thing? No, it was creating value even though it had loss. So ultimately, the importance is to create value, maximize value, not maximize bottom line. That's kind of me from the top down finance perspective, but what are your thoughts about that?   0:18:08.6 JS: Well, value is tricky. Because it's determined by the customer. So a bunch of things. I always give the example of ballpoint pens because I scribble a lot on my calls with a ballpoint pen, but supposing I'm making 10,000 of these an hour or something, and I up that by 10%, well, that's fine. And with all my machinery, maybe I'm running it faster and I'm using all the same plant, I figured out a way to do that. But what if the productivity, or sorry, the productivity will show as an increase, but what happens if some of those pens skip? I have a quality problem as a result of picking that up. Well, if the pens are not really acceptable to my buyers anymore, then I haven't gained anything. So it shows...   0:19:01.6 JS: So you can't just do a productivity calculation based on numbers that are turning out. You have to maintain that quality and that's not that easy to do. 'Cause it might be that my quality problem is that, I have to increase by 10%, but it's only skipping one out of 10,000 pens or maybe one out of 5,000, but the customer might not care about that, or they might not... They might rather pay a little bit less and have that slight defect. So it's a tricky business, I think, with value, you have to constantly be getting customer feedback, and knowing what the customer needs, what level of quality they need, and making sure that you consistently deliver that. So value, yeah, absolutely.   0:19:55.8 AS: It's a good time to come back to point number one of Dr. Deming's 14 points, which is, "create constancy of purpose towards improvement of product and service with the aim to become competitive, and to stay in business and to provide jobs." And the idea of focusing on improving product and service is the holy grail. If every day, you are working as an organization, as teams, as groups to improve product and service, it's just amazing, and I think that that's where Toyota has been a great example of just relentlessly pursuing that. But let me ask you, how would you sum up what you want people to take away from the myth of the bottom line number one, and what action do you think that they should take as they go back and look at their business or look at their department?   0:20:52.1 JS: I would say stop. First of all, stop pretending that you know everything based on the financials. Go look at, go study Deming principles or learn about what actually happens and how the value is created. Go onto the front lines where value is created. Whatever your company is, study that and start to learn what some of their problems are, and how that affects value. I think there's this... They've said that... It's often said that it's much harder to unlearn things than it is to learn new things. So I don't think it's an easy... I don't think it would be an easy thing to do. It's very convenient to believe that the finances tell you everything, especially if you're outside the company. If you're an investor or you're Wall Street or whatever, and you're providing guidance on companies, telling them that they don't really understand what's driving the value of that company is not a very welcome message. So I think it's it's not easy.   0:22:05.8 AS: I was just reading a book called, "The Six Month Fix" by Gary Sutton, which is a great book about turning around companies, but he has a chapter talking about Hewlett and Packard, the two gentlemen who started Hewlett Packard, but he talked about how they just... They were constantly walking around out in the production area. They were in the maintenance area, they were on the loading dock. They did it at evenings, they did it on weekends, they did it on day... They were just constantly out there. So part of what I'm hearing from you is step back from the financials and get into the operations, see what's happening in the processes, and helping support people to work towards improving the product and service, so that you get a consistent growth in your business that's driven not by like raising prices, but by getting more efficient in what you're doing. That would be kind of how I would summarize the takeaway.   0:23:02.3 JS: Yeah. I think you have to acknowledge that there are people out there on the front lines that are creating the value in your company. And there's a lot you can do to help them as a leader. You can remove roadblocks. And if the company's been running purely on financial metrics, you can bet there are tons of roadblocks and frustrations that these people are seeing. But you can also... Eventually you can create a kind of a culture where people work together. Because as I think we see with Deming, the productivity is a team sport. You really wanna have team productivity, and people working together, not knocking each other down, as we talked about in the sort of the pyramid structure is what people do. You want them working together and leaders can do a great deal to kind of create that culture and lead by example and all those things.   0:24:03.9 AS: Well, that's inspiring. And I know for all of us, the myth of the bottom line, we can get trapped into it at times, particularly when the bottom line's not that strong and times tend to get focused in on it and maybe at the cost of other things, but this is a good reminder for everyone. I'm gonna wrap it up there.   0:24:24.9 JS: Okay.   0:24:26.3 AS: Jacob, on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute, I wanna thank you again for this discussion. And for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. You can find Jacob's book "Productivity Reimagined" at jacobstoller.com. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming, "People are entitled to joy in work."  

Is the whole simply a sum of its parts? In this episode, Jacob Stoller and Andrew Stotz discuss what happens when you divide a company into pieces and manage them separately - and what to do instead. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.5 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we dive deeper into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my conversation with Jacob Stoller, Shingo Prize winning author of The Lean CEO and Productivity Reimagined, which explores Lean and Deming management principles at the enterprise level. The topic for today is myth number one, the myth of segmented success. Jacob, take it away.   0:00:30.4 Jacob Stoller: Great to be here with you, Andrew. And yeah, before I dive into that myth, I'd like to just start with a quote by Albert Einstein. "There is no failure in learning, but there can be in refusing to unlearn." Now that's something that's gonna occur over and over when we talk about the different myths. And the fact is, as many people have observed, unlearning can be a lot tougher than learning. So I think we always have to keep that in mind. So I want to tell a little story which kind of illustrates just how deep this unlearning can go. And this was told to me by Rich Sheridan, who has a company called Menlo Innovations, they're a software development company. And very interestingly, the theme of his work has been about joy in work. Sounds familiar?   0:01:28.3 AS: I love it.   0:01:28.5 JS: Well, he didn't really discover Dr. Deming until he had already written two of his books. So it just shows to me that there's some very underlying truths behind what Dr. Deming was teaching. But anyway, the story Rich tells is that he had his family in for a wedding. And they had a new office they'd moved into, so everyone wanted to see it. So he brought his granddaughter in, an eight-year-old. And he said, well, where do you sit, pop-pop? And he said, right here. Here's my desk. Here's my computer. And the granddaughter looked at his desk and was puzzled. You know, she said, well, where's your name? You got to have your name somewhere. And so, I mean, Sheridan was amazed. He says, I thought, wow, she already has it in her head that as CEO, I should have a corner office with a placard that showed how important I am. And you know, I felt a little embarrassed. She was somehow implying that I can't be much of a CEO if I didn't have a placard with my name on it.   0:02:35.5 JS: And she's only eight. So no, here's a CEO that's just really, really, you know, ahead of a lot of people. You know, he understands a lot of the Deming principles. And he sees just how deeply people hold these myths. She believed that there's this pyramid structure and there's got to be a CEO at the top and there have to be all these departments and people reporting to various people, et cetera, et cetera. So this really, this belief she had is really, it's sort of the pyramid that Dr. Deming described. And Dr. Deming actually wrote, he said, in The New Economics, you know, his last book, he wrote, this book is for people who are living under the tyranny of the prevailing style of management. And he talks about the pyramid. And I think that kind of encapsulates everything we're dealing with in terms of beliefs. And I'm just going to read it because he was so concise about saying it. "The pyramid only shows responsibilities for reporting who reports to whom. It shows the chain of command and accountability."   0:03:55.3 JS: "The pyramid does not describe the system of production. It does not tell anybody how his work fits into the work of other people in the company. If a pyramid conveys any message at all, it is that anybody should first and foremost, try to satisfy his boss and get a good rating. The customer is not in the pyramid. A pyramid as an organization chart, thus destroys the system, if ever one was intended." So I've never seen a more pointed description of the prevailing style of management. But think of this young girl at age eight, you know, I mean, and a lot of them, what happens is they go to school and they learn. And then maybe they eventually go to business school. And then sometime, maybe 30 years later or something, this person, this young woman is being told, we're not going to manage according to a pyramid anymore.   0:04:54.3 JS: We're gonna change the whole structure. We're gonna respect people and we're gonna respect their opinions. And we're not gonna assume that all these departments automatically fit together like building blocks. We're gonna work to define a system. All these things that Deming taught, you know, how do you think she's gonna react to that? You know, we're talking about things that this person has believed, not just from training in business school, but for years and years. So I think that kind of underlines the task we all have in terms of learning and unlearning. It's just an enormous thing we have to deal with, which is why I think it's important to look at the myths and various myths. And that's why I really worked to define those. So, when we...   0:05:46.5 AS: I would just highlight one thing about, if we go back to maybe, I don't know, constructing the pyramids, it was all about power and force, you know, get things done. It was about power and force. And I think what Dr. Deming was saying at a very, you know, many, many decades ago, he was saying that power and force are just, you know, a tiny factor in the world of business. The real motivating factor is intrinsic motivation, satisfying the customer, working together. Those types of things are the forces that will bring a much better outcome in your business, rather than just having an organizational chart that just shows the flow of power and force.   0:06:30.4 JS: Exactly. You know, and I think that if you look at the pyramid structure, it's actually a great system for consolidating power. So it works that, and, you know, but if you start to look at producing quality products and services for customers, it doesn't work at all. And, you know, so we need a new kind of logic, not this kind of logic. If we really do, like I say, we want to produce excellence. And if we want to have productivity as our competitive advantage, right?   0:07:06.4 AS: And one thing I just want to, for the listeners and viewers out there that may get confused, like what is a pyramid chart? We're talking about an organizational chart with a CEO, you know, and the like at the top, and then all the different department heads and the people below them. So Dr. Deming referred to that, and Jacob's also referring to that as a pyramid chart. Let's continue.   0:07:27.5 JS: That's right. Yeah. Yeah. Thanks for clarifying that. Okay. So that gets us to myth number one, because, and myth number one is the myth of segmented success. And the idea behind it is that the productive resources, this is a myth, this isn't true, but according to the myth, the productive resources of a company can be organized as a collection of independent components. The whole equals the sum of the parts. So this is essentially the glue that holds this org chart structure together. If that myth were true, then that org chart structure would be perfect for organizing a productive organization. But it is a myth. And what we see is that when you run a company according to that, with that assumption, you get into all kinds of trouble.   0:08:20.5 JS: And I'll just give you a very simple example. We have, let's say we have a company that does heating, ventilating, air conditioning, and they're selling stuff to industry, various machines, and they're installing them, and they're servicing them, all that kind of thing. Right? So let's say there's the end of the quarter and the sales rep has to make his or her numbers. Now salespeople are rewarded based on their sales numbers. Production people or the service people are rewarded based on their numbers, on how many service calls they satisfy or whatever. So installation people are rewarded for how much installing they do. So everybody's got quotas, and they're all sort of independent like components. So you get this sort of negative chain reaction where the sales rep does a big deal to make the numbers at the end of the quarter. He brings it in, the bell rings, you know, hooray, this person's made his numbers, he gets to go to Hawaii or whatever it is. Right?   0:09:27.6 JS: But let's supposing to get that deal, that's a big deal, it's high volume. So guess what? Low margin. And guess what? Maybe the sales rep had to make a few concessions to get that deal. Maybe the sales rep didn't reveal all the fine print to the customer, you know, in sort of the rush of getting the deal. So after the deal, the next quarter, well, the service department's got problems now dealing with this order. The installation department's got problems. So both of these departments have to hire extra people, have to pay overtime. So the end of that quarter, their numbers are going to look bad. Right? So that's a classic case. But it just happens over and over and over again, because you have all these different business entities compensated based on their own separate objectives as if they were separate companies. And yet that's glorified, that's seen as entrepreneurial. We'll run our department as a business, as a profit center. But they don't consider the whole overall system. So that's the kind of the tragedy, I guess, in modern business. And again, it's assuming that everything is kind of gonna work out if you manage them independently.   0:10:53.2 AS: And I was thinking that, you know, the head of the sales department is gonna be rewarding the salesperson for what they're doing. And if the head of the manufacturing or service department could anticipate that this deal that the salesperson's closing is gonna cause a lot of problems because of, you know, they're rushing it and they're trying to give great terms to get something under a deadline. There's just a very difficult for the head of the sales department to listen to that complaint to the head of, let's say the service department as an example, because they're being judged by the numbers they're delivering in their department by their boss. And so they got to kind of let it happen.   0:11:33.5 JS: Yeah. Yeah. And this is by the way, based on a real life story. And this is a company called Air Force, I think, Air Force One, it's called actually, and it's based in Ohio. It's a heating, ventilating air condition company. I could say HVAC, but they use the acronym. And they worked with Kelly Allen. And very soon after working with Kelly, they got rid of sales quotas and put everybody on salary. And the whole thing took off, you know, as the CEO told me. They're getting better deals, customers are happier, veteran sales reps are helping the younger ones close deals. Everyone's helping everybody. And the business is really, really expanded rapidly. You know, they've, I think, doubled or tripled their revenues in the last three or four years. So yeah, these things, when you get rid of these artificial barriers, businesses can really take off. And we got all kinds of case studies showing that.   0:12:45.3 AS: Yeah. And for the listeners and viewers out there, like, wait a minute, I can't do this. You know, my salespeople, they only are gonna work when they're incentivized individually as a department. I think the first thing that I would say is listen to what Jacob's telling you, listen to the stories that you're hearing and think about it. You don't have to move on it. I think that transformation in the way that you think about, you know, things takes time. And the natural reaction, when you hear something new, you know, you started with the idea of unlearning the natural reaction, when you hear something new is to say that can't work, but just keep that open mind as we continue through myth number one. So why don't you continue on, Jacob?   0:13:25.3 JS: Yeah, well, and as Kelly Alley, Kelly Allen you know, made some points on that. First of all, he said, you don't go in with your guns blazing and just take away the sales quotas. He said they worked very carefully so that CEO understood the whole system, how all the parts interact. And then once you understand the system, then you're in a position. Often people go in prematurely, remove all the sales quotas and you get chaos because people don't understand all the dependencies that are there. So it's really, really important, I think to manage the change in a responsible way. And again, as Kelly says, you've got to understand the system and how it works.   0:14:10.4 AS: Great. And I think you have more stories to tell.   0:14:14.2 JS: Oh yeah. Well, I actually a wonderful one. It's, and it's not just sales quotas, by the way, it's any kind of rating and ranking system. And one of the real classics is the, a company called Bama, Bama Foods, which is, uses Deming's principles. And the CEO, Paula Marshall, actually might've been this little girl, eight-year-old girl who was looking for the desk of the CEO 30 years later, because she started working with Deming just by accident, really, because she had taken over the company business at a young age and she, they were trying to deal with some quality problems. And she went to a Deming seminar and Dr. Deming asked who in the audience is the CEO? And she was the only one that raised her hand. And so he said, will you come and , be part of a study group? So that's how she got to work and got to become actually today's the only living CEO that's actually worked directly with Deming, or the only active CEO that's actually worked with Dr. Deming.   0:15:32.4 JS: But anyway, she started to talk with Dr. Deming about the problems they were having and he said, and she described a rating and ranking system that they had had, and they had spent, I think millions of dollars even back then with a very, very reputable consulting firm. And it was one of these things where they rank people on a scale of one to 10. And the idea was let's make all our people accountable. That's how we're going to get quality. We'll have accountability. Everybody has to be rated by their managers and we'll create some fear and we'll create some incentive for people to work harder and solve our problems. Well, the first thing Dr. Deming told her is get rid of that rating and ranking system. So it was very, very hard for her at first, you know, she'd spent a lot of money on it. And she said, you know, but eventually she said she realized that it wasn't helping the company. It wasn't doing anything, but it was still very, very hard to let go of that idea. But eventually she did. Eventually she got on a conference call.   0:16:40.3 JS: They got rid of it and the results were just incredible. She said by the, you know, everyone had hated the system and it just turned the conversation around. I mean, instead of saying, well, here's why I've ranked you, Andrew, on, I've only given you a seven instead of a nine. We would be having a sort of a constructive conversation about the problems you're facing in the workplace, how we can make things better, how can we work together, that sort of thing. So it was, it became much more constructive and much more cooperative. And they were able to evolve to a whole system where teams of people work together to solve problems. But without taking away that system, it would have been very, very difficult to do that 'cause, you know, well, that means that person will be ranked higher than me maybe, you know.   0:17:31.2 AS: And we know very well in the area of sports that, you know, great coaches are not sitting there ranking and rating and ranking their employees and beating them over the head with that. They're trying to identify the strengths and weaknesses. How do we, you know, build this team so that we can beat the other teams? And that really requires coordination. And if you do rating and ranking type of thing, you start to destroy coordination. And for those people that are thinking, of course, you know, I'm terrified to look at this and remove my rating and ranking. One thing you can do is take, you know, five or 10 people that you respect their opinion within the company and ask them how they feel about the rating and ranking system. And you'd be surprised what you hear.   0:18:15.3 JS: Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah, for sure. Right. And, but yeah, about the sports team, I guess. Yeah. I mean, there's some documentaries on the Chicago Bulls, you know, and I think they had some very good stories about teamwork and stuff like that.   0:18:30.5 AS: Well, Phil Jackson was amazing in that the documentary on Netflix was great, The Last Dance. But what you can see and you can hear it from the players, I think Dennis Rodman was a great example where Phil Jackson understood how to deal with this kind of disruptive kind of situation and guy. How do you deal with that and get the most out of him on the court in a way that still follows the values of yourself and your team? And he just showed that very well in that. And so I think that that was a great example of how you coordinate your resources.   0:19:08.5 JS: Yeah, a great example, I think, for people to watch. Yeah, 'cause it really does. It does really show that.   0:19:15.3 AS: You know, you were talking to me about just before we turned on the recorder about Deming was a scientist and physics and all this, some things I never even thought about. But maybe you can tell us a little bit about your thoughts in that area.   0:19:28.4 JS: Yeah, you know, I mean, I think that, first of all, the when you look at the traditional pyramid and all the traditional style of management, I mean, that's really based on reductionism, cause-and-effect. Essentially, it's Newton, you know, it's Newton's golden principles. So you have a business system that's built on 17th century logic, basically. And so what I think is wonderful about Dr. Deming, I mean, we think of him as this philosopher. But here he was, Dr. Deming in the 1920s, getting his PhD in mathematical physics. So at the time he's doing his PhD, I mean, there's Heisenberg developing his uncertainty theorems, all that kind of stuff was just exploding. And the whole view that people had of the physical world was just being turned upside down. So Dr. Deming was very, very cognizant of that.   0:20:35.2 JS: You know, when it started, you know, with statistics, but gosh, you know, science of psychology was changing too. And I think Deming, you know, when you read him, he was really thinking like a scientist. You know, this is the way the world works. And was very, very sensitive about all the components of that. You know, the science of the way people think and what motivates them. You know, he knew that people aren't motivated by sticks and carrots. And we'll talk about that later. He knew that there are limits to how much you can know if you're not right there in the workplace. You know, he understood all that because of variation. But I think when he was introducing those ideas, people really weren't thinking that way. I think they are a bit more today, but he was really a pioneer in that.   0:21:33.4 AS: Yeah. In fact, I was just looking at, he got his degree in mathematical physics from Yale university in 1928. So yeah, there was a lot going on in the world then.   0:21:46.3 JS: Sure was. Yeah. So yeah. And he, I guess he's very patient with us. You know, you think of someone having a degree like that talking, you know, over everybody's heads, but I think he really developed the style of communicating.   0:22:06.5 AS: So what else you got for us on this topic? I think you had some takeaways that you mentioned some four points or some other items.   0:22:14.3 JS: Sure. Yeah. I can, I did summarize at the end of the chapter just to sort of a bluffers guide, I guess, to, you know, this myth of segmented success. But, you know, first of all, you know, as we were just saying, conventional management practices are based on an outdated view of the world that emphasizes reductionism and predictability and ignores the influence of complexity and interdependencies. So you don't see how things actually affect each other in a company. Operating companies so that interdependencies are reflected in management practices and understood by all employees enables wide engagement in improving quality and productivity. To create a strong team environment, managers need to remove barriers such as siloed incentive plans and clearly communicate the aim of the organization. And finally, recent lessons from supply chain disruptions during the COVID epidemic show how segmentation extends beyond the walls of a company and how closer collaboration with supply chain partners can prevent such disruptions.   0:23:41.3 AS: So how would you, let me ask you, how would you wrap everything up in a very short statement? What do you want people to remember?   0:23:53.4 JS: I want people to remember that just because it says so in an org chart doesn't mean that that reflects the way things actually happen.   0:24:05.7 AS: Yeah, that's a great one. And I think we're trained, and this is where Dr. Deming used to say that, you know, what we're being taught in management schools, you know, is the wrong thing. And this is exact type of thing where we're talking about this concept of the, you know, the org chart and the way power flows and all of that stuff. So yeah, great points.   0:24:28.4 JS: Yeah. Not only in management school, but in grade school, you know, when we're rating and ranking kids before they even know how to learn and read, even before they know how to read and write.   0:24:41.2 AS: Yeah. And that brings us back to that first story where a kid walks in and what has she seen? She's seen the teacher and the principal with the name tag at the front, in front of the class.   0:24:53.4 JS: Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. And I don't know if we can keep talking, but you know, Rich Sheridan also discovered a drawing, which is actually, it's a diagram in The New Economics, but it shows how people's creativity and joy in work and stuff are systematically destroyed throughout their lifetime. They're constantly put down by teachers, principals, and they go to college and university and there's competition. And then they go into the workplace and they're rated and ranked. And it just destroys the natural of joy in work that people have and the enthusiasm people could have in the workplace.   0:25:39.5 AS: And for those listeners out there who used to listen to The Wall by Pink Floyd, Roger Waters was talking about how the school system was just pounding out any creativity, any fun, any joy. And so it's not unusual. And it's the case in many educational systems around the world. And so I think, you know, this is a good reminder of, you know, joy in work. And also this idea of segmented success. I think you had a statement that you said to me just before we started, which I thought summed it up perfectly, which was the whole doesn't equal the sum of the parts.   0:26:18.3 JS: Yeah, that's exactly. And we can basically reduce it all to that.   0:26:28.4 AS: Yeah. So I'm going to wrap up there. So for ladies and gentlemen, I think that's a great description of myth number one in Jacob's book, but I think ending it with this, the whole doesn't equal the sum of the parts, helps us all to realize that, you know, just bringing competition between different people and different units within an organization does not bring the optimum output. Jacob, on behalf of everyone at Deming Institute, I wanna thank you again for the discussion and for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. You can find Jacob's book, Productivity Reimagined at jacobstoller.com. And this is your host Andrew Stotz. And I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming. We've been talking about it today. "People are entitled to joy in work".

What can Dr. Deming's famous Red Bead Experiment teach us about quality? What happens when you only focus on the bad, and ignore the good? In this episode Bill Bellows and Andrew Stotz discuss acceptability vs desirability in the context of the Red Beads and a few of the 14 Points for Management. 0:00:02.1 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today I'm continuing my discussions with Bill Bellows who has spent 31 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. This is episode 5 of the Misunderstanding Quality series and the title is "The Red Bead Experiment." Bill take it away.   0:00:30.4 Bill: Thank you, Andrew, and welcome back. Welcome back to our listeners. One thing I want to say is, one is I listen to every podcast two or three times, listening for, is there a need for clarification, reminding myself, thinking, oh, I should have said this. Or sometimes I say, oh, make sure you make this point, and I do or I don't. And. so one is, nothing comes up from the last one that I thought I missed or mispronounced, but what I do want to clarify is, I'm viewing the target audience as quality professionals in your respective organization or people that want to become a quality professional that are learning, that are trying to apply these ideas in their organization, are fascinated with it. Could be quality professionals who are consultants looking for new awareness of the Deming perspective. So, that's...   0:01:35.8 Bill: And so, some of what I have in mind is, and the examples is, things you can try at home. In fact one thing I encourage... What I encourage my students to do, undergraduate and graduate students, even the clients I consult with, companies I consult with, is develop the ability to explain these ideas, any of them, to people outside of work. So, that could be a spouse, a brother, a sister, a mother, father, son, daughter. And, why outside of work? 'Cause I view that as a safe audience. You say, hey, I just listened to this podcast. Somebody at work may not be as safe. And why are we having this conversation? So, I would say, it could be a college classmate, but one is, try explaining these things to people outside of work and then when whoever that is looks at you and says, I have no idea what you're talking about, or this makes sense, then as you develop that confidence then you're refining your explanations. And that puts you in a better position to apply, to explain it at work.   0:02:54.9 Bill: And why is that important? I'd say there's a lot you can do on your own. I mentioned that a month or so ago, my wife and I were in New England, and I met my doctoral dissertation advisor, who's 86 years old and lives in the middle of nowhere. And one of the things is the wisdom he gave us way back when it was so profound. One of the things he said, we were poor starving college students making seven bucks an hour, working 20 hours during the semester as Research Assistants or 40 hours during the summer. And what a life. Living in... This is poor starving college students. And he would say to us... We'd get together now and then, there'd be a keg on campus and we'd be... Which it wasn't all that often, but anyway, he'd say to us, "These are the best years of your life." [laughter] And we'd look at him like... Now again, I mean, we were... I wouldn't say we were poor starving college students, but I mean, we made ends meet. Now our classmates had gone, undergraduate, gone off to work and they were making real money, and we just stayed in the slum housing and doing... Just living cheap.   0:04:20.3 Bill: Then he says, "These are the best years of your life." We're looking at him like what are you saying? And what he said was, you're working on your research projects either undergrad, masters or PhDs. He said, "You will never have the time you have now to focus on one thing and not be distracted." Now a few of the classmates were married. Most were not married, but he just said this is... I mean, what a dream situation. You're in the laboratory every day. That's all of your focus. Your tuition is covered, blah, blah, blah. But it was just like, yeah, okay. So, when our daughter was in graduate school I shared that with her and she laughed at me. I said, "Allison, these are the best years of your life."   0:05:14.4 AS: If only we listened.   0:05:15.5 Bill: Right. So, that's... And well, I wanted to bring up... But the other thing I want to bring up aside from that story is, he'd say to us, when you go to work, he said trust me. He said "there will be more than enough time to get your job done. You'll have a lot of... You will have time to..." And he said, 'cause he used to brag about he'd be given a task and he can get it done in a fraction of the time that was allocated. And why I mention that is that every job has latitude. And so, to our listeners I would say, think about how to use the latitude you have to practice, to do a small scale Plan-Do-Study-Act thing. Now I really think that's what it's going to come down to is, either experiment at home or whatever, but just practice. And then as Andrew always reminds us at the end of each podcast, you can reach out to me on LinkedIn. And that's led to a number of people I'm meeting with once or twice a month.   0:06:31.8 Bill: And they are exactly who I hope to meet, is young quality professionals wanting to know more, to know more, to know more, and they're either in the States or they're living in Europe. All right. So, before we get into the Red Bead Experiment I wanna go back and talk more about acceptability, desirability which will be a focus of the Red Bead Experiment as well. But in the first series we did, there were 23 episodes before we got into the Misunderstanding Quality, and somewhere in there we discussed, you may recall the paradigms of variation. And the paradigms are labeled letters A, B, C, D and E. And we will look at them in this series. So, for those who don't know what I just said, don't worry we'll cover you. And for those who heard it before, okay, we're going to review it. And I mentioned that because paradigm A, the only one I want to talk about tonight, is paradigm A, is does it meet requirements? That's what acceptability is. Is it good? 'Cause we have this binary world in quality. Part of paradigm A is a binary world. It is good or it's bad. We talked about last time is, if it's bad can we salvage it? Which means we can rework it.   0:07:52.3 Bill: Now some of the rework means it could be we can rework it and use it. And in the aerospace industry what happens is, maybe we can't put it in a flight engine. When I was at Rocketdyne maybe it doesn't end up in a Space Shuttle Main Engine, but maybe it ends up in a test engine and a test stand, so it doesn't fly, but we're still going to use it, or it's scrapped. We have to throw it away. But paradigm A is acceptability. Another thing I want to mention is, I was commenting on LinkedIn the last couple of days over process capability metrics. And there's Cp which stands for capability of the process. And, then there's Cpk which is a little bit different. And I don't want to get into those equations tonight, maybe in a future episode. But what I want to say is, if you're looking at a metric such as yield, people say the yield is 100%. What does that mean? It means everything is good. What if the yield is 50%? That means we have to... 50% is good, 50% is bad.   0:09:06.2 Bill: So, yield is an acceptability metric. Why do I say that? Because the measure is percent good. What is a good versus bad? Also say that indices that involve the requirements. And we've talked in the past about a lower requirement and an upper requirement, the idea because we expect variation we give a min and a max. And so, if the equation for the metric you're using includes the tolerance limits, then that's a clue that that's an acceptability-based metric. Now, I don't care whatever else is in the equation, but if those two numbers are in the equation, then the inference is, what you're talking about is a measure, some type of measure of acceptability.   0:10:00.5 AS: Right.   0:10:02.6 Bill: But even if people talk about... If the metric includes the middle of the requirements, well, as soon as you say middle of the requirements, as soon as you say requirements we're back to acceptability. So, these are things to pay attention to is what we're talking about acceptability and desirability, 'cause what we talked about last time was I was trying to give everyday examples of both. And so, acceptability is when people talk about... In fact I listened to about an hour long podcast today on quality management. And one of the comments was, if you follow the steps correctly you get the right result. Well, that's acceptability. Right? If things are right as opposed to wrong. So, again, when you're in this world of good, bad, right versus wrong, that's acceptability.   0:10:58.7 Bill: Again, the reminder is this is not to say acceptability is bad, but it's not desirability. Which one is it? And then what we talked about in the last podcast number four was choose. Do we wanna to focus on acceptability or do we wanna focus on desirability? Where desirability is saying, of all the things that are acceptable, I want this one. I want that orange. I want that parking spot. I wanna date that person of all the ones that meet requirements in my search... You know, in the dating app. And so, that's acceptability. What got me excited by Deming's work in the early '90s was, I was spending a whole lot of time at Rocketdyne focusing on things that were broken. I'm trying to apply Dr. Taguchi's ideas to go, to take something that used to be good but then slipped into bad, and now we're focusing on the bad stuff to make it good. And now the good news is it kept me busy.   0:12:06.5 Bill: I was having a lot of fun. These are high visibility things and the solutions. We got the solutions working with some really wonderful people. But that led me to start asking questions. And I was once at an all-day meeting in Seattle at Boeing. Rocketdyne had been sold to Boeing Commercial Airplane Company. I got invited to a meeting up there. And it was a monthly all-day production meeting. I don't know 50, 60 people in the room. And they asked me to come up. So, I went up. And what time does the meeting start? You know 8 o'clock, 9 o'clock, whatever. And I said you know put me on a few hours into the meeting. Well, why then? Well, I want to listen to the first couple of hours of the meeting. Because in listening, now we're going back to what we talked about with Edgar Schein. And I've developed the ability... You know, I can hear are we focusing on acceptability, desirability, I can hear things you know with a Deming lens. People think of a lens as seeing, well, there's a Deming ear set as well.   0:13:10.7 Bill: And so, I listened for the first two hours and exactly what I expected. So, when I get up to speak at last I said before I got to the slides, I said, "How much time do you spend every day discussing parts that are good, that arrive on time?" And a couple of people in the front row made a circle with their fingers, zero. And I said, so why is that the case? And one of them says, if it's not broken don't fix it. And wherever I go that's what people say. I went to a big Boeing customer doing... Because they were a customer we sold them rocket engines of some size. And I was briefing that slide, had 110 people in the room for a lunchtime presentation. Before I could read the slide, the room erupted in laughter. And so, I share that because if we're spending all this time focusing on the bad but not the good, what is that? That's acceptability. That's what happens, is the economics of acceptability says, only focus on the bad to make it good. But we don't focus on the good because... And that's what we're gonna look at towards the end of tonight is, why don't we focus on the good? And so, next, I had a co-worker at Rocketdyne got a job in Chicago at a toy factory. They bottled soap bubbles. And as a kid's toy with a little wand inside and blowing bubbles and all that.   0:14:56.0 Bill: And she dramatically turned the place around, did some amazing, amazing work. She went from being the senior manufacturing engineer to the, I think plant manager. So, she called me up as she'd been promoted to plant manager. And the question was now that I'm plant manager what should I focus on? So, I said... I had known her for four or five years at that time. I had been mentoring her and the mentoring continued in that capacity. So, I said well, what do you think you should focus on? And the comment was, I think I should focus on all the things that are broken. Well, that's acceptability once again. And I said, so you're focusing on being 100% reactive. And she said, well, yeah. And I said, what you're doing then by focusing on acceptability, you're saying the things that are good I ship, the things that are bad I got to work on. But without understanding that there's actually variation in good... I mean, go back to the Boeing folks when the guy says to me if it's not broken don't fix it. My response to that was, if you use that thinking to drive your car when would you put gas in it? When it runs out. If you use that thinking relative to your plumbing system, your water system at home when would you call the plumber? When it breaks.   0:16:25.5 Bill: When would you go see the doctor? When... So, the downside of not working on things that are good and not paying attention to things that are good is that they may bite you. So, part of the value proposition of acknowledging from a desirability perspective that there's variation in good. If you pay attention to the variation in good there's two upsides. One is, you can prevent bad from happening if that's all you want to do. And two, the focus of a future episode is by focusing on things that are good and paying attention to desirability in the way that Yoshida, Professor Yoshida was talking about. That offers opportunities to do things that you can't do with an acceptability focus, which is improve how things work together as a system. And the idea being when you move from acceptability which is a part focus to desirability, which is a system focus, you can improve the system. Okay, more to follow on that. All right. So, I got some questions for you Andrew, are you ready?   0:17:37.4 AS: Uh-oh. Uh-oh.   0:17:39.8 Bill: So, Dr. Deming had how many points for management?   0:17:42.9 AS: Fourteen.   0:17:46.3 Bill: All right. Okay.   0:17:48.3 AS: I'm being set up here. I just feel it. You start with the easy ones.   0:17:52.8 Bill: All right. And...   0:17:54.3 AS: Listeners, viewers help me out.   0:17:56.9 Bill: All right. And which point, Andrew, was cease dependence on inspection to achieve quality? What number was that?   0:18:09.6 AS: I'm gonna say four or five, or six. I can't remember.   0:18:14.2 Bill: Three. Three.   0:18:14.6 AS: Really? Three. Okay. That was close.   0:18:16.1 Bill: I would not have known. That was number three.   0:18:19.1 AS: Yeah.   0:18:20.1 Bill: And it's followed by Dr. Deming saying, "Eliminate the need for inspection on a mass basis by building quality to the product." So, the first question is what point was it? And again, I had to look it up. I know it's one of the 14. Second question, Andrew, is, if Dr. Deming is saying cease dependence on inspection to achieve quality, would you think of that as an acceptability focus or a desirability focus?   0:18:55.1 AS: I don't know if I can answer that. I mean, I can only think about what he was saying, which was design quality in from the beginning and get everybody involved in quality, not just having an inspector at the end, but I'm not sure.   0:19:11.4 Bill: Yeah. No. And even as I asked the other question, I'm thinking... Well, this is great because if in the audience you think of quality from an acceptability perspective, right?   0:19:24.2 AS: Mm-hmm.   0:19:24.9 Bill: So, if you're working for Boeing, which is all about acceptability or most companies, and you hear step three, then you're thinking, cease dependence on the inspection to achieve..., you're thinking acceptability. If that's what you're used to, if you're used to quality being doesn't meet requirements...   0:19:42.9 AS: Okay.   0:19:43.2 Bill: Then what you're hearing is Deming talking about acceptability. But if you've been exposed to Yoshida's work and Dr. Taguchi's work and you're understanding that within requirements there's variation of things that are good, so it's kind of a trick question. The idea is it depends. Alright.   0:20:02.4 AS: Yep.   0:20:05.5 Bill: I got two other of 14 points to ask you about. Alright. Which of the 14 points is in the practice of awarding business on the basis of price tag alone? Instead, minimize total cost. So,  first which point is that?   0:20:26.9 AS: I think it was also... I would say then four.   0:20:32.1 Bill: Yes.   [laughter]   0:20:33.6 AS: Yeah.   0:20:34.1 Bill: Yeah.   [laughter]   0:20:34.5 AS: You'd think I know. I wrote a book about it.   [laughter]   0:20:39.3 Bill: Alright. So, that's point four and...   0:20:42.1 AS: Okay. So, I got... I don't wanna be rated and ranked, but I got one right at least. Okay. Let's keep going.   0:20:49.1 Bill: Okay. And, so, is that acceptability or desirability? Let's say this. Is awarding business on price tag acceptability or desirability?   0:21:02.1 AS: Probably acceptability.   0:21:04.6 Bill: Yeah. 'Cause then you're saying...   0:21:06.5 AS: Can you hit this number? It's okay.   0:21:11.2 Bill: Yeah. Or you contact your insurance company and you say, I'm looking for a heart surgeon, and you say, and I found one, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And they call you up and say, yes, that person is a heart surgeon, but we prefer you use this one. [chuckle] What's the chance they're thinking about a cheaper option? Right? Alright? So, you're looking at from desirability perspective...   0:21:38.5 AS: This guy's really cheap on kidneys.   0:21:40.7 Bill: Right? And so you're thinking you've done a bunch of references. You've asked your friends. And why are you asking? Because all the doctors out there that meet requirements, you're blindly saying, I'll take any one. That's acceptability. And you're saying, I want this one. That's desirability. But the insurance company says, no. We consider them all to be the same in our policy. That's acceptability. Alright. Okay. And here's the last point we're gonna look at tonight. Which of the 14 points is "improve constantly and forever the system of production and service to improve quality and productivity and thus constantly decrease cost"?   0:22:23.5 AS: Isn't that number one? Constancy of... That's...   0:22:28.0 Bill: That's constancy of purpose. That's number one.   0:22:28.8 AS: Okay. Constancy of purpose. So, improve... Don't know. No. No.   0:22:39.4 Bill: That's number 5.   0:22:40.5 AS: Okay. Five.   0:22:44.5 Bill: And I was looking at, so I know those are three and one, and I thought, oh, that's three, four, and five. Alright. So, what I wanna do there is, we're gonna look at that a little bit later. So, I don't wanna ask you about acceptability, desirability, but I just wanna lay that on on the table. Alright. So, now we're gonna look at what Dr. Deming referred to as his chain reaction. The Deming Chain Reaction. Alright. So, what do you remember about the Deming chain reaction? It wasn't a motorcycle chain or a bicycle chain, right? What did Dr. Deming call his chain reaction?   0:23:31.3 AS: I can't... I mean, I'm thinking of the flowchart.   0:23:34.9 Bill: Yeah. We'll get to that. We'll get to that. The chain reaction...   0:23:36.5 AS: But that I can't remember.   0:23:39.6 Bill: And this is likely Out of the Crisis. The Deming chain reaction is, "if you improve quality, you will reduce scrap and rework, thereby reduce costs." And then he goes on to, by reducing costs, you can increase sales and expand the market. That's the chain reaction.   0:24:01.9 AS: Yeah.   0:24:02.2 Bill: So, when I ask students, again, in my either graduate, undergraduate classes is, talk about the Deming Chain Reaction, then I say, is the Deming Chain Reaction... Within the Deming Chain Reaction, Deming says, if you improve quality, reduce scrap and rework, lower cost, is that explanation of quality, acceptability, or desirability?   0:24:31.9 AS: I don't know. I'm fearful to answer nowadays because I'm not getting these right.   0:24:37.4 Bill: No. You are. You're on a roll. [chuckle] Again, the Deming Chain Reaction, if we improve quality, we reduce scrap and rework, thereby lower the cost thereby sell more and expand the market.   0:24:52.2 AS: I would say that's desirability.   0:24:56.1 Bill: Okay. One more time. If we improve quality, we reduce scrap and rework.   0:25:03.2 AS: Yep.   0:25:04.3 Bill: So, the clue is scrap. Is scrap something we talk about with acceptability or desirability?   0:25:12.1 AS: That's acceptability.   0:25:14.1 Bill: And rework.   0:25:18.2 AS: Well, we're trying to make it acceptable.   0:25:20.1 Bill: Exactly. And the reason I point that out is, I'm not sure... And I think we talked last time about things we agree with Deming or disagree with Deming. I'm not a big fan of the Deming Chain Reaction because I think... Again, if I'm in the audience and I'm working for a company that defines quality and in terms of acceptability, and he says to me, if you improve quality, reduce scrap and rework, that's what I'm used to. And my concern is, in other ways he's explaining quality in terms of constantly improving. Well, how can you constantly improve quality once you get to 100% yield? So. if all the product is good, which is acceptability, if there's no scrap and no rework, can you improve quality? Not if you're focusing on acceptability. And so, what I'm saying there is, that if Dr. Deming is in one hand defining the chain reaction and using the term quality in reference to scrap and rework, then he's projecting quality as acceptability. But if he's talking about improving constantly and forever, and then we get into, can you improve the quality forever? That's what he's saying.   0:26:49.1 Bill: What if you get to 100% yield, which is the maximum value of acceptability? Well, only if you shift to desirability can you improve forever quality, if you think it's worthwhile to do. So, that's why I wanted to go back and look at those things. One is revisit acceptability, desirability, and point out what I think are some opportunities for confusion in trying to explain Deming's work. Alright. Now we'll talk about the Red Bead experiment, which is, the very first time... I remember reading about it in the earliest books I read. I think, who is it that wrote the first books on Deming management, Deming management? She's a...   0:27:42.8 AS: Killian?   0:27:44.3 Bill: No, no, no. Cecilia Killian was Deming's admin.   0:27:48.9 AS: Mary?   0:27:50.5 Bill: Yeah. Mary Walton.   0:27:51.6 AS: Mary Walton.   0:27:52.5 Bill: Mary Walton. I remember reading a Mary Walton's book, that's when I first got exposed to this Red Bead experiment. So, The Deming Institute has a dedicated webpage, so, if you go to deming.org, or just do a Google search for deming.org Red Bead experiment, it's one of the most popular pages. I think that might be the second most popular, most visited page past the 14 Points. In there you can find short videos. There are longer videos, but there's enough on there to follow along with what I want to explain. So, Dr. Deming and the Red Bead experiment would take from the audience, and it could be four willing workers, six willing workers. He'd be the manager of the White Bead Company, and he would explain to them, he would share with them. He had a bowl, and in the bowl were 5,000 beads, maybe an eighth of an inch in diameter, small plastic beads, and there'd be 5,000 in the bowl, 4,000 white, 1,000 red.   0:29:00.6 Bill: And then there was a paddle, and the paddle could be roughly two inches by four inches, and the paddle had a little handle, and it had holes in it. So, the instructions he would provide to the willing workers, the production workers, is to take this paddle at a given angle, slide it in flat into the bowl, even the back of the beads. The beads are in one container, they get poured into another container.   0:29:27.7 AS: In a pan.   0:29:28.1 Bill: It's a mixing process, and then he pours them back in. So, just pour them from one to the other, and he would be very persnickety on pour at 45 degrees, tip from the corner. You pour back and forth, put the paddle in, and you'd end up with 50 of the beads would fill the paddle, and then you'd go to the inspector number one. And the inspector number one would count how many red beads, which is not what the customer wants. What the customer wants is white beads, but the raw material includes both. So, you go to inspector one, and they may count five beads. You go to inspector number two, and they quietly see five. The numbers get written down. Ideally, they're the same. And then you go to the, I think, the master inspector, and they say, five beads, and then "dismissed." And then write the five on a flip chart, and then the next person comes and does it, and the next person comes and does it. So, all six come up and draw beads, and then we count the number of red ones. The number of red ones go into this big table. Next thing you know we've done this over four different days. I've done this. This could take an hour. And even when you watch the videos, there's a fast forwarding.   0:31:00.1 Bill: I've done the Red Bead experiment, I think, just once, and I did it with a former student, which worked out really well, 'cause there was a lot of dead time, and the audience was watching, and so I was able to get conversation going with her. So, for those wanting to do this, boy, you've got to be pretty good on your feet to keep the audience entertained. To get to the point where you've got a table on the whiteboard, or on the flip chart, and on the table are the six willing workers on the left-hand side, and then day by day the red beads... Looking at the number of red beads. So, what are the red beads? Well, the red beads are not what the customer wants. What the customer wants are white beads, but in the production process, because the raw material includes red, well, then the red ends up in the output. So, I ask people, so, if the white beads are what the customer wants, what are the red beads? And typically, people say those are the defective, defects, scrap.   0:32:03.2 Bill: And, so now you get into this model is based on acceptability. The beads are either good, white, or bad, red. And so I would ask the students in class, in a work setting, what might the red beads be? I, in fact, asked our daughter. She said, is just moving from being a junior high school English teacher to a senior high school English teacher. Her undergraduate degree is from Cal State Long Beach.   0:32:34.3 AS: There you go.   0:32:34.3 Bill: So, her first day of school was today. She's also the varsity swim coach, which is way, way cool. Mom and dad are proud of her. So, I remember asking her a few years ago. So, I said, Allison, what are the red beads in the classroom? She said, well, the stapler doesn't work. The door doesn't close. The projector screen doesn't come down. The computer doesn't work. These are red beads in the classroom. So, I said, okay, Allison. What are the white beads?   0:33:01.1 Bill: Geez. So, we get so used to talking about the red beads are the defects or things that... Well, the white beads, by comparison, are the things that are good. So, I said, Allison, if the computer works, that's a white bead. If the door closes, that's a white bead. If you can close the window, that's a white bead. If you can pull down the screen, that's a white bead. So, the red beads are the things around us that are defects, broken, and the white beads are the others. And so, I wanna throw that out to do some stage setting. And ideally, this is a review for our listeners, and if not, you've gotta go watch as many videos as you can in The Deming Institute website. There's a lot of great content there. Watching Dr. Deming do this is pretty cool.   0:33:49.0 AS: He's a funny guy.   0:33:51.6 Bill: And I was very fortunate to be in Dr. Deming's very last four-day seminar. I did not participate in The Red Bead Experiment. I let somebody else do that, but it was classic. Well, the next thing I wanna get into is, and I would say to audiences many times, so we know... Well, a couple things. It's so easy to look at that data on a spreadsheet and say, Jill's the best performer. She has the minimum number of red beads. So, on the one hand, we can look day by day, and it could be Jill's number started off low. And we gave her an award, and then it went high, and then we started blaming her. So, there's variation in the number of beads, worker to worker and day to day. So, a given worker, their scores go up and down. So, that's called variation.   0:34:43.4 Bill: And so one of the aspects of the System of Profound Knowledge, which we haven't talked about too much, but ideally our listeners know Dr. Deming was really big about the value proposition of understanding variation. So, what Dr. Deming would talk about in his four-day seminars, and ideally anybody presenting this, is you take the data, you draw the usual conclusions. We're looking at data from an acceptability perspective. We look at the spreadsheet, and then voila, we turn it into a run chart and look at that data over time, calculate control limits, and then find that all the data is within the control limits and draw the conclusion that the process is in control. And then you move from in a non-Deming environment, looking at this data point versus this data point and drawing these conclusions that the white... The number of red beads is due to the workers.   0:35:33.7 Bill: So, the punch lines you'll find at Deming Institute webpage is that the workers are trying as best they can, that the red beads are caused not by the workers taken separately, but by the system, which includes the workers. A lot of great learning there. And a very significant piece is, in a Deming environment, where Deming's coming from is, again, this is before we go further in this in future sessions is, he's proposing that the majority of what goes on in the system relative to the performance of anything you measure is coming from the system. And if that is really, really understood, then you're hard pressed to blame people in sales for lousy sales or dips in sales or you look at grades of students in a classroom. So, for people looking at Dr. Deming's ideas, perhaps for the first time, realize that what he's talking about is coming from The Red Bead Experiment is a great eye opener for this is that, let's stop blaming the workers for the production issues and step back and look at our procurement system.   0:36:39.6 Bill: Do we have a procurement system where we're buying on price tag? If you buy on price tag, you end up with buying a lot of red beads. So, one aspect I wanna leave our listeners with today is, as you're studying this, realize there's a psychology aspect to The Red Bead Experiment. Not only the idea that there's variation up and down, but what are the implications of realizing that we can't be blaming the workers for the behavior of the system. The system includes the workers, but it also includes things that are well beyond their control. Well, where I wanna go next with this and then we'll next time get in and go further is, in appreciation of point five, "improve constantly forever the system," what I would ask audience is, so we know the red beads are caused by the system. We know the number of white beads goes up and down. But if we were to improve the system by not buying red beads or pre-sorting them out and get fewer and fewer red beads in there, then we get to the point that all the beads are white, perhaps. We have continuous improvement.   0:37:47.2 Bill: We end up with a 100% yield. Well, then we get into, again, and I've kind of set the stage in prior comments, what I would ask people is, what Dr. Deming's talking about trying to achieve zero red beads everywhere in the organization? Is that what we're striving for with the Deming philosophy, is to go around the organization, I want every single process to produce no red beads to make it to a 100% white beads? And if that's what Dr. Deming is talking about, then what does point five mean about continuously improving? Now we get into what I mentioned earlier is, you can improve the speed of operation to produce more white beads, so, we can do them faster, we can do them cheaper, but can we improve the quality of the white beads under that model? And the answer is no, because acceptability stops at a 100%. So, what we'll look at next time is, if you look at the beads and look closely, you'll see they have different diameters, different weights. They're not exactly the same color white. So, what is that Andrew? That's called variation.   0:39:00.9 Bill: And now it brings us back to desirability. So, what I encourage people to do, most of the times I see people presenting The Red Bead Experiment, they present it from an acceptability perspective. That's the starting point. But what I encourage our listeners to do is go through all that, and this becomes a great opportunity to move your audiences from acceptability focus to desirability by talking about the inherent variation in those beads. Again, we'll talk about the value proposition economically in future sessions, as well as the other paradigms of variation before we get there. So, that's what I wanna cover.   0:39:43.2 AS: Wow. Bill, on behalf of everyone at The Deming Institute, I wanna thank you again for this discussion. And for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. If you wanna keep in touch with Bill, just find him on LinkedIn, and this is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming. It never gets old. "People are entitled to joy in work."

In this episode, John Dues and Andrew Stotz discuss the first part of John's path for improvement model - setting the challenge. Using an example from United Schools Network, John explains their aspirations for cutting chronic absenteeism rates. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.4 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz. And I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with John Dues, who is part of the new generation of educators striving to apply Dr. Deming's principles to unleash student joy in learning. And the topic for today is "set the challenge." John, take it away.   0:00:24.6 John Dues: It's good to be back, Andrew. Yeah. Last episode, we kicked off this new series. I introduced this improvement model that we can use to help us set ambitious goals backed with a sound methodology. I think I made this disclaimer last time. I'll make it again that this is sort of like showing listeners a peek behind the curtain because we're sort of talking about this as this model is being built and used for the first time in my network of schools here in Columbus in United Schools. So I think that caveat's important, and I think maybe starting with just a quick review of the model we looked at last time would be a good refresher for this episode for those that are reviewing and I'll talk through it for those that are only listening. I'll go ahead and share my screen quick. You see that all right?   0:01:17.1 AS: Yep.   0:01:18.4 JD: All right. Yeah, so this is the model we kind of stepped through kind of an overview last time. I think it's important to remember a few things. One, basically the core idea of the improvement model is it gives us the scientific way of thinking so that we can work in a way that makes sense to close the gap between our sort of current conditions in our organization and sort of our aspirations. So we frame those two things as the voice of the process, as current conditions, what's happening right now. And then the future aspirations, that's the voice of the customer. That's sort of what we or someone else wants those conditions to be. And what we're doing throughout this process is stepping through the four steps that you can see displayed in the model. So kind of just stepping through those quick.   0:02:06.5 JD: The first thing is that we set the challenge or the direction, and that's gonna be... We're gonna dive deeper into that step today. Then the second step over on the left hand side of the model, for those that are viewing, you work to grasp the current condition, so what's going on currently in your organization. And then the third step is we establish the next target condition. So think of that as like the intermediate goal that we're working towards sort of on a more proximate timeline. And then fourth, what we're doing is once we understand those things, then we're experimenting to overcome obstacles or impediments. And so all of those things we talked about, doing that with a team that includes someone or people working in the system, in our case students, a lot of the time, those with the authority to work on the system like the teacher in a classroom or the principal of the school building. And then that System of Profound Knowledge coach that has that awareness of the System of Profound Knowledge and sort of brings that lens to the improvement efforts. So that's sort of a quick rehash of the model that we went over in episode one. And then I'll stop. Well, you want me to leave that up or I can stop sharing?   0:03:29.9 AS: Either way. I don't mind.   0:03:31.0 JD: Okay. Well I'll stop sharing for now and then we can always pull it back up if we want to. Yeah. So with that sort of in mind, what I thought would be helpful is then do this deep dive into step one. And so kind of what we'll do through the next several episodes is focus on each of the steps. So we'll take this deeper dive into step one. Set the challenge or direction. So last time I mentioned that in step one of the model we asked this primary question, where do we want to be in the long run? And this is... Think about this as a overall challenge or direction that's set by organizational leadership typically. So senior leaders, the CEO, typically the board, they're gonna be the ones framing this challenge, setting the direction for the organization.   0:04:27.2 JD: And we can also think about it as a sort of a longer range goal that if we accomplish it, it will differentiate us in our case from other schools or if you're in the business community, it would differentiate you from competitors in some way. But even though it's something that we're striving toward currently we're setting this in a way that it's gonna stretch us and right now it almost seems impossible to accomplish this thing far out into the future. And this direction or challenge, I think it's fairly typical. Sort of set this on a six month to three year timeframe. So that kind of gives you a sense of sort of how far out we're looking and the timeframe we're looking to sort of achieve this challenge is. And last time I shared an example from our most recent strategic planning where we're trying to reduce our chronic absenteeism from the current state, which is 52% chronic absenteeism. We're trying to take that down to something closer to 5% chronic absenteeism.   0:05:44.4 AS: Seems nearly impossible.   0:05:44.5 JD: It does if you're on the ground in schools right now, especially schools like ours, it really does seem nearly impossible to sort of cut it at that large of a rate. So.   0:05:55.6 AS: I have an ethics class that I teach here, an ethics and finance class here in Bangkok. And I tell the students it's not mandatory to attend class from my perspective. School may require you, but it doesn't matter to me. My job is to make it so exciting and interesting that you wanna be here. That's hard.   0:06:16.7 JD: Yeah. That's a good frame. That's a really good frame. We have, unfortunately we have so many obstacles that our kids are going through to get to school. Even something as simple as consistent transportation from yellow school buses is a major impediment to school attendance here in Columbus. So there's all kinds of obstacles that... Challenges in front of us that we're gonna have to improve and solve to get down to that 5% rate.   0:06:43.0 AS: When I was growing up in Ohio, in Hudson, outside of Cleveland, the farm that I worked on in the summer, Barlow's farm. Mr. Barlow was our bus driver because there wasn't much going on in the wintertime. And so, yeah, he never missed [laughter] I don't ever remember a bus not arriving in my whole youth.   0:07:07.6 JD: Yeah, yeah. It's something in many places you take for granted. And then in a number of other places, it is a major, major challenge for sure.   0:07:13.0 AS: Interesting.   0:07:14.8 JD: That's certainly the case in Columbus where we are, for sure. So when we think about this challenge it's this... I kind of think about it and this is why it needs to a lot of times be set at the leadership level or the senior leader level is it's this new future condition and it serves as a sort of compass for us to follow. And that's important 'cause we don't have an exact roadmap for how to get there. So it's sort of like a general direction, but the specifics are what we're gonna have to be filling in as we go through some of those other steps. Some of those intermediate goal setting, some of the experimentation that I talked about. But think about this direction or challenge is it's really the purpose behind our efforts. And then when you sort of put together the tough challenge and then the scientific thinking, that's really powerful. And those two things together can really sort of move you into this new territory. I think that you're looking to... I think this map territory compass metaphor is really sort of spot on for this particular model. Oh, go ahead.   0:08:29.8 AS: I had a question because I have a client of mine and one of their objectives is to list their company on the stock market here in Thailand. Like many companies, but in some ways that's kind of an owner's goal. Like we've talked about some of their other goals, like being the leading company in their field in asia, Southeast Asia or something like that, and/or maybe to have a happy workforce or whatever. And I'm just curious, like how do people think about goals? What is a good way to think about it? Is there such a thing as like an internal or a higher level goal versus a goal for the company versus an external goal? How do you guys think about those types of things and target conditions?   0:09:17.2 JD: Yeah, I mean, I think... I don't know the exact answer. I mean, I think when you set a goal at the leadership level, then you're gonna... Well, one, you're gonna have to explain it throughout the organization, whether it's a 100 people or a 1000 people or 10,000 people. And then depending on the size, there's probably gonna be different types of goals that are in different business units, I'm guessing by business type. We're a pretty small organization and so we're pretty close to the... In fact, our office... My office, it is on the ground floor of one of our middle schools, so we're very proximate compared to like a bigger company. So I think this can look different in different places. I think the consistent thing is it's gotta be clear, it's gotta be spelled out, it's gotta be clearly communicated. It has to be something that you're talking about frequently. Otherwise you're obviously not gonna move in this direction.   0:10:11.2 AS: Yeah, I mean, that kind of answers it too. 'cause I thought... When you said that, I also thought about how people care about with them, what's in it for me. And so, as you said, you gotta explain it and you're gonna have to do a lot of talking about it. So people need to see that that goal is something that's gonna bring them value, otherwise they're not gonna be excited to go do the hard work that it takes to get there.   0:10:37.0 JD: Yeah. Maybe in that respect, like sometimes in education is... Some of the goals that we have set are so self apparent that there's just sort of immediate buy-in 'cause like who's against kids coming to school? Almost nobody. So that's I think a fairly easy one to get buy in. And maybe in other settings more time needs to be spent on the buy-in part, the explanation part. Maybe... This can be kind of hard, but who's involved in setting the goals in the first place? Maybe there's ways to get more people involved in that process.   0:11:10.6 AS: Well, and maybe the kids aren't involved in the buy-in.   0:11:13.8 JD: Yeah, that's true. That's true. Although, yeah, like the yellow bus thing that's out of their control. And I'd say that's actually a major obstacle. But I think...   0:11:26.5 AS: That's true. Nowadays, I'm sure there's plenty of kids that wanna be there.   0:11:29.5 JD: Oh yes for sure.   0:11:30.9 AS: But there's obstacles all over the place for them.   0:11:34.3 JD: The vast majority wanna be there, actually, I think. But your point is good, and that goes back to that team they're the ones working in the system and so they're gonna be the best at identifying the obstacles. So to stay in our setting, they certainly need to be a part of the experimentation that happens to improve the chronic absenteeism rate. One other important caveat to point out at this step in the process, and we've talked about this a little bit but I got this little chart that I think will help sort of explain when we were setting this direction or challenge, it's what I would call like an improvement goal. And it's not an accountability goal. And I think it's really important to be explicit about the difference between those two things.   0:12:24.4 JD: 'cause they often get conflated. And so I had built this chart for another improvement project, but I think it does a really good job. So I'll share my screen again. I think it does a really good job of sort of outlining the difference. And it's not that one is necessarily better than the other, it is just really important to know what's the purpose of this particular type of goal and what's it used for. And so I was just gonna take a moment to kind of run through this. So on the left you have sort of some key questions that are answered either by... And here it says measurement for accountability, but you can sort of replace that with an accountability goal and improvement goal over there on the right. So you have measurement for accountability or accountability goal, and then improvement goals or measurements for improvement.   0:13:20.7 JD: And you have some questions that that particular type of goal or measure will answer. Then you have in the next row their specific uses. And then why quality measurement matters. So just starting with accountability goals or measurement for accountability what those types of goals are gonna do is answer questions about merit or status or accomplishment of someone or something. Who's performing well, who isn't, who should be considered knowledgeable enough to do X. We're talking about end of line outcomes, like end of year outcomes. They're often... Goals for accountability often happen once a year. So I've talked about this repeatedly, but state tests would be a very good example of an accountability goal. The point of doing that is to separate the good from the bad basically, when you look at state test. Down there in the use sell for those that are viewing, it says the purpose of, or the use for accountability goals is to determine the applications of rewards or sanctions. Right? And so it's none of this really has to do with improvement.   0:14:38.8 AS: Sanctions, what a word, [laughter]   0:14:40.4 JD: Sanctions, right? Yeah. I mean, this happens in schools all the time. Schools can be sanctioned depending on what the law is at the time as it relates to state testing and accountability system.   0:14:50.9 AS: I thought we only sanctioned Russia [laughter] Okay. So there's even sanctions in schools. Okay, got it.   0:14:58.0 JD: Definitely sanctions in schools. And then we can juxtapose the accountability measures with the improvement measures over there on the right or improvement goals. When we're talking about improvement goals or setting the challenge, we're really talking about questions about specific changes as potential improvements to systems like our systems. So we're thinking about questions like, are the changes I'm making leading to improvement? How are my changes affecting other parts of my system? And what's measured is outcomes and processes relevant to the object of change. You know and how often are we doing this? Frequently. Much more than once a year, like the state test. And the whole point is to learn our way to a better system, right. And so with chronic absenteeism this could be both a measure for accountability and a measure for improvement, depending on how it's framed.   0:15:57.8 JD: Chronic absenteeism is actually reported on state report cards, but in this case, I'm talking about an internally created goal that we have for ourself that we've created for ourself that our organization is gonna work towards. And there's gonna be various things that we do to see if things that we're trying as interventions, experiments work in improving those rates, basically. So I think it's really important to call this out that when we are talking about this particular improvement model and the four steps, we are not talking about accountability goals at all. We're talking about improvement goals, two very different things.   0:16:37.6 AS: Interesting. And the improvement goals is the type of thing that it seems like is not as common as the accountability. Like everybody's trying to, you do this, you've gotta achieve this, that type of thing. Whereas this is such a bigger picture.   0:16:51.3 JD: Yeah. I mean, I think the key difference is because you could actually have an internal accountability goal. You could set up a similar system internally as what the state does when they're looking at schools. And if our mindset was, we're gonna set this goal and you people over here go do this, figure out how to do it, that would be much more like an accountability goal. But our mindset is like hey, this is something we all gotta take a look at. This has to get better. This isn't working for kids, so what are we gonna do? How are we gonna figure this out? That's really the key difference, you know? You're not doing this for some other group of people. You're a part of that group that's trying to make this thing better.   0:17:36.5 AS: So I'm just curious too, as I think about the listener or the viewer out here is how do they get started in this concept of setting the challenge or direction and maybe there's people at the top of the company. I mean, the first thing that I thought when you started talking about it is Oh, there's so many target conditions, there's so many challenges. Like there should be this one and that one. And all of a sudden I started coming up with like three to five challenges. And then I thought, oh no. Now this is overwhelming.   0:18:11.8 JD: Yeah. So in our strategic plan, we have 13 of these key metrics. And each of one of those could be its own challenge or direction, but they are divided up sort of roughly in like different department areas. And so some of 'em have to do with our fiscal responsibility raising funds and stuff like that. And there's a specific team that does that. And that would be different from like an academic team or a school-based team that was working on something like chronic absenteeism. So there is sort of a divide and conquer. The CEO maybe our superintendent are focused on all 13, but there are different teams that are actually running the experiments and working towards improving these things. And then there's someone like me that's sort of serving as the System of Profound Knowledge coach across multiple teams that are working on each of these key metrics basically. But in terms of where to start, I think that's a good segue. I mean, I think we've answered the question or we've said that basically that this strategic challenge answers the question, where's our organization going next? And I think one good... One simple way to start is to think of completing this sentence: Wouldn't it be great if we could dot, dot, dot.   0:19:37.0 JD: What is that thing or what are those things in your organization? It's, again, going back to it seeming nearly impossible, it's something we can't achieve with our current systems and processes. It's not easy, but not impossible. We think it's achievable even if we're not quite sure how we're gonna get there. It's something that's gonna be measurable. So we know if and when we get there. And another thing is that, especially when you're talking about, you were talking about like communication of these challenges across the organization, these challenges or directions are often expressed as some type of catchy statement. So just a quick statement that brings to mind this entire sort of area of work. And so I was kind of brainstorming because we've been talking about this chronic absenteeism example and I think we can just kind of keep that going throughout these episodes. So I was thinking of something like, every student every day, and then everybody knows that we think it's important for every student to be at school every day. And we're sort of working to get back to that post pandemic.   0:20:52.3 AS: Yeah. I was thinking, wouldn't it be great if every parent was fired up.   0:21:00.1 JD: Yes, absolutely.   0:21:01.2 AS: About every student every day. Like, that's the way I was just thinking about it 'cause I think that, and I just like the kids. I'm sure there's plenty of parents that say, I want my kids to get a good education and I want them to get more than what I got, but I can't reach it or I can't do it. I got too much on my plate. But if somehow they were a party to this.   0:21:26.1 JD: Yep. I think, similar to the students, I mean, I think parents absolutely can be a part of an effort where you work. And in fact almost have to be, especially 'cause we're a K-8 system and certainly at the very least at the K-5 level, kids are almost entirely dependent in most cases on parents getting them to school. So, certainly parents...   0:21:49.2 AS: What is the catchment area of your schools? Like what's the farthest?   0:21:57.8 JD: Yeah, we have pretty, because we don't have a specific geographic assigned area assigned to our school buildings, like a traditional public school district would typically. So we have much wider areas. So let's say, a 15 mile radius around a building would catch the vast majority of the kids that attend. So, yeah. Yep. Well, I think, let's look at an example. Let's look at chronic absenteeism as our focus here. So, I've mentioned, we've just updated our strategic plan it includes these 13 metrics, and there's this one focused on chronic absenteeism. And when we sort of outline the key metrics in the strategic plan, each metric has four pieces of information that we're listing explicitly right in the strategic plan. The voice of the process, the voice of the customer, the operational definition, and then some type of visualization of the data, basically.   0:23:04.4 JD: So those four things go with each of the metrics. So just as a refresher, a lot of people know this, and we've talked about this, but I think it's good to refresh. The voice of the process is the metric that tells us how we're currently performing. The voice of the customer is the direction or challenge we have set, so that's the step one. The operational definition for the metric puts communicable meaning into the concept and includes a method of measurement or test, as well as a set of criteria for judgment. So basically we wanna make it clear to anybody that's looking at chronic absenteeism, that they know exactly what it is we're measuring, and they could come up with that same measurement independently. And then the fourth thing is this visualization that illustrates the performance of the metric over time, because that time factor is really, really important. So I'll share my screen one last time so that people that are viewing this can see what this actually looks like in our strategic plan.   0:24:07.4 JD: And I'll kind of walk people through this visualization for those that are just listening. So you sort of see this chart over on the left or on top of the chart it says key metric three student success, chronic absenteeism rate. So that's the metric. The voice of the process is 52%. So that means that 52% of our kids are chronically absent and the voice of the customer is 5%. So that's that far off thing. That's six months or probably more like three years off that we're working towards. And we're not quite sure how we're gonna get there right now. And then we have the operational definition of the concept of chronic absenteeism. So this says "a student is considered chronically absent if they miss at least 10% of instructional time for any reason. Our chronic absenteeism rate is the percentage of students at United Schools who are considered chronically absent."   0:25:08.9 JD: Now, this particular definition was fairly simple because there's already a sort of a federal and state definition of chronic absenteeism. And then down below the operational definition, you have the data that we have thus far charted over time. So in this case, we only have three years of this particular type of data 'cause that's when it sort of started getting measured at the state level. And so the y axis is the chronic absenteeism rate, the x axis is the school year. So this chart has 2021/2022, 2022/2023, and 2023/2024 school year data. And you can see the data is fairly similar across those three years. Not too unexpected, but it's right around, 53%, 54% in the '21/'22 school year, maybe 52% in the '22/'23 school year. And then slightly less than 50%, let's say 48% of kids were chronically absent.   0:26:11.5 AS: Just outta curiosity, where was that before covid? Let's say 2018/2019.   0:26:17.9 JD: Yeah. Lower. Definitely lower. I think going back historically, if we had that data, I would guess, and I'm sort of guessing based on overall attendance rates compared to what overall attendance rates are and like what chronic absenteeism probably was, it was down probably closer to like high 20s, low 30s, that type of thing. And obviously a chronic absenteeism rate of 52% is very high. But when you look at even the school district buildings that are sort of around these schools, generally speaking, their chronic absenteeism rates are even higher. They're in the 60, even into the 70% range. And so not that this is like a comparison, but you can kind of get some context there that these rates are even higher in the neighborhood schools that are closest to our campuses.   0:27:16.7 AS: It would be a bit shocking for someone in Asia, like myself in Korea, Japan, China, Thailand, who's, it's a much different view of education. But just for the purposes, for someone who doesn't know much about what's happening in the US, what are these kids doing? Are they out working or are they at home?   0:27:40.6 JD: It's hard to know exactly. I think one thing is, is that in some cases, older siblings, like in our middle schools, are often taking care of younger siblings for various reasons. I think that can be a common way, but I think it's hard to just pin on one or two things. I think this is a very complex problem with lots of causal things, causal variables that are going into this. So I think that's why it's so important to study it in our context and try to figure out besides the things that we already know, like busing being inconsistent, those types of things. What else is it that's contributing to this? And so that's sort of what the process that we're starting now is trying to figure this out.   0:28:32.3 AS: And would you equate the voice, is voice of the customer equate it to target condition? Or is there a difference between that?   0:28:42.1 JD: Well, in this case, the way I'm framing it is like the voice of the customer is that direction or challenge, that's step one. So we had to, because this is an internal improvement goal, we decided for ourselves, like what do we think that vision, that purpose, that challenge is out there on the horizon that we're not sure how to get to, but we want to get to in the next two or three years. So I would equate those two things in this case.   0:29:07.1 AS: And who is the customer in the case of a school, how would you view that?   0:29:15.0 JD: Well, so that can be a little tricky based on how you're asking the question. Just from the point of who's the customer and the voice of the customer. Well, it's the leadership that set this like a customer with a capital C, that's the voice of the customer in terms of who's the customer of the school system it depends on exactly what aspect of the school system that you're talking about. But in general, our families and our students, are customers of the school system. But then so are the high schools that we feed our eighth graders into. Those are also customers of the system. But in terms of who the customer was that set this challenger direction, that was our senior sort of leadership team.   0:30:00.7 AS: Okay. And the voice of the process where we're looking at the 52% absenteeism rate, would you call that the current condition?   0:30:11.5 JD: Yes. Yes.   0:30:14.0 AS: So voice of the process, current condition, then you have to have some operational definitions so that we know what we're really talking about. And then a visualization that helps people see kind of where things are at.   0:30:28.3 JD: Yeah. And ideally we would have more data than this, but this is the data that we have. And you can actually see there's this note here 'cause right now it's just a run chart. It's just the data points with a central line running through. But there's this note that says the natural process limits are not included until we have at least five data points. And so we won't include the control limits until we have more data, basically.   0:30:50.4 AS: And for the person looking at this from outside, they're like, so wait a minute. You gotta wait a full year before you get that. But I guess there's a lot of data underneath this that is input data that will eventually drive this output.   0:31:07.8 JD: Yeah, I mean, I think what we do with any data like this that comes once a year, you have to find some proxies. So some proxy outcome data that maybe you're measuring on a every other week or maybe on a monthly basis. And then you have some process data that you're measuring, here's the things that we think will move the outcome needle, and are we doing those things? So you set up different types of measures, sort of intermediate outcome measures, process measures that are sort of measuring the different things that you're trying. And then usually a sort of a third component to that measurement system is a balancing measure where you're making sure that other things in your system aren't, [laughter] going astray because you're putting all your focus on this chronic absenteeism concept. So it's complicated. It can be complicated.   0:31:54.2 AS: It is. And in the area of education, you're under so many different constraints set by government. I was having fun in my mind imagining like when we were young, the Keystone cops, and they were kind of funny, crazy cops. But I was imagining getting an old ambulance with a flashing light and arriving at student's homes and saying, we gotta get you to school urgently. [laughter] And all the fun things that you probably can't do.   0:32:27.4 JD: Yeah. Yeah. Well, that as a brainstorm is not too far off from some of the things that we're thinking about as possibilities in terms of different forms of transportation, taking more control over the transportation where we can 'cause this is a service that's provided by the school district.   0:32:51.0 AS: One thing I did with Google Maps many years ago is I uploaded the zip code or address of my students, and so that I could see clusters of where they were. And then from those clusters, I started recommending, Hey, why don't the five of you guys form a group here and you're in the same area? And then that would help them to make a connection that they may not have made themselves.   0:33:24.9 JD: Yeah, that's a great idea. We have the geo mapping already. Yeah. We.   0:33:29.1 AS: And there's pods basically. So pods are out there of 50 students in this area. So when one has a problem you've got 20 of them that got a problem. If a bus doesn't arrive, is there a way we can get those 20 students communicating with each other and say, we want to get to school, how do we do?   0:33:50.0 JD: Yeah. We said we have some beginning of the year challenges right now with busing and we were making some calls to some of the families, and one really awesome grandma actually said, I'm gonna look into how much it costs to rent a bus and I'm gonna go round. And so that type of problem solving is certainly happening on the ground. It's how to sort of make that systematic and consistent. That's the tougher thing.   0:34:12.5 AS: Yeah. Exciting. Great one, and I look forward to the next one. I'm learning a lot and I know the listeners and viewers are learning a lot. Is there anything you would just add to wrap this one up?   0:34:25.6 JD: Yeah, I mean, I just a couple points maybe to bring it home on set the challenge, I think, one thing is we have to have this model to bridge a gap between current conditions and future aspirations. So that's this improvement model as a whole. There's always gonna be this gap between current conditions and our aspirations. And I mentioned this improvement model has this combination of scientific way of thinking and working to close the gap. And what we did in step one was ask where do we want to be in the long run? And this overall challenge that we set is really set at the sort of senior leader level, becomes a key priority. And I'm really thinking about this. If we can figure this out and some of the other key metrics, it's gonna really differentiate us from other schools. And so I think that's sort of those four or five things are the key frames for "set the challenge."   0:35:19.9 AS: Exciting. Well, I'm looking forward to the next one. Well, on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this fun and interesting discussion and really opening up what you guys are doing there and the challenges that you're facing makes it even more real for the listeners and the viewers, and for the listeners and viewers, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. You can find John's book Win-Win W. Edwards Deming, the System of Profound Knowledge and the Science of Improving Schools on amazon.com. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'm gonna leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming. People are entitled to joy in wo

Continuing their discussion from part 3 of this series, Bill Bellows and Andrew Stotz talk more about acceptability versus desirability. In this episode, the discussion focuses on how you might choose between the two. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:00.0 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with Bill Bellows, who has spent 31 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. Today is Episode 4 of the Misunderstanding Quality Series, and the title is Quality, Mind the Choices. Bill, take it away.   0:00:31.3 Bill Bellows: All right, Andrew, welcome. So podcast three, I think the title was Acceptability and Desirability. And one correction there, when I went back and looked at the transcript the concept of... At least the first person I heard tie together acceptability, desirability, at least in the Deming community, was a professor, Yoshida, Y-O-S-H-I-D-A. He was a PhD student of Dr. Deming, I believe at NYU but I mispronounced or misspelled his first name. I thought I've heard people refer to him as Kauro, perhaps spelled K-A-U-R-O, maybe that's his nickname, and maybe I just didn't remember properly but his proper first name is Kosaku, K-O-S-A-K-U and he at one point in time was in Greater Los Angeles at Cal State Dominguez Hills. And then I think sometime in the mid '90s, early '90s, last I heard he moved to Japan.   0:01:51.1 BB: I've never met him. I've watched videos of him, there's a classic presentation. I don't know if it's got, it might be online someplace of he did a guest lecture. There was a... Dr. Deming was speaking in Southern California and needed an emergency surgery, had a pacemaker put in, so this would've been '92 timeframe. And Professor Yoshida was called in to give a guest lecture. And that ended up being something that I think was sold eventually. The video, the lecture was sold by Claire Crawford Mason and so he is... I don't know how much of that is online, but anyways.   0:02:38.4 AS: Is Kauro, Kauro wasn't that the name of Kauro Ishikawa?   0:02:43.7 BB: That may be where I... Yes that was a Kauro. There's two Ishikawas. There's a father and the son and I... So I'm not sure if Kauro was the father or the son, but anyway correction there. In the first series we did, going back to '23, 2023, I mentioned the name Edgar Schein, but I don't believe I've mentioned his name in this series. So I wanted to throw that, introduce that in this series today and give some background on him for those who have not heard his name or not aware, did not listen to the first series and Edgar Schein, who passed away January of this year. He was an organizational theorist, organizational psychologist, spent the greater part of his career at MIT. And one of the concepts I really like about what he talked about is looking at an organization in terms of its artifacts. So if you walk around an organization, what do you see? What are the artifacts? That could be the colors, it could be the artwork on the wall, but the physical aspect of the organization Schein referred to as the artifacts. And what he also talked about is if you dig beneath the artifacts, they come from a set of beliefs, and then the beliefs come from a set of values.   0:04:23.9 BB: And again, the first series we did, I talked about Red Pen and Blue Pen Companies, and Me and We Organizations, and Last Straw and All Straw organizations. And those titles should make it easy for our listeners who are not aware to go back and find those. And what I talked about is, this imaginary trip report, if you visited a Deming organization, if we could think in terms of two simple organizations, a Deming organization, and a non-Deming organization in this very simple black and white model. And I had people think about the physical aspects of both, if they were to go visit both. What I then followed up on in our conversation is what you see physically comes from a set of beliefs. Now, they may not be articulated beliefs, what Schein would call espoused beliefs. And then you have what they really believe and I forget the term, I use this for that, but it comes from a set... But anyway, the physical comes from the beliefs, the beliefs come from the values.   0:05:39.0 BB: And part of the reason I bring that up for our listeners, and I'm thinking in terms of the people that have a responsibility in their respective organizations. They could be consultants, internal consultants, working in quality likely, given the focus of this series. First of all, you have to start where you are. But even added on, included in start where you are, is you have to start where your management is. So, if your management is tasking you with an improving scrap and rework, then that's what you better be talking about. Now, you don't have to be guiding your actions based on acceptability because the other aspect is scrap and rework are typically associated... Well, not typically, they are associated with acceptability. The lack of acceptability, acceptability is the idea that this is good, it is acceptable, it meets the requirements, defines...the quality requirements that are defined.   0:06:52.0 BB: If it's good, it is acceptable, if it's bad. There's two categories of bad, bad could be I have to throw it away, that's scrap, which means I can't recover it or rework, which means I can do something with it and perhaps salvage it. And so if your management is tasking you with improving scrap and rework, then first of all, where they're coming from, quite naturally, is acceptability. And why do I say that? Because everywhere I've gone, that is the deepest foundation of quality in every organization I've ever met, worked with, I have met people that work from whether it could be... Whether it's clients that I've worked with, whether it's students, my university classes. Acceptability, scrap, and rework, all go together. And, so if that's where your management is, then they're asking you to focus on improving acceptability.   0:08:05.6 BB: But, you may find it invaluable to shift your focus to desirability to improve acceptability. And that will be a focus, well I get into some of that tonight and others or today, and then on a future podcast later. But, I remember once upon a time at Rocketdyne, the executives were, the VP of Quality was task master asking for improvements to scrap and rework and also things called process capability indices, Cp's and Cpk's. And if you've heard of a Cp or a Cpk, great, if you haven't all I could say is I find them dangerous. I find them, well I say they're all about acceptability. And what makes it, reason I would encourage people to stay away from them because they appear to be desirability, but they're really acceptability.   0:09:15.7 BB: We'll save that for later. But anyway you have to start where they are. So if people are asking for improvements in scrap and rework, then, instead of fighting them, you go with it. And then what we'll be talking about tonight is, is it worthwhile to shift? Well, what does it mean to improve acceptability and the difference between acceptability and desirability? And relative to the title tonight, Mind the Choices is being aware that there's a place for acceptability and there's a place for desirability. And going back to Yoshida in episode three, what I was referring to is, in presentations he was doing from the early '90s, maybe even going back to the '80s, he talked about Japanese companies are about desirability. So, he presented this model of acceptability and desirability. And then, his explanation of what makes Japanese companies, again, back in the '80s, Japanese companies were viewed as those setting the quality standards.   0:10:20.5 BB: And, he was trying to say that the way they're doing that is that they don't rely on acceptability as other companies in other countries do. They have a higher standard. And that's what I wanted to introduce in our last episode, Episode 3. And, what I wanted to do tonight in this Episode 4, is to put some, add some more to that. But, also reinforce I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with acceptability, it's a question of what does the organization need at that point of time? And, really it has to do with... Really, it has to do with how big a system you wanna look at. So if you're looking at something in isolation, which is, I mean, when you look at something and saying it's good or bad, that is the epitome of looking at something in isolation.   0:11:17.5 BB: You're looking at a pen and saying it's good. You're looking at the diameter of a hole and saying it's good. That is not looking at what goes in the hole, that is not looking at how the pen is being used. So by definition, that's what Ackoff would call analysis, which is looking inward. It's not what Ackoff would call synthesis, which is looking outward. And how far outward you look is all according... I mean you could look, it comes down to how big is the system. And I wanna introduce the name Shel Rovin, Sheldon was his full name. Shel was his nickname. I met Shel through Russ Ackoff in 2006. Shel was, he was in charge of the Chief Nursing Officer program, which was a two-week immersion program at the University of Pennsylvania.   0:12:14.5 BB: And he was doing that in the, 2003, 4, 5, timeframe when I met him. And Shel was a dentist by background. He was Dean of the School of Dentistry at University of Kentucky and University of Washington. And I met him through Russ and invited him to Rocketdyne on numerous occasions. And Shel spoke about relative to looking at a system, 'cause people talk about, well "Andrew, we've gotta look at the whole system," but how big is the system? And, so people say, well, systems thinkers look at the whole system. Well, how big is that? Is that 1,000 foot view? And people say, oh no, Bill, it's bigger than that. Is it a 10,000 foot view? Is it... How big is the system? Well, Shel's perspective, and the word I wanna introduce from Shel is relative to systems is boundarylessness.   0:13:12.7 BB: Say that a few times fast. 'Cause systems have no boundaries. So I'm sure our listeners... I'm sure you have heard, I don't if our listeners have all heard, Dr. Deming would say to executives, does your system include the future? He used to ask questions such as what business are you in? What business will you be in five years from now, 10 years from now? Well, why not 15 years from now? Why not 25 years from now? Native American Indians, associated with Native American Indians is the idea of looking at the seventh generation after you when you're making choices. And so what I would ask people is, well, why seven? Why not eight? Why not nine? Why not 10? I mean, within an organization, we could be working with our supplier to try to get across these quality ideas to our suppliers.   0:14:05.5 BB: Well, that's looking at the system. Well, wait a minute. Do our suppliers have suppliers? Yes. Do their suppliers have suppliers? And so relative to boundarylessness is this idea is when people start talking about the whole system, I don't know what "whole" means. What I'd rather look at is what size system are we looking at? That's a choice. That's a choice. So we could decide to look at our suppliers. We're gonna go one step, we're gonna look at procurement. Who do we buy from? Now, we may educate them and give them the responsibility of looking at their suppliers on... But that would be a way of managing quality. Likewise, we can look at the impact of our work on our customer and give them heads up as to how to look at the impact of their work on their customers. But that's looking at the system in an X, Y, Z, physical coordinate, add onto that, the time dimension. And so, again, all I wanna throw out there is that when it comes to making choices on acceptability, desirability, a lot of it has to do with how big is the system that we're looking at. Some everyday examples of acceptability.   0:15:23.5 BB: Again and what I wanna get across is, in part the difference to help people make choices. And so when we were on a vacation in Europe recently, I took a number of photos of people making choices. And,` when I travel, anywhere I travel, especially out of the country, I love walking into supermarkets just to see what they sell that perhaps is not sold in the States or in California. I know there are things you can't find in California that you can find on the East Coast. That's one thing. But I like going into supermarkets just to see what products are there. I mean, you can go to England and find in the refrigerator section, hard cider, apple cider, you know, alcoholic cider that I got exposed to going to a Deming conference in 2000. I've become a fan of it ever since. Well, in the States it's pretty hard to find hard cider, period. You go to England and you'll find, a dozen different brands and each brand may have a number of different types.   0:16:44.9 BB: And so that's, but anyway, relative to that when you walk into a supermarket, if you're looking at canned goods, or just look, well, looking at cider, we can look at this cider versus that cider. We treat a can as a can, whether it's buying tomato soup or cider, we treat all those cans as interchangeable, interchangeable parts. But when we go to into the bakery section, that's where I was taking photos in Amsterdam and I was watching people sort through the pastries. And yet what was laid out were a bunch of pastries of the same style. And yet people were, I want this one, I want that one.   0:17:26.0 BB: Well, part of acceptability is treating all those pastries as the same as we would treat all those cans of tomato soup as the same. Now relative to tomato soup I know you live with your mother, and I'm willing to bet your mom, early, early on when she took you to the supermarket, taught you how to buy canned goods, right? And she says "Andrew when you buy a can of something you pick it up, you're looking for dents," right?   0:17:55.1 AS: Mm.   0:17:56.0 BB: Because if it's dented, that's bad. And if it's not dented, that's good. I know my mother taught me that. So I know when it comes to buying canned good we look for dents. If dented, that's bad. If it's not dented, it's acceptable. But I don't see people sorting between cans of tomato soup made by the same manufacturer. They're just, we treat it as they're acceptable. Acceptable implies either one, the differences don't matter or I don't see differences.   0:18:33.0 BB: Desirability is, you wanna see a great example of desirability, go to the produce section and again, either watch people sort through pastries that are all acceptable, and yet they're looking for the biggest one, or... And when it comes to fruit, we're looking for the ripest banana, or maybe we're looking for bananas that are green because we're not gonna use them for a while. So acceptability, again, I'm trying to give everyday examples of acceptability is going in and saying, looking at all the fruit there, and just taking five peppers, whatever it is, and throwing them in the bag and saying, I need five 'cause my spouse said, go get five. And I throw them in the bag. And it could be time-wise, I don't have time to sort through them, or I quite frankly don't care that they're different. That's acceptability. So acceptability is either acknowledging they're different and saying, I don't care. Or...   0:19:29.6 AS: Seeing them as the same.   0:19:32.4 BB: Or pretending they're all the same. And I had a guy in class years ago, and I was asking about buying fruit and I was trying to use the example of we go into the supermarket. We sort through the oranges looking for the ripest one, and this guy says, well, I don't sort through the oranges. I said, well, how do you buy the oranges? I buy them by the bag. I said, do you sort between the bags? He says, no, I don't sort and his arms were crossed. I don't sort, I don't sort. So then I noticed that he had a ring on his left hand, a wedding ring on his left hand. So I said, I see you're wearing a wedding ring. And he said, yep. I said, did you sort?   0:20:15.2 AS: I don't sort.   0:20:15.3 BB: Meaning... I don't sort. And so when you're looking at things that meet all the requirements and saying there is no variation or the variation doesn't matter, that's acceptability, Andrew. When you look at all the things that meet requirements and you see them as being different and saying, I want this one, that's desirability. And so that could be, when it comes to selecting a spouse, when it comes to selecting an orange, when it comes to selecting a parking spot, in a university, you're looking for the, an ideal, the best professor for Thermodynamics II, and there's 10 professors the university says are acceptable. And you talk to classmates and you find out, oh, no, no, no, stay away from that one. What are you doing? You're sorting amongst things that meet requirements, that are acceptable and saying, that's not good enough for me in that situation.   0:21:17.2 BB: Well, what I wanna say then added to that is, this is not to say desirability is better than acceptability. It really comes down to is desirability worth the effort? Because when it comes to desirability, I am looking beyond, I'm looking at a bigger system. So I'm looking at the fruit in terms of how I'm using it. If I'm aware of that, I'm looking at the parking spots in terms of: I'm gonna be in the store for an hour and I want the most shade, or these parking spots have a little bit different distances between cars, and I want a spot with a little bit more width so somebody doesn't ding my car. So what I'm hoping is with these examples, people can appreciate that every day we make choices between acceptability and desirability.   0:22:11.3 BB: Every day we're making a decision based on saying, this is okay, code word for acceptable, or I'll take that one, that's desirability.   0:22:27.6 AS: That's quite a breakdown.   0:22:28.1 BB: Well, and the idea being... The other aspect of it is when you're choosing to say, I want... When you decide that acceptability is not worthwhile, my proposal it's because you're looking at a bigger system. You've got a bigger system in mind. You're not looking at that fruit in isolation. You are somehow saying, there's something about how I plan to use that, which is the reason for this decision. And then it gets into how big is the system that you're looking at? Are you looking at the person downstream of you at work, which that could be an internal customer. People used to use those terms. Are you looking at the person after them, two down from them, three down from them? And that gets into a choice. So what I would tell the folks I was mentoring at Rocketdyne is that they were designing things or going to see how they were used. And I'd say, first of all, nothing requires you to go see how that's used. Your job as a designer, whatever it is in engineering you design it, you give it to manufacturing. But you don't have to go downstairs and see how they're using it.   0:23:47.5 BB: I said, but if you do, you might learn a lot. And then they might say, "well, so I should go talk to the person who's first using it." Well that might be helpful. And then what about the person after that? Well, that might be helpful. And then what about the person after that? Well, that might be helpful. And I was trying to get across to them, we hire really bright people and if we just turn you down to don't look beyond, just deliver the thing, complete those drawings, do whatever it is, pass it to the next person. I said, the system may not require you to go look to see how it's used.   0:24:31.9 BB: But what Dr. Deming is proposing is, the better you understand how it's used, the better you can serve the system. But then you get into the question of how big is the system that you want to be thinking about? And there I would tell them that there's no right answer. I mean, you wanna be and this is what I would tell them is we hire really bright people and then we condition you to believe that it doesn't matter. What I'm proposing guided by Dr. Deming is that there's a possibility that it matters anywhere from a little to a lot, but you won't know unless you go look.   0:25:12.2 AS: Yeah. It's funny.   0:25:12.3 BB: And so what I wanna get... Go ahead Andrew.   0:25:14.4 AS: When I was a supervisor at Pepsi in Los Angeles at our Torrance factory, they asked me to help... Could I figure out how to quicken the pace with which we got 80 trucks or 100 trucks out the gate every morning because it mattered. If you got trucks out an hour late on the LA freeways, now you have overtime and all kinds of trouble. So, what I did is I climbed up... At 4:00 AM I climbed up on top of a building, one of our buildings.   0:25:54.1 BB: Wow.   0:25:54.9 AS: And I had a clipboard, which I always have. I have extra clipboards always with me, here's one right here. And I had paper and then I just observed, and I took a lot of notes. And what I was seeing was all these drivers were, they were checking their trucks and they were spending a lot of time with their trucks. So, after I observed it that morning, the next morning I went down and went around and I asked them, what are you doing? And they said, well I'm checking that the quantity that's on the paper is the quantity that's on the truck. And I said, how could that not be? And they said, the loaders at night don't fill it up right. So, the next night I went and talked to the loaders and I said, drivers are saying that you guys are making errors.   0:26:40.4 AS: No, we're not making any errors. Okay. So, now I gotta dig deeper into the loaders. And then I start to see, okay, the loaders are making errors. So, I went and talked to one loader and said, why are you making this error? He said, well, the production are supposed to put this particular Pepsi item in this spot. But they didn't, they put it in another and I got confused, but it's just 'cause it's normally always there. So, I go to talk to the manufacturer, hey guys come on, why did you put that stuff in the wrong spot? He said, well, sales told us to produce so much that we were overloaded. We didn't have any place to put all of this products. So, we had to basically put it anywhere we could as it's racing off the line and on and on.   0:27:27.9 AS: And then you start to realize like, okay, the system is bigger. Now I went and focused on the loaders and said, how do we make sure that when the loaders load that we can lock the truck and then tell the drivers, you must not open this truck. How do we build the trust between the loaders and the drivers that they're loaded correctly and that they can go, because the drivers don't want to get to San Bernardino or wherever they're going and find out, oh, I don't have what this particular customer wanted and it's supposed to be on here. So that's just a little bit of a picture of kind of a very narrow start that starts to bring in more of the system.   0:28:06.8 BB: Oh, yeah. Oh, that's a brilliant example. And also what you're talking about is a term we used the first series, which is the value of synchronicity. That those handoffs are smooth. And they disrupt...   0:28:26.7 AS: I love that word handoffs, by the way. I was just talking with a client of mine. We were talking about the core processes of the business. And I just now realize that what I was missing and what we were missing in our discussion was how do we make sure that the handoffs work.   0:28:43.6 BB: Well, then the other thing, again a concept you may recall from the first series is, I liken it... I think in terms of two types of handoffs. And, actually, I think in one of the first, maybe in the second episode we talked about this, is associated with acceptability. When I hand off to you something, my report, whatever it is I'm assigned to delivered to Andrew by 5 o'clock tomorrow, you look at it, you inspect it, and you're making sure before you accept it that it is acceptable, that it has all the content. And, if anything's missing a figure, a graph, a label, you send it back to me and then I go through and massage it and then send it off to you. And, part of acceptability is when you say, that's good, then the handoff we're talking about is physical.   0:29:51.6 BB: Right. I mean, there's nothing wrong with a physical handoff. I give it to you physically. And what you may recall me mentioning, I think, again likely episode 2, podcast 2 of this series is I would demonstrate this with people in the class. And I would say, if, if what I give you is not acceptable, what do you do? You give it back to me and you say it's incomplete. And then I go through, massage it. If I now give it to you and all the requirements have been met, it's acceptable. Now what happens? What do you say? And I would kid them and so now you say, thank you. But what I'd also point out is that part of acceptability in a non-Deming organization is the handoff is physical and mental. I mean, physical is: It is yours, not mine.   0:30:38.5 BB: Mental is that if you have trouble with how that fits into what you are doing with it, because that report does not exist in isolation, you're doing something with it. Right. So you're doing your things with it. Now we're looking at the system. And if in the system of you're using it, you have an issue and you come back to me, in non-Deming environment, acceptability is my way of saying "Andrew I'm not sure why we're having this conversation because what I gave you is acceptable." But in a Deming organization, the handoff is physical, but not mental. What does that mean? It means, I'm willing to learn from what you just said and the issues you're having. And now I'm beginning to wonder, there's two possibilities. Either one, what I gave you is not acceptable. There's something wrong with the inspection.   0:31:34.3 BB: Or two, what's missing is desirability, that there's some... What I give you is acceptable, but there's something about how it's, it's um, there's a degree of acceptability, and so instead of viewing it as it's good or it's bad, black and white. Now we're saying there's degrees of good. Desirability is degrees of good. And, so in a Deming environment, when I hand off to you and you have an issue with it, you come back the next day and say, "Bill, somehow this didn't get caught in the control chart." And I said, "well, let me take a look at it," and I may find there was something wrong with the inspection, or I may find that there's a degree of good I'm not giving you that I need to be giving you. So, that can either be an acceptability issue or a desirability issue. I'm willing to have that conversation with you in a Deming environment. So, in a Deming environment, the handoff is physical but not mental. And the learning, as you're demonstrating, the learning that comes from the ability to have those conversations, improves the system. That's a lot more work.   0:32:53.8 AS: So, if you were to sum it up, was that the sum up or would you add anything else to your summation of what you want people to take away from this discussion?   0:33:05.6 BB: Yeah, that's it. I'd like to say one is that there's, acceptability is fine. Choose acceptability, if that's all the situation demands then you've chosen that. But pay attention to how it's used, pay attention to the ramifications of that decision, which may show up an hour from now, may not show up until a year from now. And, the possibility that hiccup a year from now could be either it wasn't acceptable, in which case there's an inspection issue or it was acceptable, which means there's a degree of good, which means it's a desirability issue. And, that gets us into future conversations, talking about degrees of good and the whole idea of variation in things that are good. That's desirability, variation in things that are good.   0:33:57.6 AS: All right. Bill, on behalf of everyone at T      he Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this discussion. And for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. And if you wanna keep in touch with Bill, just find him on LinkedIn. He responds. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming. "People are entitled to joy in work."

In this new series, Jacob Stoller and Andrew Stotz discuss five major management and productivity myths and how Lean and Deming thinking solve them. This first episode offers an overview and Jacob shares his journey from traditional management to a better way. Jacob Stoller is the author of The Lean CEO: Leading the Way to World-Class Excellence and Productivity Reimagined: Shattering Performance Myths to Achieve Sustainable Growth. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.3 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'll be talking with Jacob Stoller, who is a journalist and Shingo prize-winning author of The Lean CEO, which provides a boardroom perspective of Lean initiatives. Now, he connected with Dr. Deming's criticism of command and control management and recently wrote Productivity Reimagined to explore the reasons why organizations fail to apply the Lean and Deming style of management at the enterprise level. Jacob, welcome to the show.   0:00:37.8 Jacob Stoller: Well, thank you, Andrew. It's great to be here.   0:00:40.5 AS: Yeah it was actually really fun to talk to you before we even turned on the recorder to kind of really help people understand where you come from and why you are here. So maybe you can just explain a little bit of your journey of how you got to this point in relation to Deming.   0:00:58.2 JS: Okay, well, interestingly, I started out in sales. I was a corporate sales rep selling services and software and all that kind of high-tech stuff. And I did that for quite a while. But what I liked best about corporate sales was the dialogue that I had with customers, being able to talk to people and ask questions and explore topics. So fortunately, I was able to turn that into a career. I left that profession about 2001 and became a writer, journalist, did research projects, gave talks, did some training, did all the things I wanted to do. And through that, I discovered Lean by accident. And that, I think, wasn't probably till about 2010. And I was writing for a magazine, and someone told me to write about this Lean thing. What is it? And I started to ask questions and talk to people and eventually discovered this wonderful way of running companies. I was totally impressed, not just with how efficient they were and all that, but how they treated people. I thought, this is, boy, I would have liked to have worked at some of these companies.   0:02:14.6 AS: And for someone who's never even heard, let's just imagine someone's never heard the word Lean. What does that mean anyway? And what did it mean when you first saw it and after you really became an expert in it? What does it mean to you now?   0:02:28.4 JS: Well, I thought it was going to be super high tech. That's what I first thought. As a matter of fact, when I went to Japan to actually see it firsthand, I was expecting just flashing screens and everything. And of course, it was a very different thing. It was a lot of people, very, very people-oriented environment, people talking to each other, lots of communication. So I thought, wow. And I started to learn that it was really all about people. And so that was a gradual transformation for me. But it was very rewarding to see the human side of this. So that led me, really led me to some writing. I started working with some lean organizations like the Kaizen Institute, and I started doing writing for them, writing newsletters. I also wrote, helped Misaki Yumi the late Misaki Yumi, a very well-known Lean promoter, write the new edition of his latest book. And I did all the case studies for that. And I also helped various other initiatives. But the main thing was that I decided to write my own book, and that was The Lean CEO.   0:03:57.2 JS: And what I was interested in at the time was I saw that people doing Lean were running into all this resistance, and I was interested in exploring that a little more. And I thought, well, the people that really understand that will be the CEOs because they'll been there. They've been in the boardroom discussions. So that's how The Lean CEO came to be. And in that process, I was asking questions about management and the various practices. Now, I was expecting that there would be a sort of a standard executive playbook for Lean. That was my hypothesis, I guess. And it would have been really nice, very, very easy to write the book and neat and tidy and all that, but it didn't work out that way. They were all different. They all had different ideas. And interestingly, a lot of the thinking that went into their work, actually, they had learned before they even discovered Lean. That had been stuff that they believed in. They learned about teamwork early on, so they were somehow predisposed towards the people side of Lean. So I was really fascinated by that. But my conclusion really was that there was no one way to implement Lean, that there were just many, many different variations on it.   0:05:20.5 JS: And that's when I became and started to discover that there was a lot of the thinking that made these people successful at leading Lean outside of the Lean community. And that's where I started to get interested in some other. How the tech sector was handling change, how the sustainability people doing sustainability projects were handling change. And one speaker that spoke out loud and clearly to me was Dr. Deming, because Dr. Deming understood the fundamentals behind the thinking. I think that makes Lean successful. He understood what was wrong with conventional management and the barriers that people were running into. So, Andrew, I don't know if you remember, but the 1980s, everybody was talking about this ABC show, If Japan Can, Why Can't We? And here we are looking at a productivity crisis. I mean the US was their crown jewels in the US industry had been trounced by the Japanese. They were being outproduced two to one, right? I mean, and so this was recognized as a crisis. It was an election issue at the time. And I, they got Dr. Deming on television and they asked him what are we doing wrong? And Deming was very clear.   0:06:51.1 JS: He said you're not going to learn this, you're not going to be able to imitate the Japanese, and you're not going to learn a few production tricks. You've got to fundamentally change the way you manage. So that was a very, very strong message that I picked up when I was writing that book. And what's wrong with conventional management? What's wrong with command and control management? And why does it not why does it create companies that are so wasteful and do such a bad job at being productive?   0:07:22.6 AS: And as a devil's advocate, if I think about a Lean a company that's trying to adopt Lean, what I would assume was that at the management level, the objective of management is really to reduce resources, to reduce, if you could reduce the cost of electricity, your profit margin would go up. If you could reduce the raw materials that you have in your production process, your profits would go up, as an example, and the value of your business would go up. So how could there be any resistance to a young engineer that's picked up Lean and is bringing it through the organization? It's a little bit odd to think why would there be resistance to that?   0:08:04.1 JS: Well, the resistance is that people are used to doing what they're doing, for one thing. And Dr. Deming has identified with his knowledge of complex adaptive systems a fatal flaw in the hierarchical structures that corporations are run by. You see, if you're using corporate logic, you assume that every department and every work group is like an independent component and that if each component functions as intended and according to measured objectives, then the corporation will succeed. And Deming said that that is completely false, and he had the evidence to prove that. So what people are resisting is not that, people aren't resisting the idea of reducing costs and being efficient, but they're measuring efficiency in the wrong way. They're measuring efficiency of independent assets. And they say if these independent components produce efficiently, then the sum of the total will have an efficient corporation. But that's not true. That's only true according to 17th century logic. If you follow Newton and Newton's laws, that seems to be the case. And it's intuitively, we do tend to think that way. But if you're running a company, a company is not a simple system. It's a complex adaptive system.   0:09:38.7 JS: And it's the interdependence of all these entities and all these components that determine the success of your company. And that's what Deming was trying to teach, and that's what people didn't want to hear.   0:09:50.7 AS: So if I hear you correctly, the first thing is kind of the first wall that someone would come to at the board level or at the management level is just trying to overcome inertia. This is the way we do things. Why do we need to change? It takes effort to change. And then the second thing you're talking about is the lack of systems thinking, thinking that if we could just optimize every part, we're going to get the optimal output of this system. They didn't understand that, as you said, it's a complex adaptive system, that it's much more difficult than just saying, everybody do your best. Is there any other resistance that you saw? So the inertia is number one that I saw. The second one is a lack of systems thinking. Is there any other things that you discovered as you were working on The Lean CEO?   0:10:38.3 JS: Oh, yeah. Well, there's the elephant in the room. And this is that most large corporations anyway are focused on short-term shareholder value. Right. And the way to make your short-term numbers is not to be productive. It's not to invest in good long-term strategies to develop a long-term competitive advantage. It's to make your quarterly numbers. And that can be manipulated fairly easily. Well, maybe not easily, but it can be manipulated by creating perceptions about value, about market value and that sort of thing.   0:11:17.3 AS: And even more, even more than manipulated, it's just that if you don't follow, if all you do is just try to hit numbers on a quarterly basis, you're losing your focus on the long term.   0:11:27.1 JS: Absolutely. And there was a study, and this goes way back to 2005, but it said that corporate CEOs would sacrifice or 74% would sacrifice a long-term profitable initiative to make their quarterly numbers. They would throw it out the window. I think, if anything, that was 2005. I would think if anything, things have gotten worse since then. So we're actually talking about a slice of companies that really do want to be productive, where long-term productivity is their strategy. And that is, a lot of these are privately owned companies, manufacturers, and perhaps, there's some smattering of public companies that are doing this kind of thing, but it's rare.   0:12:24.7 AS: So let's just. So what we've been talking about is kind of the wall that you started to see, the ceiling that was Lean had a challenge, or Deming's teachings had a challenge, and that was this, overcoming the inertia, the lack of systems thinking, and this focus on short-term quality, sorry quarterly numbers. And very few companies were able to really focus on long-term goals of being productive. Now, maybe you can just take a moment to explain how your newest book, your latest book, then took what you saw from a Lean CEO and Deming and then brought it to another level.   0:13:07.8 JS: Okay, well, I interviewed about 60 people, and it's interesting. I thought it might be fairly easy, I would say. What are the basic myths? What do people get wrong? Usually, these are people that are pretty smart about Lean stuff, and people found that surprisingly hard to answer. And I think that was because a lot of these people I talked to had already been practicing this approach for a long time, so they really had to think about it. So it took some digging and a lot of interviews, but I found the thread was in five sort of primary areas, and one was the systems thinking, the pyramid that we talked about.   0:13:50.4 JS: That Deming so articulately talked about. Also, and then the other myths, I think, are somewhat derivative of that. But there's finance. The myth that the bottom line tells you what you need to know about the productivity of your company and it doesn't show up in the finances. So I did a chapter about that. The notion that the boss knows best, and that's not just the boss, it's also professionals. This idea of professional knowledge. Someone can go to school, learn how to tell people what to do, and that will accurately create the right procedures, the right kind of work.   0:14:32.6 JS: And when people follow directions from professionals, they will be the most productive. So that's a myth. Myth number four is the myth that people are motivated by sticks and carrots. And psychologists have disproved this about 70 years ago, I guess, but people still, if you look at compensation plans and you look at the way companies are managed and you look at structures, it's still assumed that people are going to be motivated by externals, by threats and rewards. So we talk about that and some companies that have dealt with that one. And then finally, there's this myth of tech omnipotence. We tend to have way more optimism about technology than is warranted, and we're seeing a lot of that in AI now. We're seeing a lot of disappointment with things not turning out the way people expected. So I really explored those five myths and how they stymie productivity and how companies can build a strategy around count.. what's the word I want? Counterattacking those myths or whatever.   0:15:45.5 AS: And then for the person who reads it, what is the outcome? So once they understand these risks, like number one, you mentioned about the pyramid and not understanding systems thinking. You mentioned number two about finance, you mentioned number three, about the professional or the boss knows best. And number four, people are motivated by sticks and carrots. And number five, tech omnipotence. Once they understand those myths, where do they go from there? How can they then apply that into their life and their work?   0:16:16.2 JS: Well, I suggest that they go into companies that are actually successful at dispelling these myths. You got to see it. But I have a last chapter, a long chapter, but I provide a sort of a roadmap for moving in. But there is really no alternative. If you want to build long-term productivity, there is no alternative to continuous improvement because you're just going to have to keep improving. And Dr. Deming explained that very well in terms of variation. It's always going to be there, and you're always going to have to be dealing with it. So you're going to have to create a culture, and it's going to be people-based. I don't care what kind of technology you have, long-term productivity gain is going to have to come from building the culture in your company.   0:17:10.1 AS: And I want to wrap up our discussion about this just so the audience understands. When you say productivity reimagined, what do you mean by the word productivity?   0:17:23.5 JS: Productivity is customarily just used as sort of a ratio. You know, people say, "Oh, yeah, I'll just take the total sales and divide it by the number of employees" or something like that. So it's seen as a sort of an indicator rather than something that you have to actually do. Right? That's something you have to actually pursue in a direct sort of way. And another, I'll make another side point, is economists like to say that take the GDP and divide it by the number of worker hours or whatever and say that's productivity. But it really, you know when you, the US government website defines productivity as increasing output with a given set of inputs. So from time A to time B, you've got to actually make more with what you have. And that's these indicators that people use for productivity don't reflect that at all. So you've really gotta... Productivity is not that easy to measure, and there's some, actually, some qualitative sides of it, right? I mean, if I'm making, say, ballpoint pens, and let's suppose I increase the production by 10% using the equivalent amount of materials and all the machinery.   0:18:51.9 JS: Well, that's great, but what if the quality goes down? You know, I haven't really gained anything. So it's kind of tricky to measure productivity. You have to get right down there in the processes to understand it. And so I would tell the finance people that it's inside that black box. You have to be in, understand what's going on inside that black box of operations to really understand whether, which direction your productivity is going.   0:19:20.2 AS: Okay. So if I hear that right, I think a lot of us could get lost in some sort of ratios or something like that and think about a measure. But in fact, what you're talking about is to really do productivity right, it sounds like you also really have to understand trade-offs. If you cut in a particular area, that's going to cause another problem, and that's going to...you may not be able to get more out of your existing resources. In addition, it's going to require work because you're organizing your company in a certain way to get a certain level of output with the inputs that you have. But in order to get a much higher level of that, you've got to rethink: How do I get the maximum out of this organization, which is a real challenge.   0:20:09.8 JS: Well, I think this is where this is, you know, it depends on how you do it, right? I mean, you can do it in a siloed way, which says, I have a quality department, I have an operations department, I have a maintenance department. And you can invest in all these and play around with your investments and see what works out. Or you can get into the process, and you can, by really, really understanding the process and letting people in the process improve it. That's where you get Deming's magic chain reaction, which is that you improve quality, and then your efficiency is going to improve and your costs are going to go down. But that's only if you're looking at productivity in a very broad way. It's not looking at quality in terms of the tolerances that I made on my grinding or whatever I'm doing. It's about the quality of the processes themselves. Right? So Deming was looking at quality with a big Q that encapsulates a lot of things.   0:21:16.0 AS: Well, I think what, what's, this is very interesting. And I know we're going to have a series that we're going to start doing, going through more detail of what you've discovered and what you want to share. So I'm really looking forward to that. And so, I appreciate this introductory discussion. And Jacob, on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this discussion and for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. You can find Jacob's book, Productivity Reimagined, at jacobstoller.com. This is your host, Andrew Stotz. And I'm going to leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming: "People are entitled to joy in work."

In this new series, John Dues and Andrew Stotz discuss John's model for improvement. This episode includes an overview of the model and how John uses it for goal-setting and planning in his school. 0:00:02.4 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with John Dues, who is part of the new generation of educators striving to apply Dr. Deming's principles to unleash student joy in learning. The topic for today is building an improvement model. John, take it away.   0:00:24.8 John Dues: It's good to be back, Andrew. Yeah, so we sort of wrapped up this last series. We had a six-part series on organizational goal setting. And we, if you remember, we talked through those four conditions that are important for organizational goal setting, especially healthy goal setting, where before we set a goal, we understand sort of how capable our system is. We understand how our data is varying within our system. We are looking at our system and seeing if it's stable or unstable. And then, of course, we want to have a method for how we go about improving. And so you kind of have to have an understanding of those four conditions before you set a goal.   0:01:03.6 JD: And I thought sort of as an extension of that, or possibly a new series, we could kind of take a look at an improvement model that would help us sort of better set ambitious goals. Because when we did those four conditions, it kind of leaves you wondering, well, how ambitious should my goals be? Should I still do stretch goals, those types of things? And I think this improvement model that we're building here at United Schools sort of addresses that. And it's something we're building.   0:01:34.4 JD: And so I think the listeners kind of get like a little bit of behind the scenes on what it looks like now. I think we'll see a version of it. And perhaps through this dialogue, through the series, we'll even think about ways to improve it.   0:01:48.4 AS: Can I ask you a question about that?   0:01:49.6 JD: Sure.   0:01:50.0 AS: One of the things, I do a lot of lectures on corporate strategy and workshops, and the lingo gets so confusing, vision, mission, values, and all kinds of different ways that people refer to things. But when I talk to my clients and my students, I oftentimes just tell them a vision is a long-term goal. And it could be a five-year or a 10-year goal. And because it's long-term, it's a little bit more of a vision as opposed to, you can see it very clearly. Like my goal is to get an A in this particular class, this particular semester. Whereas what I try to say is, a vision is: I want to be in the top of that mountain. And I want us all to be at the top of that mountain in five years. And I kind of interchangeably call that a long-term goal and a vision. And I'm just curious what your thoughts are on long-term versus short and medium as we go into this discussion.   0:02:53.8 JD: Yeah. I think as we get into the model, we'll actually see both of those things, sort of a long-term sort of goal, sort of a more intermediate thing, and then how you work back and forth between those two things. So I think that's a good segue.   0:03:08.4 AS: Let's get in it.   0:03:08.4 JD: Yeah. And so just maybe just a few other things about the model before we get right into it. So one thing to know I've come to appreciate is when when I say a model, I just mean something visually representative that helps us understand and communicate how we think things should be functioning in reality. So when I say improvement model, I'm actually like talking about a diagram on a piece of paper that you can put in front of everybody on your team. So everybody has an understanding for how you're approaching goal setting in this case.   0:03:38.1 AS: Would you call it an improvement visualization? Or what's the difference between what you mean by model and like something that I would call, let's say, a visualization?   0:03:49.5 JD: Yeah, I'd say it's a type of visualization when I say model.   0:03:52.8 AS: Okay. Excellent.   0:03:53.8 JD: Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. And I think you'll see it when we get into the model that definitely there's credit due to Mike Rother and his concept of Improvement Kata because this model heavily borrows from the work that he's done, if you're familiar with that four-step Improvement Kata process.   0:04:15.1 AS: Yeah. Very.   0:04:19.7 JD: But anytime, whatever the thing is that you call like key performance metrics, key metrics, whatever you call that thing that we all set in our organizations, there's always this gap between what we want and what we're currently getting. And this model gives us the scientific way of thinking and working to close basically that gap. In this world, the gap between the voice of the process and the voice of the customer, how do we close that gap? So that's sort of what the model is addressing. So I'll share my screen so you can see that and anybody that's watching can see what the model looks like. And I'll just kind of leave that up as I'm talking about it, put it in slideshow.   0:05:08.7 AS: Great. We can see that now.   0:05:14.6 JD: Great. So we can just start by just kind of giving an overview, especially for those people who are listening, but you can kind of picture like a path going up a mountain and that path has twists and turns. It has obstacles. In this particular diagram or model, there's rocks in the way of the path. There's a water hazard, there's trees in the way, there's a roadblock. And as you go, it's kind of strange because you're working your way up. And I'll explain this all as we go through it kind of one step at a time. But as you're working from left to right in the model, this four-step improvement model, you have a team over on the left. This team's working on a goal that you're setting. And then over on the left, you actually have step two, which is grasp the current condition. And then you have this big crack in the path that's called the threshold of knowledge. And I'll talk about what that is.   0:06:11.1 JD: And sort of the next step is actually step four, experiment to overcome obstacles as you're working left to right. You go further up this path, up this mountain. And number three, the step three is establish your next target condition. And then when you get all the way up the mountain and you have this challenge or direction. So that's what you were just talking about. So what's that long-term thing that you're trying to accomplish? We call that a challenge or direction. So the steps that you're taking actually chronologically are you're going to do number one first.   0:06:43.2 JD: You're going to set that challenge or direction, but it actually is the thing that you're working toward. That's the sort of beginning with the end in mind. So that's why it's way up on the mountain, but you're going to do that first. And the next thing you're going to do is go all the way back down to the start of the path and grasp whatever that current condition is in your organization. And then you're going to run experiments on the way to trying to get to the next sort of intermediate step, that next target condition. So four steps, and then you have this team working on it.   0:07:16.8 AS: Which I would say for the traditional American style, as from my perspective, it can be a bit confusing because you're starting with number one at the farthest point away instead of closest to you. Then you're going to come to number two. From a timeline perspective, it feels like you're kind of zigzagging back and forth in your thinking.   0:07:38.8 JD: Yep. You definitely are. And it takes a little bit to wrap your head around it, but we'll kind of work through this piece by piece. So let's start with the team. So you have these people on the left-hand side of this diagram. There's sort of three different groups within that team. And we've talked about this a number of times, but remember that there's this key concept when you're going to take a thinking systems or a systems view of an organization. That you have to have these three different groups of people. You have to have the people that are working on the system, the people that are working in the system, and then from Dr. Deming's perspective, you have to have somebody that has profound knowledge, has that lens. So again, someone from the outside that has profound knowledge. And then in our case, the people working in the system, generally speaking, are the students. And then you have to have the managers that have the authority to work on the system. So in our system, that would be teachers and school leaders. But this model is not specific to educational organizations. You could translate this to any other type of organization.   0:08:50.4 JD: So if we were a hospital, then perhaps the people working in the system, depending on the improvement project, could be nurses. And then the managers that have the authority to work on the system, maybe the hospital management team. And then someone from outside with profound knowledge could be either someone internally that has familiarity with the System of Profound Knowledge or someone that they bring in externally, like a consultant to help out. So the point is, is that, again, this team, whoever's working in the system is going to differ by the organizational sector that you're working in. But it translates in the system basically.   0:09:31.0 AS: It's interesting that I've seen this type of diagram or concept about work on the system, work in the system and a System of Profound Knowledge coach. But it just kind of clicked for me to think about it. It obviously, like when I work with a company, I'm working with the owners and the top management. And when I do that, we're working on the system.   0:09:58.5 JD: Yep.   0:10:00.2 AS: And I have the knowledge of the System of Profound Lnowledge. So I'm coaching them about the system. And then within the system, they have the employees who are executing on what they're trying to improve and do, but it just perfectly explains it. So I love that diagram.   0:10:17.8 JD: Yeah. And I have the same experience. And I think we've mentioned on this podcast before that in my world, we often have school or district-based improvement teams. And it's typically leaders of the organization, sometimes teachers, but almost never is it students working in the system that are a part of, or, providing significant input into the improvement. So, I think if you can combine, in our case, students working in the system, because they have things that they can identify in terms of how they experience the system that are different than the people that work on the system. And then having that third group that, or that person that has that outside profound knowledge, if you put all the three of those things together, I think you have a much better chance to improve. But I think in schools, that's probably never happening. I'm assuming that's the same in other industries as well.   0:11:08.3 AS: And this also explains why when Dr. Deming would see slogans and things like that, encouraging the workers to do better and higher quality, he was like, they don't have the authority to change the system.   0:11:22.5 JD: Right.   0:11:24.1 AS: And what you've said is the group that's working on the system has the authority or the ability to change the system.   0:11:35.4 JD: Yeah. This is one...the makeup of this team that's using this four-step process, that's one innovation that we've done to this model that would be different from the Improvement Kata. So in the Improvement Kata, there's just coach and learner. Usually sometimes there's a coach of the coach, a coach and a learner, depending on how it's represented, but this is in my view, an innovation where you have the work on the system group, the work in the system group, and then the System of Profound Knowledge coach. I haven't seen that in this model.   0:12:07.4 AS: And could that be because when Mike Rother was writing his book, he was particularly referring to Toyota.   0:12:18.7 JD: Could be. Could be.   0:12:19.5 AS: Where the workers have more authority to impact the system. Whereas in the typical American system, the worker doesn't really have the authority to stop the production line or something like that to the extent of the Japanese. So interesting point.   0:12:36.1 JD: Yeah, that's a really good point. My understanding of Mike Rother's work is he sort of derived this improvement model by watching, observing, working with Toyota over a very long period of time. So that very well could be the case. Cool. So we have the team, so let's go to step one, that's the challenge or direction. And I really like that because again, when we did that six part series on Goal Setting is Often an Act of Desperation, one thing that I did think was missing was like, well, still as an organization, we want to move forward. We want to improve. We want to be ambitious in how we're setting our goals, but I don't think that fully came through in the four conditions. And so I think layering this model on top of the four conditions really helps because I think it is important to be ambitious, especially when we're talking about like a mission driven organization, we need to be setting ambitious targets for student learning, coming to school, those types of things.   0:13:39.6 JD: So really what we're doing in step one of the model is we're asking the question, where do we want to be in the long run? So this is a long term goal. This is a longer range goal that would differentiate us from other schools if we achieved it. But currently when we think about this goal, it actually seems nearly impossible because it's so far from where we are currently performing. We don't know how we're going to get there. So an example in my world is, schools have been paying much closer attention to chronic absenteeism, which is when a student misses 10% or more of the school year. And those numbers basically skyrocketed towards the end of the pandemic and then for the last several years. So that's something we're focusing on as an organization. So our chronic absenteeism rate is really high, like 52%, something like that over the last several years. And we want to get that down to 5%. So there's this huge gap.   0:14:53.6 AS: That's a huge move.   0:14:54.5 JD: Huge gap, order of magnitude, right? To go from 52%, that's the voice of the process. That's what's actually happening. And the voice of the customer, what we want is 5%. And we really don't know how to get there. And that's going to be the case at the point where you're at step one, but you're doing that first. You're setting that challenge or direction. And that really is something that needs to be set, in my view, at the leadership level, at the management level. So, that's step one.   0:15:22.9 AS: And you just said something that's interesting is we really don't know how to get there.   0:15:25.6 JD: And we really don't know...   0:15:26.9 AS: I mean, if we knew how to get there, we'd probably be there.   0:15:28.6 JD: Yeah. Yep. Yep. So that's step one. That's why if you're able to view the model and you're watching the podcast and you can see the video, that's why number one happens first, even though it's on the far right hand in the upper right hand corner at the top of the mountain in the model.   0:15:45.8 AS: And is there a reason why it's a relatively vague thing, right? Challenge or direction.   0:15:54.0 JD: Yeah.   0:15:55.5 AS: Why is it vague as opposed to specific target, goal or saying something like that?   0:16:03.7 JD: Yeah. I mean, I think, I like challenge or direction. One, it fits on the page. And it sort of conveys that it's going to be a challenge. And it also, if you're going to work in this way to achieve something like that, that it's actually setting the direction of the organization, the direction that the organization is moving toward. So.   0:16:24.0 AS: In other words, is it acknowledging that we really won't, we really don't know that target. We think we know it, we see that mountain, but as we go closer to it, we want to go in that direction, but as we get closer, it'll become more clear exactly where we're going to be or want to be.   0:16:44.7 JD: Well, I think this would be something that... I think in my view, we're still learning. But when we set that challenge or direction, I guess I could see some circumstances where we would come off that, but I think we kind of want to set it in a way that really pushes us. Right. So I'd be, I mean, I think you could learn some things that would say, okay, maybe that wasn't the exact right number to set, but I'd also be careful about just adjusting it because it's hard.   0:17:13.2 AS: Okay. So you mentioned 5%.   0:17:17.9 JD: Yeah.   0:17:19.1 AS: Would that be, would you state it as achieve 5%?   0:17:25.9 JD: Yeah. 5% or less of our students are chronically absent.   0:17:30.4 AS: Okay. Keep going. I don't want to slow it down. But listeners may get it faster than I do. I'm a little bit slow and I have a lot of questions as we go along.   0:17:37.0 JD: No, no. And I think what we could do in future episodes is dig into each of the steps a little bit more too, and use this as an overview session.   0:17:46.9 AS: Yep.   0:17:48.3 JD: So that was step one. So now what's going to happen in step two, you're going to come all the way back down. Now you're at the very start of the path.   0:17:56.6 AS: Back to reality.   0:18:00.6 JD: Back to reality, step two. And the first thing you have to do, okay, we've set the target, this very challenging direction we want to head into because it's the right thing to do. The next thing we're going to do is grasp the current condition. And so in step two of the model, we're going to ask, where are we now? So we know the long-term goal and now we need to study the current process and how it operates basically. So basically this study represents our current knowledge threshold about the process. And then it's going to contribute to how we define the next target condition we've set that sort of intermediate step on the way to the challenge. And so a lot of that six-part series on goal setting is often an act of desperation, a lot of that learning is right here at what we're doing at step two, because we're creating a process behavior chart in a lot of cases, and understanding how our data is performing over time in this particular area. That's what grasping the current condition means.   0:19:02.6 JD: So part of it, it's a data thing. So in this chronic absenteeism example, what I'm gonna do is I know where I want to be. Now I need to understand where are we historically. And then also as a part of grasping the current condition, I may wanna do some things like interview students and families that are chronically absent, then sort of dig into why that is. Interview teachers about why they think that is. There's a number of things that you could do at this step on the ground where the work happens to grasp the current condition. And I think there can be a sort of quantitative component to that and a qualitative component to that. Also, we sort of understand like how are things actually working on the ground that contribute to us not being where we want to in this particular area.   0:19:56.7 JD: So that's step two. That's what we're gonna do next. After we've set the challenge or direction, we wanna sort of understand the situation on the ground, grasp the current condition. And then next what we're gonna do is step three, which is establish your next target condition. So in step three of the model, we ask where do we want to be next? So we know we can't make this leap, from 52% to, 'cause we wanna decrease it down to 5%. We know we're not, that's too big a step that we're just gonna get there somehow magically. So our target condition, then it's our next goal, usually within a time bound, achieve by date. In Mike Rother's work, he suggests something on a pretty short term scale. Something like one week or one month. So something like chronic absenteeism, I think one month would be sort of where I would set the next target condition. Just having experience with something like attendance rates.   0:21:07.0 JD: And at this point we don't exactly know how we'll achieve the next target condition, but it also, it doesn't feel as impossible as the challenge. So it's a step towards the challenge. So we're gonna do that next. So we set the big challenge that may take us three years to get to. Then we understand the current conditions on the ground and we use that knowledge to set our next target condition. So that's step three. And then the fourth step is we're gonna experiment to overcome obstacles.   0:21:45.9 AS: And before you go to fourth, let me just ask a question about establish your next target condition. One of the things that's missing from that, obviously is, you know, coming from a different perspective, is that when we say, all right, here's where we want to be, and let's go back to reality, and here's where we are. Sometimes, when people work like myself and others, work with people who say, okay, let's map out all the steps to get to that vision. What are the next five things we have to do? Whereas here you're saying, let's focus on the next target condition rather than the next five.   0:22:25.4 JD: Yep. And keep in mind when I say establish the next target condition, what I literally mean is what's our next intermediate goal that we're gonna shoot for? So if we're trying to get all the way down to 5% from 52, remember decrease is good in this case, establish my next target condition, maybe over the next month, I wanna see if I can get that from 52% down to 35% or down to 40%. Part of what I would look at when I set that next target condition is what did the variation look like when I was charting in step two? So the magnitude of that variation will give me some indication of what would be a reasonable sort of next step target for step three basically.   0:23:11.9 AS: And maybe just explain for those people not familiar with Mike Rother's work and, you know, terminology that you're using, why do you say establish your next target condition?   0:23:28.0 JD: I think, I don't know. I think that, you know, really what I mean is just establish the next target, establish the next intermediate goal, basically. Now, I think using the word condition is because when you think about something like chronic absenteeism, there's conditions that probably contribute to that and part of that condition may be the things that you wanna work on. So I kind of think of like, you know, 'cause when you look at step four, you're gonna experiment. So you're creating a new set of realities, a new set of conditions in your organization. And so sort of that coincides with the metric that you're shooting for. So it's not just the metrics, it's also like what are the conditions surrounding that metric. If that makes sense.   0:24:15.8 AS: Yep.   0:24:16.9 JD: Cool. And then step four then is experiment to overcome obstacles. So basically in step four of the model, we move toward the target condition with experiments. And by experiments, what I'm talking about is Plan, Do, Study, Act cycles or PDSA cycles, which uncover obstacles we'll need to work on. So the path, and that's the path in the model is windy 'cause it's this path to the target condition is not gonna be straight line, but it's gonna require this rapid learning to move in that direction basically. And so let's say we've set that next target condition to be one month from now, that's what we're shooting for. And we're gonna run a series of experiments. Maybe it's four one-week PSDA cycles, maybe it's two, two week PSDA cycles. Maybe it's one one month cycle. It depends on sort of the nature of the Plan, Do Study, Act cycle. But running these cycles where we make a plan, including a prediction, run the experiment, and then study what happens and see if it's moving us in the direction of the target condition.   0:25:40.0 JD: And so in that way, we're rapidly learning what it's gonna take to hit that next target condition. And the other important part of this, you'll see in between the grasping of the current condition at step two and running those experiments, there's this huge fault line, this huge crack in the path that you can't just jump over. And it's kinda labeled there, it says Threshold of Knowledge. And basically it's the point at which you have no facts and data to go on. That's the threshold of knowledge. There's always a threshold of knowledge. And so to see further beyond that threshold of knowledge, that's where you conduct your next experiment.   0:26:28.7 AS: Interesting.   0:26:29.8 JD: So because you, like you were saying, we wanna outline these five steps that we're gonna do. So with chronic absenteeism, I read somewhere a Harvard study where if you text parents what a kid's attendance rate is on a regular basis, they're then more likely to come to school on a frequent basis. So you could see where a school system would spend all this money to get a texting system, maybe even allocate a person or a half of a FTE of a person to run this system. And they faithfully implement this texting system, and it has no impact at their school to impact those chronic, because it had nothing to do with what the actual problem was in that context. And you've spent all this money. And that was just a hypothetical.   0:27:21.2 AS: And you could have done a pilot test of 10 parents or 20 and done it manually and sent out some messages and just tested a little bit.   0:27:31.1 JD: Yeah. You run a test with 10 chronically absent kids. Just to see if you can improve their attendance for a week. And maybe you learn something or for a month and maybe you learn something. And then if the early evidence is pointing in the right direction, then you can run that experiment with more kids or for a longer period of time or under slightly different conditions. Those types of things.   0:27:54.6 AS: So an example that I would say in relation to this for one of my clients is that we've identified that they need to get a higher gross profit margin.   0:28:04.7 JD: Okay.   0:28:05.5 JD: And their gross profit margin is about 23%. And I know that the average is about 30 in the industry. And so my work with them is how are we gonna get that profit margin to be 30 or 35%? 35 would be showing that you've really got pricing power because of something that we've done. And so, I'm pounding away that we've gotta improve this, but you know what? We don't have data to understand the current condition. And this week we've... It's taken us about a couple months to pull that data together. But now we have absolutely comprehensive data that my team has calculated on the profitability of every product, the profitability of every customer, and the profitability of every process. We know the capacity utilization of each part of the production process. So now we have the knowledge that we didn't have before that's gonna, that once get, digest this knowledge, it's gonna give us the indication of what to do next. Which is it's gonna be shut down a particular production process or increase price there. We may lose customers, but it's not worth doing it at this low price or so, but without that knowledge, we're just, it's a dream.   0:29:21.4 JD: Yeah. It sounds like you guys have done step one and step two in that process.   0:29:28.0 AS: Yeah. Which is exciting. 'Cause now Friday's meeting is gonna be about, all right, how do we take this huge amount of data and effort that we've put in and now it's time to come up with what are the steps that we're gonna take?   0:29:40.4 JD: Yeah. And I think even just in that situation, even just acknowledging that there's the threshold of knowledge. Even just getting people to acknowledge that in a room that they actually don't know what's gonna happen. That's the power of the PDSA because it makes you predict, okay, you say this thing is gonna work and when you put in this plan in place, this is your prediction. And then when you come back next week and it doesn't work, then you have to explain that, you know, it's not a gotcha, but it very quickly makes you think in a different way.   0:30:13.0 AS: It keeps a record so someone has gone back, well, I didn't think it was gonna work, you know, for sure.   0:30:18.8 JD: Well, right. And it's usually very like, some of the things that I found in that is when people are off on their predictions, it's very mundane things that they didn't account for. We're in student recruitment season and we set a goal for the number of calls we're gonna make to prospective families. And then hypothetically a recruitment director could fall short and it's like, well what happened? It's like, well, oh, the two part-time people that we had, I forgot they are actually out two days last week right? And so it's usually things like that are actually getting in the way of us accomplishing these grand targets that we have set.   0:31:05.5 AS: By the way, where does the threshold of knowledge fit? We've got number one challenge or direction, number two, grasp the current condition. It's after the grasp the current condition that we come to the threshold of knowledge.   0:31:17.7 JD: Yeah. Because, well, we have somewhat of an understanding of the condition on the ground, but we don't know what's gonna improve it until we run the experiments. So we start running the experiments and we try to sort of narrow that knowledge gap basically. And this is sort of the final part is basically like what do you do when you get to that experiment and when you hit that target condition, when you reach that by the achieve-by date, well now there's a new condition and you repeat the four steps because you haven't reached the challenge or the direction. You just met that sort of intermediate goal. And you basically keep running this four step cycle until that learned long-term challenge is achieved.   0:32:12.5 AS: Okay. Great. So we've got the establish your next condition down where it could be one week, it could be one month, in some cases it could be longer, but it's really our next intermediate goal. Where do we wanna go next? What's the next right step?   0:32:28.5 JD: Yeah. Well, so you go back to step two 'cause you're not gonna change the challenge or direction. Now there's a new set of conditions 'cause you've moved ahead, right? And now you're gonna go back and say, okay, what are the current conditions like? And now we're gonna, okay, let's say we move from 52% to 42%. Now we go back and sort of understand the experiments from that last cycle. And we're gonna set that next target condition. So maybe now we wanna get it down to 25%. And we're gonna run another round of experiments in a certain amount of time to see if it hits that next target condition. And basically you're just gonna keep doing this over and over again. That's really the continual improvement model that we're operating under.   0:33:22.7 AS: So how would we wrap this up?   0:33:24.4 JD: So the big thing for me is, you sort of have to have a model to bridge that gap between current conditions and future aspirations. Beause there's always a gap between those two things. And what this model does is it gives us a scientific way of thinking and working to close this gap. It's a more powerful model than I've ever sort of seen anywhere. And then literally you put it on a piece of paper like this and then you have to explain it to people over and over and over. And then you have to actually do it with people. So we're actually doing this, getting people excited about running PDSAs. And the most important thing is that the challenge or direction, especially for leaders that are listening to this, you don't stand on this mountaintop and set it and then say, go do it. That's why this team aspect is so important. We're setting this challenge or direction as a team, and then we're working together on the ground. Putting that work in, running those experiments to try to bring this thing about, is a completely different way of working. It's not an accountability system, it's an improvement system.   0:34:39.4 AS: Yeah. That's a great overview of this system that you guys are applying and it's exciting to learn more. So I wanna thank you on behalf of everyone at The Deming Institute, John. And I thought the discussion was very interesting myself. And for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. You can find John's book win-win W. Edwards Deming, the System of Profound Knowledge and the Science of Improving Schools on amazon.com. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I wanna leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming. "People are entitled to joy in work."

Is reaching A+ quality always the right answer? What happens when you consider factors that are part of the system, and not just the product in isolation? In this episode, Bill Bellows and Andrew Stotz discuss acceptability versus desirability in the quality realm. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.5 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with Bill Bellows, who has spent 31 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. Today's episode, episode three, is Acceptability and Desirability. Bill, take it away.   0:00:28.1 Bill Bellows: Thank you, Andrew, and welcome back to our listeners.   0:00:30.7 AS: Oh, yeah.   0:00:31.4 BB: Hey, do you know how long we've been doing these podcasts?   0:00:36.6 AS: No.   0:00:40.8 BB: We started... Our very first podcast was Valentine's Day 2023. I was gonna say 2013. 2023, so roughly 17 months of podcast, Andrew.   0:00:53.4 AS: That was our first date, huh?   0:00:55.0 BB: Our first date was Valentine's Day 2023.   0:00:58.9 AS: All right. Don't tell your wife.   [laughter]   0:01:03.1 BB: All right. And so along the way, I've shared reflections from my first exposures to Dr. Deming, as well as my first exposures to Genichi Taguchi. Talked about Edward de Bono, Tom Johnson, others, mentors, Bill Cooper, Phil Monroe, Gipsie Ranney was a great mentor. Last week, Andrew, while on vacation in New England with my wife, I visited for a day my 85-year-old graduate school advisor who I worked with for ten years, Bob Mayle, who lives in, I would say, the farthest reaches of Maine, a place called Roque Bluffs. Roque Bluffs. How's that for... That could be North Dakota. Roque Bluffs. He's in what they call Down East Maine. He's recently got a flip phone. He's very proud. He's got like a Motorola 1985 vintage flip phone. Anyway, he's cool, he's cool. He's...   0:02:15.9 AS: I'm just looking at that place on the map, and looks incredible.   0:02:19.0 BB: Oh, yeah. He's uh, until he got the phone, he was off the grid. We correspond by letters. He's no internet, no email. And he has electricity, lives in about an 800 square-foot, one-floor bungalow with his wife. This is the third time we've visited him. Every time we go up, we spend one day getting there, one day driving home from where my in-laws live in New York. And then one day with him, and the day ends with going to the nearby fisherman's place. He buys us fresh lobster and we take care of them. [chuckle]   0:03:01.3 AS: Yeah, my sister lives in Kennebunk, so when I go back to the US, I'm...   0:03:08.8 BB: Yeah, Kennebunk is maybe 4 hours away on that same coast.   0:03:15.3 AS: I'm just looking at the guide and map book for Roque Bluffs' State Park, and it says, "a beautiful setting with oceanfront beach, freshwater pond, and hiking trails."   0:03:25.9 BB: Yeah, he's got 10 acres... No, he's got, I think, 20, 25 acres of property. Sadly, he's slowly going blind. He has macular degeneration. But, boy, for a guy who's slowly going blind, he and I went for a walk around his property for a couple hours, and it's around and around... He's holding branches from hitting me, I'm holding branches from hitting him and there's... Let alone the terrain going up and down, you gotta step up and over around the rocks and the pine needles and all. And it was great. It was great. The week before, we were close to Lake George, which is a 32-mile lake in Upstate New York. And what was neat was we went on a three-hour tour, boat ride. And on that lake, there are 30 some islands of various sizes, many of them owned by the state, a number of them owned privately. Within the first hour, we're going by and he points to the island on the left and he says it was purchased in the late '30s by Irving Langmuir. Yeah, so he says, "Irving Langmuir," and I thought, I know that name from Dr. Deming. That name is referenced in The New Economics.   0:04:49.1 BB: In fact, at the opening of Chapter Five of The New Economics, the title is 'Leadership.' Every chapter begins with a quote, right? Chapter Five quote is, "You cannot plan to make a discovery," so says Irving Langmuir. So what is... The guy's describing this island purchased back in the late '30s by Langmuir for like $5,000. I think it's... I don't know if he still owns it, if it's owned by a nonprofit. It's not developed. It's privately held. I'm trying, I wrote to Langmuir's grandson who did a documentary about him. He was a Nobel Prize-winning physicist from GE's R&D center in Schenectady, New York, which is a couple hours south of there. But I'm certain, and I was looking for it earlier, I know I heard of him, of Irving Langmuir through Dr. Deming. And I believe in his lectures, Deming talked about Langmuir's emphasis on having fun at work, having fun. And so I gotta go back and check on that, but I did some research after the day, and sure enough came across some old videos, black and white videos that Langmuir produced for a local television station, talking about his... There's like show and tell with him in the laboratory. And in there, he talks about joy and work and all that.   0:06:33.5 BB: So I'm thinking, that's pretty cool. So I'm waiting to hear from his grandson. And ideally, I can have a conversation with his grandson, introduce him to Kevin and talk about Deming's work and the connection. Who knows what comes out of that? Who knows? Maybe an interview opportunity with you and Irving Langmuir's grandson. So, anyway.   0:06:52.7 AS: Fantastic.   0:06:54.7 BB: But going back to what I mentioned earlier in my background in association with Deming and whatnot, and Taguchi, and I offer these comments to reinforce that while my interests in quality were initially all things Taguchi, and then largely Deming, and it wasn't long before I stopped, stepped back and an old friend from Rocketdyne 20 some years ago started focusing on thinking about thinking, which he later called InThinking. And it's what others would call awareness of our... Well, we called it... Rudy called it, better awareness of our thinking patterns, otherwise known as paradigms, mental models.  We just like the way of explaining it in terms of becoming more aware of our thinking patterns. And I say that because... And what I'm presenting relative to quality in this series, a whole lot of what I'm focusing on is thinking about thinking relative to quality.   0:07:58.8 BB: And so last time, we talked about the eight dimensions of quality from David Garvin, and one of them was acceptability. And that is this notion in quality, alive and well today, Phil Crosby has created this focus on achieving zero defects. Everything meets the requirements, that gets us into the realm, everything is good. Dr. Deming and his red bead experiments talked about red beads and white beads. The white beads is what we're striving for. All the beads are good. The red beads represent defects, things we don't want. And that's this... Thinking wise, that's a thinking pattern of "things are good or bad." Well, then we can have high quality, low quality and quality. But at Rocketdyne, when I started referring to that as category thinking, putting things into categories, but in the world of quality, there's only two categories, Andrew: good and bad. This either meets requirements or it doesn't. And if it's good, then we're allowed to pass it on to the next person. If we pass it on and it's not good, then they're going to send it back to us and say, "Uh-uh, you didn't meet all the requirements." And what I used to do in class, I would take something, a pen or something, and I would go to someone in the seminar and I'd say, "If I hand this to you and it doesn't meet requirements, what are you going to say?" You're gonna say, "I'm not going to take it. It hasn't met the requirements."   0:09:36.4 BB: And I would say you're right. All the I's are not dotted, all the T's are not crossed, I'm not taking it. Then I would take it back and I'd say, "Okay, now what if I go off and dot all those I's and cross all those T's?" Then I would hand them the pen or whatever the thing was, and I'd say, "If all those things have been met," now we're talking acceptability. "Now, what do you say?" I said, "Can you reject it?" "No." I say, "So what do you say now that all those things... If you're aware that all those requirements have been met, in the world of quality, it is as good, now what do you say?" And they look at me and they're like, "What do I say?" I say, "Now you say, thank you." But what I also do is one more time... And I would play this out to people, I'd say, "Okay, Andrew, one more time. I hand you the pen, Andrew, all the requirements are met. And what do you say?" And you say, "Thank you." And I say, "What else just happened when you took it?"   0:10:45.4 AS: You accepted it.   0:10:47.3 BB: Yes. And I say, "And what does that mean?" "I don't know. What does that mean?" I said, "It means if you call me the next day and say, I've got a problem with this, you know what I'm going to say, Andrew?"   0:10:58.5 AS: "You accepted it."   0:11:01.5 BB: Right. And so, what acceptability means is don't call me later and complain. [laughter] So, I get a photo of you accepting it, you're smiling. So if you call me back the next day and say, "I've got a problem with this," I'd say, "No, no, no." So acceptability as a mental model is this idea that once you accept it, there's no coming back. If you reveal to me issues with it later, I deny all that. I'd say, I don't know what your problem with Andrew... It must be a problem on your end, because what I delivered to you is good. And if it is good, then there can't be any problems associated with it. So, if there are problems, have to be on your end, because defect-free, everything good, implies, ain't no problems, ain't no issues with it. I'm thinking of that Disney song, trouble-free mentality, Hakuna Matata.   [chuckle]   0:12:04.5 BB: But now I go back to the title, Acceptability and Desirability. One of Dr. Deming's Ph.D. students, Kauro [actually, Kosaku] Yoshida, he used to teach at Cal State Dominguez Hills back in the '80s, and I think sometime in the '90s, he went to Japan. I don't know if he was born and raised in Japan, but he was one of Dr. Deming's Ph.D. students, I believe, at NYU. Anyway, I know he's a Ph.D. student of Dr. Deming, he would do guest lectures in Dr. Deming's four-day seminars in and around Los Angeles. And, Yoshida is known for this saying that Americans are all about acceptability meets requirements, and the Japanese are about desirability. And what is that? Well, it's more than meeting requirements. And, I wanna get into more detail on that in future episodes. But for now, we could say acceptability is meeting requirements. In a binary world, it can be really hard to think of, if everything's met requirements, how do I do better than that? How do I continue to improve if everything meets requirements?  Well, one clue, and I'll give a clue, is what I shared with the senior most ranking NASA executive responsible for quality.   0:13:46.4 BB: And this goes back to 2002 timeframe. And we had done some amazing things with desirability at Rocketdyne, which. is more than meeting requirements. And the Vice President of Quality at Rocketdyne knew this guy at NASA headquarters, and he says, "You should go show him what we're doing." So I called him up a week in advance of going out there. I had made the date, but I figured if I'm going to go all the way out there, a week in advance, I called him up just to make sure he knew I was coming. And he said something like, "What are we going to talk about?" He said something like, "We're going to talk about that Lean or Six Sigma stuff?" And I said, "No, more than that." And I think I described it as, we're going to challenge the model of interchangeable parts. And he's like, "Okay, so what does that mean?" So the explanation I gave him is I said, "What letter grade is required for everything that NASA purchases from any contractor? What letter grade is ostensibly in the contract? What letter grade? A, B, C, D. What letter grade is in the contract?" And he says, "Well, A+."   [laughter]   0:15:01.2 BB: And I said, "A+ is not the requirement." And he's like, "Well, what do you mean?" I said, "It's a pass-fail system." That's what acceptability is, Andrew. Acceptability is something is either good or bad, and if it's bad, you won't accept it. But if it's good, if I dot all the I's and cross all the T's, you will take it. It has met all the requirements. And that gets into what I talked about in the first podcast series of what I used to call the first question of quality management. Does this quality characteristic, does the thrust of this engine, does the roughness of this surface, does the diameter of this hole, does the pH of this bath meet requirements? And there's only two answers to that question, yes or no. And if yes is acceptable, and if no, that's unacceptable. And so I pointed out to him, much to his chagrin, is that the letter grade requirement is not A+, it's D- or better. [chuckle] And so as a preview of we'll get into in a future podcast, acceptability could be, acceptability is passing. And this guy was really shocked. I said, "Procurement at NASA is a pass-fail system."   0:16:21.9 BB: Every element of anything which is in that system purchased by NASA, everything in there today meets a set of requirements, is subject to a set of requirements which are met on a pass-fail basis. They're either, yes, it either meets requirements, acceptable, or not. That's NASA's, the quality system used by every NASA contractor I'm aware of. Boeing's advanced quality system is good parts and bad parts. Balls and strikes. And so again, for our viewers, acceptability is a pass-fail system. And what Yoshida... You can be thinking about what Yoshida's talked about, is Japanese companies. And again, I think it's foolish to think of all Japanese companies, but back in the '80s, that's really the way it came across, is all Japanese companies really have this figured out, and all American companies don't. I think that's naive. But nonetheless, what he's talking about is shifting from a pass-fail system, that's acceptability, to, let's say, letter grades of A's or B's. That would be more like desirability, is that it's not just passing, but an A grade or a B grade or a C grade. So that's, in round terms, a preview of Yoshida... A sense of, for this episode, of what I mean by acceptability and desirability.   0:17:54.7 BB: In the first podcast which was posted the other day, I made reference to, instead of achieving acceptability, now I can use that term, instead of achieving zero defects as the goal, in the world of acceptability, once we continuously improve and achieve acceptability, now everything is passing, not failing. This is in a world of what I refer to as category thinking, putting things in categories. In the world of black and white, black is one category, white is a category. You got two categories, good and bad. If everything meets requirements, how do you continuously improve if everything is good? Well, part of the challenge is realize that everything is good has variation in terms... Now we could talk about the not all letter grade A, and so we could focus on the things that are not A's and ask the question, is an A worthwhile or not? But what I was saying in the first podcast is my admiration for Dr. Deming's work uniquely... And Dr. Deming was inspired towards this end by Dr. Taguchi, and he gave great credit to that in Chapter Ten of The New Economics. And what I don't see in Lean nor Six Sigma, nor Lean/Six Sigma, nor Operational Excellence, what I don't see anywhere outside of Dr. Deming's work or Dr. Taguchi's work is anything in quality which is more than acceptability.   0:19:32.0 BB: It's all black and white. Again, Boeing's Advanced Quality System is good parts and bad parts. Now, again, I'm not suggesting that there's anything wrong with that. And I would also suggest in a Deming-based organization there may be characteristics for which all we need is that they're good. We don't need to know how good they are, we don't need to know the letter grade. And why is that? Because maybe it's not worth the trouble to discern more than that. And this is where I use the analogy of balls and strikes or kicking the ball into the net.  If you've got an open net... That's Euro Cup soccer. There's no reason to be precisely placing the ball. All you want to do is get it into the net. And that's an area of zero defects, maybe all that is worthwhile, but there could be other situations where I want the ball in a very particular location in the strike zone. That's more of this desirability sense. So I want to clarify for those who listened to the first podcast, is what I'm inferring is I'm not aware of any quality management system, any management system in which, inspired by Dr. Deming and Taguchi, we have the ability to ask the question, is acceptability all that is required?   0:20:55.7 BB: And it could be for a lot of what we do, acceptability is not a bad place to be. But I'm proposing that as a choice, that we've thought about it and said, "You know what? In this situation, it's not worth, economically, the extra effort. And so let's put the extra effort into the things where it really matters." And if it doesn't... So use desirability where it makes sense, use acceptability elsewhere. Right now, what I see going on in organizations unaware of Dr. Deming's work, again, Dr. Taguchi's work, is that they're really blindly focusing on acceptability. And I think what we're going to get into is, I think there's confusion in desirability. But again, I want to keep that for a later episode. Now, people will say, "Well, Bill, the Six Sigma people are about desirability." No, the Six Sigma people have found a new way to define acceptability. And I'll give you one other fun story. When I taught at Northwestern's Kellogg Business School back in the late '90s, and I would start these seminars off by saying, "We're going to look at quality management practices, past, present, future." And so one year, I said, "So what quality management practices are you aware of?" And again, these are students that have worked in industry for five or six years.   0:22:17.6 BB: They've worked at GM, they worked at General Electric, they worked for Coca Cola, banking. These are sharp, sharp people. But you got into the program having worked somewhere in the world, in industry, so they came in with experience. And so they would say, zero defect quality is a quality management practice. And I'd say, "Okay, so where'd that come from?" And again, this is the late '90s. They were aware of the term, zero defects. They didn't know it was Philip Crosby, who I learned yesterday was... His undergraduate degree is from a school of podiatry. I don't know if he was a podiatrist, but he had an undergraduate... A degree in podiatry, somebody pointed out to me. Okay, fine. But Philip Crosby, his big thing was pushing for zero defects. And you can go to the American Society for Quality website to learn more about him. Philip Crosby is the acceptability paradigm. So, students would bring him up and I'd say, "Okay, so what about present? What about present?" And somebody said, "Six Sigma Quality." So I said, "So what do you know about Six Sigma Quality?" And somebody said," Cpk's of 2.00." And I said, "So what's... " again, in a future episode, we could talk about Cpk's."   0:23:48.5 AS: But I said to the guy, "Well, what's the defect rate for Six Sigma... For Cpk's or Six Sigma Quality or Cpk's of 2?" And very matter of factly, he says, "3.4 defects per million." So I said, "How does that compare to Phil Crosby's quality goal from 1962? Here we are, 1997, and he's talking about Motorola and Six Sigma Quality, a defect goal of 3.4 defects per million. And I said, "How does that compare to Phil Crosby's quality goal of zero defects in 1962?" And the guy says... [chuckle] So cool, he says, "Well, maybe zero is not worth achieving." 'Cause again, zero was the goal in 1962. Six Sigma sets the goal for 3.4 per million. Not zero, 3.4, to which this guy says... And I thought it was so cool, he says, "Well, maybe zero is not worth achieving." So, there. Well, my response was, "Well, what makes 3.4 the magic number for every process in every company around the world? So, what about that?" To which the response was crickets. But what I want to point out is we're still talking about zero... I mean 3.4 is like striving towards zero and admitting some. It is another way of looking at acceptability. It is... And again, and people claim it's really about desirability. I think, well, there's some confusion in desirability and my hope in this episode is to clear up some of that misunderstanding in acceptability as well as in desirability. And they... Let me just throw that out.   0:25:58.1 AS: Yeah, there's two things that I want to say, and the first one is what he should have replied is, for those older people listening or viewing that can remember the movie, Mr. Mom with Michael Keaton, I think it was. And he should have replied, "220, 221, whatever it takes." And he should have said, "Well, yeah, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6. It's could be around there."   0:26:27.5 BB: Well, the other thing is, why we're on that is... And I think this is... I'm really glad you brought that up, is, what I would push back on the Lean and the Six Sigma, those striving for zero defects or Cpk's of 2 or whatever they are is, how much money are we going to spend to achieve a Cpk of 2, a zero defects? And again, what I said and... Well, actually, when I posted on LinkedIn yesterday, "I'm okay with a quality goal of 3.4 defects per million." What I'm proposing is, instead of blindly saying zero defects is the goal and stop, or I want Cpk's of 1.33 or whatever they are everywhere in the organization, in terms of the economics of variation or the new economics, is how much money are we going to spend to achieve zero or 3.4 or whatever it is? And, is it worth the return on the investment? And this is where Dr. Taguchi's loss function comes in.   0:27:49.2 BB: And so what I'm proposing, inspired by Genichi Taguchi and W. Edwards Deming is, let's be thinking more about what is... Let's not blindly stop at zero, but if we choose to stop at zero, it's an economic choice that it's not worth the money at this time in comparison to other things we could be working on to improve this quality characteristic and that we've chosen to be here... Because what I don't want people to think is what Dr. Deming and Taguchi are talking about is we can spend any amount of money to achieve any quality goal without thinking of the consequences, nor thinking about, how does this goal on this thing in isolation, not make things bad elsewhere. So we have to be thinking about a quality goal, whether it's worth achieving and will that achievement be in concert with other goals and what we're doing there? That's what I'd like people thinking about as a result of this podcast tonight.   0:28:56.0 AS: And I think I have a good way of wrapping this up, and that is going back to Dr. Deming's first of his 14 Points, which is, create constancy of purpose towards improvement of product and service with the aim to become competitive, to stay in business, and to provide jobs. And I think that what that... I link that to what you're saying with the idea that we're trying to improve our products and services constantly. We're not trying to improve one process. And also, to become competitive in the market means we're improving the right things because we will become more competitive if we are hitting what the client wants and appreciates. And so... Yeah.   0:29:46.3 BB: But with regard to... Absolutely with regard to our customers, absolutely with regard to how it affects different aspects of our company, that we don't get head over heels in one aspect of our company and lose elsewhere, that we don't deliver A+ products to the customer in a losing way, meaning that the A+ is great for you, but financially, we can't afford currently... Now, again, there may be a moment where it's worthwhile to achieve the A... We know we can achieve the A+, but we may not know how to do it financially. We may have the technology to achieve that number. Now, we have to figure out, is, how can we do it in an economically advantaged way, not just for you, the customer, but for us. Otherwise, we're losing money by delivering desirability. So it's gotta work for us, for you, but it's also understanding how that improvement... That improvement of that product within your overall system might not be worthwhile to your customer, in which case we're providing a... The classic...   0:31:18.8 AS: You're not becoming competitive then.   0:31:21.8 BB: The better buggy whip. But that gets into looking at things as a system. And this is... What's invaluable is, all of this is covered with a grasp of the System of Profound Knowledge. The challenge is not to look at goals in isolation. And even I've seen people at Lean conferences quote Dr. Deming and his constancy of purpose and I thought, well, you can have a... A non-Deming company has a constancy of purpose. [chuckle]  The only question is, what is the purpose? [laughter] And that's when I thought, a constancy of purpose on a focus on acceptability is good provided all of your competitors are likewise focusing on acceptability. So I just be... I just am fascinated to find people taking Deming's 14 Points one at a time, out of context, and just saying, "Well, Dr. Deming said this." Well, there we go again. [laughter]   0:32:29.9 AS: Bill, on behalf of everyone at The Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this discussion. For listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. If you want to keep in touch with Bill, just find him on LinkedIn. This is your host, Andrew Stotz. And I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming, "People are entitled to joy in work."

In this episode, Bill Bellows and Andrew Stotz discuss David Garvin's 8 Dimensions of Quality and how they apply in the Deming world. Bill references this article by Garvin: https://hbr.org/1987/11/competing-on-the-eight-dimensions-of-quality TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.4 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with Bill Bellows, who has spent 31 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. This is the Misunderstanding Quality series, episode two, The Eight Dimensions of Quality. Bill, take it away.   0:00:30.4 Bill Bellows: Welcome back, Andrew. Great to see you again. All right, episode two, we're moving right along. So in episode one, which the title I proposed, waiting to see what comes out, the title I proposed was, Quality, Back to the Start. And that was inspired by some lyrics from Coldplay. Anyway, but this is a, it's going back to my start in quality and last time I mentioned discovering Taguchi's work long before I discovered Dr. Deming. In fact, Gipsie Ranney, who is the first president of the Deming Institute, the nonprofit formed by Dr. Deming and his family just before he passed away, and Gipsie became the first president and was on the board when I was on the board for many years. And I spoke with her nearly every day, either driving to work or driving home. And once, she calls me up and she says, "Bill," that was her Tennessee accent, "Bill."   0:01:50.5 BB: She says, "It says on The Deming Institute webpage that you infused Dr. Taguchi's work into Dr. Deming's work," something like that, that I... Something like I infused or introduced or I brought Taguchi's work into Deming's work, and I said, "Yes." I said, "Yeah, that sounds familiar." She says, "Isn't it the other way around?" That I brought Deming's work into Taguchi's work. And I said, "No, Gipsie," I said, "It depends on your starting point. And my starting point was Dr. Taguchi." But I thought it was so cool. She says, "Bill don't you have it? Don't you... " She is like, "Isn't it the other way around?" I said, "No, to me, it was all things Taguchi, then I discovered Dr. Deming." But I was thinking earlier before the podcast, and I walked around putting together how, what I wanna talk about tonight. And I thought, when I discovered Taguchi's work, I looked at everything in terms of an application of Dr. Taguchi's ideas.   0:03:29.7 AS: And one question about Taguchi for those people that don't know him and understand a little bit about him, was he... If I think about where Dr. Deming got at the end of his life, it was about a whole system, the System of Profound Knowledge and a comprehensive way of looking at things. Was Taguchi similar in that way or was he focused in on a couple different areas where he really made his contribution?   0:04:03.9 BB: Narrower than Dr. Deming's work. I mean, if we look at... And thank you for that... If we look at Dr. Deming's work in terms of the System of Profound Knowledge, the elements of systems psychology, variation, theory of knowledge, Taguchi's work is a lot about variation and a lot about systems. And not systems in the sense of Russ Ackoff systems thinking, but variation in the sense of where's the variation coming from looking upstream, what are the causes of that variation that create variation in that product, in that service?   0:04:50.9 BB: And then coupled with that is that, how is that variation impacting elsewhere in the system? So here I am receiving sources of variation. So what I deliver it to you has variation because of what's upstream of me and Taguchi's looking at that coupled with how is that variation impacting you? So those are the systems side, the variation side. Now, is there anything in Deming, in Taguchi's work about psychology and what happens when you're labelling workers and performance appraisals and, no, not at all.   0:05:37.6 AS: Okay, got it.   0:05:38.4 BB: Is there anything in there about theory of knowledge, how do we know that what we know is so? No, but there's a depth of work in variation which compliments very much so what Dr. Deming was doing. So anyway, so no. And so I discovered Taguchi's work, and I mentioned that in the first episode. I discovered his work, became fascinated with it, started looking at his ideas in terms of managing variation to achieve incredible... I mean, improved uniformity to the extent that it's worthwhile to achieve. So we were not striving for the ultimate uniformity, it's just the idea that we can manage the uniformity. And if we... And we'll look at this in more detail later, but for our audience now, if you think of a distribution of the variation in the performance of a product or a service, and you think in terms of... It doesn't have to be a bell-shaped distribution, but you have a distribution and it has an average and it has variation.   0:06:50.4 BB: What Dr. Taguchi's work is about in terms of a very brief, succinct point here in episode two is how might we change the shape of that distribution? How might we make it narrower, if that's a worthwhile adventure? It may be worthwhile to make it wider, not just narrower, but in both cases, we're changing the shape of the distribution and changing the location. So Taguchi's work, Taguchi's Methods, driven by variation comes to me, variation impacts you is how do I change the shape and location of that distribution? So on a regular basis, as I became more fascinated with that, I started thinking about, well, how might I apply Taguchi's ideas to these things that I encountered every day? Well, prior to that before discovering Taguchi's work, when I was a facilitator in problem solving and decision making training, I did the same thing, Andrew.   0:07:52.4 BB: I started looking at, oh, is this a problem? Is this a decision? Is this a situation that needs to be appraised? And so prior to that, what I was thinking about is when I was just a heat transfer analyst working on my Ph.D., I didn't look at how the heat transfer stuff affected all these other aspects of my lives. I didn't think about it when I went into a supermarket, but there was something about the problem solving and decision making that just infatuated me. And I would look at, oh, is Andrew talking about a decision or is Andrew talking about a problem? So I started hearing things. And so when I went into Taguchi's work, it was the same thing. And then shifting into Deming's work, it's the same thing. And I've... There's nothing else that I've studied that I look at things through those lenses. Anyway, so in studying, getting exposed to Taguchi, I mentioned that I had some time away from work, I went out on medical for some reasons and went and bought a book, a bunch of books.   0:09:02.4 BB: And one of the books I bought by David Garvin had come out in 1987, is entitled "The Eight Dimensions of Quality." There's a Harvard Business Review article that I wanna reference in this episode, and I'll put a link to the article. It's a free link. And so when you hear people talk about a quality product or a quality service or quality healthcare. We think in terms of it's quality as things, it's either good quality or bad quality or high quality, or somebody calls it low quality, or we just say it's a quality product. But what does that mean? So what I find is very loosely, we think in terms of categories of quality, good, bad, high, low. What we'll look at in a future episode is what would happen if we thought about quality on a continuum, which I believe Taguchi's work really demonstrates vividly as well as Dr. Deming's work.   0:10:07.4 BB: But even to back up before we talk about the eight dimensions of quality, I wanted to give some background on the word quality. The word quality, and this comes from an article and I'll put a link to this article, I wrote it for the Lean Management Journal a number of years ago, the word quality has Latin roots, beginning as qualitas, T-A-S, coined by the Roman philosopher and statesman, Marcus Tullius Cicero. He later became an adversary of this bad guy named Mark Antony. You've heard of him. Feared by Antony, this guy was feared by Antony because his power of speech led, you know what it led to, Andrew, his power of speech?   0:10:54.5 AS: What?   0:10:54.6 BB: His beheading.   0:10:55.8 AS: Oh my goodness.   0:10:56.5 BB: So for those of you with great powers of speech, watch out for your Mark Antony. But meanwhile, he introduced fellow Romans to the vocabulary of qualitas, quantitas, quantity, humanitas, humanities, essentia, which is, essence, he also is credited with an extensive list of expressions that translate into English today. Difference, infinity, science, morale. Cicero spoke of qualitas with his peers when focusing on the essential nature, character or property of an object. And this is kind of interesting. I mean, you can count how many apples do we have. And again, he came up with the term quantitas for quantity, but he is also talking about the essence of the apples. That's the quality word. And then 2000 years later when writing "The New Economics", Dr. Deming provided his definition and a little bit different.   0:12:05.3 BB: He says, "The problem anywhere is quality. What is quality?" Says the good doctor, "A product or service possesses quality if it helps somebody, it enjoys a good and sustainable market." And I said in the article, "As with Cicero, Deming saw quality as a property." And then some other background on quality before I talk about Garvin, "long after Cicero and well before Deming, quality as a property was a responsibility of guilds." Guilds. I mean, now we have writers guilds, we have actors guilds, and it's kind of cool that these guilds still exist and they are associations of artisans who control the practice of their craft, each with a revered trademark. So here in Los Angeles, we have writers guilds, actors guilds. They were organized as professional societies, just like unions.   0:13:00.2 BB: And these fraternities were developed, and within these fraternities they created standards for high quality. All right. So what is this quality management stuff from David Garvin? So this article was written 37 years ago and reviewing it for tonight's episode and I thought it fit in really, really well. I was reminded of... First time I read this article, 1989, I knew a lot about... Well, I knew, I was excited about Taguchi as I knew a lot about Taguchi, didn't know a lot about Dr. Deming. So I'm now reviewing it years later with a much deeper, broader Deming perspective than at that time. But I do believe, and I would encourage the listeners to get ahold of the article, look at it, if you wanna go into more depth, there's Garvin's book. And doing some research for tonight, I found out that he passed away in 2017, seven or so years ago.   0:14:04.6 BB: He was, I guess from, most of his career and education he was at the Harvard Business School, very well respected there. And so in the article it talks about, again, this, 1987, that's the era of Total Quality Management. That's the era in which Dr. Deming was attracting 2000 people to go to his seminars. 1987 is two years before Six Sigma Quality, two years before “The Machine That Changed The World.” And in the article, he says, "Part of the problem, of course, is that Japanese and European competition have intensified. Not many companies tried to make quality programs work even as they implemented them." This is back when quality was an era of quality circles. He says, "In my view, most of the principles about quality were narrow in scope. They were designed as purely defensive measures to preempt failures or eliminate defects, eliminate red beads."   0:15:10.3 BB: "What managers need now is an aggressive strategy to gain and hold markets with high quality," there we go again, "as a competitive linchpin." All right. So in the article, he has some interesting explanations of... Highlights. In the book is more depth. He talks about Joseph Juran, "Juran's Quality Handbook". Juran observed that quality could be understood in terms of avoidable and unavoidable costs. Dr. Deming talked about the economics. The New Economics, right? But Juran is looking at avoidable, unavailable costs resulting from defects in product failures. That's very traditional quality today.  The latter associated with prevention, inspection, sampling, sorting, quality control. And so this is what I found fascinating, is 37 years later, this is still the heavy sense of what quality is all about. Avoiding failure, avoiding defects.   0:16:18.3 BB: Then he talks about Total Quality Control coming from Armand Feigenbaum, who was a big name in the '80s. Again Dr. Deming's work kind of created this big quality movement but it wasn't just Dr. Deming people discovered, they discovered Philip Crosby in a Zero Defects advocacy, Feigenbaum, Juran, sometime later. Again, mid '80s, Dr. Taguchi's name started to be heard. All right. And then the reliability. All right. Now I wanna get into the... Oh, here's, this is good. "In 1961, the Martin Corporation, Martin Company was building Pershing missiles for the US Army. The design of the missile was sound, but Martin found that it could maintain high quality only through massive inspection programs."   0:17:13.0 BB: You know what Dr. Deming would say about inspection? It's after the fact. Sorting the good ones from the bad ones after the fact. No prevention there. But Martin found that it could only do it with inspection. And decided to offer... Again, this is 1961, and this is still the solution today, decided to offer workers incentives to lower the defect rate. And in December, 1961, delivered a Pershing missile to Cape Canaveral with zero discrepancies. Buoyed by this success, Martin's general manager in Florida accepted a challenge issued by the Army's missile command to deliver the first Pershing missile one month ahead of schedule. He went even further, he promised that the missile would be perfect. Perfect. You know what that means, Andrew?   0:18:12.3 AS: Tell us.   0:18:12.8 BB: All good, not bad.   0:18:14.9 AS: All good, not bad.   0:18:15.9 BB: He promised missile would be perfect with no hardware problems or document errors, and that all equipment would be fully operational 10 days after delivering. And so what was neat in going back to this is we still have this mindset that quality is about things being good, not bad. What is bad we call that scrap, we call that rework. That's alive and well today.   0:18:45.0 AS: The proclamations are interesting when you listen to what he's saying, when you're quoting that.   0:18:52.4 BB: Yeah, no, and I remember, 'cause again, I read this recently for the first time in 37 years and I'm going through it. And at the time I was thinking, "Wow, wow, wow, this is a really big deal. This is a really big deal." Now I look at it and say, "This is what we're still talking about today, 37 years later." The absence of defects is the essence of quality. All right. But so I would highly recommend the article. Now we get into what he proposes as eight critical dimensions of quality that can serve as a framework for strategic analysis. And I think even in a Deming environment, I think it's... I think what's really cool about this is it provides a broad view of quality that I think Deming's work fits in very well to, Dr. Taguchi's work fits in very well to, and I think covers a lot of what people call quality. So the first dimension he talks about is performance.   0:20:01.4 BB: And he says, "Of course, performance refers to a product's primary operating characteristics." He says, "For an automobile, performance would include traits like acceleration, handling, cruising speed. For a television, sound and picture clarity." He says "A power shovel in the excavation business that excavates 100 cubic yards per hour will outperform one that excavates 10 cubic yards per hour." So the capacity, that could be miles per gallon, carrying capacity, the resolution of the pixels, that's what he calls performance. Okay. Features is the second dimension of quality. Examples include free drinks on an airplane, but not if you're flying a number of airlines they charge you for those drinks, permanent press cycles on a washing machine, automatic tuners on a color television set. A number of people in our audience won't know what those are, bells and whistles. Features are bells and whistles.   0:21:17.2 BB: There was a time people would say the number of cup holders in your automobile, a feature could be intermittent wipers. So these are features. So again, I mean, so performance is kind of cool. What is the capacity, is it 100 horsepower, 200 horsepower, that's performance. Features, bells and whistles. Okay. Fine. Reliability, now we're talking. The dimension represents the probability of a product malfunctioning or failing within a specified period of time. So your car breaking down, are you gonna drive to work every day and one morning you're gonna go out and it's... That's a reliability issue. Okay. That's... When I think about reliability, that's a Taguchi thing, that's a Deming thing.  And looking at time between failures, okay, fine. Reliability comes down to... And if importance for the impact of downtime, if you're looking at engines not working and you're sitting at the gate, that's a reliability issue. The reliability is, it can be repaired, but it's gonna take some time, perhaps. Conformance. All right.   0:22:40.4 AS: Is number four, right?   0:22:42.2 BB: This is number four, a related dimension of quality is conformance or the degree to which a product's design and operating characteristics meet established standards. "This dimension owes to the importance of traditional approaches," it says, "to quality pioneers such as Juran." All products and services involve specifications of some sort. When new designs or models are developed, dimensions are set for parts or purity, these specifications are normally expressed as a target or a center. Now it's starting to sound a little bit like Dr. Taguchi's work, an ideal value, deviance from the center within a specified range. But this approach equates good quality with operating inside the tolerance band. There is little interest in whether the specifications have been met exactly. For the most part, dispersion within specifications is ignored. Ignored. That's balls and strikes, Andrew, balls and strikes.   0:23:51.2 BB: As long as the ball is somewhere in the strike zone, as long as the characteristic is somewhere within requirements, conformance, this gets into what I talk about in terms of the question number one of quality management. Has the requirement been met, the requirement for the performance, the dimension, is it within requirements? And there's only two answers, yes or no. That's conformance. I used to think that the American Society for Quality might be better known as the American Society for the Preservation of Conformance. I find there's a lot of conformance thinking. I'm reminded of, I'm a member of the American Society for Quality as I'm on the Deming Medal Committee, so I have to be a member of ASQ. So I get a daily or every other day newsletter with comments and conformance is a big part of the conversation. Good parts and bad parts, scrap and rework. All right.   0:25:02.3 BB: Conformance is number four. And it's not to say there isn't a place for the conformance, but conformance is then again different from what Dr. Taguchi is talking about. All right. Durability, the measure of a product life. Durability has both economic and technical dimensions. Durability is how long does it work before I throw it away? So reliability is about, I can repair it. Okay. And that's an inconvenience. Durability is like light bulbs. It runs and runs or a refrigerator and someone says, "Well, it's time for a new one." That's a durability issue. Okay. Durability is the amount of use you get before you haul it off to the junkyard. That's durability. Okay. Serviceability. And back in the '60s, now I'm dating myself, there would be commercials for... I don't know which television brand, but what they talked about is, and these would be commercials. Commercials on television as to "our TV is easy to repair." And I thought, is that a good thing?   [laughter]   0:26:22.4 AS: Is that a foreboding?   0:26:24.4 BB: Yeah. And so... But again, the last couple of days I had to fix the sprinkler system in the backyard. And here in California we have, everybody has a sprinkler system. In the East Coast, people have above ground sprinkler systems. Here, they're all below ground. You don't have to worry about the lines freezing, at least in Los Angeles. And so anyway, one of the valves broke and I thought I was gonna buy a new one and take some of the parts from the new one to put it into the old one. And that didn't quite work. And so meaning to say, serviceability on the design was awful. I couldn't service it.   0:27:11.5 BB: I had to replace the whole damn thing, which was a lot more work than I was expecting. Anyway, however they designed it, serviceability didn't seem to be a consideration in the... That's dimension number six. Again, not to say there's anything wrong with thinking about serviceability. In terms of... Yeah. Okay, I'll leave it with that. Okay, serviceability. Number seven, aesthetics. The final two dimensions of quality are the most subjective, aesthetics, how a product looks, feels, sounds, taste, or smells is clearly a matter of personal judgment. Nevertheless, there seem to be patterns, a rich and full flavor aroma.   0:28:01.0 BB: That's got nothing to do with Dr. Taguchi's work. I mean, you can go off and do market research, find out what is the most appealing flavor, the most appealing taste, the most appealing aroma. And this is what I used to tell students is, and once you understand that or that vivid color that attracts the customer, then you could use Dr. Taguchi's work for, how can I reliably, predictably recreate, week after week, day by day, car by car, that aroma, that flavor, but Taguchi's work is not gonna tell you what it is. And then the last dimension of quality, you ready, Andrew?   0:28:45.8 AS: Give it to me, Bill.   0:28:47.7 BB: Perceived quality. "Consumers do not always have complete information on a product's attributes and direct measure is maybe their only basis. A product's durability can seldom be observed." And so we talk about perceptions of quality. Again, this is 1987, he says, "For this reason, Honda, which makes cars in Marysville, Ohio, and Sony, which builds color TVs have been reluctant to publicize that their products..." Ready? "Are made in America." Because the perception in 1987 is we want them to be made in Japan. And then we could talk about the perception of Cadillac quality, the perception of Jaguar quality.   0:29:35.7 BB: My father's gas station back in the early '70s, it was a block away from the nearby hospital. So a lot of our customers were doctors and they came in in their Cadillacs and Mercedes. And it was just a lot of fun. It was pretty cool. And one doctor against all of his peers' recommendations bought a Jaguar XJ12, V12, 12 cylinders, and they told him again and again, they said, "It'll spend more time in the shop than you driving it." No, no, no, he had to have one, he had to have one. And sure enough, it spent most of the time in the shop, but I got to drive it now and then, which was pretty cool. But that's perceived quality.   0:30:27.5 BB: So I just wanted to, in this episode, throughout those eight dimensions of quality. Again, I encourage our listeners, viewers, I think to get a broader sense of quality before you just look at quality from Dr. Deming's perspective, quality from anyone else's. I think that Garvin has done a really good job covering eight bases, if I can use that term, of quality. And then what I think is neat is to look at which of these tie into Deming's work, which of these tie into Dr. Taguchi's work? And that's what I wanted to cover in this episode.   0:31:01.8 AS: Fantastic. Well, let's just review that for the listeners and the viewers out there, eight dimensions. The first one is performance, the second one is features, the third one is reliability, the fourth one is conformance, the fifth one is durability, the sixth one is serviceability, the seventh one is aesthetics, how it feels and all that, and then the eighth one is perceived quality. Woah, that was...   0:31:29.4 BB: All about... Yeah. And it is reputation. You either have a great reputation or not.   0:31:38.3 AS: All right. Well, Bill, on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this discussion. For listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. And if you wanna keep in touch with Bill, just find him on LinkedIn. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming, "People are entitled to joy in work."

Where did your "quality journey" start? In this first episode of a new series on quality, Bill Bellows shares his "origin story," the evolution of his thinking, and why the Deming philosophy is unique. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.3 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we continue our journey in the teachings of Dr. W Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with Bill Bellows, who has spent 31 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. This is a new series called Misunderstanding Quality, and the topic for today is Quality Management, what century are we in? Bill, take it away.   0:00:35.7 Bill Bellows: Thank you, Andrew. [chuckle] All right.   0:00:39.5 AS: Exciting. I'm excited to hear what you've got going on in your mind about this Misunderstanding Quality.   0:00:45.6 BB: Well, first let me say that whether you're new to quality or looking for ideas on quality and quality management, quality improvement, quality management, the aim I have in mind for this podcast series is to improve your ability to manage quality through deepening your appreciation of the Deming philosophy and how to apply it. But specifically, a focus on quality, time after time, which is where most people heard about Deming, was through Quality, Productivity and Competitive Position. For example, the title of his first book. And relative to the title, what came to mind is an anecdote shared with me by two mentors that both spent a good deal of time with Dr. Deming. The first, Gipsie Ranney, who was a professor of statistics at University of Tennessee when she met Dr. Deming, went on to become a senior statistical consultant to GM and the first president of the Deming Institute, when Dr. Deming and his family, shortly before he died, formed a nonprofit called The Deming Institute. Gipsie and I used to speak literally every day, driving to work, driving home, we... "What's up, what's up?" And we always... It was so cool. I wish I had the recordings. Anyway, she once shared that she once asked Dr. Deming, "What do they learn in your seminars? What do attendees learn in your seminars?" To which she said Dr. Deming said, "I know what I said, I don't know what they heard."   [laughter]   0:02:26.0 BB: And along those lines, in the same timeframe, Bill Cooper who just turned 90, he and my wife share a birthday. Not the same year. Bill turned 90 last November and he was senior civilian at the US Navy's aircraft overhaul facility in San Diego, known as North Island. So as aircraft carriers are coming into San Diego, which is like the... I think they call it... It's like the headquarters of the Pacific Fleet. So as aircraft carriers are coming back, planes for which the repair work cannot be done on the carriers fly off to North Island. And Bill was in charge of, he said, some 5,000 civilians. And his peer on the military side, Phil Monroe was in charge of all the military people, and they got exposed to Dr. Deming's work in the early '80s, went off, left there, became Deming consultants. Anyway, Bill said he once asked Dr. Demings, says, "What percent of the attendees of your seminars walk away really understanding what you said?" And he said... Bill said Dr. Deming said, "A small percentage."   [laughter]   0:03:44.0 BB: And so what I had in mind in this series is... One is, what makes it hard to understand what Dr. Deming is talking about? And so for the listeners, what I'm hoping we can help you understand, what might be some invisible challenges that you're having in your organizations trying to explain this to others. So maybe you think your understanding is pretty good, but like Dr. Deming, maybe people are having a hard time understanding what you're saying. And I know what it's like to be in a room, presenting to people. And I had that same experience. I had one Rocketdyne executive... Rocketdyne was sold a few times. Every time it got sold, our Deming transformation efforts got set back a few years. So when the latest management team came in six, seven years ago, I met with one of the very top people, was explaining... Trying to explain to him for the first time what we had accomplished with some, I thought, absolutely amazing work by managing variation as a system. And he said something like, "So are people rejecting what you're saying?" And I said, "No, that's not it." He says, "So they're accepting what you're saying?" I said, "Well... " he said, "What's the problem?" I said, "What they accepted is not what I said." [laughter]   0:05:19.5 BB: I said, we're not in disagreement, but what they think they heard is... And that's when I found that I've experienced that. So anyway, so I wanted to get some background. So my first exposure to quality circles, and this is like... So I was living in this parallel universe, a heat transfer engineer working on rocket engines, and Quality comes into the organization. And unbeknownst to me, there's this quality movement going on, inspired by Dr. Deming, and we're on this wave. I had no idea. All I know is all of a sudden, we got Quality Circles, quality teams, every department...   0:06:03.8 AS: What year was that, roughly?   0:06:06.1 BB: 1984.   0:06:08.9 AS: Okay.   0:06:10.5 BB: Yeah. And I remember a book I was... I remember there was a pamphlet... You mentioned that. The company was AVCO, A-V-C-O, the Aviation Corporation, which is nearly as old as the Boeing Company. So it was one of the... So, Boeing gets into airplanes, the Wright Brothers get into airplanes, people are... Investors getting in, and AVCO, A-V-C-O, was formed by someone you likely heard of, Averill Harriman, major Wall Street guy at the time. And so anyway, I remember there being an AVCO book on quality circles. As you mentioned, I remember seeing that. And I remember just going along for the ride. I'm new to corporations, I'm just a subject matter expert in gas turbine heat transfer, and we're going to the... We got these things called quality circles, whatever. And I remember our department formed... Our department was a team, we had goals, and I remember going to these quality meetings, and let's say the goal would be that we read an article about heat transfer or something. I was just kind of fumbling with this thing called quality circles.   0:07:28.6 BB: But I remember, looking over the shoulder of the department secretary with a IBM Selectric typewriter, and this is before PCs, so we're using IBM 3270, dumb terminals. And I remember being over near the secretary, Kathy, and she's typing away the weekly activity reports, Friday morning kind of thing. And on a routine basis, I'd be over there and she'd be typing along. And then on the very last page, under the title, "Quality Circles," she would type in "Quality Circles are progressing as planned." [chuckle] 'Cause then these would be distributed to people in the department. So I'm watching her now create the next original. And it dawns on me, two things. One is, it's the very last topic in the meeting, in the weekly minutes, and two is it's the same damn thing every time, "Quality Circles are on plan." And I remember saying to her, "Why don't we just have that printed into the stationary?" [laughter]   0:08:39.5 BB: This is before I knew... For me, quality was just a seven-letter word. I don't know. So this is my exposure. And I remember thinking one of the quality goals we're thinking of in our department is... I think somebody even really brought this up, is we're gonna answer the phone by the second ring. That's gonna be our quality goal. And then, I remember we're negotiating for cleaning services. The floors were a mess. Tile floors, they were just a mess. And I remember in our department, we were lobbying to get better janitorial services, have the things cleaned more often. And next thing, we're negotiating with the VP of Engineering relative to, "Well, if your quality circles are on track, then I'll think about that." And it was just like... So it's some really ugly memories [chuckle] of this whole quality thing.   0:09:34.3 BB: But then I got into... I mentioned on the very first of our previous podcast, getting involved as a problem solving decision-making facilitator. I was hanging out with the HR training people, they had some... Their director of training, our director of training was a very astute guy and he was... I'm convinced, having met many people in that role, he knew what was going on. He knew a lot of the names in quality, not so... He knew of Deming's name, he knew of De Bono's name, Kepner-Tregoe, but he seemed to know his stuff. He's a fun guy to be with. And so, that's likely where I first heard Deming's name and that first book would've been Quality, Productivity and Competitive Position, which is... It's almost impenetrable, but I can remember at some point looking at that.   0:10:29.7 BB: But anyway, but in the fall of '87, I started being assigned a taskforce as helping... 'cause now I'm a problem-solving facilitator. But I still don't know... I don't know what quality is. All I know is I get invited to help solve problems. And we were looking at a very bad wear problem, these gears wearing each other out, enormous visibility to the Pentagon, because the tank engines we were making, 120 a month, were being shipped to the tank plant. And then, these tanks with these engines were being sent... The majority of them, sent to Europe. And they were the frontline of defense in Western Europe. This is the Cold War, Andrew.   0:11:17.4 AS: Right.   0:11:19.2 BB: And so the problem that came up was that a couple of these tanks had these gears wear through each other within 50 hours. And I've never been on such a high visibility taskforce because the Generals concern was that every one of those tanks was likely to not operate. And that might be the opportunity for the "Russki's" to launch World War III, because, what a great time, the tanks... If they knew these tanks weren't working. So it was a lot of stress, a lot of pressure. And after months of slow progress, the Army said, "Hey, why don't you guys go look at this Taguchi thing. The transmission people from General Motors who make the tank transmission, anytime they have a snafu like this, they use this Taguchi stuff." So I got assigned the action to go look at that. And I remember, this is pre-internet. And somehow, I did a literature search. I remember it was through something called Nerac, N-E-R-A-C. And out comes these pages. And the thing on Taguchi was... So first of all, who is this Taguchi guy?   0:12:29.0 BB: What is this quality stuff? I don't know. I'm a problem solving guy. And then I remember the first article on reference to Taguchi says, "Quality is the minimum of loss imparted to society by a product after a shipment to the customer." And I thought, "What does that mean?" So I don't know what... I mean, minimum of... I'm thinking... And I thought, "This can't be anything." So anyway, went out to General Motors and got exposed to what they were doing, and a few years later, realized it wasn't exactly Taguchi, but it was... There's some nuances there. But anyway, they exposed me to Design of Experiments and what's known as fractional factorial testing. And coupled with shifting how we look at the measurement process, we solved this problem within weeks, a problem that had been going on for months. So then I got excited about... This Taguchi thing's kind of cool. I'm liking this. And it was a lot more exciting than what I was doing. And I thought, "I think I wanna do this." So the following year, I went to the Taguchi conference. So we had the application and I was so excited, Andrew, that I was turned down for funding. The Army would have paid for me to go to this conference, 'cause the Army, by that point, had invited me to work on at least two problems.   0:13:54.4 BB: Once we solved the first one, when problems came up, the Army literally turned to the program management people at Lycoming and said, "Do a Taguchi study, get Bill Bellows involved." So I was walking on water. I thought it was kind of cool. So I wanted to go to this Taguchi conference, and it was turned down. And they said, "It's not your job." So I told my boss when they told me it was gonna be turned down, I said, "I'm going to this conference." I said, "Whether the company pays for it or not, I am going." So I drove 14 hours each way to Detroit. And in the room are all the US experts on Taguchi's ideas at the time. I didn't know who Deming was at the time. I still didn't know what quality was, but I walked outta there thinking, "This is what I wanna do." And then, where I'm getting to is, a few months later, I was gonna go out on medical I had surgery planned.   0:14:53.1 BB: I was gonna be out for about two months. So my wife and I lived in New Haven, maybe 10 miles north of Yale. And I remember going to the... Again, this is pre-Amazon. I mean, talk about dating ourselves. What century are we in? So I remember going with my wife to the Yale bookstore, the Yale co-op bookstore, and every book they had on quality, I bought. And I'm gonna sit home for two months and read all these books. And I remember buying books. I'm pretty sure I got books about Deming, some about Taguchi, some by Phil Crosby about Zero Defects. Six Sigma Quality entry was a year away.   0:15:35.7 BB: And so I sat down... I got out of the hospital, I'm resting at home, sitting on the couch every day and reading, and also calling the Taguchi people that I had met, I think, at the previous conference. I met some big names. So I'm reading the books, calling them up. And again, these are like my personal professors. And I remember saying to a few of them... What blew me away, and I don't... It somehow dawned on me, I was naive. In the world of engineering, we use... Most of my exposure, at least in heat transfer, we use the same terms the same way. We talk about radiation heat transfer, conduction heat transfer, convection heat transfer. So many of the terms are the same terms, so we can have a conversation. So I'm thinking the same thing applies in quality, that we're all like the heat transfer people. It's easy to communicate 'cause we got the same models. We're using the same words the same way. Then I started thinking, I'm no longer... And this is a real shock. I'm no longer thinking we're using the same words the same way, hence my introduction to misunderstanding quality, [laughter] or I would say, the beginning of a journey to better understand the... I think there are incredible opportunities for people in quality organizations, or people that wanna get into quality.   0:17:08.3 BB: I think it's an ideal opportunity to introduce Deming's ideas. And I say that because everybody else is doing their own thing. Engineering's off designing, Manufacturing's off producing, and Quality has an incredible opportunity to bring together Deming's sense of a systems view of quality. Nobody else has that charter. So my hope is in our conversations, we can help people that are trying to do some things, whether it's jumpstart their continuous improvement program or get their quality program out of what it currently is. In fact...   0:17:52.4 AS: By the way, I wanna...   0:17:55.9 BB: Go ahead, go ahead.   0:17:56.0 AS: I wanna ask a question about that, because what you've mentioned is interesting, that the systems aspect... Is that unique? Would you say that's unique to Deming? I mean, if we think about Taguchi and I think about the Taguchi Method, I'm thinking about a really powerful tool for understanding variation. But explain what you mean by that.   0:18:24.0 BB: A couple of things come to mind when you ask that question. One is the predominant explanation of quality. And if we have time, I wanna talk about that. The term quality, "qualitas," comes from Cicero, a Roman in ancient times. But by and large, in manufacturing, in corporate quality, in corporations, the operational definition, what do we mean by quality? This thing is... What are Quality organizations doing? And what I find they're doing is calling balls and strikes. They're looking at a given quality characteristics, whether it's the fuel economy of an engine, of a gas turbine engine, the performance, the thrust level of a rocket engine, the diameter of a hole, and asking, "Does that characteristic of surface roughness diameter, does it meet a set of requirements?"   0:19:30.4 BB: And the requirements are typically set... There's a lower one and an upper one. We don't say the meeting is gonna start at 10 o'clock, because if you understand variation, we can't get exactly 10. We can't get exactly 1.00 inch thickness for the plate, for the hole diameter. So then, we define quality. Typically, this is what people do in organizations. This is what I... I didn't know anything about this until I started... Well, what are quality people doing? They're asking, "Does this thing meet requirements?"   0:20:07.4 BB: And even towards that end, I remember asking a... I had a coworker who's a quality engineer, I've got many friends who are quality engineers, and this one guy came into a class one day that I was doing, and he's just beating his head against the wall over... I said, "What's...what have you been doing lately." He says, "All I'm doing Bill is dispositioning hardware, dispositioning hardware," which translates to trying to find out why something doesn't meet requirements and coming up with a corrective action, or buying it as is. So either changing the requirements or explaining why we can use it as is. But he's just like, "That's all I'm doing lately. I'm just getting overwhelmed with all this." So I said, "Well, what if overnight, by some miracle, you were to come in, and beginning first thing tomorrow morning, everything meets requirements." And that's the goal of quality in most organizations, is that everything meets requirements. So I said, "If everything beginning tomorrow morning, through some overnight miracle, meets requirements, hence forth, how would your life change?" He says, "I wouldn't have a job." [laughter]   0:21:26.9 BB: I said, "What other changes would you begin to see throughout the day, the coming days?" He says, "My boss's job wouldn't exist." I said, "Okay, keep going, keep going." He says, "Well, the whole organization will have no reason to exist." [laughter] And that's not farfetched. And I throw that out, the challenge to our listeners is, seriously, if everything in the organization beginning tomorrow morning met requirements through some... Dr. Deming would say as you know, by what method? Let's say the method exists, what would change? Now, I'm not saying these people necessarily get laid off. Maybe they get moved elsewhere. Maybe we set our sights higher and try to do things we've never done before, 'cause now everything's gonna be a home run. But that's what I find in corporations, I think, a very extremely commonplace 21st century Andrew explanation of quality is, "Does it meet requirements?" And that goes... And this whole idea of setting requirements, setting a lower and an upper, allowing for variation, that goes back to the early 1700s. And I've also read that it might go back even longer in China. We were talking earlier about China.   0:22:58.2 BB: And so if it goes back longer, all the better. And the point being, fast forward to today, that's largely where we are today, in this early 1700s. Does it meet requirements? Yes or no? And what Dr. Deming is talking about is not acceptability. First of all, he would say there's a place for acceptability. There's a place for meeting requirements, maybe based on the circumstances, all that matters is that it meets requirements. So if you're a pitcher and you're throwing a ball and the batter can't hit the ball, and as long as it's somewhere in the strike zone, or if you're kicking the ball into the net in a football match or otherwise known as soccer in the States, maybe the goalkeeper's so bad, all you gotta do is... They'll jump out of the way.   0:23:49.7 BB: Now, on the other hand, there may be a different batter or a different goalkeeper where you've gotta go where they aren't. And that gets into understanding variation and where we are in meeting requirements matters. And what I find is most organizations I've ever interacted with, and this is through Rocketdyne, as owned by Boeing, going to many different divisions of Boeing around the country, doing seminars across England, across New Zealand, university classes and university lectures, hundreds of them. I've never come across... With rare exception have I ever come across anyone who says, "Bill, in our organization, quality is more like what Dr. Deming is talking about." Meaning, "We are doing more than meeting requirements, we are focusing on where the ball is placed in the strike zone, where the ball is placed in the net, and we specialize in that because we have seen great advantage." Most people I present this to don't even know that's a possibility, don't even know it's anything to lobby for.   0:25:12.0 BB: And so to that I'd say, whether you're looking at Operational Excellence, which is kind of a hybrid of Lean and Six Sigma or Six Sigma alone, or Lean alone, everything I've studied in all of those go back to the question of quality being... Quality's defined Phil Crosby-wise, which is striving for zero defects, striving for everything meeting requirements, and then we're done. And when I joined The Deming Institute, part of my excitement was helping the organization differentiate Dr. Deming's ideas over these other quality management ideas and other management ideas as uniquely positioned to differentiate, to understand that there's an opport... There are incredible opportunities for realizing that everything that meets requirements is not the same. And how do we put a value on that? And one is, the better we understand that, the better we can minimize scrap and rework problems if we're paying attention to where we are, if the process is in control, if we can use that concept from variation. And then simultaneously, another...   0:26:35.7 BB: There's two opportunities. One is, I think the better we manage variation, the less likely we're gonna have scrap and rework. Wouldn't that be great? And two is that that buys us time to think about... 'cause now that we're not in that constant firefighting mode, now we can start to think about how to manage variation of the system and to improve how things integrate. And we did both of those at Rocketdyne. But I've yet to find many organizations who say, "Been there, done that. Been there, done that."   0:27:12.1 AS: So, if we think about the takeaways for someone listening or watching this, you've talked about Misunderstanding Quality, you've talked about everything meet requirements, you've talked about, what century are we in? So, what should they take back to their business from this discussion that can give them a foundation of a starting point of this series and what you're saying on this point? What do you want them to take away?   0:27:40.3 BB: First, I would say I wouldn't necessarily go tell anybody about this yet. [laughter] I'd say, "Hmm, this Deming stuff. There's something to this. What I'm hearing from Bill is there's something here that I can't get elsewhere." You can listen to our prior sessions. There's 22 of them. We're gonna be adding new aspects to that...   0:28:07.9 AS: Okay. So, let's talk about that for a second. So, learn on your own first. Maybe it's a personal transformation. Start with that?   0:28:09.9 BB: Yes.   0:28:14.8 AS: Okay.   0:28:16.1 BB: Absolutely... Yes, absolutely...   0:28:18.1 AS: What would be number two that you want them to get away from this?   0:28:22.9 BB: Well, my advice is, you're not crazy that there's things about the Deming philosophy that are unique, that are... I think so much... There's a lot of people excited by what Dr. Deming's offering. I think there's more than meets the eye. I mean...   0:28:46.1 AS: Okay, so let's talk about that for a second. So, there's unique things about Deming, and one of them that you talked about is the systems thinking?   0:28:54.6 BB: Yeah. I mean, imagine... What I liken it to, instead of zero defects being the goal, which is what most organizations are striving for, and their quality systems are about, "We wanna get zero defects over here, over here, over here." We're juggling all these places, trying to get to zero defects all over the place. What if they saw zero defects as not the destination, but the starting point? That, to really understand continual improvement, zero defects is not the goal. Imagine that as the starting point. At least, imagine the ability to go across that apparent finish line and realize... Or the analogy I would use is, go through the door called "zero defects is the end," and realize there's a lot more, there's so much more to do when you start to look at things with a Deming view. And so, instead of thinking, we're striving for zero defects and then we're done, to me, that's the starting point to really begin to appreciate what it means to look at systems.   0:30:07.7 AS: Okay. So we've got, start with your own personal transformation and learn the material, and understand that there's some unique things about the Deming teachings, in particular, systems. And understand that... I kind of visualized while you were talking, a person walking along with no knowledge of many things, but they're inquisitive, and what they find is a wrench. And then they start to find that there's ways to use this wrench in their daily life. And then later, they find that there's other tools like a screwdriver. And all of a sudden, they found this world of tools, and now they have this amazing toolbox. But then all of a sudden, they meet someone that's taking those tools and creating a car, or a this, or a that. And then they realize, maybe the tool has gotta be the starting point, or is a starting point. But what the tools can create and what additional tools can create is so much bigger than just that first wrench that you picked up.   0:31:14.2 BB: It's the appreciation. And I'm glad you brought those points up. Dr. Deming talks about tools and techniques. A control chart is a tool. A run chart is a tool. Design of Experiments are... These are tools. And so that's a tool. A technique is, how do we create a control chart? That's a technique. What I try to do with audiences, whether it's clients or university classes or whatever, is help them differentiate. Tools and techniques are about improving efficiency, doing things well. Doing something faster or cheaper... What's unique to Dr. Deming is not the tools you'll find him talking about, but the concepts he's talking about, and the idea of looking at things as a system. Dr. Deming defines quality, and it can be obtuse for people. I find it fascinating. He says, "Product or service possesses quality if it helps someone and enjoys a sustainable market." So, traditional quality is me throwing the ball to you, Andrew, or passing a football or basketball, whatever it is, and judging the quality of the pass when the ball leaves my hand. And we say, "That was a good pass."   0:32:49.9 BB: What Dr. Deming's talking about is, it's a good pass, just as if it's a good conversation, if you can hear what I say, we can go back and forth. And so, Deming's perspective on quality is not what's good for me, the producer, but it's how well does it fit you that I'm delivering something that matches... That we're synchronous, that... It has to be good for you, not just me checking off and saying, "This is good, this is good, this is good. Boom." That it's not good until you say it's good. That's a different view. It's the same thing as, "Well, I told you." Then you say, "Well, I didn't hear it." I says, "Well, then why don't you have your ears checked?" [laughter] Dr. Deming's talking about, it's not a conversation if you can't hear it. And so, when he's explaining to Bill Cooper and Gipsie that people are having a hard time, he was struggling to improve that 'cause he knew that when you begin to understand that what you're saying is not heard, Deming understood it was his obligation to try harder. And part of the Deming philosophy is understanding that it's not just me throwing it and saying, "There it is." It's listening for the feedback as to, "Did it make sense?" So, quality in that arena is a mutual phenomenon, not unilaterally my thing.   0:34:16.7 AS: Okay.   0:34:17.8 BB: And I would welcome anyone, as we've done in the past, to reach out if there are questions, comments, observation you'd like to share, and we can use that feedback in future sessions.   0:34:30.6 AS: Fantastic. Well, that's an excellent kickoff. And let's end with the idea that quality is a mutual phenomenon. I think that's a good statement. So Bill, on behalf of everyone at The Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this discussion. And for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. And if you want to keep in touch with Bill, just find him on LinkedIn. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming, "People are entitled to joy in work."

In the final episode of the goal setting in classrooms series, John Dues and Andrew Stotz discuss the last three of the 10 Key Lessons for implementing Deming in schools. They finish up with the example of Jessica's 4th-grade science class. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.4 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W Edwards Deming. Today I'm continuing my discussion with John Dues, who is part of the new generation of educators striving to apply Dr. Deming's principles to unleash student joy in learning. This is episode six about goal setting through a Deming lens. John, take it away.   0:00:26.4 John Dues: Hey, Andrew, it's good to be back. Yeah, for the past handful of episodes or so, we've been talking about organizational goal setting. We covered these four conditions of healthy goal setting and then got into these 10 key lessons for data analysis. And then we've been looking at those 10 key lessons applied to an improvement project. And we've been talking about a project that was completed by Jessica Cutler and she did a Continual Improvement Fellowship with us here at our schools. And if you remember, Jessica was attempting to improve the joy in learning of her students in her fourth grade science class. So last time we looked at lessons five through seven. Today we're gonna look at those final three lessons, eight, nine and ten applied to her project.   0:01:15.7 AS: It's exciting.   0:01:17.1 JD: Yeah. So we'll jump in here. We'll kind of do a description, a refresher of each lesson. And we'll kind of talk about how it was applied to her specific project, and we'll look at some of her data to kind of bring that live for those of the folks that have video. Let's jump in with lesson number eight. So we've talked about this before, but lesson number eight was: more timely data is better for improvement purposes. So we've talked about this a lot. We've talked about something like state testing data. We've said, it can be useful, but it's not super useful for improvement purposes, because we don't get it until the year ends. And students in our case, have already gone on summer vacation by the time that data comes in. And you know that the analogous data probably happens in lots of different sectors where you get data that lags, to the point that it's not really that useful for improvement purposes.   0:02:15.8 JD: So when we're trying to improve something, more frequent data is helpful because then we can sort of see if an intervention that we're trying is having an effect, the intended effect. We can learn that more quickly if we have more frequent data. And so it's, there's not a hard and fast rule, I don't think for how frequently you should be gathering data. It just sort of needs to be in sync with the improvement context. I think that's the important thing. Whether it's daily or a couple times a day or weekly, or monthly, quarterly, whatever, it's gotta be in sync with whatever you're trying to improve.   0:02:50.5 AS: You made me think about a documentary I saw about, how they do brain surgery and how the patient can't be sedated because they're asking the patient questions about, do you feel this and they're testing whether they're getting... They're trying to, let's say, get rid of a piece of a cancerous growth, and they wanna make sure that they're not getting into an area that's gonna damage their brain. And so, the feedback mechanism that they're getting through their tools and the feedback from the patient, it's horrifying to think of the whole thing.   0:03:27.7 JD: Yeah.   0:03:28.3 AS: It's a perfect example of why more timely data is useful for improvement purposes 'cause imagine if you didn't have that information, you knock the patient out, you get the cancerous growth, but who knows what you get in addition to that.   0:03:43.7 JD: Yeah, that's really interesting. I think that's certainly an extreme example, [laughter], but I think it's relevant. No matter what our context, that data allows us to understand what's going on, variation, trends, whether our system is stable, unstable, how we should go about improving. So it's not dissimilar from the doctors in that example.   0:04:06.8 AS: And it's indisputable I think, I would argue. But yet many people may not, they may be operating with data that's not timely. And so this is a reminder that we would pretty much always want that timely data. So that's lesson eight. Wow.   0:04:22.6 JD: Lesson eight. Yeah. And let's see how we can, I'll put a visualization on the screen so you can see what Jessica's data look like. All right. So now you can see. We've looked at these charts before. This is Jessica's process behavior chart for joy in science. So just to reorient, you have the joy percentage that students are feeling after a lesson on the x-axis, sorry, on the y-axis. On the x-axis, you have the school dates where they've collected this survey information from students in Jessica's class.   0:04:57.0 AS: Can you put that in Slide Show view?   0:05:00.4 JD: Yeah. I can do that. Yeah.   0:05:02.7 AS: Just it'll make it bigger, so for the...   0:05:06.5 JD: There you go.   0:05:07.8 AS: For the listeners out there, we're looking at a chart of daily, well, let's say it looks like daily data. There's probably weekends that are not in there because class is not on weekends, but it's the ups and downs of a chart that's ranging between a pretty, a relatively narrow range, and these are the scores that are coming from Jessica's surveying of the students each day, I believe. Correct?   0:05:34.2 JD: Yeah. So each day where Jessica is giving a survey to assess the joy in science that students are feeling, then she's averaging all those students together. And then the plot, the dot is the average of all the students sort of assessment of how much joy they felt in a particular science lesson.   0:05:54.7 AS: And that's the average. So for the listeners out there John's got an average line down the middle of these various data points, and then he is also got a red line above and a red line below the, above the highest point and slightly below the lowest point. Maybe you can explain that a little bit more.   0:06:15.4 JD: Yeah. So with Jessica, you remember originally she started plotting on a line chart or a run chart when we just had a few data points just to kind of get a sense of how things are moving so she could talk about it with her class. And over time what's happened is she's now got, at this point in the project, which she started in January, now this is sort of mid-March. And so she's collected two to three data points a week. So she doesn't survey the kids every day just for time sake, but she's getting two, three data points a week. And so by March, she started just a couple months ago, she's got 28 data points. So that sort of goes back to this idea of more timely data is better for improvement.   0:07:00.9 JD: And a lot of times, let's say a school district or a school does actually survey their students about how, what they think of their classes. That might happen at best once a semester or maybe once a year. And so at the end of the year you have one or two data points. So it's really hard to tell sort of what's actually going on. Compared to this, Jessica's got these 28 data points in just about two months or so of school. So she's got 28 data points to work with. And so what her and her students are doing with this data then, one, they can see how it's moving up and down. So we have, the blue dots are all the plotted points, like you said, the green line is the average running sort of through the middle of the data, and then those red lines are our process limits, the upper and lower natural process limits that sort of tell us the bounds of the system.   0:07:50.4 JD: And that's based on the difference in each successive data point. But the most important thing is that as Jessica and her students are looking at this, initially, they're really just studying it and trying to sort of see how things are going from survey to survey. So one of the things that Deming talked about frequently is not tampering with data, which would be if you sort of, you overreact to a single data point. So let's say, a couple of days in, it dips down from where it started and you say, oh my gosh, we gotta change things. And so that's what Deming is talking about. Not tampering, not overreacting to any single data point. Instead look at this whole picture that you get from these 28 data points and then talk about...   0:08:41.5 JD: In Jessica's case she's talking about with her students, what can we learn from this data? What does the variation from point to point look like? If we keep using the system, the fourth grade science system, if we leave it as is, then we'll probably just keep getting data pretty similar to this over time, unless something more substantial changes either in the negative or the positive. So right now they...   0:09:10.1 AS: And I think for the listeners, it's, you can see that there's really no strong pattern that I can see from this. It's just, there's some, sometimes that there's, seems like there's little trends and stuff like that. But I would say that the level of joy in the science classroom is pretty stable.   0:09:32.1 JD: Pretty stable. Yeah. Pretty high. It's bouncing around maybe a 76% average across those two and a half months or so. And so, they, you kind of consider this like the baseline. They've got a good solid baseline understanding of what joy looks like in this fourth grade science classroom. Did that stop sharing on your end?   0:10:00.2 AS: Yep.   0:10:00.2 JD: Okay, great. So that's lesson eight. So clearly she's gathered a lot of data in a pretty short amount of time. It's timely, it's useful, it's usable, it can be studied by her and her students. So we'll switch it to lesson nine now. So now they've got a good amount of data. They got 28 data points. That's plenty of data to work with. So lesson nine is now we wanna clearly label the start date for an intervention directly in her chart. And remember from earlier episodes, not only are we collecting this data, we're actually putting this up on a screen on a smart board in the classroom, and Jessica and her students are studying this data together. They're actually looking at this, this exact chart and she's explaining sort of kind of like we just did to the listeners. She's explaining what the chart means.   0:10:54.2 JD: And so over time, like once a week she's putting this up on the smart board and now kids are getting used to, how do you read this data? What does this mean? What are all these dots? What do these numbers mean? What do these red lines mean? That type of thing. And so now that they've got enough data, now we can start talking about interventions. That's really what lesson nine is about. And the point here is that you want to clearly, explicitly with a literally like a dotted line in the chart to mark on the day that you're gonna try something new. So you insert this dashed vertical line, we'll take a look at it in a second, on the date the intervention started. And then we're also gonna probably label it something simple so we can remember what intervention we tried at that point in time.   0:11:42.7 JD: So what this then allows the team to do is then to very easily see the data that happened before the intervention and the data that happened after the implementation of this intervention or this change idea. And then once we've started this change and we start plotting points after the change has gone into effect, then we can start seeing or start looking for those patterns in the data that we've talked about, those different rules, those three rules that we've talked about across these episodes. And just to refresh, rule one would be if we see a single data point outside of either of the limits, rule two is if we see eight consecutive points on either side of that green average line, and rule three is if we see three out of four dots in a row that are closer to one of the limits than they are to that central line.   0:12:38.3 JD: So that again, those patterns tell us that something significant, mathematically improbable has happened. It's a big enough magnitude in change that you wouldn't have expected it otherwise. And when we see that pattern, we can be reasonably assured that that intervention that we've tried has worked.   0:12:56.0 AS: And let me ask you about the intervention for just a second because I could imagine that if this project was going on, first question is, does Jessica's students are, obviously know that this experiment is going on?   0:13:08.3 JD: Yes.   0:13:09.8 AS: Because they're filling out a survey. And my first question is, do they know that there's an intervention happening? I would expect that it would be yes, because they're gonna feel or see that intervention. Correct?   0:13:25.1 JD: Sure. Yep.   0:13:25.2 AS: That's my first point that I want to think about. And the second point is, let's imagine now that everybody in the classroom has been seeing this chart and they're, everybody's excited and they got a lot of ideas about how they could improve. Jessica probably has a lot of ideas. So the temptation is to say, let's change these three things and see what happens.   0:13:46.5 JD: Yeah.   0:13:47.1 AS: Is it important that we only do one thing at a time or that one intervention at a time or not? So maybe those are two questions I have in my mind.   0:13:58.6 JD: Yeah, so to the first question, are you, you're saying there there might be some type of participant or...   0:14:02.3 AS: Bias.   0:14:03.3 JD: Observer effect like that they want this to happen. That's certainly possible. But speaking to the second question, what intervention do you go with? Do you go with one or you go with multiple? If you remember a couple of episodes ago we talked about, and we actually looked at a fishbone diagram that Jessica and her students that they created and they said, okay, what causes us to have low joy in class? And then they sort of mapped those, they categorized them, and there were different things like technology not working. If you remember, one was like distractions, like other teachers walk into the room during the lesson. And one of them was others like classmates making a lot of noise, making noises during class and distracting me. And so they mapped out different causes. I think they probably came up with like 12 or 15 different causes as possibilities.   0:14:58.7 JD: And they actually voted as a class. Which of these, if we worked on one of these, which would have the biggest impact? So not every kid voted for it, but the majority or the item that the most kids thought would have the biggest impact was if we could somehow stop all the noises basically. So they came up with that as a class, but not, it wasn't everybody's idea. But I think we've also talked about sort of the lessons from David Langford where once kids see that you're gonna actually take this serious, take their ideas serious and start acting on them, they take the project pretty seriously too. So maybe not a perfect answer, but that's sort of what we...   0:15:38.0 AS: I was thinking that, ultimately you could get short-term blips when you do an intervention and then it stabilizes possibly. That's one possibility. And the second thing I thought is, well, I mean ultimately the objective, whether that's an output from a factory, and keeping, improving that output or whether that's the output related to joy in the classroom as an example, you want it to go up and stay up and you want the students to see it and say, wow, look, it's happening. So, yeah.   0:16:11.7 JD: And there's different ways you can handle this. So this joy thing could go up to a certain point. They're like, I don't know if we can get any more joy, like, it's pretty high. And what you could do at that point is say, okay, I'm gonna assign a student to just sort of, every once in a while, we'll keep doing these surveys and we will sort of keep plotting the data, but we're not gonna talk about a lot. I'm just gonna assign this as a student's job to plot the new data points. And we'll kind of, we'll kind of measure it, but we won't keep up with the intervention 'cause we got it to a point that we're pretty happy with. And now as a class we may wanna switch, switch our attention to something else.   0:16:45.2 JD: So we started getting into the winter months and attendance has dipped. Maybe we've been charting that and say, Hey guys, we gotta, gotta kinda work on this. This is gone below sort of a level that's really good for learning. So let's think about as a group how we could come up with some ideas to raise that. So maybe you turn your attention to something else, 'cause you can't pay attention to everything at once.   0:17:07.2 AS: Yeah, and I think I could use an example in my Valuation Master Class Boot Camp where students were asking for more personal feedback and I realized I couldn't really scale this class if I had to get stuck into hundreds of grading basically. And that's when I came up with the concept of feedback Friday, where one student from each team would present and then I would give feedback, I would give a critique and they would be intense and all students would be watching, it would be recorded, and all of a sudden all the issues related to wanting this personal feedback went away. And therefore, once I instituted it on a regular basis, I went on to the next issue and I made sure that I didn't lose the progress that I had made and continue to make feedback Friday better and better.   0:17:56.2 JD: Yeah. Yeah. That's great. That's great. I'll share my screen so you can kinda see what this looked like in Jessica's class now, what the chart looks like now. So now you see that same chart, that same process behavior chart, exact same one we were just looking at except now you can see this, this dashed vertical line that marks the spot where the intervention was started that we just talked about. And what the kids are actually doing, and Jessica are running a PDSA cycle, a Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle. That's the experimental cycle in her class. And what they're running that PDSA on is, again, how can we put something in place to reduce the distracting noises. And so what the students actually said is if we get a deduction for making noises, then there will be less noises. And so in the school's sort of management system, a deduction is sort of like a demerit.   0:19:00.0 JD: If you maybe went to a Catholic school or something like that, or some public schools had demerits as well, but basically it's like a minor infraction basically that goes home or that gets communicated to parents at the end of the week. But the kids came up with this so their basic premise is, their plan, their prediction is if there are less noises, we'll be able to enjoy science class. And if we give deductions for these noises, then there'll be less noises. So some people may push back, well, I don't think you should give deductions or something like that, but which, fine, you could have that opinion. But I think the powerful point here is this is, the students created this, it was their idea. And so they're testing that idea to see if it actually has impact.   0:19:44.8 JD: And they're learning to do that test in this scientific thinking way by using the Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle, and seeing if it actually has an impact on their data. So at the point where they draw this dashed line, let's call that March 19th, we can see a couple of additional data points have been gathered. So you can see the data went up from 3/18 to 3/21. So from March 18th to March 21st, rose from about, let's call it 73% or so, up to about 76% on March 21st. And then that next day it rose another percent or two and let's call that 78%.   0:20:28.1 JD: And so the trap here is you could say, okay, we did this intervention and it made things better. But the key point is the data did go up, but we haven't gathered enough additional data to see one of those patterns that we talked about that would say, oh, this actually has had a significant change. Because before the dashed line, you can see data points that are as high or even higher than some of these ones that we see after the PDSA is started. So it's too early to say one way or another if this intervention is having an impact. So we're not gonna overreact. You could see a place where you're so excited that it did go up a couple of days from where it was on March 18th before you started this experiment, but that's a trap. Because it's still just common cause data, still just bouncing around that average, it's still within the bounds of the red process limits that define the science system.   0:21:34.2 AS: I have an experiment going on in my latest Valuation Master Class Boot Camp, but in that case, it's a 6-week period that I'm testing, and then I see the outcome at the end of the six weeks to test whether my hypothesis was right or not. Whereas here it's real time trying to understand what's happening. So yes, you can be tempted when it's real time to try to jump to conclusion, but when you said, well, okay, I can't really get the answer to this conclusion until I've run the test in a fixed time period, then it's you don't have as much of that temptation to draw a conclusion.   0:22:14.1 JD: Yeah. And if I actually was... I should have actually taken this a step farther. I marked it with this Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle. What I should have done too is write "noises" or something like that, deduction for noises, some small annotation, so it'd be clear what this PDSA cycle is.   0:22:32.1 AS: In other words, you're saying identify the intervention by the vertical line, but also label it as to what that intervention was, which you've done before on the other chart. I remember.   0:22:42.1 JD: Yeah. And then it'd be sort of just looking at this when she puts this up on the smart board for the class to see it again too. Oh yeah yeah, that's when we ran that first intervention and that was that intervention where we did deductions for noises. But the bigger point is that this never happens where you have some data, you understand a system, you plan systematic intervention, and then you gather more data right after it to see if it's having an impact. We'd never do that ever, in education, ever. Ever have I ever seen this before. Nothing like this. Just this little setup combining the process behavior chart with the Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle, I think is very, very, very powerful and very different approach than what school improvement.   0:23:33.4 AS: Exciting.   0:23:34.6 JD: Yeah. The typical approach is to school improvement. So I'll stop that share for a second there, and we can do a quick overview of lesson 10 and then jump back into the chart as more data has been gathered. So lesson 10 is: the purpose of data analysis is insight. Seems pretty straightforward. This is one of those key teachings from Dr. Donald Wheeler who we've talked about. He taught us that the best analysis is the simplest analysis, which provides the needed insight.   0:24:08.1 AS: So repeat lesson 10, again, the purpose of...   0:24:11.6 JD: The purpose of data analysis is insight.   0:24:14.7 AS: Yep.   0:24:15.6 JD: So just plotting the dots on the run chart and turning the run chart into the process behavior chart, that's the most straightforward method for understanding how our data is performing over time. We've talked about this a lot, but it's way more intuitive to understand the data and how it's moving than if you just stored it in a table or a spreadsheet. Got to use these time sequence charts. That's so very important.   0:24:42.2 AS: And I was just looking at the definition of insight, which is a clear, deep, and sometimes sudden understanding of a complicated problem or situation.   0:24:51.6 JD: Yeah. And I think that can happen, much more likely to happen when you have the data visualized in this way than the ways that we typically visualize data in just like a table or a spreadsheet. And so in Jessica's case, we left off on March 22nd and they had done two surveys after the intervention. And so then of course what they do is they continue over the next 4, or 5, 6 weeks, gathering more of that data as they're running that intervention, then we can sort of switch back and see what that data is looking like now.   0:25:28.3 AS: Exciting.   0:25:30.3 JD: So we have this same chart with that additional data. So we have data all the way out to now April 11th. So they run this PDSA for about a month, three weeks, month, three, four weeks.   0:25:47.9 AS: And that's 11 data points after the intervention. Okay.   0:25:54.0 JD: Yep. Purposeful. So what was I gonna say? Oh, yeah. So three, four weeks for a Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle, that's a pretty good amount of time. Two to four weeks, I've kind of found is a sweet spot. Shorter than that, it's hard to get enough data back to see if your intervention has made a difference. Longer than that, then it's you're getting away from the sort of adaptability, the ability to sort of build on an early intervention, make the tweaks you need to. So that two to four week time period for your PDSA seems like a sweet spot to me. So she's continued to collect this joy in learning data to see... Basically what her and her class are doing is seeing if their theory is correct. Does this idea of giving deductions for making noises have an impact? Is it effective?   0:26:44.0 JD: So if they learn, if the data comes back and there is no change, no indication of improvement, then a lot of people will say, well, my experiment has failed. And my answer to that is, no, it hasn't failed. It might not have worked like you wanted, but you learn very quickly that that noise deduction is not going to work and we're gonna try some other thing, some other intervention. We learn that very very quickly within 3 or 4 weeks that we need to try something new. Now, in the case of Jessica's class, that's not what happened. So you can actually see that dotted line, vertical dotted line is still at March 19th, we have those 11 additional data points. And you can actually see, if you count, starting with March 21st, you count 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11 data points that are above that green average line from before.   0:27:45.5 JD: So originally the red lines, the limits and the central line would just be straight across. But once I see that eight or more of those are on one side of that central line, then I actually shift the limits and the average line, 'cause I have a new system. I've shifted it up and that actually is an indication that this intervention has worked, because we said... Now for those that are watching, it doesn't appear that all the blue dots are above that green line, but they were before the shift. Remember the shift indicates a new system. So I go back to the point where the first dot of the 8 or more in a row occurred, and that's where I have indicated a new system with the shift in the limits and the central line. So this, their theory was actually correct. This idea of giving a deduction for noises actually worked to improve the joy in Jessica's science class. It was a successful experiment.   0:28:52.7 AS: Can I draw on your chart there and ask some questions?   0:29:00.5 JD: Sure. Yeah.   0:29:00.6 AS: So one of my questions is, is it possible, for instance, in the preliminary period, let's say the first 20 days or so that things were kind of stabilized and then what we saw is that things potentially improved here in the period before the intervention and that the intervention caused an increase, but it may not be as significant as it appears based upon the prior, the most recent, let's say 10 days or something like that. So that's my question on it. I'll delete my drawings there.   0:29:46.3 JD: Yeah, I think that's a fair question. So, the reason I didn't shift those before, despite you do see a pattern, so before the dotted line, I considered that period a baseline period where we were just collecting 'cause they hadn't tried anything yet. So Dr. Wheeler has these series of four questions. So in addition to seeing a signal, he's got these other sort of questions that he typically asks and that they're yes/no questions. And you want the answer to all those to be yes. And one of 'em is like, do you know why an improvement or a decline happened? And if you don't, then you really shouldn't shift the limits. So that's why I didn't shift them before. I chose not to shift them until we actually did something, actually tried something.   0:30:33.2 AS: Which is basically saying that you're trying to get the voice of the students, a clear voice, and that may be that over the time of the intervention, it could be that the... Sorry, over the time of the initial data gathering, that the repetition of it may have caused students to feel more joy in the classroom because they were being asked and maybe that started to adjust a little bit up and there's the baseline, so. Yep. Okay.   0:31:01.6 JD: Yeah. And so this is sort of where the project ended for the fellowship that Jessica was doing. But, what would happen if we could sort of see what happened, further out in the school year is that, either Jessica and the class could then be sort of satisfied with where the joy in learning is at this point where the improvement occurred. Or they could run another cycle, sort of testing, sort of a tweaked version of that noise reduction PDSA, that intervention or they could add something to it.   0:31:43.0 AS: Or they could have run another fishbone point, maybe the noise wasn't actually the students thought it would be the number one contributor, but, maybe by looking at the next one they could see, oh, hey, wait a minute, this may be a higher contributor or not.   0:32:01.2 JD: Yeah. And when you dug into the actual plan, the specifics of the plan, how that noise deduction was going to work, there may be something in that plan that didn't go as planned and that's where you would have to lean on, 'cause we've talked about the three sort of parts of the improvement team that you need. You need the frontline people. That's the students. You need the person with the authority to change the system. That's Jessica. And then someone with the knowledge of the system, profound knowledge. That's me. Well, those, the Jessica and her students are the one in that every day. So they're gonna have learning about how that intervention went, that would then inform the second cycle of the PDSA, whatever that was gonna be, whatever they're gonna work on next. The learning from the first cycle is gonna inform that sort of next cycle.   0:32:51.4 JD: So the idea is that you don't just run a PDSA once but you repeatedly test interventions or change ideas until you get that system where you want it to be.   0:33:01.1 AS: So for the listeners and viewers out there, I bet you're thinking gosh, Jessica's pretty lucky to have John help her to go through this. And I think about lots of things that I want to talk to you about [laughter] about my testing in my own business, and I know in my own teaching, but also in my business. So that I think is one of the exciting things about this is the idea that we just, we do a lot of these things in our head sometimes. I think this will make a difference and, but we're not doing this level of detail usually in the way that we're actually performing the tests and trying to see what the outcomes are.   0:33:43.9 JD: Yeah I think that for school people too, I think when we've attempted to improve schools, reform schools, what happens is we go really fast and the learning actually happens very slowly and we don't really appreciate what it actually takes to change something in practice. And what happens then is to the frontline people like teachers... The reformers have good intentions but the people on the front line just get worn out basically, and a lot of times nothing actually even improves. You just wear people out. You make these big changes go fast and wide in the system and you don't really know exactly what to do on the ground because the opposite is having Jessica's classroom. They're actually learning fast but trying very small changes and getting feedback right in the place where that feedback needs to be given right in the classroom and then they can then learn from that and make changes.   0:34:49.8 JD: And again, it may seem smaller. Maybe it doesn't seem that revolutionary to people but to me, I think it's a completely revolutionary, completely different way to do school improvement that actually kind of honors the expertise of the teacher in the classroom, it takes into account how students are experiencing a change and then I'm kind of providing a method that they can use to then make that classroom better for everybody so and I think in doing so students more likely to find joy in their work, joy in their learnings, teachers more likely to find joy in their work as well. So to me it's a win-win for all those involved.   0:35:34.9 AS: Fantastic. Well, should we wrap up there?   0:35:40.6 JD: Yeah, I think that's a good place to wrap up this particular series.   0:35:45.1 AS: And maybe you could just review for the whole series of what we've done just to kind of make sure that everybody's clear and if somebody just came in on this one they know a little bit of the flow of what they're gonna get in the prior ones.   0:36:00.4 JD: Yeah. So we did six episodes and in those six episodes we started off just talking about what do you need to have in place for healthy goal setting at an organizational level, and we put four conditions in place that before you ever set a goal you should have to understand the capability of your system, you have to understand the variation within your system, you have to understand if the system that you're studying is stable, and then you have to have a logical answer to the question by what method. By what method are you gonna bring about improvement or by what method you're gonna get to this goal that you wanna set. So we talked about that, you gotta have these four conditions in place and without those we said goal setting is often an act of desperation.   0:36:49.7 JD: And then from there what we did is start talking about these 10 key lessons for data analysis so as you get the data about the goal and you start to understand the conditions for that system of process we could use those 10 data lessons to then interpret the data that we're looking at or studying and then we basically did that over the first four episodes. In the last few episodes what we've done is look at those lessons applied to Jessica's improvement project and that's what we just wrapped up looking at those 10 lessons.   0:37:23.7 AS: I don't know about the listeners and viewers but for me this type of stuff just gets me excited about how we can improve the way we improve.   0:37:33.4 JD: Yeah. For sure.   0:37:34.9 AS: And that's exciting. So John, on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute I want to thank you again for this discussion, and for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. You can find John's book Win-Win W. Edwards Deming, the System of Profound Knowledge and the Science of Improving Schools on amazon.com. This is your host Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming, "People are entitled to joy in work."

In this episode, John Dues and Andrew Stotz apply lessons five through seven of the 10 Key Lessons for implementing Deming in classrooms. They continue using Jessica's fourth-grade science class as an example to illustrate the concepts in action.  TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.2 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today I'm continuing my discussion with John Dues, who is part of the new generation of educators striving to apply Dr. Deming's principles to unleash student joy in learning. This is episode five about goal setting through a Deming lens. John, take it away.   0:00:23.2 John Dues: Yeah, it's good to be back, Andrew. Yeah, like you said, for the past few episodes we've been talking about organizational goal setting. We covered four healthy conditions, or four conditions of healthy goal setting and 10 key lessons for data analysis. And then what we turn to in the last episode is looking at an applied example of the 10 key lessons for data analysis and in action. And, if you remember from last time we were looking at this improvement project from Jessica Cutler, she's a fourth grade science teacher, and she did the improvement fellowship here at United Schools Network, where she learned the tools, the techniques, the philosophies, the processes behind the Deming theory, continual improvement, that type of thing. And in... And in Jessica's specific case, in her fourth grade science class, what she was settled on that she was gonna improve was, the joy in learning of her students. And we looked at lessons one through four through the eyes or through the lens of her project. And today we're gonna look at lessons five through seven. So basically the next, uh, the next three lessons of those 10 key lessons.   0:01:34.8 AS: I can't wait. Let's do it.   0:01:37.3 JD: Let's do it. So lesson number five was: show enough data in your baseline to illustrate the previous level of variation. Right. So the basic idea with this particular lesson is that, you know, let's say we're trying to improve something. We have a data point or maybe a couple data points. We wanna get to a point where we're starting to understand how this particular concept works. In this case, what we're looking at is joy in learning. And there's some different rules for how many data points you should, should have in a typical base baseline. But, you know, a pretty good rule of thumb is, you know, if you can get 12 to 15, that's... That's pretty solid. You can start working with fewer data points in real life. And even if you just have five or six values, that's gonna give you more understanding than just, you know, a single data point, which is often what we're... What we're working with.   0:02:35.6 AS: In, other words, even if you have less data, you can say that this gives some guidance.   0:02:40.9 JD: Yeah.   0:02:41.1 AS: And then you know that the reliability of that may be a little bit less, but it gives you a way... A place to start.   0:02:46.9 JD: A place to start. You're gonna learn more over time, but at least even five or six data points is more than what I typically seen in the typical, let's say, chart where it has last month and this month, right? So even five or six points is a lot more than that. You know, what's... What's typical? So I can kind of show you, I'll share my screen here and we'll take a look at, Jessica's initial run chart. You see that right?   0:03:19.3 AS: We can see it.   0:03:21.2 JD: Awesome.   0:03:22.3 AS: You wanna put it in slideshow? Can we see that? Yeah, there you go.   0:03:24.9 JD: Yeah, I'll do that.   0:03:25.4 AS: Perfect.   0:03:26.3 JD: That works better. So, you know, again, what we're trying to do is show enough data in the baseline to understand what happened prior to whenever we started this improvement effort. And I think I've shared this quote before, but I really love this one from Dr. Donald Berwick, he said "plotting measurements over time turns out in my view to be one of the most powerful things we have for systemic learning." So what... That's what this is all about really, is sort of taking that lesson to heart. So, so you can look at Jessica's run chart for "joy in science." So just to sort of orient you to the chart. We have dates along the bottom. So she started collecting this data on January 4th, and this is for about the first 10 days of data she has collected. So she's collected this data between January 4th and January 24th. So, you know, a few times a week she's giving a survey. You'll remember where she's actually asking your kids, how joyful was this science lesson?   0:04:24.4 JD: Mm-hmm.   0:04:27.2 JD: And so this is a run chart 'cause it's just the data with the median running through the middle, that green line there, the data is the blue lines connected by, or sorry, the blue dots connected by the points and the y axis there along the left is the joy in learning percentage. So out of a hundred percent, sort of what are kids saying? How are kids sort of evaluating each of these science lessons? So we've got 10 data points so far, which is a pretty good start. So it's starting to give Jessica and her science class a decent understanding about, you know, when we, you know, define joy in science and then we start to collect this data, we really don't have any idea what that's gonna look like in practice. But now that she started plotting this data over time, we have a much better sense of what the kids think of the science lessons basically. So on the very first day...   0:05:25.4 AS: And what is the... What is the median amount just for the listeners out there that don't see it? What would be the... Is that 78%?   0:05:33.8 JD: Yeah, about 78%. So that very first day was 77%. The second day was about 68%. And then you sort of see it bounce around that median over the course of that, those 10 days. So some of the points are below the median, some of the points are above the median.   0:05:50.4 AS: And the highest point above is about 83, it looks like roughly around that.   0:05:54.4 JD: Yeah. Around 82, 83%. And one technical point is at the point that it's a run chart we don't have the process limits, those red lines that we've been taking a look at and with a run chart and, you know, fewer data points, we only have 10. It's fairly typical to use the median, just so you know, you can kind of better control for any outlier data points which we really don't have any outliers in this particular case but that's just sort of a technical point. So, yeah, I mean, I think, you know what you start to see, you start to get a sense of what this data looks like, you know, and you're gonna keep collecting this data over an additional time period, right? And she hasn't at this point introduced any interventions or any changes. Right now they're just learning about this joy in learning system, really. Right.   0:06:51.8 JD: And so, you know, as she's thinking about this, this really brings us to... To lesson six, which is, you know, what's the goal of data analysis? And this is true in schools and it's true anywhere. We're not just gonna look at the past results, but we're also gonna, you know, probably more importantly, look to the future and hopefully sort of be able to predict what's gonna happen in the future. And, you know, whatever concept that we're looking at. And so as we continue to gather additional data, we can then turn that run chart from those initial 10 points into a process behavior chart. Right. You know, that's a, sort of a, you know, it's the run chart on steroids because not only can we see the variation, which you can see in the run chart, but now because we've added more data, we've added the upper and lower natural process limit, we can also start to characterize the type of variation that we see in that data.   0:08:00.1 AS: So for the listeners, listeners out there, John just switched to a new chart which is just an extension of the prior chart carrying it out for a few more weeks, it looks like, of daily data. And then he's added in a lower and upper natural process limit.   0:08:18.9 JD: Yeah. So we're still, we're still plotting the data for joy in science. So the data is still the blue dots connected by the blue lines now because we have 24 or so data points, the green line, the central line is the average of that data running through the data. And we have enough data to add the upper and lower natural process limit. And so right now we can start to determine do we only have natural variation, those everyday ups and downs, that common cause variation, or do we have some type of exceptional or special cause variation that's outside of what would be expected in this particular system. We can start making...   0:09:00.7 AS: Can you...   0:09:02.2 JD: Go ahead.   0:09:02.8 AS: I was gonna... I was gonna ask you if you can just explain how you calculated the upper and lower natural process limits just so people can understand. Is it max and min or is it standard deviation or what is that?   0:09:18.3 JD: Yeah, basically what's happening is that, so we've plotted the data and then we use that data, we calculate the average, and then we also calculate what the moving range, is what it's called. So we just look at each successive data point and the difference between those two points. And basically there's a formula that you use for the upper and lower natural process limits that takes all of those things into account. So it's not standard deviation, but it's instead using the moving, moving range between each successive data point.   0:09:52.9 AS: In other words, the data that's on this chart will always fall within the natural upper and lower. In other words it's... Or is, will data points fall outside of that?   0:10:05.7 JD: Well, it depends on what kind of system it is.   0:10:07.8 AS: Right. Okay.   0:10:09.8 JD: If it's a stable system, that means all we see is sort of natural ups and downs in the data. And we use those formulas for the process limits. The magnitude of the difference of each successive data point is such that it's not necessarily big or small, it's just based on what you're seeing empirically. It's basically predictable. Right. And if it's not predictable, then we'll see special causes. So we'll see special patterns in the data. So I think maybe last time we talked about the three patterns, or you know, in some episode we talked about the patterns that would suggest there's a special cause that goes to the study. Those three patterns that I use are, is there a single one of these joy in science data points outside of either the upper or lower natural process limit that'd be a special cause.   0:11:05.4 JD: If you see eight data points in a row, either above the central line or below the central line, that's a special cause. And if I see three out of four in a row that are either closer to the upper limit or to the lower limit than they are to that central line, that's a pattern of the data that suggests a special cause. So we don't, in this particular dataset, we don't see any special causes. So now we have... Now we have a very solid baseline set of data. We have 24 data points. And when you're using an average central line and get... Getting technical, once you get to about 17 data points, those upper and lower natural process limits start to solidify, meaning they're not gonna really change too much 'cause you have enough data unless something really significant happens. And then if you're using the median, that solidification happens when you get to about 24 data points.   0:12:07.5 JD: So when you're, you know, when you're getting to 17 to 24 data points in your baseline, you're really getting pretty solid upper and lower national process limits. So, as of this March 1st date, which is the last date in this particular chart, there are 24 data points. So you have a pretty solid baseline set of data. Right now, the upper natural process limit is 95%. That lower limit is sitting at 66%, and then the average running through the middle, that green line is 81%. So this basically tells us that if nothing changes within Jessica's fourth grade science system, her classroom, we can expect the data to bounce around this 81% average and stay within the bounds of the limit. So we would call this a common cause system because we don't see any of those rules that I just talked about for special causes. And that's important.   0:13:07.4 JD: So do we have an unstable system or a stable system? We have a stable system. A stable system means that the data is predictable and unless something happens, you know, and this could be something that happens in the control of the teacher in the class, or it could be out of the control of the teacher in the class, but unless something happens that's significant, this data is just kind of keep humming along like this over the course of March, April, May of this particular school year. Right. So once we get to this point, so we have baseline data we've collected in a run chart, we start to understand how that data is moving up and down. We got some more data and we added the upper and lower natural process limits. Now we can assess not only the variation, but also the stability and the capability of the system, all of those things, those questions can start to be answered now that we have this process behavior chart.   0:14:09.3 JD: And this brings us to the final lesson for today, which is lesson 7, which is the improvement approach depends on the stability of the system under study. So that's why one of the reasons why the process behavior chart is so powerful is because now I have an understanding of what I need to do, like what type of approach I need to take to improve this particular system. Right? So in this particular case, I have a predictable system. And so the only way to bring about meaningful improvement is to fundamentally change this science system, right?   0:14:52.6 JD: The flip side would be if I did see a special cause let's say, it was an unpredictable system. We saw special cause on the low side. I'd wanna study that, what happened on that particular day. Because if I see a special cause, let's say on February 2nd I saw a special cause, let's say I saw a single data point below the lower natural process limit that's so different and unexpected, I'd actually wanna go to her classroom and talk to her in her class and say, okay, what happened on that day? I'm gonna try to remove that special cause. Study of that specific data point is warranted. If you don't see those special causes, then those, even though there are ups and downs, there are increases and decreases. They're within that, you know, the expected bounds of this particular system. Right.   0:15:46.9 AS: And I was gonna say, I can't remember if I got this from Dr. Deming or where it came from, but I know as an analyst in the stock market analyzing tons and tons of data in my career, I always say if something looks like a special cause or looks strange it's probably an error.   [laughter]   0:16:03.2 AS: And it could just be for instance, that a student came in and they didn't understand how to fill it out or they refused to fill it out or they filled out the form with a really bizarre thing, or maybe they thought that number 10 was good and number one was bad, but in fact on the survey it was number one that was good and number 10 that was bad. And you find out that, you know, that special cause came from some sort of error.   0:16:26.6 JD: That's certainly possible. That's certainly possible.   0:16:29.5 AS: As opposed to another special cause could be, let's just say that the school had a blackout and all of a sudden the air conditioning went off for half of the class and everybody was just like really frustrated. They were burning hot. It was really a hot day and that special cause could have been a legitimate cause as opposed to let's say an error cause but you know, it causes an extreme, you know response on the survey.   0:16:56.9 JD: Yeah. And the thing is, is yeah, it could be a number of different things. Maybe she tried, maybe she had gotten some feedback about her lessons and maybe even she tried a different lesson design and it was new to her and it just didn't work very well. Maybe she tried to use some new technology or a new activity and it just didn't go well. But you know, if I'm seeing that data show up as a special cause and let's say I'm seeing that the next day or a couple days later, it's still fresh in my mind and I can even go into my chart and label what happened that day. Okay. And I... Now, okay, I'm gonna remove that thing or I'm, you know, if it's a lesson I'm trying, maybe I don't wanna give up on it, but I know I need to improve it 'cause it led to some issues in my classroom, but it's close enough to the time it actually happened that I actually remember what happened on that particular day and I can sort of pinpoint that issue.   0:17:52.9 AS: Yeah.   0:17:54.5 JD: And the data told me it was worth going into studying that particular data point because it was so different than what I had seen previously in this particular 4th grade science system.   0:18:06.5 AS: Makes sense.   0:18:09.9 JD: But in this case, we don't see that, that was a hypothetical. So all we see is sort of the data moving up and down around that green average line. So we have a stable system. So again, that tells me I need to improve the science system itself. There's no special causes to remove. So, the next question I think I would ask, and if you remember one of the data lessons is that we sort of combine the frontline workers, which is the students in this case. We have the manager or the leader, that's the teacher, and then someone with profound knowledge from the Deming lens, that's me, we're bringing these people together and we're saying, okay, you know, we're seeing this hum along this joy in science thing, hum along at sort of like an 81% average. So I think it's a reasonable question to ask, is that good enough? And should we turn our attention to something else. Now, there could be some situations where it's not good enough or some situations where that is good enough. They chose to keep moving to improve that joy in learning. But I think it'd be perfectly reasonable in some context to say, well, you know, sure, maybe we could get a little better here, but maybe it's not worth the effort in that particular area. Maybe we're gonna turn our attention to something else. You know.   0:19:23.7 AS: So you learn something from the chart and that could be...   0:19:26.4 JD: Learn something from the chart. Yeah, yeah.   0:19:27.9 AS: Because when I look at this chart, I just think hard work is ahead.   0:19:31.2 JD: Yeah. Yeah.   0:19:34.7 AS: 'Cause in order to, if you have a stable system with not a lot of extreme... Firefighting is kind of a fun thing, right? When you got special causes, you feel really important. You go out there, you try to figure out what those individual things are, you're the hero. You fix it, you understand it, you see it, whatever. But then when you get a stable system, it's like, oh man, now we got to think about how do we make some substantial changes in the system. It doesn't have to be substantial, but how do we make changes in the system, you know? And then measure whether that has an impact.   0:20:06.4 JD: Yeah. And to your point about fire... Fighting fires, like I didn't know, we had never measured joy in learning like this before, so I didn't know what we were gonna get with Jessica. And so you know what I think you also see here is a pretty well-run classroom. These are kids that are finding a pretty high amount of joy in their lessons. I think that you can kind of objectively say that, but they did choose to move on with the project and keep focusing on this particular system. And I thought it was really interesting. They actually... I'll flip slides here.   0:20:45.6 JD: They actually made this sort of rudimentary fishbone diagram, so you can, if you're viewing the video here you can see that Jessica just took a pen and a piece of paper and put this on the overhead in the classroom, and basically just drew a fishbone. And on the fishbone diagram is also called a cause and effect diagram. So out on the right it says effect. And she wrote low enjoyment, so she's meaning low enjoyment of science class. And they started brainstorming, those are the bones of the fish, what's leading to what's causing the effect of low enjoyment in science class. And so they... She did this brainstorming activity with the kids. So some of the things they came up with were why is there low enjoyment with science class? Well, the computers are sometimes lagging when the kids are trying to use them. They're mad at Ms. Cutler for one reason or another. There's a lot of writing in a particular lesson. There's a lot of reading in a particular lesson.   0:21:58.2 AS: Other teachers coming into the room.   0:22:00.7 JD: Other teachers coming into the room and disrupting the class.   0:22:02.7 AS: Stop bothering me.   0:22:04.1 JD: Yeah. I mean, you know, these are the things you don't often think about. And then they talked about classmates making noises throughout classes, another distraction. And they basically categorized these into different categories. So there were sort of things that made the lesson boring. That was one category. Accidents happening, those are like the computers not working correctly. Scholar... We call our student scholars. So students getting in trouble was one, and then distractions was another category. And so then they did another activity basically after they had this fishbone. And they basically did like a voting activity where they would figure out which of these is the most dominant cause of low enjoyment. And actually what they came up with is their classmates call, like making noises, like students making a lot of noise, making noises, random noises throughout the lesson, they identified that particular thing as the thing that they're gonna then do something like design a plan, do study around, like how are we gonna reduce the amount of noise in the class?   0:23:12.7 JD: And this is all the students coming up with these ideas. Of course, Jessica's guiding these conversations as the adult in the room, but the kids are coming up with this. Like I never would have, well, maybe I shouldn't say I would never have, but it probably wouldn't likely have been on my radar that teacher, other teachers coming into the room was a main source of distraction. You know, who knows what they're doing, dropping off papers that have to be passed out, that dismissal or coming to find a kid for this thing or that thing. Who knows why they're stopping by. But schools are certainly rife with all kinds of disruptions, announcements, people coming into the room, those types of things.   0:23:51.0 AS: It's interesting too to see mad at Miss Cutler because... I was just reading a book about or some research about how to get rid of anger and that type of thing. And they talk about meditation and I do breathing exercise before every class, when every class starts. And it's a way of just kind of calming down and separating the class time from the chaos of outside, but it also could be something that could help with feeling mad.   0:24:27.9 JD: Yeah. And I think if in certain classrooms that certainly could have risen to the top. And then what you do is then design the PSA around that. So how do you do meditation? How do you know if you're going to do... How do you know if you're doing it right? How long do you do it? You know? Does it have the intended impact? You could study all kinds of different things with meditation, but...   0:24:52.4 AS: And are you really mad or is there... Are you really mad at Ms. Cutler or are you... Are you frustrated about something else? Or that...   0:24:58.1 JD: Exactly. Yeah. Is it warranted? Is there actually something that she should stop doing or start doing? There's all kinds of possibilities there. But the main point, and I think this kind of would bring us to the wrap up is taking this approach is very different. Even just the step, Jessica's step of saying, I'm gonna work on joy in science, joy in learning in science class. That's a very different approach. And then step beyond that, I'm gonna involve my students in this improvement approach. And we have these various methods and tools for systematically collecting the classes input, and that those are improvement science or continual improvement tools that we're using. And then we're applying some of the knowledge about variation, Deming sort of data methods to understand that data, that we've systematically collected from students.   0:25:58.7 JD: And now students are involved. So they're actively coming up with both the reasons, the problems that are happening. And then they're like what we'll get into in the last few lessons is their input into the solutions, the change ideas that are gonna make things better. But all of this represents a very different approach than what's typical when it comes to school improvement. These things are not being handed down from on high from someone that has no connection to this classroom whatsoever. Instead, it's actually the people in the classroom that are developing the solutions.   0:26:36.9 AS: I just was thinking about the idea of imagining that this group of students is working really hard on that, and they come up with so much knowledge and learning about how to create a more joyful classroom. And then imagine that they've now codified that together with Ms. Cutler to create kind of the standard operating procedures. Like we put up a sign on the door outside that says, do not disturb until class is over, or...   0:27:06.1 JD: Something simple. Yeah.   0:27:07.0 AS: And that they come up with, and a breathing exercise or whatever that is. And then you imagine the next group of students coming in for the next year, let's say, or whatever, that next group who can then take the learning that the first group had and then try to take it to another level, and then upgrade how the operations of the room is done. And you do that a couple of iterations, and you've now accumulated knowledge that you are building on until in a business, you're... You're creating a competitive advantage.   0:27:40.4 JD: Yeah, absolutely. And another thing that these guys did was they didn't say we're gonna improve X, Y, or Z and then set an arbitrary goal, which is one of the things we've talked about that often happens at the outset of any type of improvement. They didn't... They sort of avoided this act of desperation. We talk about goal setting as an active... Are often goal setting is often an act of desperation. They avoided that completely. Instead, what they did was we gathered some baseline data to understand what is the capability of our system when it comes to joy in learning. That's what they did first. They didn't set the goal first. A lot of wisdom, a lot of wisdom in 10 year olds for sure.   0:28:22.1 AS: That's interesting. Well, John, on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for the discussion and for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. You can find John's book Win-Win: W. Edwards Deming, the System of Profound Knowledge and the Science of Improving Schools on amazon.com. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming, and its absolutely applicable to today's discussion. People are entitled to joy in work.

How do you know that the learning you and your colleagues are doing is leading to changes in behavior? In this episode, Bill and Andrew discuss little tests you can do to see if the transformation you're working toward is really happening.  0:00:02.0 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with Bill Bellows, who has spent 30 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunity. Today is episode 22, and the title is, Test for Understanding Transformation. Bill, take it away.   0:00:30.7 Bill Bellows: Hey, we've been at this podcast for about a year now, right?   0:00:36.6 AS: It's incredible how long it's been.   0:00:39.8 BB: And in the beginning you said, I've been at this for 30 years, right?   0:00:43.7 AS: Yeah.   [laughter]   0:00:46.7 BB: Maybe we should change that to 31.   0:00:48.3 AS: Oh, man, there you go.   0:00:51.2 BB: All right.   0:00:53.0 AS: That reminds me of the joke of the janitor at the exhibition of the dinosaurs and the group of kids was being led through the museum and their guide had to run to the bathroom. And so they were looking at this dinosaur and they asked the janitor, "How old is that dinosaur?" And he said, "Well, that dinosaur is 300,032 years old." "Oh, how do they know it so exactly?" He said, "Well, it was 300,000 when I started working here 30 years ago."   [laughter]   0:01:28.8 AS: So there we are.   0:01:31.4 BB: That's great.   0:01:33.3 AS: Thirty-one years.   0:01:34.0 BB: All right, all right, all right. So first thing I wanna say is, as you know and our listeners know, I go back and listen to this podcast and I interact with people that are listening too, and I get some feedback. And in episode 19, I said the Germans were developing jet engines in the late 1940s. No, it turns out the Germans were developing jet engines in the late 1930s and they had a fighter plane with a turbine engine, a developmental engine in the late '30s. They didn't get into full-scale development and production. Production didn't start till the tail end of the war. But anyway, but I was off by a decade. In episode 21, I mentioned that checks were awarded within Rocketdyne for improvement suggestions and individuals who submitted this and it could be for an individual, maybe it was done for two people, three people, I don't know, but they got 10% of the annual savings on a suggestion that was implemented in a one-time lump sum payment.   0:02:36.1 BB: So you got 10% of the savings for one year and I thought, imagine going to the president of the company and let's say I walk into the president's office and you're my attorney. And I walk in and I say, "Hey, Mr. President, I've got a suggestion. You know that suggestion program?" He says, "Yeah, yeah, yeah. Come on in, come on in. And who's this guy with you?" "Well that's Andrew Stotz." "And who's Andrew?" "He's my attorney, and he and I have been thinking about what this is worth." "Well, tell me about it." "No, well, before we get into it, we've got this form to sign here."   0:03:10.9 AS: Andrew.   0:03:11.1 BB: "Right? And you wanna see the idea or not? But we don't have to share it." But I thought, imagine people going to great length and really taking advantage of it. Well, a few of us that were involved in our InThinking Roadmap training, what we started to propose is we want a piece of the action, Andrew. So the proposal we had is that, Andrew, if you come to one of our classes, a study session on The New Economics or Managing Variation of a System, we'll have you sign a roster, right? And so if you are ever given a check for big numbers, Andrew, then we're gonna claim that our training contributed to your idea and all we ask is 10%, right?   0:03:58.1 AS: Of your 10%.   0:04:00.9 BB: I mean, I think that's fair, right? But imagine everybody in the organization becoming a profit center.   0:04:08.7 AS: Crazy.   0:04:10.4 BB: That's what you get. All right.   0:04:14.5 AS: And the lesson from that is focus on intrinsic motivation. People wanna make improvements, they wanna contribute.   0:04:23.8 BB: You start... You go down the slippery slope of incentives, which will be part of what we look at later. There's just no end to that. All right?   0:04:31.4 AS: Yeah.   0:04:32.2 BB: So I mentioned in a previous podcast that I had an interaction, met the army's first woman four-star general, and I just wanna give you some more background and interesting things that happened with her relative to this test for understanding transformation. I don't know April, May, 2008, someone on her staff reached out to me and when they first... When the guy got a hold of me, I said... From the Pentagon, he called me, I think it was like 8:00 or 9:00 o'clock at night here. Whatever it was, it was after hours in LA so it was after hours in DC. I remember saying to the guy, "How did you find me?" He says, "There's a lot of stuff on the internet." So he says, "I came across a presentation you did for Goodwill Industries." And he says, "In there you talk about... " He says, "There's some really good stuff in there."   0:05:29.0 BB: And I said, "Like what?" He said, "You have a slide in there about you can minimize loss to society by picking up nails in a parking lot." And that was an example of what I used Dr. Taguchi's work, minimizing loss to society. I said, "Yeah, I remember that slide." He says, "We don't do enough of that in the Army." And he says, "Hey, we've got a conference next week, late notice. The keynote speaker bailed out." And he's calling me on a Monday. The presentation's a week from Wednesday and he says... And also he said that the Army had an initiative called Enterprise Thinking and Enterprise Thinking was part of what we called our effort within Rocketdyne. We used the terms Enterprise Thinking, organizational awareness, and that InThinking personal awareness. We were using those two terms. So he did a search on that, found my name, and he says, "What do you think?" And he says, "We're gonna... "   0:06:24.3 BB: If I agree, we'll have a follow-up vetting call the next day. So he calls me up the next day and it's him and a two-star general. There are three people in the room, all senior officers, and he says, "Okay, so, but tell us what you do." So I shared the last... It sounds funny, is what seems to have been the last straw in their interest was having me speak, was my last straw story. Remember the executive from the European airline and... Right? So I tell that story about my efforts within Rocketdyne and Boeing about this airline executive and how this deeply resonated with this executive of this customer of this company that buys a lot of Boeing airplanes that we focused on the one cause, not the greater system.   0:07:13.2 BB: And within minutes of sharing that story, they started laughing, leading to it a few minutes later to them saying, "you're the one."   0:07:19.2 AS: [laughter] That's very interesting.   0:07:21.3 BB: You're the one. So for our listeners, I'd say, let this be a reminder of how a personal story guided by insights on how Dr. Deming's System of Profound Knowledge can open doors for you. And you can use that story, come up with your own stories, but you just never know when you're gonna be in a situation where you need a really simple story. So as an aside, they contact me, like I mentioned, 10 years later, and I think I shared with you offline that the speaker I was replacing was the great Richard Rumelt, the strategy professor from UCLA, who for whatever reason needed to bail out. And then when this podcast is posted, I'll put a link to the slides of the presentation.   0:08:05.7 BB: It's about 45 minutes long. What was not covered... I went back and looked at it earlier to say, what did I share with them that got them so excited? All I know is it fit into 45 minutes to an hour. What was not covered was the trip reports, whether Red Pen or Blue Pen, Last Straw/All Straw, Me/We organizations. But after it was done, as I'm coming off the stage, General Dunwoody in uniform comes up to me. She was thrilled. Her exact words were, "You hit it." She says, "Bill, you hit it out of the park." And I thought, well, I had help from a lot of people. She then says something to me that I'll never forget. So we're face-to-face, right? Let me just... Right?   0:08:45.1 BB: And she says to me, "Bill, you've got a real challenge on your hands. Bill, you've got a real challenge on your hands." So prompted by that, I held my hand out, my right hand, which is what you do to initiate a handshake, and then she reaches out to shakes my hand and I said, "General Dunwoody, we have a challenge on our hands." [laughter] And she erupted in laughter. And my only regret, even though we went out for drinks for the next couple of hours, but my regret was not having a photo of her and I doing a double high five as she laughed. So then I remained in touch with her for the next six to eight months when she was promoted to four-star and she looked for opportunities to get me to the Pentagon, which she did. And I was trying to get her or somebody on her staff to come to Rocketdyne to learn more about what we're doing.   0:09:38.1 BB: But I say I share this anecdote as an example of a Test for Understanding of a transformation. So what is a TFU, test for understanding? This is something I got exposed to in my Kepner-Tregoe Problem Solving and Decision Making training, which I talked about in one of the first episodes. And in our training to deliver what was then a five-day course, we were coached on how to interact with seminar attendees, including how to answer questions and how to ask questions. And one of the things we got our knuckles wrapped for was saying, are there any questions? Because no one answers that. There is... And if I had said that when I was being certified, I'd have failed. So instead we're coached on how to ask questions or make comments, which serve as a test for someone's understanding of what I presented.   0:10:27.9 BB: For example, for me to reply to General Dunwoody with we have a challenge on our hands was to test her understanding of what I said and her laughter is a response that I could be expecting with something short. As an aside, an appreciation, we've talked about Ackoff's D-I-K-U-W model data, raw data information. You turn that into what, where, when, extent, knowledge. If we convert that to how does something operate looking inside of an automobile, how do the pieces work together? Remember he said understanding is when you look outward 'cause knowledge looking inward, Russ would say, doesn't tell you why the car is designed for four passengers. That comes from looking outward. And then wisdom is what do we do with all this? Well, the Kepner-Tregoe training was Test for Understanding and now that I'm inspired by Ackoff, well in my university classes, I ask "Test for Information" classes. I have them watch videos and say, what company was Russ working for?   0:11:31.1 BB: This anecdote, that's information. Nothing wrong with those questions. I can ask for "Test for Knowledge" questions asking how something operates. So what I don't know is like, why are they called Test for Understanding? They could be Test for Knowledge, Test for Information, Test for Wisdom. And obviously TFI test for information could be true, false, multiple choice and test for knowledge and understanding could be short, but then I want to go deeper. And so what I wanna share is in one of my university courses, I share the following, true, you can't make it up news stories. It says, once upon a time a national airline came in dead last on on-time performance one month even though it had offered its employees everything from cash to pizza to finish first in the US Department of Transportation's monthly rankings. Does that sound like incentives, Andrew?   0:12:33.0 AS: It's all there.   0:12:33.8 BB: If we finish first, pizza parties. Now if they got exposed to Rocketdyne, they'd be handing out checks for $10,000. So in one of the research essays, for a number of the courses, every week, every module, I give them a research essay very similarly, giving them a situation and then what's going on with the questions is having them think about what they've been exposed to so far. And so question one in this assignment is given this account, list five assumptions that were made by the management team of this airline? And so I just wanna share one student's response. He says, "assumption one..." And also let me say this comes from the second of two Deming courses I do. So these students have been exposed to a one, one-semester course prior to this. So this is not intro stuff. This is getting deep into it.   0:13:34.3 BB: And so anyway he says, "assumption one, offering incentives like cash and pizza would motivate employees to prioritize on-time performance." Okay? That's an assumption. "Assumption two, employee morale and satisfaction directly correlate with on-time performance. Assumption three, the issue of on-time performance primarily stems from..." Are you ready? "Employee motivation or effort. The incentives provided were perceived as valuable by employees." And you're gonna love where this goes. "Assumption five, employees have significant control over factors that influence on-time performance such as aircraft maintenance, air traffic control and weather conditions."   0:14:20.2 AS: Good answers.   0:14:23.0 BB: Again, what I think is cool and for our listeners is what you're gonna get in question two, three, four, and five is builds upon a foundation where these students have, for one and a half semesters been exposed to Deming, Taguchi, Ackoff, Gipsie Ranney, Tom Johnson, the System of Profound Knowledge, hours and hours of videos. And so this is my way of Testing their Understanding. And so if you're a university professor, you might find interest in this. If you're within an organization, this could be a sense of how do you know what people are hearing in your explanations of Deming's work or whatever you're trying to bring to your organization? So anyway, I then have them read a blog at a Deming Institute link, and I'll add this blog when this is posted but it's deming.org/the insanity of extrinsic motivation. All right. And they've been exposed to these concepts but I just said, "Hey, go off and read this blog." And it was likely a blog by John Hunter.   0:15:32.0 AS: Yep.   0:15:32.2 BB: All right, question two. All right. Now it gets interesting, is that "in appreciation of Edward de Bono's, "Six Thinking Hats"," which they've been exposed to, "and the Yellow Hat, which is the logical positive, why is this such a great idea? Listen, explain five potential logical, positive benefits of incentives, which would explain why they would be implemented in a ME Organization." And so what's seen is I have them put themselves in a ME Organization, put on the Yellow Hat and think about what would be so exciting about this. And so logical, positive number one. "Incentives can serve as a powerful motivator for individuals within the organization, driving them to achieve higher levels of performance and productivity. When employees are offered rewards for their efforts, they're more likely to be motivated to excel in their roles," Andrew. Logical positive number two, enhanced performance. Explanation, "by tying incentives to specific goals or targets, organizations can encourage employees to focus their efforts on key priorities and objectives.   0:16:46.9 BB: This can lead to improved performance across various aspects of the business, ultimately driving better results." Number three, attraction and retention of talent. Oh, yeah. Explanation, "offering attractive incentives can help organizations attract top talent and retain existing employees. Attractive incentives can serve as a key differentiator for organizations seeking to attract and retain skilled professionals." Now, let me also say, this is an undergraduate class. As I mentioned, this is the second of two that I offer. Many of these students are working full-time or part-time. So this is coming from someone who is working full-time, probably mid to late 20s. So these are not... They're undergraduates but lifewise, they've got a lot of real-world experience.   0:17:44.0 BB: All right. Logical positive four, promotion of innovation and creativity. Explanation, "incentives can encourage employees to think creatively and innovative in their roles. By rewarding innovative ideas and contributions, organizations can foster..." Ready, Andrew? "A culture of creativity and continuous improvement, driving long-term success and competitive advantage." And the last one, positive organizational culture. "Implementing incentives can contribute to a positive organizational culture characterized by recognition, reward and appreciation. When employees feel valued and rewarded for their contributions, they're more likely to feel engaged, satisfied, and committed to the organization." But here's what's really cool about this test for understanding, I get to position them in the framework of a ME Organization with the Yellow Hat.   0:18:40.9 BB: Now question three, in appreciation of Edward de Bono's, "Six Thinking Hats" and the Black Hat, what Edward calls a logical negative, list and explain five potential aspects of incentives, which would explain why they would not be implemented in a WE Organization. And this is coming from the same person. This is why I think it's so, so cool that I wanna share with our listeners. The same person's being forced to look at it both ways. Negative number one, potential for... Ready, Andrew? "Unintended consequences." Oh my God. "Incentives can sometime lead to unintended consequences such as employees focusing solely on tasks that are incentivized while neglecting other important aspects of their roles. This tunnel vision can result in suboptimal outcomes for the organization as a whole."   0:19:30.7 BB: "Number two, risk of eroding intrinsic motivation. Explanation, offering external rewards like incentives can undermine intrinsic motivation leading employees to become less interested in the work and more focused on earning rewards. Number three, creation of unhealthy competition. Explanation, incentives can foster a competitive culture within the organization where employees may prioritize individual success over collaboration and teamwork. This competitive atmosphere can breed..." Ready? "Resentment and distrust among employees." Can you imagine that, Andrew? Resentment and distrust? That seems like it would clash with my previous positive thought, but it really just points out how careful management needs to be.   0:20:19.0 AS: Yes.   0:20:19.2 BB: All right. Cost considerations. "Implementing incentive programs can be costly for organizations, particularly if the rewards offered are substantial or if the program is not carefully managed. Organizations may be hesitant to invest resources and incentives, especially if they're uncertain about the return on investment if budget is of concern." And then number five, "short-term focus over our long-term goals." Explanation, "incentives often improve short-term gains rather than long-term strategic objectives. Employees may prioritize activities that yield immediate results, even if they're not aligned with the organization's broader goals or values."   0:21:02.7 BB: And then question four, here's the kicker. "In appreciation of your evolving understanding of the use of incentives, share, if you would, a personal account of a memorable attempt by someone to use incentives to motivate you, so that so many pizza parties or bringing a small box of donuts or coffee in for working a weekend I was supposed to have off." And then question five, "in appreciation of your answer to question four, why is this use of incentives so memorable to you? They were very ineffective. I often felt insulted that my boss thought that $20 worth of pizza or donuts made up for asking me to give 50% of my days off that week."   0:21:55.5 AS: Here's a donut for you.   0:22:00.6 BB: Here's a doggy bone, here's a doggy bone. I just wanted to share that this time. Next time we'll look at more.   0:22:09.3 AS: One of the things that...   0:22:10.6 BB: There are other examples of Test for Understanding. Go ahead, Andrew.   0:22:12.3 AS: One of the things that I wanted to... What you made me think about is that you and I can talk here about the downside of incentives but we have to accept the world is absolutely sold on the topic of incentives.   0:22:27.2 BB: Absolutely.   0:22:27.8 AS: A 100, I mean, 99.999% and if you're not sold on it, you're still gonna be forced to do it.   0:22:34.5 BB: Well, you know why they're sold on them, 'cause they work.   0:22:39.7 AS: It's like a shotgun. One of those pellets is gonna hit the target but...   0:22:47.7 BB: That's right.   0:22:48.4 AS: A lot of other pellets are gonna hit...   0:22:50.6 BB: And that's all that matters. And then what you get into is, you know what, Andrew, that that one person walks away excited, right? And that's the pellet that I look at. And I say, yep, and what about those others? You know what I say to that, Andrew? Those others, you know what, Andrew, you can't please everybody.   0:23:07.8 AS: Yeah.   0:23:07.9 BB: So this is so reinforcing. There's one person that gets all wrapped up based on my theory that this is a great thing to do and I hone in on that. And everything else I dismiss as, "ah, what are you gonna do? You can't please everybody." But what's missing is, what is that doing to destroy their willingness to collaborate with the one I gave the award to?   0:23:33.1 AS: Yeah, I'm picturing a bunch of people and laying on the ground injured by the pellets but that one black, or that one... Let's say the one target that we were going after, that target is down but there's 50 other people down also.   0:23:50.6 BB: No, but then this is where I get into the white bead variation we talked about early, early on, is that if all I'm doing is measuring, have you completed the task and we're looking at it from a black and white perspective and you leave the bowling ball in the doorway for the next person, meaning that you complete a task with the absolute minimum requirements for it to be deemed complete. Does the car have gas? Yes. You didn't say how much but when people then... When those people that were summarily dismissed didn't receive the award, when they go out and don't share an idea, don't give somebody a warning of something or not even maliciously leave the bowling ball in the doorway but believe that the way to get ahead is to do everything as fast as possible, but in doing so, what you're doing is creating a lot of extra work for others, and then you get promoted based on that. Now you get into... In episode 22 we talked about, as long as there's no transparency, you get away with that. And then the person at the end of the line gets buried with all that stuff and everybody else says, well, my part was good and my part was good. How come Andrew can't put these together?   0:25:26.8 AS: In wrapping this up, I want to think just briefly about how somebody... So we're talking about understanding transformation, but we're also talking about incentives.   0:25:39.8 BB: Yes.   0:25:40.5 AS: And I would like to get a takeaway from you about how somebody who lives in a world of incentives, how do they, after listening to this, go back to their office and how should they exist? It's not like they can run away from a structure of incentives. Maybe when they become CEO, they decide, I'm not gonna do it that way, but they're gonna go back to their office and they're gonna be subjected to the incentive system. Obviously, the first thing is we wanna open up their mind to think, oh, there's more to it than just, these darned employees aren't doing what I'm telling them, even when I'm giving them incentives. But what would you give them as far as a takeaway?   0:26:27.1 BB: Well, I'll give you some examples of what some brilliant colleagues did at Rocketdyne, as they became transformed, as they became aware, and one is politely decline. Say, I don't, I don't need that. Just again you have to be careful there. There could be some misinterpretations of that. So you have to be...   0:27:03.2 AS: What if you're required to put an incentive system on top of your employees?   0:27:09.5 BB: Well, first, if it's coming down to you to go off and implement this, then one thing you could do is create a system which is based on chance. Everyone who contributed an idea, their name goes into a lottery for free lunch the first Wednesday of the month, and everybody knows. So then we're using the incentive money but using it in a way that everyone deems as fair. So that's one thing. And you just say, I'll... So then if your boss asks, have you distributed the incentive money? You say, yes, but you're distributing it based on a system of chance of which everyone realize they stand an equal chance of winning.   0:27:56.9 AS: Okay. So let's address that for a second. So your boss believes in incentives. They ask you to implement this system. Now you proposed one option, which is to do something based upon chance, but now let's look at your employees under you that have been indoctrinated their whole life on the concept of incentives. And you give them a system of chance and they're gonna come back and say, wait a minute, you're not rewarding the person who's contributing the most here? Now obviously you have a teaching moment and you can do all that, but is there any other way that you can deal with this?   0:28:33.7 BB: No, it could be tough. You've got to... You may have to go along until you can create a teaching moment. And what I did with the colleagues, when there are these a "great minds doing great things" events, and an announcement would go out as to who are the privileged few that got invited to these events, and I would tell people that if you go to the event, then that's what I would say. You can decline, you can politely decline. There's some things you can decline.   0:29:17.4 AS: I guess the other thing you could do, you could also... When you have to, when you're forced to reward, you can celebrate everybody's contribution while you're also being forced to give that incentive to that one person that has been deemed as the one that contributed the most.   0:29:36.9 BB: Well, I'll give you another example that a colleague did, a work colleague. He didn't do it in a work setting. Not that it couldn't be done in a work setting, but he signed up to be as a judge in a science fair in a nearby school. It was a work-related thing. And as it got closer, he realized... It was a... It would involve... What is a science fair without the number one science experiment? And my theory is you can't get a bunch of adults and a bunch of kids together in any organized way without giving out an award that just, it's like, oh, we got everybody together. We got to find a way to single somebody out. So when he realized what was going on, instead of not going, what he did, he took it upon himself to interact with every kid whose science experiment he watched and asked them lots of questions about it, about what inspired them? What did they learn?   0:30:30.6 BB: So what he wanted by the end of the day was that they were more intrigued that someone came and really wanted to know what they learned and less inclined to listen to who won the award. And I've seen that in a work setting, again, where we had events and the next thing you know there's an award and I thought, well, what can we do? Well, we can go around and really engage in the people who's got tables set up for the share fair knowing at the end of the day, we have this. We just can't break this, we just can't break this.   0:31:08.2 AS: Yeah. All right. So...   0:31:10.3 BB: But the other thing I've seen, I've seen people who received rewards, use that money. Literally, one guy in the quality organization at Rocketdyne received an award. It might have been for a $1000. He used the money, Andrew, to buy copies of The New Economics for everyone in the organization.   [laughter]   0:31:31.7 AS: Well, that brings us to another possibility, is that you convince your boss that you at least want to give... You want to reward the whole department.   0:31:40.5 BB: Yes.   0:31:40.9 AS: Any reward that you do, you want to reward your whole department. And so that could be something that your boss would say, "Okay, go ahead and do that." And they're not gonna go against it as opposed to trying to, say, no, I won't do it this way, but...   0:32:02.1 BB: Well, towards that end, I've seen people that are rewards crazy. At Rocketdyne, there's one guy in particular in a machine shop manufacturing environment and some big program wanted to thank five out of the 50 people in his organization with t-shirts. And he said, "You either give me 50 t-shirts or no t-shirts."   0:32:27.6 AS: Yeah.   0:32:28.8 BB: And I thought that was really cool 'cause this... And I don't know to what degree his exposure to what we were doing, but I thought that's what we need more of. Come back with 50 shirts and we'll take them.   0:32:44.1 AS: Okay. Let's wrap this up by doing a brief wrap-up of why you're saying... Why you've titled this Test for Understanding and what can the listeners take away.   0:32:56.6 BB: The idea is again, if in a seminar learning event situation is one thing, but if you're involved in leading in a transformation within your respective organizations, what I'm suggesting is that you think about how to Test the Understanding of that transformation's progress with your audience. And we talked in the past about leaving a coffee cup in the hallway, see if it's still there. That's a Test for Understanding of the culture of the organization. And that's what I'm suggesting here, is there are simple things you can do such when somebody says, come see what my son did. You can say, your son? Or is it, was there a spouse involved? And just as you become aware of the nuances of this transformation, you could be looking at somebody look at two data points and draw a conclusion and they're just a day out of some seminar with you about understanding variation and they're looking for a cause of one data point shift.   0:34:13.0 BB: So it's just, what can you do day in and day out, just your little things to test the organization or test an individual's understanding of this transformation process that we're talking about, which is, how are you seeing things differently? Are you becoming more aware of incentives and their destruction, more aware of theories? That's all. What just came to mind is... And the other aspect of it was this idea that very deliberately with the foundation of ME and WE, Red Pen/Blue Pen, then you can build upon that by saying to somebody, how might a Blue Pen Company go off and do this? How might a red pen company go off and do that? And that's not a guarantee that either one of them is right, but I find it becomes a really neat way on an individual basis to say, as you just pointed out, Andrew, so how would I as a manager in a Blue Pen Company deal with that awkward situation?   0:35:19.2 BB: Well, if I was in a red pen, this is what I would do. And so it's not only testing for understanding, but also the power of this contrast. And that's what I found with a group recently, especially the students. If I give them the contrast, I think it's easier for them to see one's about managing things in isolation and all that beckon such as belief in addition and root cause analysis, and one's about looking at things as a system. So it's not just Test for Understanding, but a test of both foundations is what I wanted to get across.   0:35:57.0 AS: Okay, great. Bill, on behalf of everyone at The Deming Institute, I wanna thank you again for this discussion. And for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. If you wanna keep in touch with Bill, hey, you can find him on LinkedIn and he listens. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming. I mean, I say this quote every time until I will be bored stiff of it, but "people are entitled to joy in work."

How can you make lasting change at your organization? Recruit your friends! In this discussion, Bill Bellows lays out his experience recruiting and working with a small group to make big changes in a large company.  0:00:02.5 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today I'm continuing my discussion with Bill Bellows, who has spent 30 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunity. Today is episode 21, and the topic is Transparency. Bill, take it away.   0:00:27.1 Bill Bellows: Thank you, Andrew, and welcome to our audience. And I wanna thank a handful of people who have reached out to me on LinkedIn and elsewhere to talk about the podcast, what they're getting out of it, and which has been very interesting meeting people from around the world. And that's led me to a couple opening remarks for clarity on some of the things we've discussed in the past. And then we'll get into our feature topic. And so I say, [chuckle] is that in my early years at Rocketdyne, the Rocket Factory, a few of us started to see the synergy of what we were absorbing and integrating from, primarily from Dr. Deming and Taguchi, not just them, there were others. And we're 10 years away from really beginning to see what Russ Ackoff was able to offer us. At one point, there were eight of us. It started off with one, then another, then another. Next thing you know there's eight of us. We were what Barry Bebb and his cloud model would call advocates. Advocates of a change, of a transformation. We've been using that word. And I started to refer to us as the Gang of Eight 'cause this is the early '90's. And I think in China there was a group known as the Gang of Eight. Maybe that was the '80's. And I remember thinking, "Oh, we're like the Gang of Eight."   0:01:54.7 AS: I thought that was a Gang of Four in China, is that the Gang of Four.   0:01:58.9 BB: Well, there was a Gang of Four, then there was a Gang of Eight. There were both.   0:02:02.4 AS: Okay.   0:02:03.1 BB: But anyway, but I remember hearing that word, and then I thought, "Well, so okay, a gang of eight." We started to meet regularly, perhaps every other week, sharing ideas on how to initiate a transformation and how we operated, again, inspired by Deming. So at first we met quietly, we would meet in another building, not wanting to call attention to our efforts, not wanting to be visible for those who might have been adversaries again to borrow from Barry's model. 'Cause Barry's model was, there's, for every advocate there's a few more adversaries. So we were keeping our heads down. And this is before I knew anything about Barry, but I, we were just kind, a little bit paranoid that people would see what we're doing. And so who were the ones that were the adversary? Well, those were promoting rewards and recognition. Those were promoting individual cash incentives for suggestion programs including, as I mentioned a previous podcast, an individual could submit a suggestion award, get up to 10% of the annual savings in a onetime lump sum. They were giving out checks for $10,000, Andrew. And I would kid people, if the company's giving out checks for $10,000, do you think we've got photographs of me receiving a check for 10,000? You betcha.   0:02:03.5 BB: And there it is in the newspaper, me receiving a check, not that me, [chuckle] but somebody receiving a check for $10,000, a big smile with the President. And it's in the newspaper and did that cause issues? Yes. But anyway, it wasn't obvious for some of us that we might have been, sorry, it wasn't obvious for some time that those we might have considered the adversary to our efforts were very likely not meeting to plan how to stall our efforts. [chuckle] Right. And, but it took a while to realize this, so here we are trying to be very discreet, meeting discreetly. And then it, at some time it dawned on me and some of the others that, those of us that were inspired to learn, think, and work together on transformation efforts as we've been exploring these podcasts, we have the benefits of positive synergy. And the adversaries at best operate without synergy as they're not likely to be inclined to do much more than participate in what some at Rocketdyne called, you ready, "Bill Bellows' Bitch Sessions." [laughter] And they come back from a class with me and they start bitching about me. And then the local people in that area would come by and tell me, and they said, "Anything we can do?" I said, "Yeah," I said, "Ask them what part of Rocketdyne moving in the direction of a Blue Pen Company do they not like." Right? It's just arrrgggggh.   0:02:04.2 BB: And I say, anyway. But once we had more and more results from our efforts, results from applying these ideas with very visible improvements in quality and costs leading to improved profits, it was all the harder for the adversaries to slow our efforts. Again, we were most fortunate to be working on challenges, we had challenges in fighting fires, but we also had challenges in designing hardware that achieved "Snap Fit" status, which translates to dramatically easier to integrate higher performing as well, as we shifted from parts to systems, challenges that required, guess what? A different lens inspired by Dr. Deming. That's, [chuckle] again, listening to the previous podcast, 'cause I thought, "Well, I wanna clarify a few things." Did we have ups and downs, Andrew? Yes, we did. We had days when we're excited, we had days when we were down. But what really worked out well, [chuckle] and the running joke was, there was variation in our excitement.   0:02:04.7 BB: So I may have been down, you'd be up, so you'd lift me up and then when you're down, I lift you up. And so the running joke we had amongst us was, thank God for variation in our moods. Because if we were all depressed at the same time, we'd go off the cliff. [chuckle] But we just took turns as to the ups and the downs. And we're very fortunate to have weekends 'cause that gave us time to not wanna choke some people. So, [chuckle] but come Monday we're relaxed. And then, but another thing that I wanted to point out from things we talked about previous podcasts, years ago, 30, nearly 30 years ago, I met a senior structural analyst from Boeing, Al Viswanathan, who was on the Boeing Commercial side. And he somehow got involved in the commercial side.   0:06:52.1 BB: Well, I don't know if it was the commercial side or military side. Anyway, Boeing had, there were both sides and one side was pro-Deming and the other side was anti-Deming. So he must have been on the defense side. And why would the defense side be pro-Deming? Because the Pentagon was pro-Deming. And so the defense side people would have been watching that. Anyway, Al somehow got involved in studying Deming's work and being a mentor within the organization. And I met him, I know when he worked there, when he retired. Anyway, Al, coming from Al, what I want to share is something he would say relative to Dr. Deming's funnel experiment. There's rule one of the funnel, rule two, rule three, and rule four. So rule one is you have a funnel and you drop marbles from the funnel onto the floor, and you get a pattern of where the marbles lay.   0:07:49.1 BB: And that's called variation. You're holding the funnel, you drop the marble, it lands in a different spot each time. And then rule two is you, if the marble is off a little bit to the right of the target that you're trying to hit, then you move the funnel the other direction. So two and three have to do with compensating. If it doesn't go where you want, then you shift it accordingly. Rule four, remember rule four of the funnel?   0:08:17.4 AS: I don't remember that.   0:08:18.9 BB: And this is... I think it's chapter eight. I know it's in The New Economics. Chapter 8, I'm sorry, rule four of the funnel is wherever the marble lands, position the funnel for the next drop. So in rule one, you keep it where it is and you get a pattern. Rules two and three, you compensate for where it lands. You either go left if it goes right and you compensate. And in compensating, it becomes worse. But what becomes really bad is when you put the funnel in rule four over where the last marble landed, and you end up getting farther and farther from the target leading to, remember the expression Dr. Deming used for that?   0:09:00.9 AS: Well, I remember the word tampering. But it meant when you get way off the target. What was that?   0:09:06.6 BB: He called it going off to the Milky Way. [laughter] And there are computer simulations where if, some people have done, you know, created.   0:09:16.0 AS: You do it in California and you end up in New York.   0:09:17.8 BB: Yep. And you, and you, and you keep getting further and further. Well, so in conversations with Al, and it could have been me and him and Dave Nave, Dick Steele and others, and at some point, Al would say, "How do we know we're not going off to the Milky Way?" Which translates to, how do we know that what we're interpreting from Deming is not getting further and further and further and further away from what he was trying to say? How do we know that we aren't wacky? How do we know? Because we think, "Oh, we're getting, we're understanding this better and better." And what I would say is, how do we know we're not going off to the Milky Way? “Actually,” I say, "We don't know." But part of having a community of people that work closely with Deming, people that know more than me about Dr. Deming's work is you can tap into that community and maybe lessen the chance that we go off to the Milky Way. Now, again, is that a guarantee? No, it's not a guarantee.   0:10:25.9 BB: But I would say, what I appreciate about Al saying that is, it's just a reminder that how do we know that what we're interpreting is true? So we're here, you and I are having these conversations, we're sharing interpretations, lessons learned, are we, is what Dr. Deming would say, "Is this worker training worker?" So, each of us are ignorant, and we think we understand Deming, and we're sharing it with others "well, I know, I know." Now, we can all be right, we can all be going off to the Milky Way. So I just wanted to say that, when I'm talking about diffusion from a point source and getting smarter and smarter and having these conversations within our organization. How do we know we aren't fooling each other? We don't know.   0:11:18.7 AS: I have a couple follow ups here. First of all, the 1991 Washington Post called it the Gang of Eight, as opposed to the Gang of Four, which was before that time, during the Cultural Revolution. And the Gang of Eight included seven men and one woman. And the Gang of Four, of course, included Mao's wife. So there's a little clarification.   0:11:44.6 BB: I wasn't sure if she was part of the four or part of the eight. I knew her name was in there somewhere.   0:11:49.0 AS: And the second thing you talked about the volatility of your feelings, your moods, right. And I just wanted to introduce the concept of volatility in finance, which is that volatility in itself is not bad. What's bad is correlation of volatility. So if all of you are upset on the same day, then it's just an absolute crash. But if one's upset on Monday and another one's happy and productive on Monday, then it starts to balance. And that's what we do in the world of finance is we combine correlation with volatility. And Harry Markowitz got a Nobel Prize in economics for coming up with the concept that risk can be reduced by understanding the correlation between assets and adding a highly risky asset to a Portfolio could, in fact, reduce the risk of the Portfolio overall, if the correlation between that asset and the Portfolio was, let's say negative or very low.   0:12:55.5 BB: Wow what you're talking about is the benefit of not being synchronous, being asynchronous.   0:13:04.2 AS: Correct.   0:13:05.1 BB: So you're up, I'm down, and I'm up, you're down, and then we can get through these periods. And yeah, and that's exactly what we're talking about. But you're right, I'm glad you brought that up because I've heard people talk about that as well. But that's exactly the point we're trying to make is, so for all those who think we ought to shrink variation to zero, I'd say, well, maybe there's value in variation, value in diversity of opinions. And also I have had people in the past say, "Well, so a Blue Pen Company is a bunch of people that go along to go along." I said, "No, it's a bunch of people that have strong disagreements on things and they share those disagreements."   0:13:49.5 BB: Now, at the end of the day by Friday, we've got to make a decision as to releasing this album whatever it is, because we've gotta ship. And we may arm wrestle, we may vote however we're gonna do it. So there can be disagreement. We have the ability to articulate where we're coming from. Borrowed from Edward de Bono, we can use a black hat and I can give you reasons why you don't think it'll work. You can call me on it and say, "Bill, how do I know it's your black hat and not what de Bono would call your red hat, which is my intuition."   0:14:26.4 AS: So if I say it doesn't work, you could say, "Bill, is that you don't feel it'll work or you know it won't work?" And I say, "Andrew, you're right. I have a bad feeling about it." I say, "Well, let's just be honest about it." But again, at the end of the day, we may vote. But we're gonna move forward. And what's not gonna happen is if you decide to take however we decide to make that decision, what there won't be a lot of room for is a bunch of "I told you so."   0:14:58.8 AS: Right.   0:15:00.4 BB: And we just we just dispense with that and just say this time, maybe the idea I had, we'll just have to wait till later and we're just gonna move on. So it's not to say it's a bunch of happiness and we're always in agreement. No, very strong relationships can have very strong disagreements. They just don't result in a civil war. Years ago, when my wife and I got married, she said I was just, it was lucky for me that she liked cats. I said that was non-starters. I said liking cats was a requirement. [laughter]   0:15:44.3 BB: So there's a few things that were non-starters. And if she didn't like cats, I'd have had a hard time with that. But on everything else, there's things we can disagree with. That's okay. All right. So given that I wanna talk about tonight is something that's come up in some other conversations recently. And it's about transparency. And then I have a quote that I've used in the past. I've once in a while attributed to Peter Senge, because I can't remember is actually Robert Fritz, a close associate of Peter Senge. And Fritz's comment is, “It's not what the vision is that is important. It's what the vision does.” And what I like about that is if you have a shared mental model of a Blue Pen Company. And I just began to appreciate how powerful it is that we have a shared vision. And relative to transparency, what I was sharing with some people is the transparency that exists in a Blue Pen Company, a Deming organization, a WE organization, an All-Straw organization and the transparency that which is as simple as me saying to you.   0:17:05.5 BB: Well, I say let's talk about the lack of transparency. I can meet a requirement, as we've talked about, an infinite number of ways to meet any set of requirements. And the letter grade is not A plus. It is not 100. It could be a D minus. I could leave for you the bowling ball on the doorway. And in a non-Deming Organization. I could meet any requirement you give me, Andrew, with the minimal amount of effort. Because all that we're measuring is that it met requirements. And so I give it to you and, and all you do is you look at the measurement and it says, "Yep, the car has gas." You're like, "Hey, I'm excited."   0:17:45.2 BB: Well, the black and white thinking allows me to hide a whole bunch of things. So if I said the car has gas. And you complain because it only has a quarter of a tank, I said, "Andrew. It has gas." But I thought in a Deming organization, I don't think we're gonna play those games. I think we're gonna have a lot more transparency relative to when I meet a set of requirements. Am I gonna leave the bowling ball on the doorway for you unilaterally? I don't think so. Maybe once I learn my lesson because I'm a new hire. I'm bringing something from where I used to work. But I think in a Deming environment, I think the transparency is gonna bring out the best in us.   0:18:33.8 BB: So I just want to throw that, that's part of where I'm coming from with transparency. You know, we don't have this murkiness as to, you know, where are they coming from? And. also we're going to be, you know, as Ackoff was, we're going to go to great lengths to be precise with language, and understand that efficiency is not effectiveness, that management is not leadership. And I think the better we have that clarity, I think that's a trademark of what that environment is about.   0:19:02.2 AS: It's interesting because, you know, the ultimate clarity is doing a run chart or a control chart on a process and seeing the outcome. And that's transparent and clear. And I've done a lot in my own management career by just getting data into a format that people can, you know, go back to and look at and think about. And just the transparency of that data can make a huge difference to the way people interpret what's going on in that unit.   0:19:38.9 BB: You're right. As opposed to the transparency of two data points, quality, I'm sorry, I think I've used this example. You can remind me of, you know, when I was at Rocketdyne once upon a time, and there was a meeting where the safety metrics, number of accidents, per employee in the first quarter was a certain level. Then in the second quarter, it went down. And I mean, the number of accidents per employee went down. Safety got better. And as you know, in this meeting with a bunch of directors and the VP and somebody says to the VP, why is safety improved? And their response was, because “We've let them know safety is important.” Well, who's the we? Who's the they? So, and, but imagine the transparency for somebody hearing that we've let them know. That's a way of saying, so you're, you're believing that because it went down, it's because of things we said, and they're not interested in safety.   0:20:45.3 BB: And then if it goes the other way, we're going to claim what? That they're not listening? So you're right. I mean, the ability, the transparency of looking at a set of data on a control chart and the realization that the process is in control. Then we look at the ups and downs and say, no reason for alarm here.   0:21:12.2 AS: The other thing that I thought relates to transparency is fear. In the sense that what is fear? Fear is, you know, a concern that something is going to happen is about to happen is in the process of happening, or, you know, something's happening to you and you're not being able to see, you know, what's going on. So I was just thinking, you know, another angle on transparency is, you know, reducing fear in an organization by being, you know, let more transparent.   0:21:41.5 BB: Yes. And, and I can even imagine, what's funny is that, a co-worker in my office, once upon a time. And. And she was upset with a decision made by the president at that time was my boss. And so she, so for about two years or so, she reported to me, lovely lady, lovely friend, great friend. So anyway, she was upset. She comes in. Did you hear the decision made? And I said, no, I didn't know. And she says, and she was really upset. And I don't know what it was that she was upset. And at some point she said something like, “I don't know what I'm going to do. I just don't know what I'm going to do.”  I turned to her and I said, if I were you, I would take this personally. Which caused her to laugh. And when I told her, again I get back to transparency, I said, "I may not agree with a decision, but I may never know the choices he had." And so in that situation, Andrew, there may be situations in a Deming company where for whatever reason, there is no transparency, we don't know the options, we don't know what was on the table, all we know is the outcome, and it could be because of, you know, Security and Exchange issues relative to, you know, stock prices, there's, there's all kinds of reasons we may not know.   0:23:03.4 BB: But in that environment, we may, we have to live with it. We just have to say, well, and when I look at it as, and I'm glad you brought that up. Because when I look at it as, there may be decisions, we don't know the choices, we don't know the criteria, we may never know. Instead of agonizing over it, I'd like to think that if we were in the room and knew what they knew and the options they had, we might well make the same decision. And that's something that I became excited about at Rocketdyne was, I didn't have to be in the room for a bunch of decisions, a whole bunch of decisions, I didn't have to be in the room. And what I thought was, if I can help people develop a better and better sense of what a Deming organization, how that operates. And then, and then practice, perhaps, you know, how might they handle a given scenario, and in fact, Kevin's mom, Diana Deming Cahill reached out to me in the late '90s, you know, late '90s, and asked if I would resurrect a Deming Study group for Los Angeles, which existed when Deming was alive, they used to meet at the LA Times.   0:24:51.4 BB: They had invited speakers. And after Deming died it dissolved, and she saw what we're doing within the Boeing sites and asked if I would, you know, work with her to resurrect that. I said sure, I said but here's the deal. When she explained to me how it used to work, invited speakers every month and I thought, that's a lot of work finding a speaker every month. And I said, and it's so easy to be, you know, sit in the back of the room and watch somebody talk I thought. I'm not, I'm not, I don't like that format. And so, a few of us spent a good deal of time coming up with a format. And we went from three hours to two hours and, and then came down to a really neat format that we held for a couple years. We met in two different sites. We met in Canoga Park. We met in the other group met in Huntington Beach where Diana would show up we first we looked at a location there LAX, that wasn't going to work. So we spent the first hour talking about reflections how we're seeing the world through a Deming lens, things that had happened since the last month that we're seeing, that we're seeing differently.   0:26:08.6 BB: That's the first hour. And then the second hour someone would introduce a topic and the topic would be, "How would a Deming organization do X." And what was neat was just to brainstorm. How would a Deming organization go about doing something, that may be way beyond our, our personal responsibility and it just allowed us to play in this space. And, and just, you know, wonder what is, what is going on there. And I throw that out in the spirit of transparency is, it was just to me it was just fun to just practice. How would you deal with, how would you deal with, how would you deal with. And that's what got me thinking that, now going back to, I think that if you get a diverse enough group of people with different experiences and perspectives I think the better they understand, yeah, where Deming and the others are coming from.   0:27:02.5 BB: I think we're going to see a lot of common decision making. And that was for me was very relaxing, that I didn't have to worry about "now they're going to make the right decision." I just thought, if they understand the process, and they use, you know, Edward de Bono's ideas to go through ideas. I thought, the best I can do is say, how did you reach this conclusion, what options did you consider who was involved in the decision making? I can ask those types of questions. I can ask, you know, did you include the supplier did you include... I can ask that. And once I understand that I'd say, if I trust the process. Then I have to trust the result, which goes back to transparency. So I no longer. I mean, that's what parents do - you trust. You raise your kids in a way that you help them develop a sense of a process. And then you just have to live with the results.   0:28:00.8 BB: And same thing as sports. You, I've seen coaches. When I was a youth referee, they're trying to micromanage every minute of the game and I thought it's too late for that you've got to do that at practice. And then once they're playing you just let them go. And that's a demonstration of how well you've prepared them.   0:28:21.6 AS: That's a great, you know, a great one. It's so, it's so amazing to see a team in action and a coach being able to kind of sit back and say now it's up to you. And, you know, I've trained you and everything I can. How would you, how would you wrap this up and provide people with how a Deming organization would apply transparency and maybe give, you know, some one or two ideas about how someone can leave this conversation and bring more transparency back to their organization.   0:29:00.8 BB: I think it's, goes back, to me it goes back to, as a point source within your respective organizations, listening to our podcast, you know, reading articles on, I mean, watching things on DemingNEXT and learning more. And, and yeah. Reaching out and finding people that are, you know, perhaps more knowledgeable than you about Deming's work or Ackoff work. And then Deming once said something about everyone's entitled to a master or mentor or someone, and I was very fortunate to be associated with some brilliant people that worked closely with Deming and Ackoff, and Ackoff himself and Taguchi. I would say, one is, what can you, what can you be doing to improve your understanding, with the appreciation of going off to the Milky Way.   0:29:51.6 BB: And then how can you then practice sharing that with others? Like we did going back to this Gang of Eight and what can be done within your respective organizations to create this group of one, group of two, group of three, group of four. And how might you work together to better appreciate what you think Dr. Deming and Ackoff and others are saying, how you might apply them? How can you support one another? And then, and at least, again, you're gonna have ups and downs, but I don't think there's any substitute for that. And many people I've mentored are solo people within their respective organizations. And what I keep telling them is you've got to find someone else to help you. You can't be the only one in that meeting lobbying for working on things that are good when everybody else is working on things that are bad.   0:30:46.4 BB: It's just gonna sound foolish but imagine being in a situation where you're lobbying for working on something which is good because you want to prevent it from going bad or improve integration. And then someone hears that remark and says, Bill, with all these challenges we have, I can't believe you're going off and doing that. Then imagine you're there in the meeting. And then after that person tries to sidetrack it, you say, "Bill, is that what you were trying to say?" And I say, "no, Andrew, that's not at all what I was trying to say." So you can come to my rescue. And when I'm being shoved aside, I've been in those sessions where I get shoved aside and it takes someone like you to be able to step in and say, Bill, did you say you wanted to do that? I don't think that's what you said.   0:31:10.5 BB: And that's what I would say is, increase the transparency amongst a small group, and then try to increase that transparency. And what becomes a lot of fun is, there are a handful of people at Rocketdyne, we can go into an office of any number of people and take turns exchanging things and reading. And we could see where things are going. And two of us, two or three of us can have a room of 10 and change the course of that conversation because we were incredibly transparent amongst each other. So I just leave it with that, Andrew.   0:32:21.8 AS: Well, Bill, on behalf of everyone at The Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this discussion. And for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. If you want to keep in touch with Bill, just find him on LinkedIn. As you can see, he responds. This is your host, Andrew Stotz. And I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming. People are entitled to joy in work. And, are you enjoying work?  

Can a 4th grade class decide on an operational definition of "joy in learning"? In part 4 of this series, educator John Dues and host Andrew Stotz discuss a real-world example of applying Deming in a classroom. This episode covers the first part of the story, with more to come in future episodes! 0:00:02.3 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with John Dues, who is part of the new generation of educators striving to apply Dr. Deming's principles to unleash student joy in learning. This is episode four about goal setting through a Deming lens. John, take it away.   0:00:22.6 John Dues: Good to be back, Andrew. Yeah, we've been talking about organizational goal setting last few episodes. A couple episodes ago, we talked about those four conditions that organizations should understand prior to setting a goal. Then we sort of introduced this idea of trying to stay away from arbitrary and capricious education goals. And then we got into these 10 lessons for data analysis. And so what I thought we could do now is we've got that foundation in place is that we could take a look at an applied example in real classrooms of those 10 key lessons in action to kind of bring those alive. And I ran this project a few years ago with a teacher named Jessica Cutler. She's a fourth grade science teacher in our network. And she was going through something we call a Continual Improvement Fellowship. So we do this sort of internal fellowship where people can learn that sort of way of thinking, the tools, techniques, the theories related to the science of improvement. And then they actually take that right away and apply it to a problem in their classroom or their department or their school, depending on who it is.   0:01:55.0 JD: And so what Jessica was doing, what her project ended up being was she was trying to improve the joy in learning in her fourth grade science class. So it's interesting to see how that sort of project evolved. So I thought we could revisit each of the 10 lessons and how that lesson was applied in Jessica's improvement project. And we'll maybe get through three or four of the lessons today. And then over the course of the next few episodes, kind of get to all 10 lessons and think through how they were... How that went in her improvement project.   0:02:08.1 AS: Sounds like a good plan, practical application.   0:02:12.0 JD: Yeah. I mean, it was interesting too, because she didn't initially sort of consider joy as a possibility. She was thinking like, I'm gonna work on improving test scores or something like that was sort of her initial brainstorm. And then sort of pivoted to this when we kind of talked through what was possible from the Deming philosophy type of standpoint. So it's interesting to see how things evolve. But just to kind of revisit, so we talked through these 10 lessons. Lesson one was "data has no meaning apart from their context." So we talked about these questions that are important, like who collected the data? How was it collected? When was it collected? Where was the data collected? What are the values themselves represent? What's that operational definition for the concept under measurement? Have there been any changes to that operational definition as the project unfolds? And so even with a project with a teacher and her students, all of those questions are relevant. They're still important just because you're dealing with students that doesn't mean anything changes on that front. So it was important for her to sort of think through all of those things as she thought through the start of her project.   0:03:28.9 JD: And what her and her students came up with after they sort of decided that they were gonna focus on joy, they focused on this problem statement. And they were like, well, what do we want science class to look like? 'Cause that was sort of their starting point. And what her and her students...Oh sorry go ahead.   0:03:45.9 AS: One thing you started off talking about her, now you're talking about her students. So she got her students involved in this process. Is that what you're saying?   0:03:56.2 JD: Yeah. So they were working together from the very outset even...   0:04:02.0 AS: As opposed to a teacher talking through this with a principal or something in a faculty room and then thinking of how do I... Okay.   0:04:09.2 JD: Yep. That's right. Yeah. And so what they came up with is the sort of desired future state of science classes. "We are able to stay focused through science, enjoy science class and remain engaged." And so to give some context, what was happening is that she taught science and social studies and it was sort of like a back-to-back class period. And they would do science second. And so by the time they were doing science, sometimes the students were getting off task, disengaged. They weren't as engaged as either the students wanted to be or the teacher wanted them to be in that second lesson. So they, they came up with that as the thing they were gonna focus on. And then because they were gonna focus on joy in learning, they had to define what that meant. So what did joy in learning mean to that fourth grade science class? And what they came up with as a definition, which I really like, is "we wanna have fun learning, finding things we like to learn and have fun completing classwork and activities." So they came up with this operational definition. And keep in mind, these are fourth graders and Jessica's having these conversations like, what's the operational definition? That's not probably typical language you're gonna use with fourth graders. But if you walk them through these things, they actually pick up on it pretty quickly.   0:05:26.1 JD: It's actually pretty cool to see.   0:05:28.1 AS: And to them, a more simpler word sounds like was fun.   0:05:35.0 JD: Yeah, right. They wanted that to be a part of the science learning process. So basically, once they had the operational definition, they had to think through, well, how are we going to measure that concept that we've defined? And what they did was they just developed a simple survey. Jessica did it in Google Forms. just had, really just had two questions. The first question was, on a scale of 1 to 10, how much did you enjoy science class today? And then there was a second open-ended question that said, what made you enjoy or not enjoy class today? So it was fresh in the kids' minds. So basically, at the end, each kid has a Chromebook in Jessica's science class. She would just sort of share the link to the survey, and the kids would complete that as the closing activity for the lesson. So she would get two things out of it. So 1 to 10, just a real quick sort of numerical quantified value, how much the kids enjoyed science class that day. And then, because it had just happened, the students could say what they did and didn't like about the lesson. Oh, we haven't used computers in a few days. Or it'd be nice if I had a video to help bring this concept alive. Or there's a few words that you use that I don't know the definitions to. Could you add those definitions to the glossary? So just things like that, simple things like that.   0:06:55.9 JD: Right away. And then what Jessica could then do is take that information and actually adjust her lessons as she planned maybe for the next week, she could make those adjustments based on this feedback she was getting from the students. So that's sort of the application of lesson number one. So what are we measuring? How are we gonna measure it? When are we collecting this data? That type of thing. Lesson two, if you remember back from when we covered the lessons was "we don't manage or control the data. The data is the voice of the process," right?   0:07:28.9 JD: So we talked about this ideas that while we don't control the data, we do manage the system and the processes from which the data come, right? So, and this is really key conception of the system's view. You, you say you're going to improve this particular classroom. So that's the system. So you're not necessarily controlling the data. You're not controlling how the kids are evaluating, the numbers that they're putting one through 10 to assess joy in learning, but what the teacher and then the students, because of this project do have control over are the learning processes that are happening throughout science class, right? And so back to your point about you switch from talking about Jessica, the teacher to the students. And then you said "we" that's also a key conception of taking this approach, right?   0:08:24.4 JD: So what I think Deming would say is that when you're going to improve an organization, you have to sort of combine sort of three critical pieces. One thing is you need someone from the outside, from outside the system that has Profound Knowledge. And then that person or persons has to be collaborating with the people working in the system. So those are the students, they're working in the science class system. And, then you that third group or that third person is the manager or managers have that have the authority to work on the system. So in this case, Jessica has the authority to change what's happening in her science class.   0:09:10.2 JD: The students are the workers working in that science system. And then that third part is that person that has the sort of understanding of the System of Profound Knowledge and it's sort of bringing all of these parts together that really is how you begin to transition sort of conventional classrooms to those guided by the Deming quality learning principles, right?   0:09:33.1 JD: So in in the case of Jessica's project, that person that was, that had a System of Profound Knowledge lens was me. So I was sort of acting as an, the outsider, 'cause I'm outside of the science system. But I have this understanding of the System of Profound Knowledge. And I'm working with Jessica as she's working with her students, to sort of bring that lens to the projects.   0:10:00.4 AS: And what's the point of doing all that if she doesn't have the ability to make the changes necessary to test, if you're gonna if we change this, it's gonna result in something why go and do all this if you're just stuck in a system that you simply cannot change because of government regulation or whatever, maybe.   0:10:17.5 JD: Right. Yeah. So it's bringing all those pieces together. But what I found thinking about the three parts of a team that's working toward organizational improvement, what I've found in the past is, in my experience, whether it's a school improvement team or a district based improvement team, most of them are devoid of at least one parts of one of those components, usually two of those components, 'cause usually students aren't involved.   0:10:45.9 JD: And then in most school systems, there's no one with this outside knowledge, the System of Profound Knowledge lens, right. And I think it's what we're really doing is the students can identify the waste, the inefficiency, the things that aren't going well from their perspective, but we don't often ask them. Or if we do, we do it in a way where it's an end of year survey or an end of semester survey, but this is collecting that feedback in real time and then acting on it. We're not planning to do something next year with this feedback, we're actually planning to do something the next day, or maybe the next week, to adjust the science lessons.   0:11:24.8 AS: And it's one of those two things that come into my mind, what, how do you handle the idea that what's causing the impact on joy in learning could be that the student had a bad night, the night before. And I guess by doing many samples that starts to kind of wash out. And then the other question is since the students know that the teacher could likely make an adjustment, is there any possibility that they could be gaming or playing the system.   0:11:57.1 JD: Well, that's interesting, because I think, well on the first point. I think pretty quickly, my experience with this and David Langford I know you've talked to has echoed this sentiment is you know, he was working with high school students, this is an elementary project but either way. You may get some students that don't take this seriously. At first. And you may get some kind of crazy answers crazy brainstorms or crazy survey submissions, although I don't think Jessica got much of that.   0:12:30.2 JD: But in other projects I've gotten some stuff at the outset that was a little bit off the wall. But like David said to me when I first started this and then it's been my experience since is that kids, once they realize that you're actually gonna act on the feedback, as long as the feedback is in good faith. They actually start to take it seriously, pretty, pretty quickly. And so I think pretty quickly, those sort of types of worries go by the wayside. Now, I will say I did say that the...   0:13:01.1 JD: One of the components that has to be on this improvement team is the person that has the authority to change the system. So at the end of the day, even though we're gathering this input, Jessica's really the person as the teacher of that classroom that has the authority to make the changes to the system based on her judgment or, her professional judgment as a science teacher of what should happen. And so the students certainly offer feedback and inform that process, but ultimately it's Jessica that's gonna determine the changes to the system.   0:13:34.0 AS: I hear David in my ears saying, you know what, Andrew? You don't trust the students? They probably have a more honest, view of what's going on than most adults do. So yes, I hear the voice of David Langford.   0:13:49.2 JD: Yeah. Well, and interestingly, and we'll get into this towards the end, not today, but when we get to some of the other lessons, interestingly, not to give away the story, but, one of the things that was getting kids off track was a lot of noise during class, kids making noises. And they actually came up with this system where they were kind of penalizing each other. This was their own idea. And so, kids know exactly what's going on in class. And so it was interesting to see how they came up with some ideas to rectify that. But yeah, so it was really just bringing together, these three groups or, the group of students and then Jessica and then myself. It's that combination that's really where the power for improvement lies. And again, I, that type of partnership is just not typical in school improvement situations.   0:14:45.7 JD: So that's lesson two, applied. Lesson number three is "plot the dots for any data that incurs in time order." Right? So we've talked about this a lot. The idea behind the primary point of "plot the dots" is that plotting data over time helps us understand variation, and that in turn leads us to take more appropriate action. I think that what we decided to do with Jessica's project is, start plotting the points on a run chart and connect those points with a line, and then it becomes pretty intuitive as we're looking at that data, what joy in learning looks like in this science class. And then once we have enough data, we can turn that run part chart into a process behavior chart and actually add the limits.   0:15:40.2 JD: So, like I said, Jessica, once her and the class determined that what they were going to improve was join in learning, and they defined that concept operationally and created the survey, right away they started gathering this survey data as a part of the project, and usually they would gather the data maybe, two or three times a week across the course of this particular improvement project. So maybe I'll share my screen just so you can see what that initial run chart looked like. So, you have this run chart, and I left this in the spreadsheet so you could see the actual data. So as she began administering these surveys, she would send me the data and then I would create it the run chart for her, start plotting that data so that both of us could sort of see the variation in that survey data over time. And then she could actually take this, she would put this run chart on a slide, and every week or so she would actually show the students what the data looked like.   0:16:49.7 AS: And just to be clear, we've got a chart for those that are listening, we've got a chart that has a blue line and it's going up and down kind of around the level of about 79. So they've got points that are based, that are days. Some days are below that 79 some days are above. But also I'm assuming that those points are the output of all the surveys. So the average answer on that day from the survey as different from the average or median of all the day's output, correct?   0:17:31.1 JD: Yeah, that's right. So this is, the run chart from Jessica's class that's displaying the survey results. And what they're measuring is joy in science class as assessed by the students.   0:17:44.3 AS: On the first day, the students basically said, 75% of the respondents said that they had joy in science.   0:17:51.9 JD: That's right. So in this particular school year, which was two years ago, so we had done some of the project planning before kids went on winter break, and then when they came back from winter break, they were ready to start administering the survey. And we started plotting the dots, charting the data over time. So the X axis for those who are listening are the dates.   0:18:16.2 JD: The, Y axis is the joy in learning, percent of kids that the rating of the kids from one to 10. And then I just turn it into a percent. And so you have the green line, the central line running through is the median. We're using the median 'cause that's fairly typical for a run chart because typically run charts don't have as much data as a process behavior chart. And so, outliers can have a greater impact. So we're using the median to sort of control for that. Although this data's fairly tight. So on day one, like you said on January 4th of this school year 75, the kids sort of rated the joy in learning of that particular lesson as a 75% of 100. And then you sort of see it bounce around.   0:19:04.7 JD: That median of 79. And so what I'm showing is the data from the first 10 surveys that Jessica administered at the end of class. So over the course of 20 days from January 4th through January 24th, she administered that this survey 10 different times. So about two to three times a week. And so we see a high of about 83% joy in learning and a low of 67% joy in learning. And you have about half the points above the median, about half the points below the median. So even though it's only 10 data points, Jessica and her class, and then myself, we were starting to learn about what did joy in learning, joy in science class actually look like? Now that we have this definition and we're measuring it with these surveys and then plotting these data points. So again, she's actually putting this up on, on the, up on the screen so kids can actually see this. And what she said was after the 5th or 6th survey, and she's plotted this and put this up on a screen a few times, the kids are actually getting excited. And they're wanting to see their data. They're wanting to see what the results look like for each survey as she started plotting this.   0:20:30.6 AS: It's funny because I, when I was a loading supervisor at Pepsi, I started putting up the percent correct for each of the loaders in the warehouse. And I didn't make any comment or anything, I just put it up there. And yeah, people are interested when they start seeing numbers, they start thinking, they start asking questions.   0:20:54.3 JD: Yeah, and you can see too at a school, in a fourth grade science classroom, you can see all types of lessons, you can sort of build up this reading graphs, calculating percentages, using when do you use line graphs for some other type of graph?   0:21:10.2 AS: And why use median versus mean? Because a small amount of data could be distorted if you have a huge outlier.   0:21:18.8 JD: Yep, all kinds of practical lessons. So this brings us to sort of the last lesson for this particular episode. I think lesson four is two or three data points are not a trend, right? So, we've said that you should start plotting the dots as soon as you've decided to collect some type of data that occurs over time. And really when people ask me what type of data can you put on a run chart or a process behavior chart, there's almost any data that you're interested in improving in schools unfolds over time, almost all of it. Whether that's a daily cadence, a weekly cadence, monthly, quarterly, yearly, whatever it is, right? But the problem is the vast majority of data that we look at as educators and really probably most people, it's typically two or maybe three data points. But that doesn't tell you anything about how the data is varying naturally. So when we start thinking about this particular data, we start learning quite a bit. For one, as a teacher, I would have no idea how my kids would evaluate their joy in my classroom.   0:22:29.9 JD: And so I think if I was Jessica, I'd be pretty happy off of that, that the sort of average or the median rating is close to 80%, basically the rating each lesson has an eight out of 10. Right. I think a second thing is let's say we were a school district and we did systematically give our kids some type of survey that assess their satisfaction with the school. Right. Maybe they do it twice a year or annually. Right. And so after at the end of the year, you have two data points, but you don't really have any idea for what to do with that data. You have no idea if you collected three or four or five data points, what that would look like. And here she is in just 20 calendar days and a couple of school weeks. She's got 10 data points to work with already. So she's building that baseline of data. So I think what this is to me is just a very different approach to school improvement.   0:23:39.4 JD: And the tools are relatively simple. The ideas are relatively simple. But I think overall this really, the takeaway I want for folks is that this project really illustrates a very different approach to school improvement, guided by these sound sort of Deming principles for how to use data, to how to understand variation, to how to include the people working in the system, right?. We've talked about these arbitrary targets throughout this series, and you could see that when Jessica and her class would go to maybe set a goal for joy after collecting some of this data, that goal would be tied to something real. It's tied to actual data from the classroom. And you can sort of avoid goal setting as an act of desperation when you take this type of approach.   0:24:38.4 AS: Joy in the joy of bringing joy in science.   0:24:44.2 JD: Yeah, it's really all about this process, right? It's the kids getting into this process, that's the psychological part. They're involved in their educational process. And so that is completely different than what's happening in the typical classroom, I think, in the United States.   0:25:00.5 AS: You can imagine somebody not wanting to do this because they're afraid of what they're going to see.   0:25:07.0 JD: Certainly [laughter]   0:25:08.3 AS: Yeah.   0:25:08.7 JD: Certainly. Yeah. Hopefully they would be open to sort of collecting the data and being reflective as a professional. But I could see, maybe that's not, tha's not always the case. And another question, I kind of shared this project with some folks, in different settings, and one of the questions I typically get is, well, what about the science test scores? Like, this is great if kids have joy, I guess is kind of the reaction. But what... How does that impact the academics?   0:25:44.0 JD: And my response is, well if kids don't find joy in their learning and they're not engaged, what kind of results are you gonna get? [laughter] To me this is sort of like a part of the process that leads to academic outcomes, when you enjoy the things that you're doing, when you feel like you have some control over a process, maybe not the full control, but when you have some control, when you have input into something that you're doing all day long, you're gonna have more investment because, you know, because you're seeing that your input has meaning. That's really that psychological component.   0:26:18.2 AS: It's obvious, but maybe not proven.   0:26:21.9 JD: Yeah, I think so. I think so.   0:26:28.4 AS: Okay.   [SILENCE]   0:26:30.9 JD: Yeah. I think that's a pretty good spot to wrap up this opener with the... We covered those first four lessons and started to look at how this project unfolded in, Jessica's classroom. And I think, next we can kind of see as she gathered more data, what this looked like over time. And then as she sort of had that baseline in place, then the next thing we'll look at is: what did she do as a change idea or an intervention to try to make these rates go higher in her classroom?   0:27:08.4 AS: That's interesting. I mean, in my wrap up of this, I think how lucky, is Jessica to have someone from the outside? I think a lot of teachers and a lot of people in business, they don't really have anybody to go to. And the company's not providing that type of stuff or the school is not providing that. And so you just kind of make it up as you go along. And I think that's, that's one of the things, 'cause I'm, I think like probably other listeners and viewers who are, listening to this, they're thinking, I wonder if John could help me do that in my area? The idea of, we all know there's places that we could improve that we may not be. And if a school system can provide that, wow, that's a big... That's exciting.   0:27:56.6 JD: Yeah. I'd be happy to. And it was like a, it was definitely a mutual effort. Jessica put a lot of work into sort of, 'cause she has gone through that fellowship, she had to sort of learn all of these tools and then actually, turn around and put them into practice in her classroom. And she found ways to do this in a way where, she could still do the things she was required to do, like delivering the lessons that she was required to deliver and those types of things. But then she found ways to sort of incorporate what she learned in the fellowship to make her classroom better. Seeing that, seeing her openness to feedback that really made this like a, I think a, mutually beneficial experience. And I think the kids enjoyed it too.   0:28:39.2 AS: And the purpose of this series too is, the idea of how can you do this at home and how can you start doing it in your own school, in your own classroom, in your own life? And so I think I'm looking forward to the next session where we're gonna go deeper into... I've already got, a series of questions and things that I'm wondering, and then I saw some tabs in your, in your worksheet that I thought, okay, there's gonna be some more interesting stuff. So I think we're all gonna see you in that next section.   0:29:09.9 AS: And on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this discussion and, taking the time to go through these steps with us. And for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. You can find John's book Win-Win, W Edwards Deming, the System of Profound Knowledge and the Science of Improving Schools on amazon.com. This is your host, Andrew Stotz. And I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming, and it's particularly apropos, people are entitled to joy in work.  

Dr. Deming developed his philosophy over time and in conversations with others, not in isolation. As learners, we tend to forget that context, but it's important to remember because no one implements Deming in isolation, either. In this conversation, Bill Bellows and host Andrew Stotz discuss how there's no such thing as a purely Deming organization and why that's good. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.2 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussions with Bill Bellows, who has spent 30 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. Today is episode 20, entitled, System of Profound Wisdom. Bill, take it Away.   0:00:31.6 Bill Bellows: But not just for 30 years. I forgot to say I started when I was 12.   0:00:36.6 AS: Yes. [laughter] Yes. And you've got the hair to prove it.   [laughter]   0:00:43.7 BB: All right. Now, actually, I was thinking the proposal and the title, I thought... I mean, System of Profound Wisdom is cool, System of Profound Questions. Either one of those is good. Let's see which title comes out.   0:00:57.6 AS: Yeah. And I think we'll have to also understand that may some listeners that may not even know what System of Profound Knowledge means, they've been listening. They do. But if today's their first episode, we also gotta break that down, just briefly.   0:01:10.9 BB: Yeah. Okay, let's do that. All right. Well, let me give an opening a quote from Dr. Deming from chapter three, and then we can explain this SoPK, System of Profound Knowledge, thing. But in chapter three of Dr. Deming's last book, The New Economics, the last edition, edition three, came out in 2018. And chapter three, Dr. Deming says, "We saw in the last chapter, we are living under the tyranny of the prevailing style of management. Most people imagine that this style has always existed. It is a fixture. Actually, it is a modern invention a trap that has led us into decline. Transformation is required. Education and government, along with industry, are also in need of transformation. The System of Profound Knowledge to be introduced in the next chapter is a theory for transformation." So you wanna...   0:02:15.4 AS: That's good.   0:02:16.7 BB: So let's say something. Let's just say something about SoPK. How would you explain that?   0:02:23.1 AS: Yeah. Well, actually, I wanna talk very briefly about what you just said, because it's just...   0:02:27.1 BB: Oh, sure.   0:02:29.6 AS: At one point, I thought, "It's a system of knowledge." But he just said it was a system of transformation.   0:02:38.7 BB: It's a theory for transformation.   0:02:40.1 AS: A theory for transformation. Okay, got it. I see. And one of the things that I... I look at Toyota so much just 'cause it's so fascinating and how they've survived all these years, the continuity in the business, the continuity and the profitability of the business, the continued march to become the number one auto producer in the world, and having faced all the ups and downs and survived. And I just think that what they have is a learning organization. No matter what the challenge is, they're trying to apply learning tools, like System of Profound Knowledge, like PDSA, to try to figure out how to solve this problem. And I think that many companies, including at times my companies, [chuckle] we sometimes will scramble and we'll lose knowledge and we won't gain knowledge. And so the System of Profound Knowledge, to me, is all about the idea of how do we build a base of knowledge in our business and then build upon that base of knowledge rather than destroy it when the new management comes in or when a new management idea comes in.   0:04:00.7 AS: And that's something I've just been thinking about a lot. Because I do know a company that I've been doing some work with, and they basically threw away a huge amount of work that they did on System of Profound Knowledge and stuff to go with the prevailing system of management, is like going back. And now, they just produced a loss in the first quarter, and I just think, "Interesting. Interesting."   0:04:27.6 BB: Well, a couple things come to mind based on what you said. One is I would propose that Toyota, I'm in agreement of "Toyota's a learning organization." And that'll come up later. I've got some other thoughts on learning organizations. And we know that they were influenced by Dr. Deming. To what degree, I'm not sure of. Shoichiro Toyoda, who is one of the sons of the founder of the Toyota Motor Car Company, was honored with a Deming prize in 1990. And I believe it came from JUSE, as opposed to the American Society for Quality. One or the other. He was honored with a Deming Prize.   0:05:32.0 AS: Yep.   0:05:33.5 BB: Again, I don't know if it's Deming Prize or Deming Medal. But I know he was honored. What's most important, the point I wanna make is, upon receiving it he said, "There is not a day that goes by that I don't think about the impact of Dr. Deming on Toyota." But, if I was to look at the Toyota Production System website, Toyota's Toyota Production System website, which I've done numerous times, I'd be hard-pressed to find anything on that page that I could say, "You see this word, Andrew? You see this sentence, Andrew? You see this sentiment? That's Deming." Not at all. Not at all. It's Taiichi Ohno. It's Shigeo Shingo. I'm not saying it's not good, but all those ideas predate Deming going to Japan in 1950. Taiichi Ohno joined Toyota right out of college as an industrial engineer in 1933, I believe. The Japanese Army, I mentioned in a previous episode, in 1942, wanted him to move from Toyota's loom works for making cloth to their automobile works for making Jeeps. This comes from a book that I would highly recommend. Last time we were talking about books. I wanted to read a book, I don't know, maybe 10 years ago. I wanted to read a book about Toyota, but not one written by someone at MIT or university. I didn't wanna read a book written by an academic. I've done that.   0:07:15.1 BB: I wanted to read a book by somebody inside Toyota, get that perspective, that viewpoint. And the book, Against All Odds, the... Wait I'll get the complete title. Against All Odds: The Story of the Toyota Motor Corporation and the Family That Changed it. The first author, Yukiyasu Togo, T-O-G-O, and William Wartman. I have a friend who worked there. Worked... Let me back up. [chuckle] Togo, Mr. Togo, born and raised in Japan, worked for Toyota in Japan, came to the States in the '60s and opened the doors to Toyota Motors, USA. So, he was the first person running that operation in Los Angeles. And it was here for years. I think it's now in Texas. My late friend, Bill Cummings, worked there in marketing. And my friend, Bill, was part of the team that was working on a proposal for a Lexus. And he has amazing stories of Togo. He said, "Any executive... " And I don't know how high that... What range, from factory manager, VPs. But he said the executives there had their use, free use, they had a company car. And he said Togo drove a Celica. Not a Celica. He drove a... What's their base model? Not a...   0:08:56.2 AS: A Corolla?   0:08:57.7 BB: Corolla. Yes, yes, yes. Thank you. He drove a Corolla. He didn't drive... And I said, "Why did he drive a Corolla?" Because it was their biggest selling car, and he wanted to know what most people were experiencing. He could have been driving the highest level cars they had at the time. Again, this is before a Lexus. And so in this book, it talks about the history of Toyota, Taiichi Ohno coming in, Shigeo Shingo's contributions, and the influence of Dr. Deming. And there's a really fascinating account how in 1950, a young manager, Shoichiro Toyoda, was confronted with a challenge that they couldn't repair the cars as fast as they could sell them. This is post-war Japan. They found a car with phenomenal market success. Prior to that, they were trying to sell taxicabs, 'cause people could not... I mean, buying a car as a family was not an option. But by 1950, it was beginning to be the case. And the challenge that Shoichiro Toyoda faced was improving the quality, 'cause they couldn't fix them as fast as they could sell them. And yet, so I have no doubt that that young manager, who would go on to become the chairman, whatever the titles are, no doubt he was influenced by Dr. Deming. But I don't know what that means.   0:10:23.4 BB: That does not... The Toyota Production System is not Deming. And that's as evidenced by this talk about eliminating waste. And those are not Deming concepts. But I believe, back to your point, that his work helped create a foundation for learning. But I would also propose, Andrew, that everything I've read and studied quite a bit about the Toyota Production System, Lean, The Machine That Changed The World, nothing in there explains reliability. To me, reliability is how parts come together, work together. 'Cause as we've talked, a bunch of parts that meet print and meet print all over the place could have different levels of reliability, because meeting requirements, as we've talked in earlier episodes, ain't all it's cracked up to be. So I firmly believe... And I also mentioned to you, I sat for 14 hours flying home from Japan with a young engineer who worked for Toyota, and they do manage variation as Dr. Taguchi proposed. That is not revealed. But there's definitely something going on. But I would also say that I think the trouble they ran into was trying to be the number one car maker, and now they're back to the model of, "If we are good at what we do, then that will follow."   0:11:56.8 BB: And I'm gonna talk later about Tom Johnson's book, just to reinforce that, 'cause Tom, a former professor of management at Portland State University, has visited Toyota plants numerous times back before people found out how popular it was. But what I want to get into is... What we've been talking about the last couple episodes is Dr. Deming uses this term, transformation. And as I shared an article last time by John Kotter, the classic leadership professor, former, he's retired, at the University... Oh, sorry, Harvard Business School. And what he's talking about for transformation is, I don't think, [chuckle] maybe a little bit of crossover with what Dr. Deming is talking about. What we talked about last time is, Deming's transformation is a personal thing that we hear the world differently, see the world differently. We ask different questions. And that's not what Kotter is talking about. And it's not to dismiss all that what Kotter is talking about, but just because we're talking about transformation doesn't mean we mean the same thing.   0:13:10.6 BB: And likewise, we can talk about a Deming organization and a non-Deming organization. What teamwork means in both is different. In a Deming organization, we understand performance is caused by the system, not the workers taken individually. And as a result of that, we're not going to see performance appraisals, which are measures of individuals. Whereas in a non-Deming organization, we're going to see performance appraisals, KPIs flow down to individuals. [chuckle] The other thing I had in my notes is, are there really two types of organizations? No, that's just a model. [chuckle] So, really, it's a continuum of organizations. And going back to George Box, all models are wrong, some are useful. But we talked earlier, you mentioned the learning organization. Well, I'm sure, Andrew, that we have both worked in non-Deming organizations, and we have seen, and we have seen people as learners in a non-Deming organization, but what are they learning? [chuckle] It could be learning to tell the boss what they want to hear. They could be learning to hide information that could cause pain. [chuckle] Those organizations are filled with learners, but it's about learning that makes things worse. It's like digging the pit deeper. What Deming is talking about is learning that improves how the organization operates, and as a result, improves profit. In a non-Deming organization, that learning is actually destroying profit.   0:14:51.8 BB: All right. And early, spoke... Russ, Russ and Dr. Deming spoke for about three hours in 1992. It got condensed down to a volume 21 of The Deming Library, for which our viewers, if you're a subscriber to DemingNEXT, you can watch it in its entirety. All the Deming videos produced by Clare Crawford-Mason are in that. You can see excerpts of volume 21, which is... Believe is theory of a system of education, and it's Russ Ackoff and Dr. Deming for a half hour. So you can find excerpts of that on The Deming Institute's YouTube channel.   0:15:37.0 BB: And what I wanted to bring up is in there, Russ explains to Dr. Deming the DIKUW model that we've spoken about in previous episodes, where D is data. That's raw numbers, Russ would say. I is information. When we turn those raw numbers into distances and times and weights, Russ would say that information is what the newspaper writer writes, who did what to whom. Knowledge, the K, could be someone's explanation as to how these things happened. U, understanding. Understanding is when you step back and look at the container. Russ would say that knowledge, knowledge is what you're using in developing to take apart a car or to take apart a washing machine and see how all these things work together. But understanding is needed to explain why the driver sits on the left versus the right, why the car is designed for a family of four, why the washing machine is designed for a factor of four. That's not inside it. That's the understanding looking outward piece that Russ would also refer to as synthesis. And then the W, that's the wisdom piece. What do I do with all this stuff? And what Russ is talking about is part of wisdom is doing the right things right. So, I wanted to touch upon in this episode is why did Dr. Deming refer to his system as the System of Profound Knowledge? Why not the System of Profound Understanding? Why not the System of Profound Wisdom? And I think, had he lived longer, maybe he would have expanded. Maybe he would have had...   0:17:28.4 BB: And I think that's the case. I think it's... 'Cause I just think... And this is what's so interesting, is, if you look at Dr. Deming's work in isolation and not go off and look at other's work, such as Tom Johnson or Russ, you can start asking questions like this.   0:17:45.7 AS: One thing I was going to interject is that I took my first Deming seminar in 1989, I believe, or 1990. And then I took my second one with Dr. Deming in 1992. And then soon after that, I moved to Thailand and kind of went into a different life, teaching finance and then working in the stock market. And then we set up our factory here for coffee business. But it wasn't until another 10 years, maybe 15 years, that I reignited my flame for what Dr. Deming was doing. And that's when I wrote my book about Transform Your Business with Dr. Deming's 14 Points. And what I, so, I was revisiting the material that had impacted me so much. And I found this new topic called System of Profound Knowledge. I never heard of that. And I realized that, it really fully fledged came out in 1993, The New Economics, which I didn't get. I only had Out of the Crisis.   0:18:49.9 BB: '93.   0:18:49.9 AS: Yeah. And so that just was fascinating to go back to what was already, the oldest teacher I ever had in my life at '92, leave it, come back 10, 15 years later and find out, wait a minute, he added on even more in his final book.   0:19:10.4 BB: Well, Joyce Orsini, who was recruited by Fordham University at the encouragement of Dr. Deming, or the suggestion of Dr. Deming to lead their Deming Scholars MBA program in 1990. Professor Marta Mooney, professor of accounting, who I had the great fortune of meeting several times, was very inspired by Dr. Deming's work. And was able to get his permission to have an MBA program in his name called the Deming Scholars MBA program. And when she asked him for a recommendation, "Who should lead this program?" It was Joyce Orsini, who at the time I think was a vice president at a bank in New York. I'm not sure, possibly in human resources, but I know she was in New York as a vice president.   0:20:10.0 BB: And I believe she had finished her PhD under Dr. Deming at NYU by that time. And the reason I bring up Joyce's name, I met her after Dr. Deming had died. Nancy Mann, who is running a company called Quality Enhancement Seminars with, a, at the beginning one product, Dr. Deming's 4-Day seminar, when Dr. Deming died, and I had mentioned, I was at his last seminar in December '93, she continued offering 4-day seminars. And I met her later that year when she was paired with Ron Moen and they were together presenting it, and others were paired presenting it. And at one point, as I got to know Joyce, she said, "His last five years were borrowed time." I said, "What do you mean?" She said, "He started working on the book in 19'" evidently the '87, '88 timeframe, he started to articulate these words, Profound Knowledge.   0:21:11.0 BB: And I know he had, on a regular basis, he had dinner engagements with friends including Claire Crawford-Mason and her husband. And Claire has some amazing stories of Deming coming by with these ideas. And she said, once she said, "What is this?" And he is, she took out a napkin, a discretely, wrote down the, "an understanding of the difference between intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation. Difference between understanding special causes versus common causes." And she just wrote all this stuff down, typed it up. When he showed up the next week, she greeted him at the door and said, and she said, he said, This is Claire. And Claire said, he said, "What's that?" He says, "Well, I took notes last week."   0:21:54.2 BB: And he says, "I can do better." [chuckle] And so week by week by week. And as he interacted with the people around him, he whittled it down. And I'm guessing it put it into some, there's a technique for grouping things, you, where on post-it notes and you come up with four categories and these things all go over here. There's one of the elements of that, one of the 16 had to, or 18 or so, had to do with Dr. Taguchi's loss function. So that could have gone into the, maybe the variation piece, maybe the systems piece. But Joyce said, basically he was frustrated that the 14 Points were essentially kind of a cookbook where you saw things like, "cease dependence on inspection" interpreted as "get rid of the inspectors." And so he knew and I'd say, guided by his own production of a system mindset, he knew that what he was articulating and the feedback were inconsistent.   0:23:01.9 BB: And I've gotta keep trying. And she said, "His last five years on borrowed time as he was dying of cancer, was just trying to get this message out." So I first got exposed to it 19, spring of '90 when I saw him speaking in Connecticut. And I was all about Taguchi expecting him to, I didn't know what to expect, but I knew what I was seeing and hearing from Dr. Taguchi when I heard Dr. Deming talk about Red Beads. I don't know anything about that, common cause and special cause, I didn't know anything about that. And so for me, it was just a bunch of stuff, and I just tucked it away. But when the book came out in '93, then it really made sense. But I just had to see a lot of the prevailing style of management in the role I had as an improvement specialist, become, [chuckle] a firefighter or a fireman helping people out.   0:24:01.5 AS: I noticed as I've gotten older that, I do start to connect the pieces together of various disciplines and various bits of knowledge to realize, so for instance, in my case, I'm teaching a corporate strategy course right now at the university. Tonight's, in fact, the last night of this particular intake. And my area of expertise is in finance, but now I see the connection between strategy and finance, and how a good strategy is going to be reflected in superior financial performance relative to peers. And of course, I know how to measure that very well. So I can synthesize more and more different areas of things that I know things about, that I just couldn't do when I was younger. So I can see, and he was always learning, obviously. So I can see how he, and also I can also see the idea of, I need bigger principles. I need bigger as you said, theory for transformation. I need, I need to be able to put this into a framework that brings all that together. And I'm still feeling frustrated about some of that, where I'm at with some of that, because I'm kind of halfway in my progress on that. But I definitely can see the idea of that coming later in life as I approach the big 6-0.   0:25:37.3 BB: The big 6-0, [chuckle] Well, but a big part, I mean, based on what you're talking about, it ended up... Previously we spoke about Richard Rumelt's work, Good Strategy/Bad Strategy, and I mentioned that I use a lecture by Richard Rumelt, I think it was 2011 or so. It was right after his book, Good Strategy/Bad Strategy came out. He spoke at the London School of Economics, and our listeners can find it if you just did a Google search for Richard Rumelt, that's R-U-M... One M. E-L-T. Good Strategy/Bad Strategy. LSE, London School of Economics. Brilliant, brilliant lecture. And I've seen it numerous times for one of my university courses. And he is like Deming, he doesn't suffer fools. And, it finally dawned on me, Deming organizations, if we can use this simple Deming versus non-Deming or Red Pen versus Blue Pen, and as, George Box would say, all models are wrong, some are useful. If we can use that model, I think it's easy to see that what frustrates Rumelt is you've got all these non-Deming companies coming up with strategies without a method.   0:27:00.0 BB: What Rumelt also talks about is not only do you need a method, but you have to be honest on what's in the way of us achieving this? Again, Dr. Deming would say, if you didn't need a method, why don't you're already achieving the results? And so it just dawned on me thinking the reason he's so frustrated, and I think that's one word you can use to describe him, but if he is talking to senior staff lacking this, an understanding of Deming's work, then he is getting a lot of bad strategies. And organizations that would understand what Dr. Deming's talking about, would greatly benefit from Rumelt's work. And they would be one, they'd have the benefit of having an organization that is beginning or is understanding what a transformation guided by Dr. Deming's work is about. And then you could look up and you're naturally inclined to have good or better strategy than worser strategies.   0:28:02.2 BB: And then you have the benefit of, profit's not the reason, profit is the result of all that. And, but next thing I wanna point out is, and I think we talked about it last time, but I just wanted to make sure it was up here, is I've come across recently and I'm not sure talking with who, but there's this what's in vogue today? Data-driven decisions. And again, whenever I hear the word data, I think backed in Ackoff's DIKUW model, I think data-driven. Well, first Dr. Deming would say, the most important numbers are unknown and unknowable. So if you're doing things on a data-driven way, then you're missing the rest of Dr. Deming's theory of management. But why not knowledge-driven decisions, why not understanding-driven decisions And beyond that, why not, right? How long... [laughter] I guess we can... Part of the reason we're doing these Andrew is that we'd like to believe we're helping people move in the direction from data-driven decisions to wisdom-driven decisions, right?   0:29:13.1 AS: Yeah. In fact, you even had the gall to name this episode the System of Profound Wisdom.   0:29:24.0 BB: And that's the title.   0:29:24.9 AS: There it is.   0:29:28.9 BB: But in terms of, I'll give you a fun story from Rocketdyne years ago, and I was talking with a manager in the quality organization and he says, "you know what the problem is, you know what the problem is?" I said, "what?" He says, "the problem is the executives are not getting the data fast enough." And I said, "what data?" He says "the scrap and rework data, they're just not getting it fast enough." So I said, "no matter how fast they get it, it's already happened."   [laughter]   0:30:00.0 BB: But it was just, and I just couldn't get through to him that, that if we're being reactive and talking about scrap and rework, it's already happened. By the time the... If the executives hear it a second later, it's already happened. It's still old news.   0:30:14.7 AS: And if that executive would've been thinking he would've said, but Bill, I want to be on the cutting edge of history.   0:30:23.1 BB: Yeah, it's like...   0:30:24.6 AS: I don't want information, I don't want old information, really old. I just want it as new as it can be, but still old.   0:30:32.9 BB: Well, it reminds me of an Ackoff quote is, instead of... It's "Change or be changed." Ackoff talked about organizations that instead of them being ready for what happens, they create what's gonna happen, which would be more of a Deming organizational approach. Anyway, we talked about books last time and I thought it'd be neat to share a couple books as one as I've shared the Against All Odds Book about Toyota.   0:31:08.8 AS: Which I'll say is on Amazon, but it's only looks like it's a used book and it's priced at about 70 bucks. So I've just...   0:31:16.2 BB: How much?   0:31:16.8 AS: Got that one down? 70 bucks? Because I think it's, you're buying it from someone who has it as a their own edition or something. I don't know.   0:31:23.8 BB: It's not uncommon. This is a, insider used book thing. It's not uncommon that you'll see books on Amazon for 70, but if you go to ThriftBooks or Abe Books, you can, I have found multi-$100 books elsewhere. I don't know how that happens, but it does. Anyway, another book I wanted to reference in today's episode is Profit Beyond Measure subtitle, Extraordinary Results through Attention to Work and People, published in 2000. You can... I don't know if you can get that new, you definitely get it old or used, written by, H. Thomas Johnson. H is for Howard, he goes by Tom, Tom Johnson. Brilliant, brilliant mind. He visited Rocketdyne a few times.   0:32:17.1 BB: On the inside cover page, Tom wrote, "This book is dedicated to the memory of Dr. W. Edwards Deming, 1900-1993. May the seventh generation after us know a world shaped by his thinking." And in the book, you'll find this quote, and I've used it in a previous episode, but for those who may be hearing it first here and Tom's a deep thinker. He's, and as well as his wife Elaine, they're two very deep thinkers. They've both spoke at Rocketdyne numerous times. But one of my favorite quotes from Tom is, "How the world we perceive works depends on how we think. The world we perceive is the world we bring forth through our thinking." And again, it goes back to, we don't see the world as it is. We see the world as we are. We hear the world as we are. I wrote a blog for The Deming Institute. If our listeners would like to find it, if you just do a search for Deming blog, Bellows and Johnson, you'll find the blog. And the blog is about the book Profit Beyond Measure. And in there, I said, “In keeping with Myron Tribus' observation that what you see depends upon what you thought before you looked, Johnson's background as a cost accountant, guided by seminars and conversations with Dr. Deming, prepared him to see Toyota as a living system,” right? You talk about Toyota.   0:33:53.9 BB: He saw it as a living system, not a value stream of independent parts. And that was, that's me talking. I mean, Tom talked about Toyota's living system. And then I put in there with the Toyota Production System, people talk about value streams. Well, in those value streams, they have a defect, good part, bad part model that the parts are handed off, handed off, handed off. That is ostensibly a value stream of independent parts 'cause the quality model of the Toyota Production System, if you study it anywhere, is not Genichi Taguchi. It's the classic good parts and bad parts. And if we're handing off good parts, they are not interdependent. They are independent. And then I close with, "instead of seeing a focus on the elimination of waste and non-value added efforts, Johnson saw self-organization, interdependence, and diversity, the three, as the three primary principles of his approach, which he called Management By Means." And so what's neat, Andrew, is he, Tom was as a student of Deming's work, attending Dr. Deming seminars, hearing about SoPK, System of Profound Knowledge, and he in parallel developed his own model that he calls Management By Means. But what's neat is if you compare the two, there's three principles. So he says self-organization.   0:35:31.0 BB: Well, that's kind of like psychology and people. So we can self-organize interdependence, the other self-organized, but we're connected with one another. So that's, that's kind of a systems perspective there as well. And the third one, diversity. So when I think of diversity, I think of variation. I can also think in terms of people. So that what I don't see in there explicitly is Theory of Knowledge. But Tom's developing this model in parallel with Dr. Deming's work, probably beginning in the early '80s. And part of what Tom had in mind, I believe, by calling it Management By Means, is juxtaposing it with that other management by, right? You know the other one, Andrew, management by?   0:36:33.8 AS: You mean the bad one or the good one, Management By Objective?   0:36:37.8 BB: Or Management By Results. Or Dr. Deming once said, MBIR, Management by Imposition of Results. But what's neat is, and this is what I cover and with my online courses, Tom is really, it's just such insight. Tom believes that treating the means as the ends in the making. So he's saying that the ends are what happen when we focus on the means, which is like, if you focus on the process, you get the result. But no, MBIR, as we focus on the result, we throw the process out the window. And so when I've asked students in one of my classes is, why does Tom Johnson believe that treating the means as an ends in the making is a much surer route to stable and satisfactory financial performance than to continue as most companies do? You ready, Andrew? To chase targets as if the means do not matter. Does that resonate with you, Andrew?   0:37:44.1 AS: Yes. They're tampering.   0:37:46.8 BB: Yeah. I also want to quote, I met Tom in 1997. I'm not sure if this... Actually, this article is online and I'll try to remember to post a link to it. If I forget, our listeners can contact me on LinkedIn and I'll send you a link to find the paper. This is when I first got exposed to Tom. It just blew me away. I still remember there at a Deming conference in 1997, hearing Tom talk. I thought, wow, this is different. So, Tom's paper that I'm referencing is A Different Perspective on Quality, the subtitle, Bringing Management to Life. Can you imagine? “Bringing Management to Life.” And it was in Washington, DC, the 1997 conference. And then Tom says, this is the opening. And so when Tom and his wife would speak at Rocketdyne or other conferences I organized.   0:38:44.0 BB: Tom read from a lectern. So he needed a box to get up there and he read, whereas Elaine, his wife, is all extemporaneous. Both deeply profound, two different styles. So what Tom wrote here is he says, "despite the impression given by my title, Professor of Quality Management, I do not speak to you as a trained or a certified authority on the subject of quality management. I adopted that title more or less casually after giving a presentation to an audience of Oregon business executives just over six years ago. That presentation described how my thinking had changed in the last five years since I co-authored the 1987 book, Relevance Lost, the Rise and Fall of Management Accounting, and the talk which presaged my 1992 book, Relevance Regained." And this is when he... After he wrote, Relevance Lost, he went on the lecture circuit, he met the likes of Peter Scholtes and Brian Joiner, got pulled into the Deming community.   0:39:45.4 BB: And then he wrote this scathing book called Relevance Regained and the subtitle is... I think our audience will love it, From Top-Down Control to Bottom-Up Empowerment. Then he goes on to say, "in that I told how I had come to believe that management accounting, a subject that I had pursued and practiced for over 30 years." Over 30 years, sounds familiar. Then he says, "could no longer provide useful tools for management. I said in essence that instead of managing by results, instead of driving people with quantitative financial targets, it's time for people in business..." And this is 30 years ago, Andrew. "It's time for people in business to shift their attention to how they organize work and how they relate to each other as human beings. I suggested that if companies organize work and build relationships properly, then the results that accountants keep track of will what? Take care of themselves."   0:40:50.8 AS: It's so true, it's so true.   0:40:54.1 BB: Yeah, it sounds so literally Tom was writing that in 1999, 2000. Well, actually no, that was 1997, that was 1997, but the same sentiment.   0:41:03.4 AS: It just makes me think of the diagram that we see and that Deming had about the flow through a business, it's the same thing as of the flow from activity to result.   0:41:20.6 BB: Yes.   0:41:21.9 AS: And when we focus on the result and work backwards, it's a mess from a long-term perspective, but you can get to the result. It's not to say you can't get to the result, but you're not building a system that can replicate that. But when you start with the beginning of that process of how do we set this up right to get to that result, then you have a repeatable process that can deliver value. In other words, you've invested a large amount in the origination of that process that then can produce for a much longer time. Um, I have to mention that the worst part of this whole time that we talk is when I have to tell you that we're almost out of time 'cause there's so much to talk about. So we do need to wrap it up, but, yeah.   0:42:09.3 BB: All right. I got a couple of closing thoughts from Tom and then we'll pick this up in episode 21.   0:42:21.3 AS: Yep.   0:42:22.9 BB: Let me also say, for those who are really... If you really wanna know... I'd say, before you read The New Economics... I'm sorry, before you read Profit Beyond Measure, one is the article I just referenced, “Bringing Quality to Life” is a good start. I'd also encourage our readers to do a search. I do this routinely. It shouldn't be that hard to find, but look for an article written by Art Kleiner, Art as in Arthur, Kleiner, K-L-E-I-N-E-R. And the article is entitled, Measures... The Measures That Matter. I think it might be What Are The Measures That Matter? And that article brilliantly written by Kleiner who I don't think knows all that much about Deming, but he knows a whole lot about Tom Johnson and Robert Kaplan, who together co-authored "Relevance Lost" and then moved apart. And Tom became more and more Deming and Kaplan became more and more non and finally wrote this article.   0:43:35.6 AS: Is this article coming out in 2002, "What Are The Measures That Matter? A 10-year Debate Between Two Feuding Gurus Shed Some Light on a Vexing Business Question?"   0:43:46.4 BB: That's it.   0:43:47.2 AS: There it is and it's on the...   0:43:47.4 BB: And it is riveting.   0:43:50.8 AS: Okay.   0:43:50.8 BB: Absolutely riveting. Is it put out by...   0:43:54.0 AS: PwC, it looks like and it's under strategy...   0:43:58.5 BB: Pricewaterhouse...   0:43:58.8 AS: Yeah, strategy and business.   0:44:00.2 BB: PricewaterhouseCooper? Yeah.   0:44:01.3 AS: Yeah.   0:44:03.1 BB: And 'cause what's in there is Kleiner explaining that what Tom's talking about might take some time. You can go out tomorrow, Andrew, and slash and burn and cut and show instant results. Now what you're not looking at is what are the consequences? And so... But... And then... But Kleiner I think does a brilliant job of juxtaposing and trying to talk about what makes Kaplan's work, the Balanced Scorecard, so popular. Why is Tom so anti that?   0:44:37.9 BB: And to a degree, it could be for some a leap of faith to go over there, but we'll talk about that later. Let me just close with this and this comes from my blog on The Deming Institute about Profit Beyond Measure and I said, "for those who are willing and able to discern the dramatic differences between the prevailing focus of systems that aim to produce better parts with less waste and reductions to non-value-added efforts," that's my poke at Lean and Six Sigma, "and those systems that capitalize on a systemic connection between parts. Tom's book, Profit Beyond Measure, offers abundant food for thought. The difference also represents a shifting from profit as the sole reason for a business to profit as the result of extraordinary attention to working people, a most fitting subtitle to this book."   0:45:35.9 AS: Well, Bill, on behalf of everyone at The Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for the discussion and for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. If you wanna keep in touch with Bill, just find him on LinkedIn. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming, "People are entitled to Joy in work" and I hope you are enjoying your work.    

What happens if you transform HOW you think? In this episode, Bill Bellows and host Andrew Stotz discuss the problem of thinking in one dimension at a time (as we were taught in school) and its impact on our ability to solve problems. BONUS: Book recommendations to broaden your understanding of Deming and more. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.1 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with Bill Bellows, who has spent 30 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. The topic for today is, well, episode 19, Transforming How we Think. Bill, take it away.   0:00:29.9 Bill Bellows: And good evening, Andrew.   0:00:35.8 AS: Good evening.   0:00:36.2 BB: And, but just as a point of clarity, I view it as transforming how we think about our thinking. And that's what I've been focusing on for the, since the mid, the early '90s is not how we think, but what is our awareness of our thinking, and I think that ties in well with SoPK. So first in late breaking news, I am seeing with new eyes, Andrew. Literally, I've got new monofocal lenses in both eyes. The left eye three weeks ago, the right eye, a week ago. I was told about five years ago, eventually I'll have to have cataract surgery. And I spoke with a few friends who had it done, and they said, oh, it's easy. And what was so amazing was it was easier than they said. It was.   0:01:41.0 BB: But one neighbor who's had it done, and kind of a sad note is he claims, and I've not double checked this, he's a sharp guy. He claims 80% of the world's population would benefit from cataract surgery that they don't have access to and eventually go blind. And I don't know, I can believe, and he is in fact he's quoted me twice on that. But I am literally seeing with new eyes. The grays are now, shades of gray, are now shades of blue. When I look at the sky. My depth perception's a whole lot better. And so it ties in well with all this vision therapy stuff. So.   0:02:36.8 AS: Aren't you glad that those machines are high quality and the operations that they do are high quality?   0:02:41.6 BB: Oh, yeah.   0:02:42.4 AS: Just one little mistake on that one. And, that's...   0:02:46.2 BB: Well, and I'm signing the documents and there's a little bit of a flutter when I'm signing, in terms of the liability. And one friend's mom had a bad cataract procedure, so it doesn't always go. And I shared this with Kevin. Kevin's had the same, as likewise had the procedure done. And we shared the anxieties and then it worked out well. But yeah when I signed that form that there was in the event, and I thought, whoa, that'd be, anyway, it worked. All right, so where I want to pick up in episode 19 is where we left off with episode 18. And there near the end, I referenced from Dr. Deming. He says Dr. Deming says in chapter three of The New Economics, and he says, "we saw in the last chapter that we're living under the tyranny of the prevailing style of management. Most people imagine this style has always existed. It is a fixture. Actually," he said, "it's a modern invention, a trap that has led us into decline. Transformation..."   0:04:03.0 BB: You remember that word from last time? Okay. "Transformation is required. Education and government, along with industry are also in need of transformation. The System of Profound Knowledge will be introduced in the next chapter. To be introduced in the next chapter is a theory for transformation." So I've got some bullet points and I want to get into the additional chapters and references from The New Economics on Dr. Deming's use of the term transformation. 'Cause I think what he's talking about... SoPK is a theory for transformation. So I think it's just not enough to talk about SoPK without understanding how does that fit in with what Dr. Deming's talking about?   0:04:49.0 AS: And for the listeners who come out of the blue here, SoPK stands for the System of Profound Knowledge.   0:04:56.1 BB: Yes. And system then gets into elements and the four elements that Dr. Deming proposed in The New Economics, going back to the late '80s when he started to put these thoughts together. We need to think about the elements of Profound Knowledge are looking at things as a system and understanding of variation and appreciation of psychology. That's the people aspect. And then theory of knowledge, which gets into what he would explain as how do we know that what we know is so. So the one thing I wanted to bring up on the System of Profound Knowledge is conversations with Dick Steele. And a neat way of looking at the System of Profound Knowledge is to say, well, what if we were to look at some data points, one element, we look at variation, and we see some data the output of a process.   0:06:00.0 BB: We see it go up and down. Well, if that's the only element we have, then we can't ask what caused that, 'cause that's the upstream system. Well, that's the system piece. We cannot talk about what does this variation do downstream? That's the system piece. We cannot talk about how might we change that. That might get into the theory of knowledge or would get into the aspect of the theory of knowledge and some theories as to how we can go about changing the average, changing the amount of variation. And then what that leads us immediately to is, where do those ideas come from but people.   0:06:44.7 BB: So it's kind of, I think it's interesting. So Dr. Deming says the elements, but it's as connected to each other. So what I explain to the students in my courses is, in the beginning, and I remember when I'm looking at this, I'm looking at the elements. I'm thinking, okay, that variation, that's the Control Chart stuff. Common causes, special causes, well, it also includes variation in people. Oh, now we're talking about the people stuff. And then, so I find it interesting is it is easy to look at them as separate, but then in time they meld together really well. So it's not to say that we shouldn't start out looking at things as the elements 'cause I think that's what our education system does. In fact, there's a great documentary I watched a few years ago with Gregory Bateson, who was born in 1900 or so, passed away in the 1980s.   0:07:52.6 BB: And when I ask people have you ever heard of Gregory Bateson? They say, no. I say, well, have you heard of Margaret Mead? Yeah. Well, they were married once upon a time. That was her, he was her first husband. And so Bateson gives a lecture in this documentary that his daughter produced. And he says, and he is at a podium. You don't see the audience. You just see he's at a lectern. And he says, you may think that there's such a thing as psychology, which is separate from anthropology, which is separate from English, which is separate from... And he goes on to imply that they really aren't separate. But then he says, "Well, think what you want."   0:08:38.1 AS: Think what you want.   0:08:39.7 AS: And I thought that's what the education system does. It has us believe that these things are all separate. And so that's what's kind of neat. Yeah. And, but again, I think when you go to school, you're learning about history, then you learn about math. But one thing I noticed later on, many years later was the history people never talked about, if they talked about the philosopher who was well known in mathematics, we didn't hear that mathematics piece, nor in the math class did we hear about this person as a historical figure. We just learned about... And so the education system kind of blocks all that out. And then years later when we're outta school, we can read and see how all this stuff comes together and it does come together. So the one big thing I wanna say is that, is I think it's neat to look at something with just one of those elements and then say, how far does it go before you need the others to really start to do something?   0:09:47.0 BB: And that gets into the interactions. And by interactions, I mean that when you're talking about variation and you're thinking about people are different, how they feel is different, how they respond is different. Now you're talking about the interaction between psychology, at least that's one explanation of the interaction between people amd psychology. I wanna share next an anecdote. I was at a UCLA presentation. A friend of mine turned me on to these maybe once a month kind of deal to be an invited speaker. 70 people in the room. And these were typically professors from other universities, authors, and there is one story I wanna share is a woman who had written a book on why really smart kids don't test well in secondary schools. And there were a good number of people there.   0:10:45.6 BB: And I'm listening to all this through my Deming lens, and she's talking about how kids do on the exams. That goes back to an earlier podcast. How did you do on the exam? And so I'm listening to all this and she's drawing conclusions that these students are really smart, but they freak out. And then how might they individually perform better? As if the greatest cause by them all by themselves. And so afterwards, I went up and stood in line and I had a question for her that I deliberately did not want to ask in front of the entire room. 'Cause I wanted her undivided attention, and I really wanted to see where she'd come with this. 'Cause perhaps it could lead to an ongoing discussion. So I went up and introduced myself and I think I said something like, are you familiar with W. Edwards Deming? And I believe she said she was. I think she was a psychologist by background. And then I moved into the... Essentially the essence of what if the grades are caused by the system and not the student taken separately, which she acknowledged. She's like, yeah, that makes sense. And I remember saying to her, "Well then how might that change your conclusions?"   0:12:11.2 BB: And so I throw that as an example of... Deming's saying you could be an expert in, you know, you just look at something. Actually, when that comes to mind is Deming is saying something like shouldn't a psychologist know something about variation? Well, shouldn't a psychologist know something about systems? And I didn't maintain a relationship with her, but it was just other things to do. Next I wanna share a story. And I wrote this up in an article. Then when this is posted...   0:12:49.0 BB: Typically these are posted on LinkedIn. Then I'll put a link into the article. And it's a classic story that Russ Ackoff was very fond of saying, and I heard the story told quite a few times before I started to think about it a little bit differently. So the story is he was working for General Electric back in the 1960s. He is in a very high level meeting. And in the room is this, the then CEO of GE, Reginald Jones and all of the senior VPs of General Electric are in the room. And Russ... I'm guessing he was doing, I know Russ did a lot of work with Anheuser-Busch, and he did a lot of work with GE. So Russ says he is in the room. There's maybe a dozen of these senior VPs of plastics of all the different GE divisions.   0:13:41.2 BB: And there's, Russ said there's one of them that was relatively new in a senior VP position, now over plastics or over lighting or whatever it was. And at one point he gets up. And one by one he raises a question with each of his peers. Something like, "Andrew, I noticed last year you installed a new software system." And you would say, "yeah, yep, yep." And I said, "I noticed you went with..." Let's say Apple, "you went with Apple Software", and you're like, "yeah," "that's what I thought. Yeah, you went with Apple." And then you might say something like, "why do you ask?" And he says, "well, the rest of us use Microsoft products. And it just seems kind of odd that you would go off and buy something different."   0:14:41.0 BB: And the point, and Russ didn't get into these details, the essence was every single one of them he'd figured out over the last year had made a decision, pretty high level decision that that senior VP felt was good for that division, but not good for General Electric. And Russ said what got his attention was, he wasn't sitting in that room hearing those conversations and he hears one decision then another, now he's got a whole list. So Russ says, he goes around the room and calls out every single one of his peers. So, and Russ shared this in one phone call, the Ongoing Discussions that I've mentioned. And people said, Russ, do you have that documented? And he is like, well, I don't think I have that any anymore. But somebody else asking.   0:15:35.3 BB: And then no sooner was the call over I had some friends call me up, said, "Bill, can you ask Russ if you have that, if he can get a copy of that? It's probably on his shelf. You're in his office". I said to one friend. I said, "so you'd be surprised that a member of Parliament does what's best for his district and not what's best for the United Kingdom. You think, you'd be surprised that a congressman from Los Angeles is gonna do what's best for Los Angeles, not what's best for the country.   0:16:07.2 BB: So you're telling me you're surprised by that?" Well, "no, no, no." I said, "well then why do you have to have the documentation?" So that's one aspect of it. So I heard that story again and again. And so finally it, I said, wait a minute, wait a minute. So I said, "Russ, on that story, you being in the room with GE?" He says, yeah. He says, I know you don't have the documentation, I said, "but what happened after this guy called them all out? How did that go down?" He says, "one of the peers looks at this guy and says, so what's your point?"   0:16:42.3 BB: And the meeting moved on. And I wrote that for an article for the Lean Management Journal called, "You Laugh, It Happens". And when I look at that through the lens of the System of Profound Knowledge, is that surprising that that goes on? No, not at all. I wanna reference a couple books that I don't think I've mentioned at all. And I share these because for the Deming enthusiasts, these books have some brilliant examples of in different arenas that I think you absolutely love and you can use in your classes, use in your education, whatever. All fairly recent. The first one is "The Tyranny of Metrics" written by a historian. He is an American University historian, Jerry Mueller, and he has, I mean, Dr. Deming would just love this. Oh, bingo! Bingo! Bingo! Thank you.   0:17:48.4 AS: Yep. There it is. "The Tyranny of Metrics".   0:17:50.1 BB: Right?   0:17:50.7 AS: Yep.   0:17:51.3 BB: Right. Is that a great one?   0:17:53.2 AS: That's a great book. And you can follow him on Twitter also. He does do a lot of posts there.   0:18:00.4 BB: Now I reached out to him 'cause I relished the book 'cause the stories were just, you just can't make up all those stories. I mean the story that I shared with Russ is nothing in comparison to what Muller has in the book. I just don't believe that Muller has a solution that can... I don't think, I think the only thing missing from the book is if he had an understanding of the System of Profound Knowledge, he'd have a far better proposal as to what to do.   0:18:31.8 AS: Yeah. I read that and I felt similar that there was something that was missing there. It was, it was great stories as you say, but how do we connect that? How do we apply that? And what's the root cause here? And how do we, this, there was just... That was missing from it. And maybe that should be his next book.   0:18:53.9 BB: Oh, enormously. But it's worth reading regardless.   0:18:57.3 AS: Yeah. Agreed.   0:19:00.1 BB: But I was, I was, I wasn't surprised. I'd say this. He honestly tried to offer a proposal, but I just looked at it and said, Professor Muller, you would just love it. In fact, I believe I reached out to him. I don't know that I heard from him. Alright, that's one book.   0:19:17.1 AS: That reminds me of what Dr. Deming said. "How would they know?"   0:19:21.3 BB: Exactly. Exactly.   0:19:22.4 AS: So if he hadn't been exposed to the System of Profound Knowledge...   0:19:25.3 BB: Oh, no. No, no, no.   0:19:25.7 AS: Then it would be hard to pull it all together. Yep. Okay.   0:19:28.8 BB: Yeah. So the next book, which is somewhere behind you in your bookshelf, is "The End of Average" by Todd...   0:19:36.8 AS: Actually, I don't think I have that one.   0:19:39.4 BB: By Todd Rose, who's a research fellow at Harvard. It's a riveting book. Oh, Andrew, you would absolutely love it. Just, he goes back ages. I mean, hundreds of hundreds of years and looks at how lost we became... How lost civilizations were dealing with trying to make, deal with averages. And the book opens with the most riveting story. And I started reading this and immediately I started thinking, "Okay, okay, okay, okay." And I figured it out. So in the opening paragraph, he says, In one day in 1949, there were 17 military planes crashed. In one day. 17 military planes crashed in one day. And this was... It would have been after the Air Force separated from the Army Air Corps. And so I started thinking, okay, late '40s, planes are going faster. The US industry has German technology, and... Because the Germans had jet engines in the late '40s. So I'm thinking it's about speed. It's about something about speed, something about speed. And there's more and more planes flying.   0:21:06.6 BB: So they grounded the fleet. They had a major investigation, brought in this young guy as a data researcher. And he passed away a few years ago, I did some research with him recently. And what he found was the cockpits were designed, you're writing, Andrew, for the average size pilots. Everything in the cockpit was fixed for the average arm length, the average hand length, the average finger length, the average height, the... Everything about... All these measurements on the torso, the cockpit had, everything was fixed. And that's exactly what I thought was going on. As the planes are going faster and faster, reaction times need to be faster and faster. And they're not. So his research was, they went off and measured thousands of pilots and found out that there was no pilot met the average.   0:22:11.2 AS: Oh, God.   0:22:11.3 BB: And the conclusion was... And again, until the plane started flying faster, that was not an issue. And that's what I was thinking with all my training in problem solving, decision making, what is going on there? What is going on there? And that's what changes the... I mean, the speed was accelerating, but compounded by the fixed geometry. So the solution by the government Pentagon, to the contractors was, add flexibility to the cockpit, allow the seat to move up and down, and then the auto industry picked up on that evidently. And so this is one example of how a fixation on average and a number of other stories outside of engineering it's just fascinating.   0:23:01.4 AS: Let me just summarize. The End of Average by Todd Rose. And it was published in about 2016. It's got a 4.5 out of 5 review on Amazon with 1,000 ratings and has a very high for Goodreads review of about 4.1. So I'm definitely getting that one. I don't have it and I'm buying it.   0:23:22.1 BB: Yeah. And it's again, he, I believe in there he offers what we should do instead, which again, I think would be, benefit from an understanding of SoPK. And so, again, for the Deming enthusiast, there is stuff in those two books, which you'll just love. And the third book came out at, I think, 2020 during the pandemic, The Tyranny of Merit, that tyranny word again, by Michael Sandel from Harvard. And I believe we've spoken about him before. And it's the tyranny of meritocracy, which is the belief that I achieved my success all by myself. I earned the grade all by myself. Everything I've done, I've done all by myself. There is no greater system. And I've written... In fact I sent an email to Michael Sandel complimenting him for the book and trying to point out that everything he's talking about fits in very well with Deming's work and that the issues are bigger than that.   0:24:34.4 BB: And I have not yet heard back, but he's a busy guy. But those three books are I would say, must reads. Then I go on to say that, because I used earlier that Dr. Deming talked about we are living under the tyranny of the prevailing style of management. So then I looked. I wanted to, so what exactly is this tyranny stuff? I mean, I'm so used to the word, so I wanted to go back and get a definition. "Tyranny is often synonymous with cruelty and oppression." And I said, that's... Yeah. Yeah. Oh, absolutely. All right.   0:25:26.4 BB: So, next, I wanna talk about... In previous podcasts I talked about work at Rocketdyne, what we called an... In the beginning it was called A Thinking Roadmap. And then as we got turned on to thinking about thinking, we changed that to An InThinking Roadmap. And that constituted roughly 220 hours of training over a dozen or so courses. So we had a one day class in Edward de Bono's Six Thinking Hats, a one day class in his, in other, actually two days in some of his other. So anyways, we had a number of courses on de Bono's work. I had a 40-hour intro course to Taguchi methods and a 40-hour advanced class in Dr. Taguchi's work. We had a 9-hour session called Understanding Variation. We had a things we were trained in that were developed by others, and then things we designed ourselves.   0:26:36.6 BB: And in the courses are tools and techniques. So tools are a cell phone, a slide rule, a computer. And the technique is how do we use it? And they provide what Ackoff would call efficiency, but also a number of these courses were inspired by Dr. Deming and Russ Ackoff were about improving effectiveness. And I got into concepts and strategies. And then what I wanted to mention that I don't think I've mentioned before is the whole concept of an InThinking Roadmap, and in this thinking about our thinking, which is a big part of the theme for tonight is, as that was inspired by, in the early '90s, Rockwell, Rocketdyne was then part of Rockwell, every division of Rockwell had a technology roadmap. And that had to be presented to higher and higher levels.   0:27:33.3 BB: What technologies are developing? What's the roadmap? And so more and more and more I heard this tech roadmap, tech roadmap. And then with colleagues, we started thinking about thinking, we thought, we need to have a thinking roadmap to combine with the technology roadmap. So the technology roadmap is gonna be helping us enormously in terms of efficiency, but not effectiveness. And I thought to integrate those two is quite powerful, which is, again another reminder of why Dr. Deming's work is a brilliant foundation for the use of technology. Otherwise, what you end up doing in a non-Deming company is with a cell phone you can increase the speed of blame.   0:28:21.4 BB: All right. So then I went back since last time I did some more research into transformation and came up with some great thoughts from Russ Ackoff. Again, our dear friend Russ Ackoff. And this is from an article that Russ wrote on transformations. And he says, "transformation is not only require recognition of the difference between what is practiced and what is preached. He says a transformation called four years ago by Donald Schön in his book Beyond the Stable State," and this is a 1991 book, he said, "it requires a transformation in the way we think.”  “Einstein," Russ says "put it powerfully and succinctly." He says, "without changing our patterns of thought, we'll not be able to solve the problems we created with our current pattern of thought."   0:29:08.2 BB: Russ continues. "I believe the pattern of thought that is required is systemic. It is difficult if at all possible to reduce the meaning of systemic thinking to a brief definition. Nevertheless, I try. Systemic thinking," again from Russ, "is holistic versus reductionist, synthetic versus analytic. Reductionist and analytic thinking derived properties from the whole, from the parts, from the properties of their parts. Holistic and synthetic thinking derived properties of parts, from the property of the whole that contains them." So I thought it was neat to go back and look at that. And then I want, more from Russ. "A problem never exists in isolation. It's surrounded by other problems in space and time. The more of a context of a problem that a scientist can comprehend, the greater are his chances of truly finding an adequate solution."   0:30:11.4 BB: And then, and so when I was going through this over the last few days, thinking, boy, I wish Dr. Deming defined transformation, it would've been, if he had an operational definition. But I thought, but wait a minute. 'Cause part of what I'm finding is, in my research, an article I came across years ago, Leading Change in the Harvard Business Review, a very popular article, 1995, by John Kotter, Why Transformations Fail. So Kotter uses that word and the title is Leading Change: Why Transformations Fail. And he is got establishing... Eight steps of transformation. "Establishing a sense of urgency, forming a powerful guiding coalition, creating a vision, communicating the vision, empowering others to act on the vision, planning for, and creating short-term wins." And under that step, Andrew, he's got a couple of steps, I'd like to get your thoughts on. One is "recognizing and rewarding employees involved in the improvements." So I thought, but of course this is transformation in the realm of the prevailing system of management. And so what that got me... Tossed around on it. I thought, well, wait a minute. There's a bunch of words that Dr. Deming uses that others use, but we know they mean something different. So Dr. Deming...   0:31:56.6 AS: Like I'm thinking, improvement is what he may be talking about.   0:32:02.4 BB: Well, but Dr. Deming talks about teamwork and the need to work together. Everybody talks about that.   0:32:08.1 AS: Yep.   0:32:09.2 BB: But just that we know, in a non-Deming environment, it's about managing actions, completing those tasks in isolation. I can meet requirements minimally, hand off to you, and that in a non-Deming environment, we call teamwork. So what I was thinking is, well, it's not that we need a new, 'cause I was even thinking, maybe we need a new word. Maybe in the Deming community, we should stop using the word transformation and come up with another word. Well, the trouble is, there's a whole bunch of other words that we use from teamwork to work together, to leader, quality. We talk about performance. We talk about root cause versus root causes. We talk about system. And so it's not that we need a new word, we need a new foundation. And that goes back to this notion as you read The New Economics or Out of the Crisis, you're hearing words that Dr. Deming uses that others use like John Kotter, but they're not used in the same context.   0:33:26.2 AS: How would you wrap up the main points you want people to take away from this discussion about transformation?   0:33:38.1 BB: Big thing is, we are talking about transformation. We are talking about seeing with new eyes, hearing with new ears. So the seeing, we talked about last time, is it's not just the systems. We're seeing systems differently. We're seeing variation differently. We're thinking differently about people and what motivates them and inspires them. The psychology piece, the theory of knowledge piece, we're challenging what we know. And then we have to think about all those interactions between two of them, between three of them, between four of them. And so I'd say that it's, the essence is transformation is essential. It is about rethinking our thinking. And I just wanna leave with two quotes. One fairly recent, one a little older. And the first quote, the more recent one from Tom Johnson, "How the world we perceive works depends upon how we think. The world we perceive," Andrew "is a world we bring forth through our thinking."   0:34:44.9 BB: That's H. Thomas Johnson, a dear friend in his 1999 book, Profit Beyond Measure. And my advice to people in reading that book is, do not attempt to read it laying down in bed. It's just, now you can read those other books we talked earlier. I think you can read those lying in bed. But Tom is very pithy. You wanna be wide awake. The last quote I wanna leave is from William James, born in 1842, died in 1910. He was an American philosopher, psychologist, and the first educator to offer a psychology course in the US. He is considered to be a leading thinker of the late 19th century, the father of American psychology, one of the elements of Profound Knowledge. And his quote that I wanna leave you with, Andrew is, "The greatest discovery of my generation is that human beings can alter their lives by altering their attitudes of mind."   0:35:45.2 AS: Whoa. Well, Bill, what an ending. On behalf of everyone at The Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for the discussion. For listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. And if you want to keep in touch with Bill, just find him on LinkedIn. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with my favorite quote from Dr. Deming. "People are entitled to joy in work."  

In part 3 of this series, John Dues and host Andrew Stotz talk about the final 5 lessons for data analysis in education. Dive into this discussion to learn more about why data analysis is essential and how to do it right. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.4 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today I'm continuing my discussion with John Dues who is part of the new generation of educators striving to apply Dr. Deming's principles to unleash student joy in learning. This is episode 23 and we're talking about goal setting through a Deming lens. John, take it away.  0:00:30.8 John Dues: It's good to be back, Andrew. Yeah, in this first episode of this four-part series, we talked about why goal setting is often an act of desperation. And if you remember early on, I sort of proposed those four conditions that organizations should understand about their systems prior to ever setting a goal. Those four were capability, variation, stability, and then by what method are you going to improve your system? And then in the last episode, I introduced the first five lessons of the 10 key lessons for data analysis. And remember, these lessons were set up to avoid what I call these arbitrary and capricious education goals, which are basically unreasonable goals without consideration of those four things, the system capability, variation, and stability, and then not having a method. So, it might be helpful just to recap those first five lessons. I'll just list them out and folks that want to hear the details can listen to the last episode.   0:01:31.8 JD: But lesson one was data have no meaning apart from their context. So, we've got to contextualize the data. Lesson two was we don't manage or control the data. The data is the voice of the process. So, it's sort of, you know, the data over time shows us what's happening and we don't really have control over that data. We do have control under that underlying process. Lesson three was plot the dots for any data that occurs in time order. So, take it out of a two-point comparison or take it out of a spreadsheet and put it on a line chart that shows the data over time. Lesson four was two or three data points are not a trend. So again, get beyond the typical two-point limited comparison this month and last month, this year and last year, this same month, last year, those types of things, this week, last week.   0:02:25.6 JD: And then lesson five was, show enough data in your baseline to illustrate the previous level of variation. So, we want to get a sense of how the data is changing over time and we need a baseline amount of data, whether that's 12 points, 15 points, 20 points, there's sort of different takes on that. But somewhere in that 12-to-20-point range is really the amount of data we want to have in our baseline. So, we understand how it's moving up and down over time sort of naturally. Sort of at the outset of those two episodes, we also talked about centering the process behavior charts, like the ones we viewed in many of our episodes. And we put those in the center because it's a great tool for looking at data over time, just like we've been talking about.   0:03:11.4 JD: And I think when we use this methodology, and when you start to fully grasp the methodology, you start to be able to understand messages that are actually contained in the data. You can differentiate between those actual special events, those special causes, and just those everyday up and downs, what we've called common causes. And in so doing, we can understand the difference between reacting to noise and understanding actual signals of significance in that data. And so, I think that's a sort of a good primer to then get into lessons six through 10.   0:03:51.2 AS: Can't wait.   0:03:53.3 JD: Cool. We'll jump in then.   0:03:56.1 AS: Yeah. I'm just thinking about my goal setting and how much this helps me think about how to improve my goal setting. And I think one of the biggest ones that's missing that we talked about before is by what method. And many people think that they're setting strategy, when in fact, they're just setting stretch targets with nothing under it. And they achieve it by luck or are baffled why they don't achieve it. And then they lash out at their employees.   0:04:31.4 JD: Yeah, there was really... I mean, that goes back to one of those four conditions of setting goal capability. You have to understand how capable your system is before you can set, it's fine to set a stretch goal, but it has to be within the bounds of the system. Otherwise, it's just maybe not an uncertainty, but a mathematical improbability. That's not good. Like you're saying, it's not a good way to operate if you're a worker in that system. So, lesson six then, to continue the lessons.   0:05:06.8 JD: So, lesson six is "the goal of data analysis in schools is not just to look at past results, but also, and perhaps more importantly, to look forward and predict what is likely to occur in the future," right? So that's why centering the process behavior charts is so important, because they allow you to interpret data that takes variation into account, allows you to classify the data into the routine or common cause variation or the exceptional, that's the special cause variation, and allows us to turn our focus to that underlying or the behavior of the underlying system that produced the results. And it's this focus on the system and its processes that's then the basis for working towards continual improvement.   0:06:00.6 AS: And I was just thinking about number six, the goal is to predict what is likely to occur in the future. And I was just thinking, and what's likely to occur in the future is exactly what's happening now, or the trend that's happening, unless we change something in the system, I guess.   0:06:16.4 JD: Yeah. And that's why just setting the stretch goal is often disconnected from any type of reality, because we have this idea that somehow something magical is going to happen in the future that didn't happen in the past. And nothing magical is going to happen unless we are intentional about doing something differently to bring about that change.   0:06:39.5 AS: And that's a great lesson for the listeners and the viewers. It's like, have you been just setting stretch targets and pushing people to achieve these stretch targets? And not really understanding that your role is to understand that you're going to get the same result unless you start to look at how do we improve the method, the system, that type of thing.   0:07:05.0 JD: Yeah. And usually when you have those stretch goals, you've looked at what happened last year, and then you base the stretch goal on last year. But perhaps, you're seeing, for the last three or four years, the data has been steadily decreasing, right? And you can't realize that if you haven't charted that over the last three or four years, hopefully beyond that. So, you have no idea or it could have been trending positively, and you may under shoot your stretch goal because you missed a trend that was already in motion because of something that happened in the past.   0:07:44.8 AS: You made a chart for me, a run chart on my intake for my Valuation Masterclass Bootcamp. And we've been working on our marketing, and I presented it to the team and we talked about that's the capability of our system based upon for me to say, I want 500 students when we've been only getting 50 is just ridiculous. And that helped us all to see that if we are going to go to the next level of where we want to be, we've got to change what we're doing, the method that we're getting there, the system that we're running and what we're operating to get there or else we're going to continue to get this output. And so if the goal is to predict what is likely to occur in the future, if we don't make any changes, it's probably going to continue to be like it is in that control chart.   0:08:42.8 JD: Yeah. And that example is, in a nutshell, the System of Profound Knowledge in action in an organization where you're understanding variation in something that's important to you, enrollment in your course. You're doing that analysis with the team. So, there's the psychological component and you're saying, well, what's our theory of knowledge? So, what's our theory for how we're going to bring about some type of improvement? And so, now you're going to run probably something like a PDSA. And so now you have all those lenses of the System of Profound Knowledge that you're bringing together to work on that problem. And that's all it is really in a nutshell.   0:09:22.2 AS: Yeah. And the solution's not necessarily right there. Sometimes it is, but sometimes it's not. And we've got to iterate. Okay. Should we be doing marketing in-house or should we be doing it out using an outsourced service? What if we improve and increase the volume of our marketing? What effect would that have? What if we decrease the... What if we change to this method or that method? Those are all things that we are in the process of testing. I think the hardest thing in business, in my opinion, with this is to test one thing at a time.   0:09:58.5 JD: Yeah.   0:09:58.7 AS: I just, we I want to test everything.   0:10:00.4 JD: Yeah. Yeah. I read in the Toyota Kata that I think we've talked about before here, which talks about Toyota's improvement process. I read this in the book, I don't know if this is totally always true, but basically they focus on single factor experiments for that reason, even in a place as complex and as full of engineers as Toyota, they largely focus on single factor experiments. They can actually tell what it is that brought about the change. I mean, I'm sure they do other more complicated things. They would have to write a design of experiments and those types of things, but by and large, their improvement process, the Toyota Kata, is focused on single factor experiments for that reason.   0:10:48.1 AS: And what's that movie, the sniper movie where they say, slow is smooth and smooth is fast or something like that, like slow down to speed up. I want to go fast and do all of these tests, but the fact is I'm not learning as much from that. And by slowing down and doing single factor experiment to try to think, how do we influence the future is fascinating.   0:11:20.9 JD: Yeah, absolutely.   0:11:22.4 AS: All right. What about seven?   0:11:23.2 JD: Lesson seven. So "the improvement approach depends on the stability of the system under study," and there's really two parts to this. But what approach am I going to take if the system is producing predictable results and it's performing pretty consistently, it's stable, there's only common cause variation. And then what happens if you have an unpredictable system? So two different approaches, depending on what type of system you're looking at in terms of stability. So you know the one thing to recognize in thinking about something like single factor experiments, it's a waste of time to explain noise or explain common cause variation in this stable system, because there's no simple single root cause for that type of variation. There's thousands or tens of thousands of variables that are impacting almost any metric. And you can't really isolate that down to a single cause.   0:12:17.5 JD: So instead we don't, we don't try to do that in a common cause system that needs improvement. Instead, if the results are unsatisfactory, what we do is work on improvements and changes to the system, right? We don't try to identify a single factor that's the problem. So what we do then is we work to improve a common cause processor system by working on the design of that actual system including inputs, throughputs that are a part of that. And to your point, you sort of have to, based on your content knowledge of that area, or maybe you have to bring in a subject matter expert and you sort of start to think about what's going to make the biggest difference. And then you start testing those things one at a time, basically. That's sort of the approach. And then if you're working in an unpredictable system and that unpredictable system is unpredictable because it has special causes in your data, then it's really a waste of time to try to improve that particular system until it's stable again. And so the way you do that is at that point, there is something so different about the special cause data that you try to identify that single cause or two of those data points. And then when you've identified, you study it, and then you try to remove that specific special cause. And if you've identified the right thing, what happens then is it becomes a stable system at that point, right?   0:13:51.9 AS: I was thinking that it's no sense in trying to race your boat if you've got a hole in it. You got to fix the special cause, the hole, and then focus on, okay, how do we improve the speed of this boat?   0:14:06.5 JD: And the key is recognizing the difference between these two roadmaps towards improvement. And I think in education for sure, there's a lot of confusion, a lot of wasted effort, because there's really no knowledge of this approach to data analysis. And so people do their own things. There's a mismatch between the type of variation that's present and the type of improvement effort that's trying to be undertaken. I think the most typical thing is there's a common cause system, and people think they can identify a single thing to improve. And then they spend a lot of time and money on that thing. And then it doesn't get better over time because it was the wrong approach in the first place.   0:14:55.9 AS: Number eight.   0:14:57.6 JD: Number eight. So, number eight is, "more timely data is better for improvement purposes." So we've talked about state testing data a lot. It's only available once per year. Results often come after students have gone on summer vacation. So, it's not super helpful. So, we really want more frequent data so that we can understand if some type of intervention that we're putting in place has an effect. I think what the most important thing is, the frequency of the data collection needs to be in sync with the improvement context. So, it's not always that you need daily data or weekly data or monthly data, or quarterly data, whatever it is. It's just it has to be in sync with the type of improvement context you're trying to bring about. And no matter what that frequency of collection, the other big thing to keep in mind is don't overreact to any single data point, which is, again, I see that over and over again in my work. I think ultimately the data allows us to understand the variation and the trends within our system, whether that system is stable or unstable, and then what type of improvement effort would be most effective. And, again, in my experience, just those simple things are almost never happening in schools. Probably in most sectors.   0:16:25.9 AS: Can you explain a little bit more about in sync with the improvement process? Like, maybe you have an example of that so people can understand.   0:16:34.2 JD: Well, yeah. So, you mean the frequency of data collection?   0:16:39.0 AS: Yeah. And you're saying, yeah, this idea of like, what would be out of sync?   0:16:44.7 JD: Well, one, you need to... A lot of times what happens is there might be a system in place for collecting some type of data. Let's say, like, attendance. They report attendance, student attendance on the annual school report card. So, you get that attendance rate, but that's like the state test scores. Like, it's not that helpful to get that on the report card after the year has concluded. But the data is actually available to us in our student information system. And so, we could actually pull that in a different frequency and chart it ourselves and not wait on the state testing date or the state attendance report card has attendance...   0:17:27.5 AS: Because attendance is happening on a daily basis.   0:17:31.0 JD: Happening on a daily basis. So, if we wanted to, daily would be pretty frequent, but if we did collect the data daily, we certainly can do that. We could see, that could help us see patterns in data on certain days of the week. That could be something that goes into our theory for why our attendance is lower than we'd want it to. You could do it weekly if the daily collection is too onerous on whoever's being tasked with doing that. I think weekly data pretty quickly, would take you 12 weeks. But in 12 weeks, you have a pretty good baseline of what attendance is looking like across this particular school year. So I think when you're talking about improvement efforts, I think something daily, something weekly, I think that's the target so that you can actually try some interventions along the way. And...   0:18:29.3 AS: And get feedback.   0:18:31.1 JD: And get feedback. Yeah, yeah. And you could also peg it to something that's further out. And you could see over time if those interventions that are impacting more short-term data collection are actually impacting stuff on the longer term as well.   0:18:49.1 AS: And I guess it depends also on what is the priority of this. Let's say that attendance is not a big issue at your particular school. Therefore, we look at it on a monthly basis and we look to see if something's significance happening. But otherwise, we've got to focus over on another idea. And if, if, if attendance becomes an issue, we may go back to daily and say, is it a particular day of the week? Or is it something, what can we learn from that data?   0:19:20.0 JD: Yep, that's exactly right. And then the next step would be in lesson nine, you then, and this is why the charts are so important, then you can clearly label the start date for an intervention directly on the chart. So, what you want to do is, once you've chosen an intervention or a change idea, you clearly mark that in your process behavior chart. I just use a dashed vertical line on the date the intervention is started and also put a simple label that captures the essence of that intervention. So, that's right on the chart. So, I can remember what I tried or started on that particular day. And then that allows the team to easily see, because you're going to continue adding your data points, the stuff that comes after the dotted line, it becomes pretty apparent based on the trends you're seeing in the data, if that intervention is then working, right?   0:20:21.2 JD: If it's attendance, I may try, I do a weekly call to parents to tell them what their individual child's attendance rate is. And then we can see once we started making those weekly calls over the next few weeks, does that seem to be having an impact on attendance rates? And then I can actually see too, we've talked about the patterns in the data, there's certain patterns I'm looking for to see if there's a significant enough change in that pattern to say, yeah, this is a signal that this thing is actually working. So, it's not just because it increased, that attendance rate could go up, but that in and of itself isn't enough. I want to see a signal. And by signal, I mean a specific pattern in the data, a point outside the limits.   0:21:17.3 JD: I want to see eight points in a row in the case of attendance above the central line or I want to see three out of four that are closer to a limit, the upper limit, than they are to that central line. And again, we've talked about this before, those patterns are so mathematically improbable that I can be pretty reasonably assured if you see them that an actual change has occurred in my data. And because I've drawn this dotted line, I can tie the time period of the change back within that dataset to determine if something positive happened after I tried that intervention.   0:21:56.7 AS: It's just, you just think about how many times, how many cycles of improvement and interventions that you can do in a system and how far you will be a year later.   0:22:12.3 JD: Yes, yeah. And "cycles" is exactly the right word because really what you're doing, I didn't mention it here, but really what you were doing at the point you draw that vertical line when you're going to run an intervention, you're going to do that through the PDSA cycle, the Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle. So that's your experiment where you're testing one thing to see what impact it has on the data. So if I was going to boil continual improvement per Dr. Deming down to two things is, put your data on a process behavior chart, combine it with a PDSA to see how to improve that data. And that's continual improvement in a nutshell, basically, those two tools.   0:22:51.7 AS: Gold, that's gold. All right. Number 10.   0:22:55.3 JD: Last one, lesson 10, "the purpose of data analysis is insight." So this comes from Dr. Donald Wheeler, but he basically just teaches us that the best analysis is the simplest analysis, which provides the needed insight. But what he would say is plot the dots first on a run chart. Once you have enough data, turn it into a process behavior chart. And that's the most straightforward method for understanding how our data is performing over time. And so this approach, I think it's much more intuitive than if we store the data in tables and then the patterns become much more apparent because we're using these time sequence charts. And again, I know I've said this before, but I keep repeating it because I think it's the essence of continual improvement to do those two things. Yeah.   0:23:47.1 AS: And what's the promise of this? If we can implement these 10 points that you've highlighted in relation to goal setting, what do you think is going to change for me? I mean, sometimes I look at what you've outlined and I feel a little bit overwhelmed, like, God, that's a lot of work. I mean, can I just set the freaking goal and people just do it?   0:24:13.2 JD: Yeah. Well, I think, this is, in essence, a better way. I mean, this is really the wrap up here is that, well, one, when you understand the variation in your chart, you actually understand the story, the true story that's being told by your data. And so many people don't understand the true story. They sort of make up, that's too strong, but they don't have the tools to see what's actually happening in their system. So if you really want to see what's happening in your system, this is the way to do it. That's one thing. I think it also... I tried many, many things before I discovered this approach, but I didn't have any way to determine if something I was trying was working or not.   0:25:07.1 JD: I didn't have any way to tie the intervention back to my data. So what most people then do is tell the story that this thing is working if you like it. And if you don't want to do it anymore, you tell the story that it's not working, but none of its actually tied to like scientific thinking where I tie the specific point I try something to my data. So that's another thing. I can actually tell if interventions are working or not or can have a... I always try to use, not use definitive language. Scientifically, I have a much better likelihood of knowing that an intervention is working or not.   0:25:47.7 JD: So I think especially the process behavior chart, I think, and the way of thinking that goes with the chart is probably the single most powerful tool that we can utilize to improve schools. And we can teach this to teachers. We can teach this to administrators. We can teach this to students, can learn how to do this.   0:26:07.1 AS: Yeah. And I think one of the things I was thinking about is start where you have data.   0:26:12.3 JD: Yeah. Start where you have data.   0:26:14.2 AS: Don't feel like you've got to go out there and go through a whole process of collecting all this data and all that. Start where you have data. And even if attendance is not your major issue, let's say, but you had good attendance data, it's a good way to start to learn. And I suspect that you're going to learn a lot as you start to dig deeper into that. And then that feeds into, I wonder if we could get data on this and that to understand better what's happening.   0:26:41.4 JD: There are so many applications, so many applications. I mean, even just today, we were talking about, we get a hundred percent of our students qualify for free and reduced lunch because we have a school-wide lunch or breakfast and lunch program. And so we get reimbursed for the number of meals that are distributed. And sometimes there's a mismatch between the number that are distributed and the number we order just because of attendance and transportation issues and things like that. But the federal government only reimburses us for the meals we actually distribute to kids. And so if we over order, we have to pay out of our general fund for those meals that we don't get reimbursed for. And so, I'm just bringing this up because we were looking at some of that data just today, that mismatch, and even an area as simple as that is ripe for an improvement project.   0:27:40.7 JD: Why is there a mismatch? What is happening? And prior, I would just say, prior to having this mindset, this philosophy, I would say, well, they just need to figure out how to get the numbers closer together. But you actually have to go there, watch what's happening, come up with a theory for why we're ordering more breakfasts and lunches than we're passing out. It could be super, super simple. No one ever told the person distributing the lunches that we get reimbursed this way. And so they didn't know it was a big deal. I don't know that that's the case or not right, that's purely speculation. Or it could be, oh, we want to make sure every kid eats so we significantly over order each day. Well, that's a good mindset, but maybe we could back that off to make sure we never... We're always going to have enough food for kids to eat, but we're also not going to spend lots of extra money paying for lunches that don't get eaten. So there's all different things, even something like that operationally is ripe for improvement project. And the great thing is, is if you can study that problem and figure out how to save that money, which could by the end of the year, you know, be thousands of dollars, you could reallocate that to field trips or class supplies or to books for the library or art supplies, whatever, you know? So that's why I think this methodology is so powerful.   0:29:02.1 AS: Fantastic. That's a great breakdown of these 10 points. So John, on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this discussion and for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. And you can find John's book, Win-Win, W. Edwards Deming, The System of Profound Knowledge and the Science of Improving Schools on Amazon.com. This is your host, Andrew Stotz. And I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming, "People are entitled to joy in work."      

In this episode, Bill Bellows and host Andrew Stotz discuss seeing organizations as holograms—3D images. Holograms show all parts from different views at once. Learn how using the lens of the System of Profound Knowledge lets you see the problems and opportunities for transformation. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.5 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with Bill Bellows, who has spent 30 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas, to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. The topic for today, which we call Episode 18, is, Wouldn't It Be Nice? Bill take it away.   0:00:28.9 Bill Bellows: Wouldn't it be nice if [chuckle] we were older and we wouldn't have to wait so long? Okay. So Episode 18, greetings, Andrew. So as I mentioned in the past, I like to go back and listen to the past previous podcasts and as well as hear from people and their feedback on them. And I have a few points of clarity on the last one, and then we'll get into today's feature. So the last one which we refer to as Diffusion From a Point Source. And I talked about being in a bathtub, you start off at room temperature water and, or you fill the bath and you went and got distracted and came back, and now it's not warm enough, so you crank up, let's add some more water, and you feel that heat coming towards you from the... And then the diffusion equation is about how that, all the water ends up about the same temperature, and then you turn off the water and you drop back to room temperature.   0:01:41.1 BB: But another aspect of the point source that I wanted to clarify is, is if you have in the bathtub some, a source of energy, a heat source, which is not, you know, is different than the source of the water coming out of the faucet. But imagine you've got a little generator in there pumping out heat, then the bathtub, depending on the temperature of that, the amount of energy being released, then the bathtub is going to get warmer, warmer and warmer and warmer and warmer and warmer, and what keeps it going back to room temperature is how much energy is coming out of that. And that's what I was referring to as what it takes to maintain a transformation either individually within an organization, is something which continues to churn. Else you end up by the world we're in, you're watching the news, you're hearing about some accident and people are looking for the singular source, or they're looking at two points in a row, a downturn or upturn and looking at two data points to draw a conclusion. So there's all these everyday reminders of how, of the prevailing system of management at work in terms of how people are treated, how we manage systems. And our challenge is, how do you fight that?   0:03:14.7 BB: And so even within your organization, if you're trying to get people excited by Deming's works, what you have to appreciate is when they go home, the rest of their lives, they're being immersed in a culture of blame of individuals, not the system, and that's part of what we have to deal with. So I just want to mention that what I meant by that source term is, what does it take individually that we can do within our organizations to try to keep things going and not get sucked back down, knowing you've got all this normality around us that we're trying to move beyond. So the next thing I want to talk about is transformation. [chuckle] And then as that leads into, Wouldn't It Be Nice. And I was looking at The New Economics, my Kindle version, and found out that there were 73 references to transform in The New Economics, 73. And the first one is in the forward written by our good friend Kevin Cahill, and in there Kevin references, this is in the 3rd edition of The New Economics, which is the white cover if you have it in print. And it came out 2018. In there, Kevin references Out of the Crisis. And Kevin says, "The aim of the book," again, Out of the Crisis, "was clearly stated in the preface."   0:04:48.1 BB: This from Dr. Deming now, "The aim of this book is transformation of the style of American management, transformation of American style of management is not a job of reconstruction nor is it revision, it requires a whole new structure from foundation upward. The aim of this book is to supply the direction." Okay? Now back to Kevin, then Kevin says, "Out of the Crisis supplies direction for any and all types of organizations, while many people focused on its application in manufacturing, it was a call to action for every organization from education, to healthcare, to non-profits and startups of all sizes." Okay. So now we get to the preface for The New Economics. And so this is from Dr. Deming, what I just shared with you is Kevin quoting his grandfather. So now going back to 1993, the 1st edition, Dr. Deming said, "The route to transformation is what I call Profound Knowledge. The System of Profound Knowledge is composed of four parts all related to each other, appreciation for system, knowledge about variation, theory of knowledge, psychology. The aim of this book is to start the reader on the road to knowledge and to create a yearning for more knowledge." He adds to that,   0:06:07.3 BB: "What we need is cooperation and transformation... " there's that transformation word again. "To a new style of management, the route to transformation is what I call Profound Knowledge. The System of Profound Knowledge is composed of four parts all related to each other." And I'll just pause here and I, just thinking of a friend a couple years ago is inviting me to go to his company and do an in-house program. And he wanted to know how I would start the program, would I open up with the System of Profound Knowledge? I said, "No." I said I would build up to that, and he says, "Well, why not just start with it?" I said, "Because it's a solution to a problem you don't know you have." I said, "I would rather first give a sense of the nature..." now, and he said, "Well, how are we going to start?" And I said, "I'm going to start with the Trip Report, having people compare the ME versus the WE or the All Straw versus the Last Straw. And then use Profound Knowledge as a means by which to understand how you go from one to the other." I said, "But without that understanding of the problem we face... " again, it's an elegant... [chuckle] Every time, the System of Profound Knowledge is an elegant solution to a problem you don't know you have. So I look at it as, let's first create a sense of the problem/opportunity. Okay.   0:07:38.0 BB: So we're going to come back to transformation, but now I want to go back to the title, Wouldn't It Be Nice. And what I'll do is, when this is posted on the institute webpage, I'll put a link to an article I wrote in September, 2015 for the Lean Management Journal, entitled, Wouldn't It be nice. And that article includes in the opening, it says, "My appreciation of Brian Wilson on the Beach Boys has grown significantly in the past month," okay, and this was written in 2015, "after viewing the Brian Wilson Biopic “Love and Mercy," which for you, Andrew, and everyone listening, it's a fascinating, fascinating film. And it got me turned on to Brian Wilson and all these things about the Beach Boys I really underestimated. All right, so then I wrote, "Through this blast from my past, I was reminded of another Beach Boys classic, Wouldn't It Be Nice. And the yearning "wouldn't it be nice if we were older then we wouldn't have to wait so long." And then I closed the opening with, "And reflecting on this adolescent wishfulness, I propose a wishfulness that organizations, public and private and even governments, improve their understanding of variation in how it impacts the systems they design, they produce and they operate."   0:09:00.7 BB: And so when I was going back and looking at that, 'cause I was thinking about transformation in this article, and I thought the transformation I talked about last time was the transformation... We talked about the transformation going from an observer, me as a professor used a student, I'm an observer of your learning versus a participant, and that's just a systems perspective. What Dr. Deming is talking about is not just how we look at systems, but the transformation involves how we look at variation. Do we move past two data points and look at variation in the context of common causes and special causes? A transformation of how we engage people, do we engage them with carrots and sticks? Do we understand when we blame them as the willing workers, what that creates in our organizations? And then the last element of Profound Knowledge, theory of knowledge. How do we know that what we know is so? And so I was just looking back at that article, and the article was written about, what if we had a better understanding of variation as one element of a transformation? And what I wanted to highlight today is talk more about transformation, but also look at transformation from not just one aspect of the System of Profound Knowledge, all of them.   0:10:32.2 BB: And it may well be, we're going to need another episode to go through this. But the next topic I want to do as we go down this path. Some time ago somebody made reference to a hologram, and I have seen holographic pictures, and so I went back and I was trying to think, why did that strike me? What about this hologram got my attention? And I started to remind myself of it. And Kevin and I were in Idaho a few months ago meeting with an audience. And I was again reminded by this hologram thing, because people were saying, "How come people in operations are so antiquated?" And I said, "Well, it's not just operations, it's more than that." So first, holograms, so what is a hologram? So I found a dictionary definition. "It's a three-dimensional image produced by a pattern of interference produced by a split coherent beam of radiation, such as a laser." That's for the physicists in the room.   0:11:38.5 AS: I'm not sure if that helped me but...   0:11:40.6 BB: [laughter] But I also found on a website, the Institute for the Advancement of Service, and the website is, www.showanotherway.org. And there I found something I think it's a little bit easier to digest. And the text says, if you turn a photograph over and you see a blank white surface," so far so good. "A photograph shows the image only on the front, thus only from one side, a hologram is a three-dimensional image created by interacting light sources, it shows the same image from all angles regardless of how it's being viewed. When a hologram is divided into pieces, the text says, each part still contains the entire image within it, although each new image is from a slightly different perspective." And then, again, from this website, and this leads us into the transformation piece, is "how does a concept of a hologram apply to organizational structures?" And I thought, "Okay. Now we're getting some place." "Because when people come together, share a vision for an organization, each person has his or her own unique perspective of the whole." I said, "Okay." "Each shares responsibility for the whole, not just his or her piece, but the component pieces aren't identical, each represents the whole picture from a different point of view.”   0:13:08.0 BB: “When we add up the pieces, the image of the whole does not change fundamentally, but rather the image becomes more intense. When more people share the common vision, the vision may not change fundamentally, but it becomes more alive, more real in a sense of the mental reality that people can truly imagine achieving." And to me, what I say is, the role of the ME/WE Trip Report is in part to create a common mental model, a common 3D view of an organization. But depending on who you're talking with in an organization, they see only one aspect of it, they see what it means in finance, they see what it means in HR, they see what it means in, from engineering. And the beauty of, what I have found is, is when you look at organizations from Dr. Deming's perspective, we're able to appreciate that these views are different, but it is the same thing we're looking at. So the next thing I want to get into of the work we're doing at Rocketdyne, working harder in a ME organization at a non-Deming company, working harder is the mantra, working smarter, as you and I have talked about, is what does that mean? Think about things from a Deming perspective. What does that mean? So what you get is a lot of working harder. And in which case, you have KPIs and we're working harder to achieve these KPIs.   0:14:46.9 BB: Well, I was very fortunate, Rocketdyne in the mid '90s, the Air Force came up with a brand new program for a next generation rocket with a set of KPIs that a few of us believed were impossible. Now what's the relevance of that? As long as, my theory is, as long as a non-Deming organization can achieve the KPI in how it currently operates, then just get out of the way. And they will work harder, a lot of brute force will be done to meet those KPIs. And Dr. Deming would remind us, anyone can accomplish anything if they don't count the cost. So, I mean, it will destroy people's lives and marriages and all that, but as long as those KPIs are met, just get out of the way. Well, what I loved about the Air Force requirement, was I was convinced that it couldn't be met. And part of the challenge was to convince executives at Rocketdyne that we can't get there from here. And that then, what I thought was, "This is our moment." We, so again, if you're in an organization and everything can be done, how the organization currently operates, then I say try to find something that can't be done with the current system. It can't be done in the schedule, it can't be done at the cost, but if it can be done by the current system, then that's not your opening. But for us, it was the opening. So the Air Force in the mid '90s had a couple billion dollars to develop a next generation series of rockets.   0:16:30.7 BB: And so we're, nowadays we think of SpaceX launching rockets. Well, this is the mid '90s, which is 20 years or so before SpaceX. And so the requirement was, that everything in the entire rocket, everything in the entire rocket, that's a lot of parts including the engine. Everything had to meet requirements, everything had to be a White Bead, no Red Beads. In the past, if there were Red Beads, which the Air Force accepted, and we know you get Red Beads, we know how you get Red Beads. And if they have Red Beads, then you would get paid to repair them, extra. And a friend of mine who was the brainchild of the effort within the Air Force to eliminate the purchase of Red Beads, he said, "The entire rocket will not have Red Beads." And when I heard of that I thought, "ME organizations don't know how to do that." They just, all they know how to do is create Red Beads. And the strategy we had already developed was, if we look at the variation in the White Beads, as you and I have talked about, then that's a great means to prevent White Beads, Red Beads in the first place, let alone improve integration. So we started getting senior management on board with things we have done to explain to them, here's a strategy, as we heard this flow down from the Air Force.   0:18:04.6 BB: Well, the existing system, how bad it was, was... And I learned this from the brain, this Lieutenant Colonel in the Air Force who pushed this incredible KPI, which was, everything must meet requirements. And it translated to something called "No Material Review Board, where a material review board in the industry, in the aerospace industry, is a situation where you've got a Red Bead that may be a very expensive Red Bead that the contractor wants to sell the Air Force, but it doesn't meet requirements. And then the contractor gets together with the Air Force and they schmooze over it, and what Lieutenant Colonel Ciscel explained is, you've got the contractor that really wants to sell that, even though something is not quite right. And what makes it work for the Air Force is when the contractor says, "Well, the bad thing about not using this is, it's going to take a couple of months to have a new one." And that time delay starts to bug the Air Force. Next thing you know that white, that Red Bead starts to look pretty good. But worse than that, what Dave explained is, he said, it's like going to the car dealership and finding that beautiful car you want. Then I, the sales person, tell you, "Andrew, okay, we're going to have it for you tomorrow, all ready to go."   0:19:36.0 BB: And then you come back the next day and I say... And you say, "Well, where's my new car?" And I say, "Well, Andrew, I told you we were going to wash it and wax it. Yeah, well, when we put it through the car wash we scratched it." And you're like, "You scratched it." And I say, "Well, yeah but we buffed out that and we're only going to charge you a little bit more for that. We're going to charge you for this and this and this." And they said, "That's what the Air Force does." And so what he was pushing for in the mid '90s was to get rid of all of that inspired by, you're ready Andrew? Inspired by his undergraduate education that the Air Force paid for when he was an officer, and he learned about Dr. Deming's work on control charts. And so when I heard that I thought, "We've got a requirement that can't be met." This is the, this is our means, our opening for initiating a transformation. 'Cause working harder, convincing the executives was, we can't get there from here. But boy, if you can get there from here, get out of the way. So now I'm going to go back to chapter two of The New Economics. Dr. Deming says, "Somehow the theory for transformation that's been mostly applied in the shop floor, everyone knows about statistical control of quality, this is important, but the shop floor is only a small part of the total. Anyone could be a 100% successful."   0:20:54.1 BB: Well, what I want to share there in terms of the situation we were dealing with in the mid '90s, if we started to talk to the executives about statistical control of quality, control charts, common causes and special causes. Well, as soon as we started to talk about the process being "in control," to the majority of our executives that translated to "everything met requirements." And so our starting point was just for that, just what does "in control" mean? And it was just so amazing how that got translated to meets requirements. And we're like, "No, no, no. We need to have the process in control, understand common cause variation and control charts and, let alone being on target." But that was our starting point, was just trying to get these ideas across on the shop floor. And chapter three... I've got a couple of things from each chapter, at least from some of the opening chapters. We'll cover the rest later. Dr. Deming says in chapter three, "We saw in the last chapter that we are living under the tyranny of the revealing style of management. Most people imagine that this style has always existed, it is a fixture. Actually, it is a modern invention, a trap that has led us into decline. Transformation is required. Education and government, along with industry, are also in need of transformation. The System of Profound Knowledge to be introduced in the next chapter is a theory for transformation."   0:22:25.5 BB: And this is what we're trying to do with this NO MRB initiative, we are just trying to get executives to realize that if we keep doing what we're doing, we're not going to be able to achieve this goal. What I'll also say is, there was such a commercial demand for space at that time, that the Air Force didn't have to pay for the entire program. So they came in with a couple billion dollars. They asked the contractors to bring their money with the idea that these rockets would be used, like Elon Musk is using, for launching all these commercial satellites. So the Air Force excitement was, we can lay out these requirements of no Red Beads, but the reason we're going to make it work is, there's such a commercial demand for a military product. And so Dave referred to this, his push for everything must meet requirements. He called it a $2 billion ambush. And I said, "What do you mean by that?" He said, "I knew they couldn't achieve what we wanted without a transformation. And I knew they wouldn't... We knew they wanted the money. But we knew they couldn't do it without a transformation." And I was like, "Oh, that's ingenious. That is just ingenious." And he so loved what we were doing at Rocketdyne, when he retired from the Air Force, as the program was transitioning from one phase to another, he retired and came to work at Rocketdyne. And he became a huge asset for our efforts to initiate a transformation.   0:24:06.1 BB: Then Dr. Deming says, "The transformation affects family life. Parents who will not rank their children nor show special favors or rewards. Would parents wish for one child to be a loser? Would his brothers and sisters be happy to have a loser in the family? Transform the family will be a living demonstration of cooperation in the form of mutual support, love and respect." At home, Andrew, at home. All right, "The prevailing style of management must undergo a transformation, the system cannot understand itself. The transformation requires an outside view." This is chapter four. And then "The aim of this chapter is to provide a lens, an outside view, a lens that I call a System of Profound Knowledge." Well, here I want to get into the hologram. And this, so I was... Kevin and I were at a Idaho Manufacturing Alliance conference right after Thanksgiving. And we had a session with some people. And in one group I was working with, they said, "Why is that engineering just doesn't get it? It always seems to be engineering. It's always engineering." And I said, "No." I said, "Each part of the organization has their own... " And I tried to explain to them, they each fall into a different trap, but the traps are very similar.   0:25:27.6 BB: I said, "So engineering sets the requirements on each part, they create the silos. Manufacturing then runs off with those instructions and produces the parts as if they're separate, quality then inspects them, finance adds up the savings, adds up the cost." And I don't know to what degree we've discussed this yet, but addition is the belief, adding up the savings comes from a belief that these elements are separate, that if we save $10 here, save $10 here and $10 there, then as an organization we save $30. No, the savings only happen... You only get a $30 savings if those activities don't interfere with one another. So I explained to them, finance has issues. And then HR, they're the ones behind performance appraisals. And that's where this hologram thing came to mind, is that each of them might think, as they get exposed to Deming's work, that we got this figured out. But it's all of them required to tie together to transform the organization. And then more from chapter 4, the transformation. "The first step is transformation of the individual. Transformation is discontinuous. It comes from understanding of the System of Profound Knowledge. The individual transformed will perceive new meaning to his life, through numerous interactions between people. Once the individual understands the System of Profound Knowledge, he'll apply its principles in every kind of relationship." There's Siri.   [chuckle]   0:27:13.6 BB: "Once the individual understands the System of Profound Knowledge, he'll apply its principles in every kind of relationship with others. He'll have a basis for judging his own decisions and transformation of the organizations that he belongs to. The individual, once transformed," this is what we talked about last time. I said, "No. The individual, once the transformation begins...will set an example, be a good listener, but not compromise. Continually teach others, help people pull away from their current practice and beliefs and move into the new philosophy without guilt about the past." And here I just want to add. A person I was mentoring three or four years ago, and she went through a one-day program I was leading, and I then started to mentor her on a regular basis. And one of the first calls we had, she was distraught over looking at herself as being incredibly selfish. She said, "The way I treated my siblings, the way I treated my classmates when I was in college." she said, "It was all about me." And I said, so I showed her this, I said, "You have to move into the new philosophy without guilt about the past." I said, "I used to think I caused the grades all by myself," I said, "We each go through this transformation differently with this bit of... " I mean 'cause we're brought up in a world thinking that we caused the grades and all these other things, and I said, "You got to move past that." And I'm not saying it's easy.   0:28:41.5 AS: Well, we did the best we could with what we had at the time, I always like to remind myself...   0:28:45.1 BB: That's right.   0:28:45.4 AS: Myself that.   0:28:48.2 BB: So a couple of other things, then I'm going to... Then I'll just pause, we can close. But what I would tell the executives early, early on, we had from the Air Force this major program, a whole lot of money at Rocketdyne, we were developing the engines. McDonnell Douglas was acquired by Boeing. They got the contract for the vehicle. So eventually we were all under Boeing, and it was really, really cool to be able to get the engine people smart about all the things we're talking about in these calls, and then the vehicle people excited. And then there was a production schedule. We're going to ship the first vehicle X years out, and then it's going to go from a couple a month to a lot a month on and on. And one of the things I would tell the executives, if you want to know every day, how are we doing every day. So you want to know if we're making progress as an organization. So I just gave them a couple of visuals. And I said, "One thing you get... " 'Cause there's one thing, "Well, how are we doing, how are we doing?" I said, "Well, let me tell you what you can measure." I said, "Every time you walk into the restroom, count how many paper towels are on the floor next to the trash can, that can't quite get into the trash can, and let that be a measure of how we're doing on the shop floor in our ability to not deliver Red Beads."   0:30:15.7 BB: And that then becomes an everyday reminder within our respective organizations is, we can't get the trash into the trash can, we can't leave the conference room as we found it, we can't get rid of the science experiments in the refrigerators. And I don't know if I mentioned it to you, but one experiment I would have people do when they would come to class at Rocketdyne, visitors and whatnot. During a break, they need an escort to walk to the restroom a few minutes away, and I'd say to them, "Here, run an experiment to how we're doing as an organization." I said, "Take your empty cup of coffee and put it on top of a file cabinet somewhere between here and the restroom, and then see if it's still there during the next break. Or crumble a piece of paper, put it on the floor, and see how many people walk past that." And I just throw that out as everyday things people can do to get kind of a finger of the pulse. As you're trying to transform your organization one person at a time, what are the things you can look for in the organization, long before we're focusing on common causes versus special causes. What are we doing with performance appraisals? Are we looking at things in the system? There's a bunch of everyday indicators you could start to look at with a sense of, this is a hologram.   0:31:51.8 AS: So we started this off with wouldn't it be nice? And we've been through a lot of different topics in relation to that, how would you summarize the key takeaway that someone can now bring to their business or their life in relation to this topic?   0:32:08.4 BB: Well, let me, and I got some bullet points on the holograms and then the close from the article that I wrote for the Lean Management Journal. And from the hologram, holographic model from the showanotherway.org website, it says, "What do we need to be mindful of when working with this holographic model?" It said "in this model, we need to be aware of the whole, with the parts, their relationships, and the context." Okay? So that's, part of this transformation is keep looking at things and try to imagine what's the greater context for these decisions. That one part of the organization reflects the philosophy of the whole organization. So the idea that, stop thinking that it's just those people in operations that don't get it. Each part of the organization has taken the prevailing system of management and put it into their DNA. So it's everywhere, that members of the organization reflect the whole of the organization and their behaviors. And the idea is, how do we get them to think about the whole? And I think a lot of progress can be made just by sharing with people a common... Having them reveal their appreciation of the contrast between ME and WE organizations, and they'll be pretty obvious where they'd rather work.   0:33:41.3 BB: And then the, what I closed the Brian Wilson article for the Lean Management Journal with is, "wouldn't it be nice if we manage the variation in the parts as being the parts of a system. In the spirit of Brian Wilson's adolescent wishfulness, wouldn't it be nice if the great illusion of independent parts and components modules was replaced by the realism of unity and interconnectedness in amazing prospects for teamwork within any organization." And I think that's a nice way of talking about transformation, not just looking at systems, but understanding people, psychology, and the theory of knowledge.   0:34:25.1 AS: Well, that's a great place to wrap. Bill on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this discussion. And for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. And if you want to keep in touch with Bill, just find him on LinkedIn. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming. And people wonder, why do I repeat the same quote over and over again. Try to get it through our thick heads that people are entitled to joy in work.      

Do you struggle to meet your goals or targets? Find out how you can change your thinking about goals and your process for setting them so you can keep moving forward. In this episode, John Dues and host Andrew Stotz discuss the first five of John's 10 Key Lessons for Data Analysis. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:03.0 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today I'm continuing my discussion with John Dues, who is part of the new generation of educators striving to apply Dr. Deming's principles to unleash student joy in learning. This is episode two of four in a mini-series on why goal setting is often an act of desperation. John, take it away.   0:00:32.3 John Dues: Hey, Andrew, it's good to be back. Yeah, in that last episode, that first episode in this mini-series, we talked about why goal setting is often an act of desperation and I basically proposed these four conditions that organizations should understand prior to setting a goal. So it's not the goals in and of themselves that are bad, but it's with this important understanding that's often lacking. So those four things that organizations should understand, one, what's the capability of a system under study? So that's the first thing, how capable is the system or the process? The second thing is what's the variation within that system or process under study? So that's the second thing we talked about last time. The third thing is understanding if that system or process is stable. And then the fourth thing was, if we know all of those things, by what method are we going to approach improvement after we set the goal, basically? So you gotta have those four things, understanding the capability of the system, the variation of the system, the stability of the system, and then by what method, prior to setting a goal. And so I think I've mentioned this before, but absent of an understanding of those conditions, what I see is goals that are, what I call it, arbitrary and capricious.   0:01:48.8 JD: That's a legal characterization. You look that up in the law dictionary. And it basically says that an "arbitrary and capricious law is willful and unreasonable action without consideration or in disregard of facts or law." So I'm just now taking that same characterization from a legal world and applying it to educational organizations and accountability systems, and I just switched it to "a willful and unreasonable goal without consideration or in disregard of system capability, variability, and/or stability." And we see these all over the place for education organizations, for schools, school districts, teachers, that type of thing.   0:02:31.6 JD: And so what I tried to do in the book and tried to do here in my work in Columbus is develop some sort of countermeasures to that type of goal setting and develop the 10 key lessons for data analysis. An antidote to the arbitrary and capricious goals seen throughout our sector. And this process behavior chart tool, looking at data in that format is central to these lessons. So what I thought we would do in this episode and the next is outline those 10 key lessons. So five today and then do another five in the next episode. And in the fourth episode of the series, what we would do is then apply those examples to a real life improvement project from one of our schools. It's helpful, I think too, to sort of, to understand the origin of the key lessons. So there's the lessons that I'll outline are really derived from three primary sources.   0:03:36.0 JD: So the first two come from Dr. Donald Wheeler, who I've mentioned on here before, a lot of Deming folks will, of course, have heard of Dr. Wheeler, who's a statistician in Tennessee, a colleague of Dr. Deming when Dr. Deming was alive and then has carried on that work to this day. The two books, two really great books that he wrote, one is called Understanding Variation, a thin little book, a good primer, a good place to start. And then he's got a thicker textbook called Making Sense of Data, where you get in really into the technical side of using process behavior charts. So I'd highly recommend those. And then the third resource is a book from a gentleman, an engineer named Mark Graban called Measures of Success. And I really like his book because he has applied it, the process behavior chart methodology, to his work and he's really done it in a very contemporary way. So he's got some really nice color-coded charts in the Measures of Success book and I think they're really easy to understand with modern examples, like traffic on my website, for example, in a process behavior chart, really easy to understand modern example. But all three of the books, all three of the resources are built on the foundation of Dr. Deming's work. They're, you know, Graban and Wheeler are fairly similar and I think Graban would say he's a student of Wheeler.   0:05:00.4 JD: He learned of this mindset, this approach to data analysis by finding a Donald Wheeler book on his own dad's bookshelf when he was in college and starting down that path as a young engineer to study this stuff. And basically what I've done is take the information from those three resources and make some modifications so they can be understood by educators, basically. I think it's also worth noting again that process behavior chart methodology is right in the center of this, really for three reasons. One, when you plot your data that way, you can start to understand messages in your data, I think that's really important. Second, you can then start to differentiate between special and common causes, special and common causes, translate that into regular language. I can translate between something that I should pay attention to and something that's not significant basically in my data. And then in so doing, I know the difference between when I'm reacting to noise versus when I'm reacting to signals in my data, so I think that's really important. So the process behavior chart is at the center of all this. So we'll go through five of these lessons, one by one, I'll outline the lesson and then give a little context for why I think that particular lesson is important.   0:06:25.4 AS: That sounds like a plan. So capability, variation, stability and method. You've talked about Donald Wheeler, excellent book on Understanding Variation, that's the one I've seen. And of course, Mark Graban's book, Measures of Success, very well rated on Amazon and a podcaster himself, too.   0:06:49.6 JD: Yeah. And if I was a person studying this and wanting to get into process behavior charts and really knowing how to look at data the right way, I would read Understanding Variation first because it's a good primer, but it's fairly easy to understand. And then I would read Measures of Success 'cause it's got those practical applications now that I have a little bit of a baseline, and then if I wanna go deep into the technical stuff, the Making Sense of Data, that's the textbook that drives everything home. Yeah. So we'll dive into the lesson then.   0:07:19.5 AS: Let's do it.   0:07:20.0 JD: Yeah. Okay. So the first lesson, and I've talked about this in various episodes before, but lesson one, the very first lesson is, "data have no meaning apart from their context." So this seems commonsensical, but I see this all the time where these things aren't taken care of. And what I'm talking about is answering some basic questions. So for anyone looking at my data, they should be able to answer some basic questions, very simply, anybody that looks at my data. First thing is who collected the data? That should be apparent. How were the data collected? When were the data collected? Where were the data collected? And then what do these values represent? So oftentimes I see data either in a chart or in some type of visualization and almost none of those things are known from looking at the data, all important questions.   0:08:18.6 JD: The second question would be, well, that first set goes together. The second question is what's the operational definition of the concept being measured? So we have to be on the same page about what it is exactly being measured in this data that I've collected. I also wanna know how were the values of any computed data derived from the raw inputs? That's important. And then the last thing is, have there been any changes made over time that impact the data set? For example, perhaps the operational definition has changed over time for some reason. Maybe there's been a change in formula being used to compute the data.   0:09:05.4 JD: So an example would be, from my world, high school graduation rates. You know, 20 years ago there was one definition of how you calculated a high school graduation rate, now there's a different definition. So when you compare those two sets of data, you've gotta be careful because you're actually, you're actually working from different definitions and I think that happens all the time. More recently here in Ohio, what it means to be proficient on a state test, that definition changed about 10 years ago. And so if you look at test results from 2024 and try to compare them to 2014, you're really comparing apples and oranges 'cause there's two different definitions of proficiency, but no one remembers those things a decade later. So you have...   0:09:52.3 AS: And then a chart will be presented where the different methodologies are shown as one line that says...   0:10:00.8 JD: Yes.   0:10:00.8 AS: That no one's differentiated the fact that at this point it changed.   0:10:04.6 JD: Yeah, at this point it changed. So first lesson, data have no meaning apart from their context. Second lesson is we don't manage or control the data, the data is the voice of the process. What we control is the system and the processes from which the data come. There's a difference there. Right? So I think this is one of the key conceptions of that system's view, that system's thinking in an organization. When we wanna make improvements in our schools, we need a few things in place. We need the people working in the system. So that would be the students for us, they're working in the system, people that have the authority to work on the system, so that'd be teachers if we're talking about an individual classroom, at the school building level, maybe we're talking about the principal. And those two things are, at least the teacher principal thing is usually in place, the students being a part of improvement projects, definitely less so, but maybe there are places where that's happening. But the third thing is someone with an understanding of the System of Profound Knowledge, I'd say that's almost always lacking in the education sector, at least. And I think the reason the System of Profound Knowledge becomes important, 'cause that's really the theoretical foundation for all the things that we're talking about when we're looking at data in this way.   0:11:38.8 JD: If you lack that conception, then it's hard to bring about any improvement, because you don't understand how to look at that data, how to interpret that data, you don't understand how to run a plan-do-study-act cycle. Because what you're gonna ultimately have to do is change some process in your system and there's some knowledge that you're gonna need to be able to do that, and that's, that third component of an improvement team has to be in place to do that. But I think the most important thing is that we're not in control of the data, we're in control of the processes that ultimately lead to the data. It's a distinction, maybe a fine distinction, but I think it's an important one.   0:12:17.5 AS: The idea of the System of Profound Knowledge and understanding what to do with the data and really understanding the whole thing, I was just thinking what would... An analogy I was thinking about is rain. Everybody understands rain as it comes out of the sky, but not everybody understands how to use that to make a pond, to make an aqueduct, to feed a farm, to, whatever that is. And so having that big picture is key, so, okay. So number...   0:12:57.8 JD: Yeah. Well, and a part of that is something really simple is constantly understanding data is the voice of the process. And so when you're looking at data, what often happens is I'm gonna walk into a meeting with my boss, and I'm looking for some data point, maybe we just got some type of performance data back or survey results or something. I'm gonna pick one of those items where the plot, where the dot from last time has improved when we look at it this time, and I take that and say, "Look how we've improved in this thing." And you need someone to say, "Well, wait a second, while there is a difference between those data points, if I look at the last 12, things are just moving up and down." And there's gotta be someone in the room that constantly points back to that, constantly. And that's where that person with the Profound Knowledge is helpful in improvement work.   0:13:54.5 AS: So the voice of the process is a great way of phrasing it that's been used for a while now and I think it's really good. I remember when I worked at Pepsi as a young supervisor, I saw some problem on the production line and I raised it to the maintenance guys. And they kept coming and fixing it and it would break and they'd fix it and it would break, and I basically got mad at him and I was like, "What the hell?" And he's like, "Bosses won't pay for the things that I need to fix this permanently, so get used to it constantly breaking down."   0:14:33.4 JD: And that's the best I can do.   0:14:34.0 AS: That's the voice of the system, here's what I can produce with what you've given me to produce.   0:14:40.8 JD: Yep. Yep. Yeah. Those guys had a very keen understanding of the system, no doubt in that example. Yeah. Yeah. And that kind of thing happens all the time, I think. That was lesson two. Lesson three is plot the dots for any data that incurs in time order. So a lot of people in this world know Dr. Donald Berwick, he started the Institute for Healthcare Improvement. He was a student of Dr. Deming's, he's done a lot of work in this area. He has a great quote where he says, "Plotting measurements over time turns out, in my view, to be one of the most powerful things we have for systemic learning." And that's what really plot the dots is all about, it's all about turning your data into a visualization that you can learn from. And the National Health Service in England has this #plotthedots. And I think the whole point is that plotting the dots, plotting the data over time helps us understand variation and it leads us to take more appropriate action when we do that. So whether it's a run chart or a process behavior chart, just connecting the consecutive data points with a line makes analysis far more intuitive than if we store that data in a table.   0:16:03.6 AS: Yeah. And I was thinking about if you're a runner and you wanna compete in a marathon, plotting the dots like that is so valuable because you can see when changes happen. For instance, let's just say one night you didn't eat and then you ran the next morning and then your performance was better. Was it just a noise variation or is there something that we can learn from that? And then just watching things over time just give you ideas about what... Of potential impacts of what something could do to change that.   0:16:42.0 JD: Yeah. And we can start with a simple run chart, it doesn't have the limits, it's just a line chart. And then once we have enough of the data collected, enough plotted dots, then we can turn it into the process behavior chart.   0:16:56.3 AS: Some people don't even want to see that, John, like when we looked at your weight chart, remember that?   0:17:03.0 JD: I do remember that. Yeah.   0:17:04.0 AS: So for the people out there that really wanna let's say, control your weight, put a dot plot chart on your wall and measure it each day and just the awareness of doing that is huge.   0:17:18.7 JD: Yep. It is huge. It really is huge. And that works for any data that occurs over time, so almost everything that we're interested in improving occurs in some type of time order, time sequence. So these charts are appropriate for a wide array of data. But the bottom line is that... Oh, yeah, sorry, go ahead.   0:17:33.5 AS: The bottom line?   0:17:35.0 JD: Well, I was just saying the bottom line, whether you're using a run chart or a process behavior chart, it's always gonna tell us more than a list or a table of numbers, basically.   0:17:44.5 AS: I was gonna explain this, a situation I had when I was head of research at a research firm, a broker here in Thailand. I, my goal was to get more output from the analysts, they needed to write more and we needed to get more out. So what I did and I had already learned so much about Deming and stuff at that time. So what I did is I just made a chart showing each person's, what each person wrote each week, and it was a run chart in that sense where people could see over time what they wrote and they could see what other people were writing. And I purposely made no comments on this chart and I'd never really discussed it, I just put it up and updated it every week. And one of the staff that worked for me, an analyst, a really smart Thai woman asked, she said, she went to... She said, "I wanna see you in your office." I was like, "Oh, shit, I'm in trouble." And so she came to my office and said, "You know I went to, so this was maybe six months after I had put that chart up, she said, "I went out to lunch with my counterpart, my competitor, and she's writing research just like me on the same sector, and she asked me how many research reports do you write in a week, and I told her my number, and she was like, "Oh my God, that's a huge number."   0:19:16.6 AS: And she said, "Oh, I didn't really even think about it. But okay." And then she says, "What is Andrew's goal or target for you?" And she had naturally had thought that I had set a target of that amount, that's where she said, "I think I really figured you out." And I was like, "Well, what do you mean?" She said, "You just put that chart up there and you didn't give us any goal, but you knew that we were looking at it, and then it would provide us information and incentive and excitement, and the fact that you said nothing about it, got us to probably a higher level of production than if you had said, "I want everybody to read my reports."   0:19:57.9 JD: Right. Yeah, that's great.   0:20:01.0 AS: The magic of data. What's number four?   0:20:02.4 JD: The magic of data. Number four, so two or three data points are not a trend. So the first thing is, as soon as you've decided to collect some set of data, plot the dots, that should start right away. And again, this really includes all data that we're interested in improving in schools. And I know before I understood this way of thinking, this way of data analysis, I often relied on just comparing two points, that's the most common form of data analysis. What did last month look like, what does month look like? What did last year look like, what does this year look like? What did last week look like, what does this week look like? So that limited comparison is the most typical form of data analysis, especially when you're talking about something like management reports or board reports, revenue over time, those types of things. What was revenue last January? That type of thing. But the problem with looking at just two or three data points is that it tells you nothing about trends, it also doesn't tell you anything about how the data varies naturally.   0:21:17.5 JD: I remember looking at attendance data at one of our schools, and they had up... Last month was 92%, and then had gone up to 94%, but then I just said, well, what did it look like... January is 92, February is 94 in this particular school year, and I just said, well, what did it look like before, and then when you plotted it, what saw very quickly is there was no improvement, the data was literally going like this, up, down, up, down, up, down, up down, right? But no one had that picture, because all you could see was, Here's January and here's February, just numbers written in percentage form, that's almost all the data that I see in schools is in a similar format.   0:22:02.7 AS: On this one, in the stock market, my area of expertise. People always see the up data, the people who have made a lot of money in the stock market, and they see that as evidence that they could make money in the stock market, or they attribute that to skill of that particular person as we want to, with Warren Buffett as an example. And I have, in fact in my class, I asked the students, "Do you think that Warren Buffet outperformed, underperformed, or performed in line with the market over the last 20 years?" And the answer to that is, he performed in line with the market, and I proved that by doing a demonstration through a website that I can do that with, but it was shocking because obviously he's gonna end up with the most amount of money because he let his money compound, and he made huge gains in the beginning years, which compounded over many years.   0:23:02.0 AS: And still he's doing very well, but the point is, is that... The reason why I say this, I also tell the story of, if you had 10,000 people in a stadium and you flipped coins, and asked them if they flipped heads consecutively or tails consecutively to remain standing, and you're gonna end up with 10 people at the end of 10 flips with 10,000, and if you've got a million, you can end up with 20 or 30 or 40 flips that could potentially be heads consecutively or tails consecutively. So my question is, given that long streaks can happen through just plain probability, what if two to three data points are not a trend, can we definitively say, what is a trend?   0:23:50.9 JD: Well, not with certainty, but what this type of data analysis does is it gives you some patterns in the data to look for that are so mathematically improbable that you can be reasonably assured that some changes happened.   0:24:09.4 AS: Right so this is enough of a trend that I'm gonna go with the assumption that there's something significant here.   0:24:21.9 JD: Yeah. I mean it's...well, think back to that attendance example that I just used, so if I went from... If I'm writing this up on, let's say a whiteboard that's in a teacher work room, it says, this month and next month, or last month and this month, and I write those attendance rates up and remember, it's a dry erase board, and I'm gonna erase the last month to put this month's up and so I'm not gonna be able to see that one anymore, I'll have two data points and I'll erase the old one, and so in that example, I used where they went from 92%. It was actually like 92.4% to 94.1%. So it wasn't even two full percentage points. And then you celebrate that as a win, as an improvement, but like I said, you didn't know what happened before, and then you didn't chart after, so you don't really know how things are just bouncing around naturally versus if you had it on a run chart and you did see, let's say, eight points in a row that are above the average attendance for that school, that's one of the patterns that suggest that something different has happened. So you just have increased mathematical probability that there has been meaningful improvement.   0:25:39.4 AS: So it sounds like what you mean in this number four is a little bit more on the end of, Hey, just a couple of data points doesn't have anything, you need to get more rather than somebody looking at a lot of data and trying to understand what is a trend or not?   0:25:56.9 JD: That's exactly right. That's exactly right. And that actually is a segue to Lesson 5, which is "show enough data in your baseline to illustrate the previous level of variation," basically. So this is gonna get a little technical for a second, but the non-technical thing is, we talked about when you have a run chart when you're starting and you have, let's say, three or four or five, six data points at a certain point, you can now have a process behavior chart, which is the addition of that upper and lower natural process limit that defines the bounds of the system, so the limits are not a part of the run chart.   0:26:34.9 JD: In making sense of data what Donald Wheeler basically says is that if you're using an average line, the mean for your central line, then those limits, you begin to have limits that solidify when you have 17 or more values, and then if you're using a median for that central line, that solidification starts to happen when you have 23 or more values. So there's a mathematical theory behind that. But the point is, at a certain point, you start to get enough data to be able to add the limits and feel confident that those limits actually represent the bounds of your current system. But that's getting fairly technical and what Wheeler does go on to say is that, in real life we often have fewer data points to work with.   0:27:31.4 JD: So you can actually compute limits with as few as five or six values, and they can still be meaningful, now they're gonna be not a solid, meaning that each individual data point for a while that you add could potentially shift those limits more than you'd like, because there are a few data points that the limits are based on. But once you get to 17, 18, 19, 20 points, they start to solidify pretty good unless there's some significant change, like one of those patterns I talked about in your data. But an important thing to keep in mind is, is we're using a process behavior chart for continual improvement, so we're taking improvement measurements, not accountability measurements. I'm not trying to paint a certain picture of what my system looks like, I'm not trying to write a fiction about what's happening in my system, I'm actually trying to improve, so I don't really care what the data looks like. I'm not worried about being judged or rated or ranked, it's not an accountability thing, it's an improvement thing. And so I'm just trying to represent the system accurately so that I actually know that what I'm trying is working or not working. It's a completely different mindset. That whole sort of like trying to look better is completely removed from the picture through this type of mindset.   0:28:55.7 AS: I'm just picturing some sort of process where there's a measurement of temperature and the temperature keeps rising, but the worker says, "Boss there's a fire." And the boss said, "There's not enough data yet to confirm that." It only seems like a small fire right now, so I need more data points. Well, sometimes you have to act without thinking about the data and make an assumption that you may be wrong. You turn on the fire sprinklers, boom, and it wasn't a fire, but the damage of letting that go for long and saying I need more data doesn't make sense.   0:29:34.1 JD: Yeah, yeah, that doesn't really work. But the idea with the baseline is, basically, if you wanna improve something, the first thing you do is before you try anything, just gather some baseline data first so you can understand the current conditions. And in that attendance as an example, maybe you don't wanna wait for monthly attendance data, maybe wanna look at daily attendance day, what you have in a school, and just plot that over 12 days, 15 days, two or three weeks, and you can start to get a sense for what this looks like on a daily basis, and then you could try to improve it and see if that improvement has an impact on the data over time.   0:30:15.6 AS: Good, well, let me summarize this, but I have to start off with... My grammar is not particularly great, and since you're more of a school teacher than I am, I may need help with what you said. I think what I got correctly was data have no meaning apart from their context.   0:30:33.6 JD: Yeah, what did I say? Let me see.   0:30:38.5 AS: I always get confused if data is plural or singular.   0:30:41.8 JD: Yeah. Well, it can be either. So in this case, I was using data as a plural, so that's my point. I think technically the singular of data is actually datum. Obviously, nobody uses that 'cause it sounds really weird, but data can be plural, I think so.   0:30:57.4 AS: That sounds awfully Latin of you, alright. Number two, the data is the voice of the process, and that we control the process, not the data, and number 3 we plot the data in time order. Number four, two or three data points are not a trend. And number five is show enough data to illustrate the baseline. Anything you need to say to wrap all this up.   0:31:20.4 JD: Yeah, I just think that... I've mentioned this multiple times. I think when you're talking about continual improvement, primary tool is that process behavior chart, it allows you to visualize your data in a way that makes sense, and then the skill set that you have to learn is how to interpret the process behavior chart. How to use them effectively, how to create useful charts and then underlying... Understanding that underlying logic of process behavior charts. There's other tools, obviously in the improvement tool kit, but I actually think that that particular chart is the most important in my view. And I think with those charts, that tool in hand, we can avoid then those arbitrary and capricious goals that are so pervasive in our sector, basically.   0:32:10.6 AS: Well, that's exciting, and I'm excited for our next session when we talk about the final five. So John, on behalf of everyone at The Deming Institute, I wanna thank you again for this discussion, and for listeners remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. And you can find John's book, Win-Win: W. Edwards Deming, the System of Profound Knowledge and the Science of Improving Schools on Amazon.com. This is your host, Andrew Stotz and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming, "People are entitled to joy in work."  

In The New Economics, Deming said “The individual, transformed, will perceive new meaning to his life…” (3rd edition, page 63) But are we ever completely transformed? Discover why Bill Bellows believes that transformation is an ongoing process and how you can keep your learning journey going. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.2 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with Bill Bellows, who has spent 30 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. And the topic for today is, in this episode 17, Diffusion from a Point Source. Bill, take it away.   0:00:29.6 Bill Bellows: And the title coincidentally, was the focus of my Master's thesis. We'll look at that later.   0:00:37.1 AS: It wasn't a rock and roll song. Yes, correct.   0:00:39.9 BB: No, not a rock and roll. [chuckle] Actually, Diffusion from a Point Source. Was that Mick Jagger or Keith Richards? Maybe it was Taylor. Maybe it was Taylor Swift. Okay. So some opening remarks, and then we'll get to today's feature. And I mentioned in the past, I go back and listen to the podcast, read through the transcripts, and it's very much like “Production Viewed as a System” - is to talk with people that have listened to it, listened to it myself and ask, have I... Are there holes in the explanation? Can I add some more clarity to it? The process I use for these podcasts is, some title comes to mind. I've got a long list that we started with at the very beginning, and then some other topics come up for any of a variety of reasons.   0:01:35.3 BB: And we'll have a title, have an outline, but then as we get involved in the conversation, something I say leads to something that you say leads to something that's not on the list. And sometimes some of those ad-libs, I go back and listen to and say, "Well, I don't know that sounded right. I just wanna add a little bit more clarity". Another thing I wanna say at the outset for those listening, is [chuckle] there is... Somebody posted somewhere on social media that one of the sessions was a total waste of time to listen to which I think is unfortunate. But what I like to say is, where I'm coming from to support The Deming Institute, as your ambition is as well, is to help individuals in respective organizations learn about Dr. Deming's ideas, try to apply them, deepen their understanding, explain them to others, and that's the target audience.   0:02:48.0 BB: So, for those who find that boring, well maybe this is not the podcast for you. And so, and the other thing I wanna say along those lines is, for the majority of my time at Rocketdyne, I had the responsibility of being a transformation agent or transformation person was part of my job. Now, I was brought in, I didn't have that job to begin with. The job I had to begin with was to lead the effort to provide training, facilitation of applications of Dr. Taguchi's ideas. And what I've shared in these podcasts is a lot of what I was doing early on was helping people put out fires.   0:03:38.2 BB: And that's not what Dr. Taguchi's ideas are about. His ideas are about improving the robustness of the performance of a product or service. Whereby what robustness Dr. Taguchi means is "it performs as an athlete incredibly well in spite of differing weather conditions." So the ability of a marathoner to run very consistent fast times in spite of the weather, in spite of the altitude. And so you're getting consistently high, or consistently faster and faster times. That's what Dr. Taguchi meant by, means by, his work means by "robustness."   0:04:16.2 BB: And what I was doing was using tools and techniques associated with his ideas to fight fires. And then, I got frustrated by that. And that led me to Dr. Deming's work, led me to revisit Dr. Deming's work. I had met him in 1990 and The New Economics came out in '93, and I had a couple of years of this frustration. The exciting thing was solving, getting involved, working with some really exciting people, and solving some very high visibility issues. But it wasn't breaking in as much as I would've liked into the, into the robustness piece. And when I came across Deming's work, I started to understand, it gave me a lot of food for thought as to why that might be the case. Now what is meant by transformation? And Dr. Deming uses that term, an individual transformed.   0:05:07.8 BB: And I had asked people that were close to him like, what is his operational definition of transformation? And when I explained it to them, I said, this is what I think he means this. And typically people say that's, they agree with that. And so my simple explanation of what I think Deming meant by transformation is as simple as, me saying to you, the professor to the student, “Andrew, how did you do on the exam?” Whereas I've said in the past, that makes me an observer of your learning to changing the question to how are, how did we do on the exam, where I become a participant? So I look at, so to me, the transformation Deming's talking about is that I no longer look around at things and see myself as separate from them. I look at myself as connected to them, and others being transformed or likewise seeing themselves as integral to what's going on, not watching it go by. Another reason I wanna bring that transformation agent piece up is part of my job, not part of my job, so I went from being mostly about Taguchi's work to mostly about Deming's work because I felt it was far more vital to focus on what Deming's talking about, the transform, how the organization and transform how the individuals operate. Another thing I wanna say there is what I think is interesting, if you look at the forward to Out of the Crisis and The New Economics.   0:06:48.1 BB: In Out of the Crisis, which I think was 1986 or so timeframe, Deming talked about the aim of this book is to help transform organizations. And then in The New Economics, he talks about the aim of this book is to help transform individuals. So he went through, he's shifted his focus from I'm trying to help organizations to I'm trying to help individuals. And that's what I'm hoping to do, interacting with you in these podcasts. So, on the one hand, I'd say to those listening, I don't know what your role is. If you're a transformation agent, that's one role. You may be an individual contributor, a senior software person, a marketing person, which means your job title does not include transforming the organization.   0:07:37.8 BB: So, what does that mean? It means some of what we're talking about may not apply to you. You may be personally excited about the Trip Report and, but it may not be your job to hold seminars within your respective organizations and go off and explain that to people. You may alienate people who think that's their job. So, I just wanna say, ask people, to be careful about what your role is in your organization. I've mentored many people and I'm used to going in and being the transformation person. And, one person I was working with, and she was all excited to wanna go share the Me-We Trip Report with her peers in this company doing software. And I said, "You can't do that". And she's like, "Well, why?" I said, "It's not your job". I said, "One is if you call a meeting to talk about transformation of the organization, or you get into that territory. I said, you're stepping on the toes of people who have that responsibility, perhaps. Or somebody's gonna say, wait, I thought we paid you to be a software engineer. Now you're over here. So, now you sound like you're astray, you're a loose cannon".   0:08:56.8 BB: Now I said, to this person, I said, now if you... There may be a place for you to say, "Hey, I wanna show you this neat solution.” If you think they're interested, ideally they ask you to show you how you did that. So, I think there's a difference when it comes to implementing these ideas, I would just advise some caution to people to not overstep their bounds and what it means to bring these ideas to the organization. So, I just wanted to say that.   0:09:32.4 AS: Yep. I just wanted to highlight the word transformation for a second. And the dictionary definition says, "transformation is a thorough or dramatic change in form or appearance. A transformation is an extreme radical change." And that's interesting, 'cause they say in form or appearance that you could have someone do a facelift that dramatically changes their face and the way they appear. But, has it been an internal transformation? Maybe, maybe not.   0:10:10.9 BB: Well, what's funny is, I mentioned that in previous podcasts, 'cause once a month for 17 years, I hosted an Ongoing Discussion where there'd be... I could have you on as a Thought Leader on a topic near and dear to you. And we send the announcement out and people would call in and it took a few years for Russ to agree to do it. And then, he eventually did, and he did it every January. Typically people would, every month be somebody different. But once I saw Russ's excitement by it, then I said, "Russ, every January we're gonna have you", we did it for four years, and every January I'd fly out to Philadelphia and be with him. So, the last time I did it with him, we were in his apartment. We were sitting pretty close together over the small desk. And in the sessions, the term transformation came up. So, the last session ends, we did four one-hour sessions over two days. The last session ends. And I turned off my recorder. And I said, "Russ, it just dawned on me that you and Deming, you and Dr. Deming both talk about transformation".   0:11:26.8 BB: And I said, "Dr. Deming talks about a personal transformation - I see the world differently.” And Russ looks at transformation as an attribute of a solution. That “we used to do it this way, now we do it this way.” And so, his is not transformation of an individual, but transformation of a solution. And I said, I just... I threw it out as I just, "You both used the word, but you use it differently". And I said something like, now I was waiting to see what he would say with that. And he looks at me and he says, "I see no value in that conversation", which followed by "let's go get lunch."   [laughter]   0:12:22.8 AS: Exactly.   0:12:24.0 BB: And so I thought, oh, I was really looking forward to exploring that space with him. And I shared that conversation with one of his peers later that night. And he said, "He said that?" I said, "Not only did he say that", he said, "You know what? I really wasn't surprised". 'Cause Russ was... It seemed to be a little bit too abstract for him. Anyway, but it's, but he would've put it, "What is this transformation stuff?"   0:12:51.0 AS: That, it's interesting because sometimes we talk about the why isn't Deming more widely accepted and that type of thing. And I think one of the things is that he's driving for transformation versus I think majority of people are providing information and here's how you do Lean, here's how you do this, here's how you do statistics or whatever, and here's all the information. And then you use that to to make better decisions. I think Dr. Deming was never about being better in our decisions but about how do we transform the way we think.   0:13:33.9 BB: Yes.   0:13:34.8 AS: And also the second part is that the idea of shifting from transforming an organization to transforming an individual. I guess an organization doesn't transform unless the leadership has already transformed or is in a process of transformation. So, therefore targeting the individuals for trying to help them get a transformation ended up being the most important or first step, I'm guessing.   0:14:00.2 BB: Oh yeah. No, I thought it was just so neat to see that shift. I don't know if we've talked that much in these podcasts about transformation. I'll have to go back and check. But what we were doing within Rocketdyne to help differentiate, 'cause language is so important. What do we mean by transform? Because it's a very casually used term and I was trying to, you know, with colleagues at Rocketdyne trying to differentiate what Deming's use of that term. 'Cause we liked the term but the challenge became if we used it did it adopt a meaning that he didn't have in mind in which case we're off to the Milky Way.   0:14:48.8 BB: But what we did was try to differentiate physical change from mental, a physical shift from a mental shift. I guess to me a big part of what he is talking about is going from seeing parts to seeing systems to seeing things as being connected to start thinking about as Edgar Schein would as Peter Senge quoted Peter Schein, Peter Senge quoted Edgar Schein, "Culture are the assumptions we cannot see".   0:15:21.5 BB: And, so I was focusing on is we talk about, there's culture, culture comes from the assumptions. The assumptions come from beliefs and that's associated with our thinking. And that's the space that I think has... is the space to be to really believe, to really implement what Dr. Deming's talking about for all those benefits we've been talking about. And so the word, so in the training we were doing in our InThinking Roadmap, we differentiated reforming and we said "reforming is a physical change. Giving things a new name, adding more steps to the process. It's change you can, it's rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic." And there's nothing wrong. You can move people together to be closer physically but that doesn't move them together mentally. So, there's a sense of we want everyone to be in the same room physically but they're... But you can hear they're in separate rooms mentally.   0:16:22.7 BB: And we've talked about this in a Me Organization I hand off something which is good to you and if it's not good, you give it back to me. If it is good, you say thank you and I'm separated. I am physically and mentally separated and there's nothing wrong with being physically separated I have to hand off to you. But how about an environment where I am mentally, we are mentally connected because we're thinking together. So if you come back to me and say, "Bill I'm having trouble getting these things together". And I say, "Well, hey I can, I..." not only do I understand that I caused that but I can possibly do something about that. That's the mental transformation piece. So there's... I look at it as there's nothing wrong. I look at it as there's a place for transforming, reforming, moving things to be closer, minimizing number of steps. Nothing wrong with that. But that's not what Deming was talking about. He was talking about transforming which is a change of how we see the world. How we hear the world.   0:17:25.3 AS: Yeah. And when I look at the System of Profound Knowledge and we look at Appreciation for a System, look at Knowledge about Variation and Understanding the Theory of Knowledge and then Psychology, I would say the one you mentioned about Appreciation of a System is the one that brings true transformation because we are taught to look so narrowly. And when we start to look at the bigger system it just blows your mind.   0:17:58.9 BB: Well, it's...it... No, I absolutely agree. I can remember in the early ‘90s I had met Dr. Deming once and I thought that's fascinating. And, I put it aside and got buried in the Taguchi stuff and then began to see the issues as I had mentioned in previous podcasts as well as today. And I started thinking there's, there's something missing. And, in the Taguchi school it was, we need more tools, more advanced tools. That's not about transformation. There's nothing in Taguchi's work that was about the transformation that Deming's talking about. And I'm not aware of that mindset. Well, I've not come across that mindset in many places. I don't see it in all the...a lot of the traditional improvement techniques whether it's Lean or Six Sigma or Operational Excellence. I don't see that, that focus. I agree.   0:19:07.6 AS: And, I bought this book Guide to Quality Control by Kaoru Ishikawa.   0:19:11.2 BB: Yep, yep.   0:19:12.6 AS: I got it in 1990. And, but it's a great example of, the objective wasn't a transformation. The objective was understand these tools and maybe that leads to a transformation, maybe not. That wasn't what he was aiming for. He was saying, "Here's the tools and here's how you can apply them".   0:19:32.2 BB: Well, I used to debate with some co-workers and his, one co-worker in particular. And his mindset was, focus on the tools, and the language, in the conversation we're having, his theory was, "Get people to apply the tools and the transformation will eventually happen". I had the same thought.   0:20:00.1 AS: If that was the case, we'd all be transformed already because we're all applying tools every day.   0:20:04.7 BB: And 'cause we, I had heard a comment, I was at a Taguchi conference and I heard a comment. And as soon as I got back to my office, and this gentleman we're both at work really, really early, we'd go down and get coffee at a quarter to six, go back and sit in his office for a couple hours and just have some great, great, great conversations. And I shared with him, I was at a Taguchi conference and somebody said, the reference was, "You wait for the... " It was something, "The journey begins after the transformation starts". And as soon as I said that, he said, "I think it's the other way around", that the transformation happens after. And I thought to myself, I knew you'd say that, because that was his attitude. Get 'em to use the tools, get 'em to use the tools, get 'em to use the tools. And I kept looking at it as, no, that does not. Yeah. I mean it doesn't mean you don't do it, you don't do something. But I think when you begin to see the world and hear the world differently as we're trying to convey, to me that's when the rubber really begins to hit the road. That's when you move. And again, as we talked, there's nothing wrong with tools and techniques, but tools and techniques are guided by your understanding of the system and the other things. And it's just not enough to be a tool head.   0:21:48.7 BB: Other things I wanted, oh, okay. [laughter] So let's go back the cloud model from number 16. And what I did not reference again, 'cause I went back and looked at it and there's what we shared, but what I wanted to add to it was, one is the idea learned from Barry Bebb that you're an individual contributor trying to get ideas up to the cloud, the cloud being the executives in their meeting space, and the idea of handing off to somebody above you. And then the idea that that transfer is going to take a few times from person to person to get someone in the cloud transformed with an appreciation. And relative to Deming's work, it involved the transformation.   0:22:34.9 BB: If it involves trying to get Dr. Taguchi's up to the cloud, ideas to the cloud, manner involve what we're talking about relative to Deming's work, fine. But the other aspect that I then neglected to mention is what Barry's talking about is, is once it gets to the cloud, then what rains down on the organization is the beginning of, in our case, transforming the organization. That's the raining down. So the cloud is not just that place on high that things get up to, but the idea of a cycle that things then start to flow down. And so, I mentioned, you know, I got back from that very first meeting with Barry and went into my boss's boss's office and that I had had that meeting, and little did I know what I was gonna learn from Barry.   0:23:26.8 BB: And learning from Barry, you either go back to... You have to be in your organization, find somebody higher, and immediately I thought I wanted that person to be Jim for his influence. And so I would meet with him on a regular basis. And, and what I was looking for is, what could he and I do together? Because some things take time and some things can be done tomorrow. So I would go into him once a month with some ideas, give him some status of what's going on. So one time I went in and I had an idea, I'd mentioned to him that after every launch of a rocket with a Rocketdyne engine, there'd be a loud speaker announcement. And the loud speaker announcement might say, "Congratulations to the Space Shuttle Main Engine team for a job well done.” Congratulations to the Delta team for the engines made for the Delta vehicle or to the Atlas program.   0:24:24.3 BB: And what I shared with Jim is that I had mentioned that loud speaker announcement to a friend in facilities who was a manager in facilities. And I said, "How does it feel when you're in facilities and you hear that announcement?" And her comment was, "You get used to it."   [laughter]   0:24:43.9 BB: You get used to being ignored. Well, I mentioned to a friend in HR, and he shared with me every time he would hear that announcement in HR, he said he and the guy on the other side of the cubicle wall would stand up and give each other a high five and say, "Way to go", 'cause they were not in the announcement. So I went in to see Jim and I said, I mentioned the woman's name. I said, she said, "You get used to it." And he looks at me and he says, "I want everyone in this organization to identify with every launch." He said, "I don't care if you're in janitorial services cleaning the restrooms." He said, "I want everyone to identify." Well then I said, "Well, that announcement doesn't." And I said, "Could we change the announcement?" And he was about to write it down and he says, "Well, we can do that right now." I'm thinking, "Oh, baby." [laughter] So he calls up the Director of Communications who sits across the hall from him and says, "Would you mind coming to my office for a minute?" Okay. So the person comes into the office, he says, "Do you know Bill?" And the person said, "Yeah, I know Bill". And Jim says to this person, "Could we change the loudspeaker announcement to say from now on, "Congratulations to Team Rocketdyne?" And she goes, "Sure, Jim, we could do that." [chuckle]   0:26:17.9 BB: And so, I had a Taguchi class later that afternoon, and somehow I mentioned the announcement. I didn't mention what I had done, but I somehow made reference to it. And people were used to that. And I remember saying to them, so what if you aren't on one of those teams? And people just said... This is how we operate. It's part of the culture to celebrate those individual teams. And I remember saying to them something like, "Well, if that announcement ever changes, call me," or something like that. It was something like that. And sure enough, when the announcement was made within a week, but I felt it was something, I was looking for things that I could do to influence the culture. Little things that ideally could be, and you know, I was also appreciative of what could Jim do? Now, several years later, the announcements went back to what they were. I'm not quite sure why, Jim had moved on. For all I know the programs were tired of “Team Rocketdyne” where, Team Rocketdyne, it's Team Space Shuttle Main Engine. And so some of the people complained to me that the announcement had shifted, and I turned to one of them and I said, "You go and fight that battle". I said, "If you want it to change, you go, go let the communications person, you go fight for it". And the thing I'd like to, a couple other things I want to point out before we get into the features is...   0:27:55.9 AS: Just so you know, we only got, we got less than 10 minutes, it's a tight show today.   0:28:00.7 BB: Alright. Let's jump. Let's jump to Diffusion From a Point Source, Andrew.   0:28:04.2 AS: Yep.   0:28:05.4 BB: So my Master's thesis back in the, was right around the time of Three Mile Island, I was writing my Master's thesis. And for those who may not recall, Three Mile Island and somewhere in the hills of Pennsylvania was a nuclear reactor that nearly melted down and diffused. [chuckle] If things had gone worse, it would've diffused a lot of bad radioactivity downstream from a stack, from a point. And so, my Master's thesis was looking at diffusion, how very much like that. And what was funny is I would explain to aunts and uncles and family members, "What is your thesis about?" And I say, "Well, remember Three Mile Island? I said, what I'm trying to do is model how it is, how does that radioactivity spread out downstream? How does it go wider and wider and higher and higher? How does it spread like smoke does if you blow out a match and how does that spread?" That's diffusion from point source. And part of what I had in mind with that topic for the audience is for each of us being a point source on our respective organizations and how are we diffusing what we're aware of within the organization, which in part has to do with being a transformation agent or an agent of, playing a role in the organization.   0:29:32.7 BB: The other thing I wanted to point out is in, in my engineering studies, and the equations that we would use about diffusion, um, has a role here. And if you think of a bathtub, so I imagine you're in the bathtub, you've got hot water coming in and the heat from that water coming in. And I'm trying to think, yeah, imagine the water is lukewarm and you're laying in there and you want it to be warmer, so you crank up the temperature. And then you can begin to feel that hotter water hitting your toes and then spreading it - diffusing. And there are mathematical equations I was studying that have to do with that. And what the equations are about is how does the temperature at any point in the tub change, and how does it change throughout the tub? So there's two aspects of change, at a given point, how is it changing over time? And then how is that change spreading until it starts to fill the entire tub? And so it could be you've got a 100 degree water coming out or 120 degree water, and in time the entire bathtub is 120 degrees, in time, which means the diffusion has stopped because it's all the same.   0:31:04.0 BB: And then, a couple hours later, it's all about the room temperature. Well, the analogy I wanna make is imagine going off to a Deming seminar all excited by what you've learned, and you go into your organization and you try to diffuse these ideas or, or another way of looking at it is, I would be invited into an organization and present Dr. Deming's ideas. It's kind of a point source. And so the ideas come out and people feel that spread across the organization. But what tends to happen is within a week, everything's back to room temperature.   [laughter]   0:31:47.8 BB: And that's, and that's the idea being, Deming's ideas come in or whatever the ideas come in, and then they're spreading in space and in time, and then we're back to where we were before. What I was very excited about, most fortunate about, and what we were doing at Rocketdyne is that what's missing from that equation that I just explained to you is a point source. And so when you're modeling, when you go back to the thermodynamics laws that I was modeling, if in the bathtub, there's a... If you've got a source of heat, you're generating energy in that environment, then the bathtub's going to get hotter and hotter and hotter and hotter and hotter. But without that point source, that source of transformation, which is constantly going on, everything goes back to room temperature. So what we were trying to do at Rocketdyne was, how do we take the ideas we're given, integrate them with Ackoff's ideas and Taguchi's ideas and try to create...   0:33:04.1 BB: Not let things go back to room temperature, but what would it take in conversations amongst ourselves and sharing that with others, that we had a constant source of energy, which gets things hotter and hotter and hotter and hotter and hotter. When it comes to Three Mile Island, the point source was an out-of-control reaction. But what we were trying to do is create a, have an environment where a lot of energy was being created, and that led to rethinking what these ideas are about, bringing others into the room, whether it be Ackoff or others. And I find without that, eventually things just go back to normal. And so what is...   0:33:50.8 AS: And what is that back... The back to normal thing, is that, like if we think about gravity as a law, it's naturally gonna pull things back to Earth.   [chuckle]   0:34:04.7 BB: If you go back to room temperature, you go back to where you were.   0:34:09.3 AS: What is it that brings humans back? Is it the...   0:34:12.2 BB: Well, you end up, you go back to blaming the willing workers for the red beads. You go back to all the things that Dr. Deming's trying to pull us away from, and there's this natural force to pull them back to that, you end up with a change in management. Dr. Deming's 14 points of lack of constancy of purpose. And so what we're talking about with Deming's ideas is a source of ideas, energy to transform. And what we're fighting is, individually that we stop learning, individually we stop sharing, individually we stop doing something with it. And so you just unplug the point source and you'll be back to room temperature pretty quickly.   0:34:55.5 AS: So how would you... What is the main message you wanna get across to the audience about this as we wrap up?   0:35:03.0 BB: Message is, find a peer group that you can discuss these ideas with. And that's what's missing is find people you can discuss, listen to the podcast, pay attention to DemingNEXT, find people to share the ideas with, and out of it will come more energy. And, but the idea is that don't stop learning. Don't stop sharing. I am very fortunate that every day I have conversations with people around the world, and it's causing me to reflect on things that happened. And to me, it's helping me stay engaged, keep rethinking what the ideas we're talking about. And so the idea is that I think without that, then individually we go back to room temperature, we go back to where we were before we started exercising. And, but I think what I would like to think is that people listening to this podcast can find again peers to share it with and on a recurring basis. And so again, I'm talking with people around the world every week, and to me that's, part of this is what we're doing at Rocketdyne with these monthly phone calls is just staying engaged, staying in the game, staying in the game, staying in the game. So that's the diffusion from.   0:36:24.7 AS: And to bring it back to the beginning of our conversation, I think that, I guess transformation is when you don't go back to room temperature.   0:36:36.0 BB: It's an ongoing transformation. And this is... There's very few things Deming said I disagreed with. One of them is, and [chuckle] he said, "An individual transformed will create an example". I don't think there's any such thing as an individual transformed, I would say an individual, once their transformation begins but I don't... But thinking in terms of, "once transformed," and I think I mentioned on the podcast, 'cause I had a student in Northwestern years ago, and they're doing presentations at the end of the course on how the course hass impacted them, taking notes from their daily journals. And there were a group presenting that night. The other group was gonna present the next night. So one was anxious, one was calm, and I went up to one of the calm students and I said, "Yeah, so what's new?" And he turned to me and he said, "I'm fully transformed".   [chuckle]   0:37:34.3 BB: No, what we're talking about Andrew, is there's no such thing as... Because there's, if you understand the point source concept, there's no "fully transformed."   0:37:43.1 AS: Yep, that sounds...   0:37:44.6 BB: So then the question becomes, how do we enter and individually stay in that group?   0:37:51.4 AS: So transformation is an ongoing journey. Bill, on behalf of everyone at The Deming Institute, I wanna thank you again for the discussion. And for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. And if you want to keep in touch with Bill, just find him on LinkedIn. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming, "People are entitled to joy in work.”

Did Dr. Deming forbid setting goals? Dive into this discussion about healthy goal setting, learn why your process matters, and the four things you need to understand before you start on goals. This episode is the first in a 4-part series about goal setting. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.2 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today I'm continuing my discussion with John Dues, who is part of the new generation of educators striving to apply Dr. Deming's principles to unleash student joy in learning. This is episode 21 and we're talking about goal setting through a Deming lens. John, take it away.   0:00:26.9 John Dues: Yeah, it's good to be back, Andrew. Yeah, 'tis the season for resolutions, I suppose, so I thought we could talk about organizational goal setting and sort of doing that through a Deming lens. And I was thinking about, at a recent district leadership team meeting, I put the following quote up on a slide. I said, "Goal setting is often an act of desperation." You got to watch people's faces when they see that. And to give some context, we're sort of updating our strategic plan at United Schools Network and my point in putting that on the slide as a part of strategic planning was to start a discussion on sort of what I think is healthy goal setting and how that's not typical to what I've seen across my career in schools, education organizations.   0:01:22.4 JD: And I wanted to provide a framework for the team so that anyone that's setting a goal as a part of the strategic planning process sort of had this sort of mindset as we're going through the goal setting process. I think that the typical reaction to that quote, at least in my experience, has been something like, "But I thought that goal setting was something that highly effective people or highly effective organizations do." And my basic argument is that I think that that's the intention, but it's rarely the case, whether that's individuals or organizations. And there's these, what I've come to sort of frame as four conditions that have to be met during the goal setting process. And without those, you kind of get fluff for a goal setting, probably more likely just completely disconnected from reality. I think... Yeah, go ahead.   0:02:22.5 AS: I just wanted to talk to everybody out there that's listening and viewing. I mean, I'm sure you're going through goal setting all the time and as we talk about, it's the beginning of the year right now, this is actually, we're recording this in mid-January of 2024. So it's like I've been working on what's our vision? What's our mission? What's our values? Where are we going? What is our goal? What is our long term goal? What is our short term goal? And I don't know about you guys, but for me, it gets a little confusing and round in circles sometimes and overwhelming, and then this whole idea about, that goal setting is often an act of desperation. It's like I've been working on this stuff for recently over the last week or so and then I just heard you say that and I was like, "Oh, I'm really interested to learn more." So let's go through those four conditions.   0:03:18.5 JD: Yeah, I'll get to those in a second. But I... So I'm not saying don't set goals necessarily. And people have that same reaction typically to that statement, but it's goal setting is often an act of desperation. So it's not the goal in and of themselves, but generally it's the process that you go about and the lack of sort of logic behind the goals that I'm talking about. And I know on these podcasts, many of my examples have sort of I've been banging on like State Department accountability systems and stuff like that. I'm going to continue to do that today but I think the same sort of errors happen at the school system level, at the individual school building level, at the individual teacher or principal level, it's just the stakes are higher when you're talking about states and countries, systems of education.   0:04:11.8 JD: But what I've seen is over the last two decades, certainly post-No Child Left Behind, what it seems like is that there's often these goals set and they're sort of, the targets are sort of chosen out of thin air. And then there's this whole accountability system built around those goals and then in the case of states, we then rate and rank school systems or schools based on how they perform in relation to those goals. And again, the same type of thing is happening at the school system level, at the school level but probably the state accountability systems is what most educators are familiar with when I'm talking about goals. And in Ohio, like a lot of states, we give state tests, we give them third through eighth grade.   0:04:58.5 JD: They take reading and math every year, third through eighth grade in Ohio and you have to hit this 80% benchmark in terms of the percent of kids that are proficient in your school to meet the state standard. So the first question is, why not 60%? Why not 95%? Why not 85%? Why not 82.5%? Just random, you know? And my hunch is, the first problem is that that benchmark for passage rates, if you asked 100 people at the State Department or 100 people working in public school systems in Ohio, I'm not sure if anybody could give you that answer, why 80%? So the first problem is that that target itself is chosen arbitrarily and without sort of a deep consideration. And so that's sort of where the fork initially comes...   0:05:58.3 AS: And I would say that if I look at that 80%, it's like below that and you would seem like you're really underachieving, and above that, it's like, let's be realistic here of what the system can produce.   0:06:11.6 JD: Well, it's a B, it's a B minus. You know, that's familiar, a C, you're not allowed to bring home a C, but a B is okay. So, I mean, my guess is, I don't know where that particular target came from, but my guess is it's something maybe not too far off from, "well, it's sort of a B minus" in the typical grading scale in the United States.   0:06:32.4 AS: Probably came just the way we just discussed it.   0:06:35.1 JD: I would not be entirely surprised. So a lot of the problem with goal setting and when I'm saying act of desperation, it has to do with that arbitrary nature of the goal in and of itself. And so what I've sort of told the team here is that let's put forth some conditions that came up, I mentioned four, that we should understand prior to ever setting a goal. So the first thing we want to understand is what I call the "capability of the system" under study. So in this case, we've talked about third grade reading because that's such an important time period in a student's life.   0:07:13.4 JD: The states, lots of states put a lot of emphasis on it. In Ohio, there's a third grade reading guarantee that exists in other states as well. So we'll kind of look at data in that realm. So the first one, what's the capability of that third grade reading system? The second condition is we have to understand the variation that that system produces. So what are the ups and downs in the data? What are the patterns in the data? So capability, variation is the second condition. The third condition is, is the system that we're studying, is the data stable? When we look at the patterns of the data over time, is there predictability to it?   0:08:01.8 JD: Is there stability to that data or is it all over the place? And then the third thing or sorry, the fourth thing we want is a logical answer to the question, "by what method?" So let's take sort of a deeper look at each of those four conditions, kind of unpack those a little bit. We'll use third grade reading state testing data. I have some data on a chart, but I'll share my screen in a second for those that are viewing the data. And then for those that are only listening, I'll sort of narrate what we're looking at so you'll still get some value out of the description. So you see my screen now?   0:08:42.5 AS: Yep.   0:08:43.3 JD: Okay, cool. So we've looked at these charts before in previous episodes. It's been a while. So this is what some people call a control chart. I call it a process behavior chart because it's literally a description, a visual description of a process unfolding over time.   0:09:01.7 AS: And maybe I'll just describe it. At the title it says, Ohio Third Grade Reading State Testing Proficiency Levels. On the y-axis is the percent proficiency ranging from, of course, zero to 100. And on the x-axis, we have seven school years going from the 2015 to 2016 school year all the way to 2022 to 2023 school year. And then most importantly, we have points, that's a blue line here, but the points that are showing the movement of third grade reading state proficiency levels year by year or school year by school year. Continue.   0:09:51.1 JD: Yep, that's right. That's a good description. So those blue dots are the percent of third graders that are proficient each testing year. And to give you some context, in Ohio about 125,000 third graders take that state reading test each year. One thing you'll notice is that there is no data for 2019-'20. That's because we give the test in the spring of a school year. So in the spring of 2020, schools were shut down due to the pandemic so there was no state test. So we missed one year of testing, but that's really not, that's not really pertinent to this discussion. So the other thing you'll see on here is the green line is the average of the data running through there.   0:10:38.4 JD: And those red lines that are on either side of the data are, some people call them control limits, I call them the lower and upper natural process limit. And they're based on a statistical calculation. They're not where I want the lines to be, they're where they are based on the data. And for those watching, the data points are 54.9% proficient in '15 -'16. The next year in '16 -'17, 63.8% of the third graders were proficient. In '17 -'18, 61.2% were proficient. In '18 -'19, 66.7% were proficient. In 2021, er, 2020 -'21, kind of dipped down to 51.9%. Then in '21 -'22, 59.8% of the third graders were proficient. And then in our most recent year, 62.3% of kids were proficient.   0:11:35.3 AS: So out of all those points, let's just say a high of about roughly 70% and a low of a little bit higher than 50%.   0:11:45.5 JD: Yeah. Yep. Yep. So the low was like, I think 59%. I can look back. Low was 54.9%, the high was 66.7%.   0:11:57.5 AS: Okay.   0:12:00.3 JD: And that works out to about an average of 60% across that seven-year time period.   0:12:08.3 AS: And when we talked about the 80%, is that 80% related to these test results?   0:12:13.7 JD: Sure. Yep.   0:12:13.8 AS: This is what the state is saying it should be?   0:12:18.1 JD: So the state says that in any individual school building, in any individual school system, and so as a result, in the state as a whole, 80% of third graders should meet the proficiency benchmark, basically. So in the state, on average, across the state, when you look at all the third graders, 80% of the kids are not at proficiency. It's lower than that year in and year out across the last seven years. And I should say I picked the starting point as 2015-'16, that was the first year of a brand new test. So it's really a new testing system as of that year. And then it stayed pretty consistent in terms of what the kids are being asked to do. Prior to that, the test was a different format. So it was sort of like a different system.   0:13:04.6 AS: And this is from all schools, so it's Ohio, it's not your school?   0:13:09.6 JD: Right. So this is all Ohio public schools.   0:13:12.9 AS: Okay.   0:13:13.9 JD: Yep. Which are required to give the state test once a year. So, like I said, beginning with this spring 2016 testing season, Ohio began administering this new state test, which is why I started with 2015- '16. And that's where the data starts. So again, schools need to have at least 80% of their students score proficient or higher in each tested area, including reading. So what we're doing here is sort of looking at that first condition. We're trying to figure out what's the capability of this third grade reading testing system. And when I say system, I'm literally talking about everything that could impact third grade reading test scores.   0:14:00.4 JD: Now, I mean, you could almost make an infinite list, but I'm talking about the actual students in Ohio public schools, the third graders themselves, their teachers, the various reading curricula that's being used in schools, technology related to reading programming, supplemental materials, the schools themselves, how the schools themselves are organized. And you can go on and on about any number of in-school and out-of-school variables that might impact a third graders performance on a state test.   0:14:37.2 AS: And I think about resources like between schools and parents and teachers and administrators, everybody's putting forward... Putting forth resources to try to get to this.   0:14:46.9 JD: Yep. The reading standards themselves, the reading test, that's all a part of the third grade reading system. And basically, for those that are viewing the video or heard the description, the capability is outlined in the process behavior chart. I mean, that's literally what the process behavior chart doing. It's, it's, it's visualizing the capability of that third grade reading system. So one thing that's pretty clear when you look at this seven years worth of data is that it's very unlikely that the state of Ohio is incapable of hitting that 80% mark. Now, seven years of data is not 20 years of data, but we, in none of the seven years that have occurred have we gotten anywhere close to that 80% mark. So that's one thing we can see.   0:15:39.9 AS: Sorry, what was the conclusion that you just said?   0:15:42.8 JD: Well, we're, we can see from the data here, even though it's only seven data points, which is something to work with, but it's not 20 data points, it's not 25 data points but it's pretty likely that the third grade reading system, that we're incapable as a state of hitting 80%...   0:16:00.9 AS: Okay, so the capability of the system, the goal of the, of the state representatives that set the 80% seems to be slightly outside of the capability of the system.   0:16:14.4 JD: I'd say more than slightly.   0:16:15.8 AS: More than slightly. 0kay.   0:16:16.9 JD: Yeah, I'd say it likely... I would go as far to say, I try to talk scientifically so it's, we are likely incapable of hitting that 80% mark as a state.   0:16:26.5 AS: Okay. Got it.   0:16:27.7 JD: Not impossible.   0:16:29.0 AS: That's point number one.   0:16:30.5 JD: Yeah, well, and these red natural process limits actually tell us what we could expect from this particular system based on what we've seen so far. So those process limits, kind of way to think about them is as you get more data points, especially as you get 20, 24 data points, they sort of start to solidify. So an individual data point has less of an impact on the limits. So I would call them a little bit soft right now, an individual data point kind of could have an outsized impact because we don't have tons of data but what these red lines are telling us is that our reading system, this third grade reading system is capable of hitting rates somewhere between 41%, where that lower line is, and 79%, where that upper line is.   0:17:19.8 JD: That's why I say that the 80% is unlikely, rather than impossible. It's technically within the capabilities of this system as illustrated by this process behavior chart. But based on the way the limits are constructed, the limits come from the data itself, how the data, not only the magnitude of the individual data points, but it's also taking into account the point to point variation. So time is an important factor in that formula that's used to calculate the limits. And so based on how the limit is constructed, there's about a 3 in 1000 chance that we would hit that 80% mark. So that's why I say...   0:18:03.4 AS: So you're saying there's a chance?   [laughter]   0:18:06.5 JD: Very unlikely, very unlikely, right? So that's capability, that, this, that's sort of looking at the chart and talking about how capable is our system. The next thing we want to look at... Well, the last thing you could say is that that 60% average across those seven years is a pretty good descriptor, especially as you look at where the dots fall, some above, some below, that's a pretty good descriptor of the overall capability of the system, that's 60% proficiency.   0:18:37.6 AS: Right.   0:18:39.3 JD: So the second thing we'll take a look at is using the chart to understand the variation in our system. So again, we have seven data points. We just mentioned that they're bouncing around this average of 60%. And actually with seven data points, you have three that are below the line and four that are above. So about as even as you could be between how many points are below the line, how many points are above the line. So if you describe the year to year test results starting back in '15-'16, they increase and then decrease and then increase and then decrease and then increase and then increase again, a little bit in that last of the seven years.   0:19:27.8 JD: So when you look at the data, there's no sort of signals in those patterns that indicate that the increases or decreases are of significance. So in the Deming language, probably most people aren't familiar with the "common cause" language, but basically it's just saying that the thousands of variables that impact these test results are part of a common cause system. Just like, they're bouncing around, but the bouncing around is not meaningful. But what actually happens is, you know, inevitably when people describe these results, they'll pick two years. Let's say they look at, well, let's even say they look at the last three years and people will say, "Oh, we've increased the third grade reading test scores 'cause they went up a little bit from 2021 to 2022 to 2023."   0:20:19.5 JD: But again, the increases are meaningless when you're viewing this through the sort of understanding variation, knowledge about variation Deming lens. So, but again, even though seven data points isn't a lot of data, it's pretty clear from what we see so far that that, setting that 80% goal, holding schools and school systems accountable from a state perspective, it's not having any impact on the outcome of this third grade reading system. So that's what I mean to connect back to this goal setting is often an act of desperation. It's a hope and a dream that 80% of kids in this system are gonna meet this proficiency standard. It's just not happening by setting a goal.   0:21:10.2 AS: Right.   0:21:15.4 JD: The third thing is looking at stability. So we want to know if the results are predictable in this particular system. So the thing to think about here is if the system is in fact predictable, it means that the results are sort of performing as consistently as the system is capable of making it. And this Ohio third grade reading system is in fact a stable system. So based on these results so far, we can reasonably expect that future results will continue to bounce around this current average. That's just what's gonna happen. So the results might be a little bit below the average, maybe they'll remain a little bit above the average, but in all likelihood, unless something else of significance changes, this is what we can expect from this system. Now...   0:22:13.1 AS: And for some people that may not totally understand the Deming lens, point number two and point number three may be a bit confusing because you're thinking, what's the variation of the system? Well, doesn't the variation of the system also tell you if the data is stable? How would you describe the difference in those two points?   0:22:39.9 JD: Well, it's stable because there's no patterns in the data that signify instability. So there are different sets of patterns that different organizations like Western Electric had a set of patterns that they sort of established because that's sort of where these charts were invented. The Institute for Healthcare Improvement has a set of rules that they use. They are big in training and using control charts. I sort of, my basic approach is to try to keep things as simple as possible. So I default to Donald Wheeler who wrote a book literally called Understanding Variation among many others on using these charts and interpreting these charts. But he basically says, and I sort of have adopted this idea of just three simple rules that I look for.   0:23:29.0 JD: So I look for a single point outside of the red lines, either above or below that's so unexpected, that's a significant pattern, just one data point. I'll also look for three out of four that are closer to one of the red lines than they are to that average green line. And the other big thing I look for is eight successive data points that are on either side of that average line. So if a single point is outside either the upper or the lower limit, that's a pretty high magnitude chance that there is something very different going on now in your system. The eight points in a row is sort of like a moderate but sustained indication that something has changed in either direction. But in this case, we have a stable system. There's no patterns in the data that suggest instability.   0:24:33.0 JD: So it's good in the sense that the system is predictable. And so, let's say I sort of would then try something new, an intervention of some kind, and then look to see what happens. I know at the outset of the experiment that it was a stable system and I can be relatively assured that it's the thing that I introduced that brought about the change. But stability should not be an indication of good, necessarily. You can have a stable but unsatisfactory system, which is how I would describe this particular system. It's stable, meaning it's predictable based on what we see so far, but it's also unacceptable that 40%, two out of five kids are not proficient on the third grade reading test.   0:25:30.1 AS: The good news is your cancer is stable, the bad news is you have cancer.   0:25:33.4 JD: Your cancer is stable, right. It's the cancer is stable, but maybe not growing. How about that analogy?   0:25:39.5 AS: Yeah.   0:25:41.2 JD: Yeah. So we have a stable system but producing less than desirable outcomes. So at that point, the only thing that I can do is work on the design of the system itself. Something about the inputs, something about the throughputs. Maybe I... One big push here in Ohio is to sort of adopt the principles called the science of reading. So teaching reading in a scientific way, like a research-backed way. And so perhaps that's an intervention that could be attempted and Ohio's sort of attempting it. But that sort of everybody getting behind an approach that's been shown to work, that's very different than just setting a goal and then holding educators accountable to the goal.   0:26:26.3 JD: And that's typically what's happening. And when you do that, then you cause frustration. Because if people knew what to do to make things better, then they'd probably do it. So they're being held accountable for something that they maybe don't know how to improve, or maybe they don't have the resources to improve. And so that's why Deming would say "substitute leadership." And that's what he was talking about, leadership towards improvement. And that's a good segue to the last condition, we've mentioned this idea that the 80% goal is beyond the capability of system, so we have to think about methods. By what method then can we improve because this setting a target isn't gonna work. Nothing's changing just because we have this target.   0:27:21.3 JD: And so instead, what happens, and I've seen this my entire career, is that some schools in Ohio regularly surpass this benchmark. Many other schools are nowhere near it. But my sort of a priori hunch, so my pre-testing hunch would be sort of like the overall system, the individual school's third grade reading test results are fairly stable. So what I mean is that low scoring schools stay low scoring, and the high scoring schools stay high scoring. And we sort of admonish the low scoring ones and celebrate the high scoring ones but there are people doing great things in all of those different types of schools.   0:28:14.3 JD: But the fact is, if you took the staff at one high scoring school and put them into a low scoring school, I think you'd be hard pressed to get the same results because so many of the other things that are in place at that high scoring school would not travel just because the staff travels. You know? And so that's, again, where frustration comes in. Then this 80% target really just becomes this sorting mechanism. It's not a roadmap towards improvement and it's literally sorting the schools, the ones that don't hit this benchmark and the ones that do but then you have these other things that happen. What teacher wants to consistently work at a low scoring school when they don't feel like they can do anything else? They can't affect change, what do they...   [chuckle]   0:29:05.3 AS: Have you seen the chart of that school?   0:29:08.4 JD: What did you say?   0:29:09.4 AS: Have you seen the chart of that school you're gonna go work at?   0:29:11.5 JD: Have you seen the chart, and so I'm gonna go work somewhere else that gets all the awards. And so you have this, if anybody studies systems, you have this sort of self-fulfilling thing that the rich get richer, sort of, right? The resources tend to pile up. And so instead what we need to do is think about this last sort of condition, by what method, by what method. Okay, if you're gonna say we're gonna set this 80% goal, by what method can we work together and achieve that? So I brought up one possibility is to sort of implement the science of reading. Now, doing anything as an initiative statewide is very challenging for any number of reasons because the obstacles are gonna be different in different locations that are low scoring.   0:30:02.1 JD: So I don't want to paint the picture that you can just sort of, when people say use evidence-based stuff, well, the evidence-based stuff often doesn't take into account many, many different contextual factors that are important. So I don't want to say there's some silver bullet because there's not. But what I do know is that I think you could argue that having these targets set like this that just sort are not good for anybody. And so maybe they're doing more harm than they are good. And I just want to at least take that into account, because this could work, not only for people working in schools, but also policymakers to think about these things, to at least understand. So if you told me, I've looked at the data for 15 years, I understand the capability of whatever system that is being studied.   0:31:05.8 JD: I understand how the results have shifted up and down over those 15 years, I understand the stability level of those results and I'm still moving forward with the target, I mean, I could accept that a little bit more than just completely arbitrary, but it still sort of begs the question, by what method? Who can do this? So I just think that's... That's really what I'm talking about when I'm saying goal setting is often an act of desperation, that the targets are arbitrary and that this thinking that should underlie this substitution of leadership for just picking targets is really the sort of the approach that we should be looking as, especially systems leaders, school systems or state education system leaders, that type of thing.   0:31:56.4 AS: And for the technical listeners or viewers who want to understand how you calculated the upper and lower natural process limits, maybe you can describe using standard deviation or tell us how you're doing that.   0:32:12.0 JD: Yeah, well, so it's, in this particular type of chart, you can see up here it says X chart, which there's, typically with an X chart, there's another chart below that charts the moving ranges between each successive point. So usually it's two charts together and it's called an XMR chart. Just to simplify things, I just included the X chart, but the XMR chart is sort of like the Swiss army knife of charts, meaning that it basically works with any type of data. It doesn't need to be normalized, as long as it's data that occurs over time. Now, people have strong opinions that that's not the case, but again, I sort of follow the teachings of Donald Wheeler and that's sort of his take on things and I you know, I've subscribed to that.   0:33:00.2 JD: But basically what the chart is doing is it's looking at each data point and it's using the moving range along with some scaling factors that were sort of invented by Walter Shewhart 100 years ago and then refined over time by statisticians like Deming to develop the formula. So it's not standard deviation. Your standard deviation doesn't take into account time. Standard deviation is the distance from the mean, but it's a sort of a static measurement. Whereas this is taking into account not only the variability, but also the time that variability occurred. So that's the key...   0:33:46.6 AS: In other words, if you had a process where you had 20 years and you've made a significant shift in the way you're doing things, if you were calculating a standard deviation based upon the whole data set, you would be using a data set that's really not reflecting the behavior of the system now...   0:34:08.5 JD: That's right.   0:34:10.5 AS: As opposed to sort of a rolling style or using the most recent periods as what you should be using to set the control limits.   0:34:20.1 JD: Yeah, that's right. So I think, yeah, so the big factor is the process behavior chart, the XMR chart, takes into account the point-to-point differences and standard deviation doesn't take time and how the changes occurred over time into account in terms of that calculation.   0:34:40.3 AS: Okay, so let's just wrap up.   0:34:41.4 JD: And I should say someone smarter than me on these should definitely fact check me on that, but I think I have the basics right.   0:34:49.5 AS: I have to admit that you got me thinking about one of the goals I've been setting for admissions into my Valuation Masterclass bootcamp and is what I'm pushing for something beyond what the system's capable of? And so while you were speaking, I was gathering my data and playing around and thinking about it in relation to what you're thinking because I definitely understand point number four, by what method, that we have to think about new methods or else we're gonna get the same result. But I also can say that I didn't understand the number one capability of the system 'cause I didn't have a control chart on it. Now I do as a result of this conversation. And so I challenge anybody out there that's listening or viewing, it's time to make your control chart.   0:35:38.6 AS: The second thing is I had an intuitive feel for what was the variation of the system but when I look at the chart now, it's much bigger than what I had thought. So I can see, in fact, yeah. And then number three is, is the data stable? And I just kept it simple, for my data points I just used standard deviation. And what I found from my upper and lower control limits is that I have one data point that broke through the upper 1 standard deviation line and also the upper 2 standard deviation line. And there was something very unique that I did at that time that we stopped doing for good or bad, but at least I can attribute that to a specific action.   0:36:31.5 AS: And then the fourth point that you've made, so capability of system number one, number two, what is the variation of the system? Number three, is the data stable? And number four, by what method? Of course, that to me is the whole key, once we've got, I think most people don't understand points one, two, and three about their system that they're trying to get a goal out of. But then by what method is really hard. I mean, we've been doing it this way, now... And it's not producing the result that we want, so what's the method to get us to the goal that we want? And I think to me, that's a huge challenge.   0:37:08.5 JD: Yeah. And a key to that last point, and maybe a good point to wrap up on, from a Deming lens and thinking about the system of profound knowledge and let's say the understanding of psychology is that in the state accountability system, the by what method goes like this, "By what method are you going to improve?" Right? But in the Deming methodology, it's, "All right guys, by what method are we going to improve these third grade state reading results?" Right?   0:37:37.5 JD: And in that first case, the finger wagging, what do people do? They try to protect their corner. "No, it's not that bad. We improved a little bit." "No, no, no, it's not us, it's them." So all the energy gets put towards trying to sort of write fiction about our results, which we talked about before, versus actually trying to improve things. And that's part of that, why you need all parts of the System of Profound Knowledge, including psychology, to actually bring about improvement with a group of people.   0:38:10.4 AS: So a great place to wrap up, as you're thinking about improving things, instead of saying "by what method" as a command, why not say "by what method" as a question? John, on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute, I wanna thank you again for the discussion. And for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. And you can find John's book, Win-Win: W. Edwards Deming, the System of Profound Knowledge and the Science of Improving Schools on Amazon.com. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming, people are entitled to joy in work.

"The Cloud" is a metaphor for the top level of corporate authority - the CEO, CFO, CTO and maybe some Vice President positions. And if you're trying to transform an organization, your ideas need to penetrate the Cloud - but how? In this episode, Bill Bellows and host Andrew Stotz talk about influencing others with the aim of transformation.  TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.2 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with Bill Bellows, who has spent 30 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. Today is episode 16, and the title is, Get Off of My Cloud. Bill, take it away.   0:00:29.5 Bill Bellows: Hey. Hey, hey. [laughter] Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, get Off of My Cloud. Yeah. Alright, so here we are, 2024. So before we get to the Cloud, some opening remarks. And in particular looking at session 15, which is soon to be released. And one thing I... What I tell people is, what's exciting about understanding Deming's work is how revealing, how you see the world differently, and Dr. Deming used the metaphor of a lens. But it's not only what you see, but what you hear.   0:01:19.5 AS: Right.   0:01:22.3 BB: And, and I tell people I can go into an organization and within a few minutes between what I see and what I hear, I can get a pretty good sense, is it a ME or WE organization. And we think back to the comment I shared in episode 15 where the Boeing executive said, "Let's be honest," to the room full of 300 plus internal audit people who just do great, great work.   0:01:54.4 BB: I mean, if they didn't do great work, why would they be there? Everyone in our organization does great work, otherwise, why would they be around? But when they said to them, "Let's be honest, we don't make the airplanes." And I thought, that's right up there with my wife saying to me, "Look at what your son did."   0:02:22.4 BB: My son? Or is it, look at what our son did. Another giveaway expression is, we're gonna do a root cause analysis or RRCA, which is Relentless Root Cause Analysis. Well, every, and from a Deming perspective, instead of talking about a root cause, we can say there's root causes, and there's... They're dozens, hundreds of root causes, or sorry, common causes, common causes. And then every now and then there's a special cause.   0:03:01.0 BB: But even when a special cause appears so does a bunch of common causes. So from a Deming perspective there's never a root cause. So I... One poke I have for people that like to think in terms of root cause, 'cause they have this sense of, you can explain everything by a series of connected root causes. This cause leads... It's like the five whys. That this leads to this leads to this. But it's always, this leads to that, this leads to, and it's singular strands. And I think of it like a strand of spaghetti and everything is along some pathway. And I thought, no, that's not the model Deming had in mind. Deming had in mind a multitude of strands that are all woven together that you can't... What comes out is a bunch of contributions, not just one thing. So my poke at people like to believe in root cause phenomenon is, "If life can be explained by a series of root causes, then why do you need two parents? Why isn't it a single parent?" Sorry.   0:04:18.9 BB: I just finished the fifth cohort at Cal State Northridge in a eight-week class as part of an 18-month program where the students, we start with about 30, by the time it gets to me there may be 24 or so. And one course after another, after another, it's a very rigorous program. And I do a class called Seminar in Quality Management. And I love at the beginning of the course when I ask them about, if all the beads are red, if all the red beads are eliminated, can improvement, can still go on to, all those things we've talked about in this program. And I have them write essays on it, and it's so neat to see where they are in the beginning and where they are at the end.   0:05:07.1 BB: And in the beginning they'll be talking about human error. And so every time I see human error, I just write back, is it human error or is it system error? And one student in the class commented at the end of the course of what she learned, she said, No one had ever pointed that out to her. And she distinctly remembers the very first time I said that it was like, but wait a minute. And then it made more and more sense and I thought, yeah, I mean not... Is there such a thing as a human error? Well, Deming would say that 94 plus percent comes from the system. Another cute story, I used to host a monthly conference call for 17 years, every month for 17 years.   0:06:02.0 AS: Wow.   0:06:02.8 BB: And featured on the call was a thought leader, Russ Ackoff did it four years in a row. He became the January thought leader. And generally it was random, different people. But then when it got to Russ, it was every January Russ did it. And I would go out and stay with him and be in the room with him and the distribution list was at one point in time, 5000 people around the world, that I had somehow interacted with. And the announcement would go off out every month, and it would say, this month's ongoing discussion with thought leaders, is Andrew Stotz, Andrew's gonna talk on this topic. Please find attached his thought piece. You can join us. And there were four opportunities to call in on 12 to one and one to two on the last Thursday and Friday of the month. And there was four different opportunities for the audience to engage with Andrew, and it wasn't a presentation by you. The protocol was they would read the article, then they would say to you, Andrew, on page five, you said this can you clarify? So I said to them, it's not a presentation, it's a conversation.   0:07:08.9 BB: So a friend had in mind, somebody that he worked with as a thought leader. I said, okay, let me, She'd just written a book. And the book title was along the lines of Think Like a Champion, so I read the book and it's sports stories, all these sports stories. Turns out she has an advanced degree in sports psychology and she was hired by his company as a coach. And throughout the book, her story is about people contacting her, I need help with this. I need help with this. I need help with this. A lot of these people are in sales, I need help, I need help with this. So I read the book cover to cover, and I started to notice a pattern. It was all individuals. I need help, I need help. And so when I got on the phone with her and the role of the phone call was to talk about the book, talk about the phone call, let her know what the overall strategy of what we're trying to do with these calls, promote a word as of Deming's work and working together, all that stuff.   0:08:20.6 BB: And then with that, see if that fit, what if she felt, in fact, what I had in mind was that there's things in there she could contribute, but there's things in there that might be slippery. So I shared with her that I had a friend who was a high school coach for the Valencia Vikings and I bumped to him one day in a park. And he's walking towards me and he is wearing a T-shirt, and across the top are the letters V-K-N-G-S. So I'm looking at the letters and I said, I don't get it. To which the author says, there's no I in team, and that's what it was V-K-N-G-S. And so she beat me to the punchline. So I said, so you're aware of that story?   0:09:15.0 BB: She says, oh yeah. I said, "Your book is filled with sports stories." She says, "Yes." I said, "Did you ever consider that story for the book?" She says, "it really wouldn't fit." I said, "that's right." I said, "that is it, it doesn't." I said, "'cause your book is all about the I and not about the team." So at the end of the call, I said you know, when I got your book, I said the cover was revealing. And this is what I find, going back to language. You can be in a meeting and you can hear how people think, which then leads to how they act and you can't separate, you can hear that. So I said, "I looked at title of your book," which is something like, Think Like A Champion. And I said, "as soon as I saw that title," I thought. But I said, well I told her, "I said, there's a lot of good stuff in here." I said, "but, and I'm not saying everyone hears what I hear, but I don't want you to be caught short on that." She said okay. So then I said the title was kind of a giveaway of what the book was really about. She said, "well, what would've been a more appropriate title?" I said, "Think Like a Contributor."   0:10:34.5 BB: And so we are within our respective organizations, we're one of many contributors, we don't do it all by ourself, we contribute to the results and we talked last time about... Sorry.   0:10:47.1 AS: And that's an interesting point because that's a, maybe a difference between let's say American style thinking and Japanese style thinking, where Japanese may see themselves clearly as a contributor in a system. Whereas Americans, we like to think of ourselves as a unique person that fits into a certain place in this world.   0:11:08.9 BB: And I won the game, I won the game and I made it happen. And, um, but sure, and I've heard that about Japanese management, that it's more like, I am humbled and honored to be your executive and there's a real... And it comes across that it's not just talk, there's a real sense of humility and honor to be in this position as opposed to a sense of I'm the smartest guy in the room.   0:11:39.4 AS: Servant Leader.   0:11:41.4 BB: Yes, very much so. So, next thing I wanna bring up is, we talked last time about Myron Tribus's his comment, management works on the system, people work in the system, and the theme was making a difference from where you are and I mentioned that this gentleman came in, was one of our classes, and he wanted to, how often I met with our president. And I said, not very often. He said, oh, it's really important, you gotta go meet with him. And I said, "well what if I spent time talking with senior people at NASA or senior people in the Pentagon," which I did. And a mistake I made, a minor perhaps a minor error that somebody may or may not have caught. So I said, that I had the distinct pleasure of being invited to speak at the Army's largest annual logistics conference back in the 2000s. And the invite came from a senior officer on the staff of General Anne Dunwoody, who went on to become the Army's first woman, Four Star General, and so in the podcast number 15 I said, I was invited and spoke with the Army's first Four Star General, it was the Army's first woman Four Star general.   0:12:57.2 BB: So this is a clarification. I also talk about how pragmatism is being practical, but I think is, if you're trying to introduce these ideas into your respective organizations making a difference where you are, I think it's important to realize that everyone is acting as if they're being practical. And if practical means work on things that are bad to make them good and stopping, that's their, that to them is practical. Now, from a Deming perspective to not work on things that are good, to make them better to improve integration - that is practical, but it might not be practical where you are. And I mentioned, I had a Lean Management journal article that talked about that, and I couldn't remember the title. The title is Profits, Pragmatism, and the Possibilities of Possessing Other Eyes. I told you I like alliteration.   0:13:56.6 AS: Alliteration.   0:13:57.5 BB: Alright, so what is an application? We start where you are. And I would say an application, first of all, relative to an application, it's thinking, can I do this by myself? Do I need help? Do I see opportunities to reduce losses? And it's one thing to see opportunities to do something. It's a whole 'nother thing to realize that the timing might not be right. I may not have the support that I need. I may not have the funding that I need. There could be other priorities. So when I would tell people I was mentoring to see opportunities is a really big thing, whatever those are. An opportunity to shift from managing actions to managing interactions and realizing that addition doesn't work, that things are not adding up and you're realizing, holy cow, there's some opportunities for synergy here. There's opportunities to work on things which are going well to prevent the red beads, work on things that are well to improve integration.   0:15:05.3 BB: There could be opportunities to stop doing incentives within your sphere of influence, to stop handing out awards to your people on your staff. Had a friend who just became a manager years ago and I had been mentoring him and within a few weeks of him being manager in operations, he came to me and he said that somebody on his team helped him do something and he gave him a $10 lunch coupon. I didn't say anything, I just let it pass. A couple weeks later, he comes to me and he says the same guy helped him again and then reached out his hand, he says, “Where's my coupon?” I said, “I was waiting to see how long that would take.” And Andrew, that happened 25 years ago, if I was to have breakfast with him tomorrow, it would come up. Every time we meet, which is not that often, he lives a lot too far.   0:16:05.5 BB: And it was just so cool how, as I said let's just see how this goes. So the idea is that what can you do from where you are to not pass on the pain? And so it may be flowing down to you, but maybe you, if you've got a team, can stop it from where you are. Maybe. Maybe you can't. I mentioned Jim Albaugh, who went on to become CEO of Boeing Commercial, CEO of Boeing Defense. He was my boss for a number of years at the beginning of his doing these amazing things. And one day after we had some really stellar applications of Taguchi's ideas with Deming's improving integration, the hammers went away and things came together. Performance, we had an incredible advances in engine performance and integration. It was really cool. So he was really thrilled by all that. So I go, I would meet with him once a month and I'd poke him.   0:17:10.0 BB: So one day I went in and I said, “I wanna bring something to your attention.” And he looks at me with this smile. And I said, “I wanna put something on the table. And I'm not saying you've gotta do it now, but don't ever tell me I didn't bring it to your attention.” And he is like, “okay, Bill, what?” [chuckle] I said, “we've got to get rid of incentives, rewards and recognition and performance appraisals.” And then he just rolls his eyes. I said, I says, “I know you can't do this.” And I said, “but these are ankle weights on how fast we can run as an organization.” But I knew that was... I mean, he was, at the time he was a VP, even when he was CEO, he can't get rid of those. Those are such an institution. But I just wanted to go on record with him. I just chose the moment to go on record with him knowing the limits, but I wanted to be upfront and honest with him that if I don't go to those events, this is why.   0:18:18.8 BB: And so it's just making a difference from where you are and sometimes you speak up, sometimes you just keep your mouth shut. Another thing I encourage people I mentor is, if you're out managing interactions and things are improving, you've improved integration. Is that, my advice to them is go about it quietly be the change you wanna see in your organization. Be the change you wanna see in the world, to quote Gandhi, I said, but unless your boss asks you how that happened, don't explain it to them.   0:18:53.2 BB: I said, if they ask you how did you know how to do that, that's your opportunity. But if you're not asked that, I mean, in other words, don't do it expecting to be asked for what, you know, to be complimented. You do it because it's the right thing to do. Use it as a learning experience. Be deliberate about it if you're gonna go off and do it. But if you're doing it to get praise, you've missed the whole point. If you're doing it to get your boss's attention, you've missed the whole point. What I tell people is, do it' And maybe at some point in time, they say, ''ve noticed a pattern. Tell me how you do this. 'I've got a manager I work with, with a client, was asking me about how to praise someone. And I said, one is, there's nothing wrong with one-on-one in the office saying, your contributions were enormous. I said, do''t ever imply without you, we could not have done this. You're a contributor. But I said, more important than that is, ask them, how did you know how to do that? Where else could we apply this?   0:20:07.4 BB: I said, I think that is far more, I think being asked those questions are far more thrilling than a pat on the back. Back in ‘93, it was '92, I was nominated to be an engineer of the year at the Rocketdyne, which is a really big deal. I was one of a dozen finalists. And the vice president of engineering invited everyone into his office to ask us a bunch of questions. And he used our answers for the engineer of the year dinner. And what I found out from the others is, he never asked any of us, how can your work, what is your vision, Andrew, for how your work can impact the organization? And I thought that, that never came up. And I would have been thrilled, my whole interest in going through this, 'cause I knew at that time about awards and recognition, but my hope was that, that could create visibility and help me further the cause.   0:21:13.8 AS: Make an impact.   0:21:14.8 BB: This is... But another thing I would say is, I have my knuckles rapped this way a few times. And when I would try to explain to the executives how we achieve these solutions. And once one of the VPs, my VP, his comment to me was, he was watching me, he came by to see the slides I was gonna use. And he says, Bill, don't be tutorial with us. And I thought, oh, man. So what I tell people is, a staff meeting is not the time. This is really important. If you're trying to explain in a staff meeting how you accomplish something, what makes it bad is, even if you're invited, a staff meeting is not a classroom. When I walk into a classroom as the instructor, I walk in, and I know what my role is, and everybody else knows what their role is. But when you walk into a staff meeting, and you're about to present something you did, if it comes across as being tutorial, what makes that offending is, who appointed you to be the professor? But if you have a separate meeting and, but it's just these nuances, can really get in the way, which leads to tonight's feature, the Cloud Model...   0:22:42.6 AS: Before you go to tonight's feature, I'd like to go back in time to November of 1965. It was a tumultuous year. In fact, it was February of 1965 that Malcolm X was assassinated in America. 1963, November, John F. Kennedy Jr. Was assassinated. America was going through a lot of turmoil, and the Rolling Stones were the bad boys of rock and roll. In November of 1965, I was four months old, so I don't remember this personally, but the Rolling Stones came out with a song, and it was called Get Off Of My Cloud. And I just wanted to put it in context, because for us older guys, we know that this lyrics, Get Off Of My Cloud, is referring to this song where they're oftentimes saying, "hey, hey, you, you, get Off Of my Cloud." So with that introduction, tell us why you named it, this episode, Get Off Of My Cloud.   0:23:44.3 BB: Well, you're not gonna believe how apropos that, that intro was. Oh, this is so cool. It's so cool, so cool. In 1995, I met Barry Bebb, a retired, very senior executive from Xerox, who was on a very short list to be the next CEO of Xerox after David Kearns. And Barry left Xerox and became a consultant, and I met him in the Taguchi community. And somewhere in the beginning of '95, I bumped into him. I'd met him earlier at another event with Dr. Taguchi, and, um, and then there was an event in LA, a conference, and I bumped into him, and he said, hey, I know that guy. We knew each other. And he said, hey, I'm putting together this group of people, about a dozen or so people, a couple from Ford, a couple from GM.   0:24:46.7 BB: Would you like to be part of it? I was like, well, what do you have in mind? He said, "we're gonna to meet once a quarter. I wanna mentor you and help you create change within your respective organizations." And it's like "sign me up." And I was there with a very good friend, Tim Higgins, and so we signed up. And we... Barry called the group Impact 95 'cause it was 1995. And we would get together all day Friday, all day Saturday, through Sunday at noon. We would meet either within Ford, because there was a Ford member, within GM. There was a printer company we met at their headquarters, at their site.   0:25:28.7 BB: We met at Rocketdyne. We'd meet in San Diego with Barry. But once a quarter for three and a half years, we met, all on our own time. The company didn't pay for this. I told Tim, we're just gonna go off. We're not gonna tell anybody what we're doing. But what we learned from Barry is how to create change from an organization when you're in the bottom, you're an individual contributor. And so that... And I've got the notes. I've got a big pile of notes. And some of the things that jumped out when I was pulling my notes together are things we learned in that very first session. One is you can't tell anybody anything. He said, "You can lead people on a path to discover, but you can't force them to drink." And that became really powerful that, telling people something's important is a losing strategy. So what I find powerful about the Me and the We Trip Report, Red Pen, Blue Pen, whatever it is, that's not me telling people what the organization is about. That's them telling me what the organization is about.   0:26:43.7 BB: But trying to tell people this Deming stuff will change your life, that's a losing strategy. So he says, you can't tell anybody anything. And then my paraphrase is, "telling is a losing strategy." Even if you tell a loved one. If I tell our daughter, Allison, you gotta go watch this movie. You gotta go... You need to go learn more about the Rolling Stones. She's like "Dad, I'm a Swifty." It's like her telling me, "well, I'll go do that if you go watch the Eras movie with Taylor Swift." I'm thinking, "that ain't gonna happen." But anyway, so even with a loved one telling, telling is a losing strategy. Well, another thing he told us that very first meeting, you're gonna love this. He said, he points at each one of those and he's like a drill sergeant, and he says to us, "you have to be able to do this by any means necessary." You know who used those words, right?   0:27:43.8 AS: Malcolm X.   0:27:44.9 BB: Malcolm X. I remember looking at Barry saying, said that's Malcolm X. He says, and he would say, "every morning you've gotta get up and ask yourself, am I doing everything I can to make a difference in our organization?" And it was just beaten into us again and again and again and again in a very loving way. So back to the, "hey, you Get Off Of My Cloud." Barry came up with a Cloud Model. And I don't know that he had in mind to write a book about it. I don't know that he ever did. I don't know if it was ever published. I have not, I share this in all of my classes and all my consulting. I share it with clients. I'm not sure if it's out there on the internet. Well, what Barry had in mind, his model, his mental model for organizations is there's a Cloud.   0:28:31.7 BB: The Cloud is the top of the organization where all the executives are. And Barry got to the Cloud. He was in charge of Xerox's division that made the, not office copiers, but these really big, big things. And, um, and I don't know how many thousands people worked for him, but he was in the Cloud and he's briefing us. And we're individual contributors in our respective organizations. And what brought us together was each of us was trying to introduce Dr. Taguchi's ideas into our organization. But the Cloud model is universal. It's not just, it's introducing any change in our organization. And what Barry confided with us, and it kind of burst our bubble is, he said, if you get an email that says, we want you next Monday, Bill Bellows, to go to Boeing headquarters and share with them how Dr. Taguchi's work can impact Boeing.   0:29:31.7 BB: And I'd be thinking, "what an incredible opportunity." What I learned from Barry was you have to say no. And I'd be like "well, Barry, isn't that the audience I want?" And he says "no." "Why not, Barry?" He said, "here's how it works." He said, "the people in the Cloud may not like each other, but they respect each other." He said, if you're...   0:29:56.3 AS: And the people in the Cloud, remind everybody who are the people in the Cloud?   0:30:00.2 BB: The top executives of the organization are the Cloud. So that's the...   0:30:05.4 AS: They're living in a, they're living maybe in a comfy zone. They're not necessarily dealing with the nitty gritty of the business, what's going on.   0:30:13.7 BB: They're way up there in the upper atmosphere. They are... And they're the chief executive people, the senior most people in the organization. And what Barry said is, "they create the rain. They create the KPIs. They create all those things that flow down." And what Barry says, "what we're tryna do is influence what flows down. So in order to influence what flows down, you've got to get into the Cloud." He said, but the deal is, what Barry's model was, "Bill and Tim and Larry, you can't go to the Cloud." Well, why not? He said, "because you're an outsider." And he said, "they shoot outsiders, but they don't shoot each other."   0:31:02.8 BB: So what do we do? He said, "when you go back to your respective organizations," this is the very first time we meet, this is how impactful it was. He said, "when you go back to your respective organizations, start thinking about someone in your organization above you. It doesn't have to be your boss. It could be somebody over to the right, but find someone above you that you can get smart about Taguchi's work, about Deming's work, about whatever that passion is that you wanna bring to the organization to rain down. Get them smart, 'cause you can't go to the Cloud, but you can get them smart. So make it your calling to go back to work, begin to meet with someone above you. Help them get someone above them smart. Help them get somebody..." So I, I hand, I get you smart, and then I help you get your boss smart, and then you're...your boss on up. So you have to hand off. So this is not me coaching you, and then coaching you all the way. So I have to let go. I have to be a contributor.   0:32:17.5 BB: And I thought that's not what I... I thought I could be the hero and go in there. And he is like, no, it won't work. And so I went back and immediately began to mentor my boss, Jim Albaugh, who's a VP. And that was my, my strategy was to get him smart on all the things we were doing. And then he, in turn, eventually got his boss, Alan Mulally smart. And I just, but you have to let go. And then you're trying to influence the organization - so it can be done. So in terms of making difference from where you are, it's not running into the Cloud from down there and thinking, Hey, I've got these great ideas. And what Barry said is, it's not gonna work. Don't. And he saw it not work on many occasions.   0:33:08.9 BB: Now, one time I got invited to a Boeing corporate setting, and it was not, it was halfway to the Cloud. It was pretty high up. And my first thought was, No. This, you know, Barry on my shoulder, Barry says, "Bill, don't do it. Bill, don't do it." When I found out who's gonna be in the meeting, and it was all the VPs of engineering across Boeing, space and communications, and they all reported up to the VP of engineering, corporate, senior VP of engineering, who reported to Jim Albaugh. So I thought, okay, against my better judgment, I went in. But being aware of Barry's model, I went around the room and amongst the nine VPs of engineering, I knew half of them. So I went around the room,, and hi, how're you doing?   0:34:14.8 BB: I haven't seen you. And part of what I was doing in my mind, what I was doing was preparing them to help me should the others start to shoot at me. But I knew to do that. And without the awareness from Barry, I would not have known to go around the room. So it was... I mean, it wasn't the very, very top of Boeing. It was a good ways up. But I still took what I learned from Barry and said, okay, I need some help with this. I can contribute, but I'm just gonna stop there.   0:34:56.3 AS: Well...   0:34:56.4 BB: And so when it comes to this, Get Off Of my Cloud, it's the people in the Cloud, it's their Cloud. We just work here.   0:35:04.9 AS: And in the theme of music I'm gonna wrap up my part of this and then ask you to do a final wrap up. I wanna go now to 1976. 11 years after the Rolling Stones came out with their song, Get Off Of My Cloud. By this time I was 11 years old. And in 1976, the band, the Canadian Band, Rush came out with the album 2112. And the song 2112 talks about how, Neil Peart wrote this, the drummer, about how he, that it was a society he liked to show it was like a communist type of society where it was ruled by the elders. And he found a guitar, and it was an ancient guitar, and nobody had heard of a guitar. And he figured out how to play it. And he thought it would be amazing to take this to the priests, to the elders.   0:35:57.4 AS: And he went to them after learning how to play. And he said, "I know it's most unusual to come before you, so, but I found an ancient miracle. I thought that you should know. Listen to my music and hear what it can do. There's something here as strong as life, I know that it will reach you." And the priests respond. The priests in unison respond, "yes, we know it's nothing new. It's just a waste of time. We have no way need for ancient ways. Our world is doing fine. Another toy that helped destroy dah, dah dah, dah, dah." The point is that they were in their comfort zone and they didn't want to be disturbed. And so having an awareness of that, I think is what you're trying to teach us so that when we, make a change where we are and be an influencer rather than a teller. And don't use the telling strategy.   0:36:54.2 BB: Yeah, no, it's... Exactly. It's, um, I had a VP of HR once pulled me aside and he said, "what's your vision for the organization?" I said, "don't ask me." I said, "ask them, ask them." I said, "it's not what I want" is, and this is, I told another group of people I was mentoring. I said, something like this. "I'm not gonna be here forever." 'Cause they're saying, "well, what should we do?" And I said, "my question to you is what do you want to happen?"   0:37:36.3 BB: And what was so amazing when I shared that with this one group, a couple of days later, two of them sent out an email to a bunch of their peers with announcing some opportunities. And I had tears in my eyes. I was reading it on an airplane. I was at LAX and looking at it. And what blew me away was, they didn't call me up and say, Hey, we have an idea. They just went out and did it. They became the change they wanted to see amongst their peers. And I was just overwhelmed with it all. All I said to them, is that, "what do you want? What is it that you want this place to be?" I said, "it's not what I want. It's what do you want?" But the other thing is I'll share some great wisdom from Edward de Bono. And this is the book, Handbook for the Positive Revolution. You can buy it on Amazon for probably 5 bucks. And the original copy, I'm told, this is not an original, it has a yellow cover, and there's significance there that I'll come back to, but what somebody told me is the original book not only was the cover yellow, but all the pages were yellow. Well, yellow in the Edward de Bono world is associated with one of the six colors of his so-called Thinking Hats, and yellow is the Logical Positive. Your ability to explain the benefits of something. Not your gut feel, which would be your Red Hat, but your Yellow Hat is saying, I can articulate the benefits. The Black Hat is the Logical Negative, I could tell you all the weaknesses.   0:39:29.8 BB: So this is coming from that place of yellowness. So the book came out, and I got it for a bunch of colleagues in our InThinking transformation community at Rocketdyne early on. And the introduction, Edward says, "this is a serious revolutionary handbook. The greatest strength of this serious revolution is that it will not be taken seriously." So when I'm reading that, I'm thinking, "what?" Then he goes on and he says, "there is no greater power than to be effective and not to be taken seriously." That way, Andrew, you can quietly go on with things without the fuss and friction or resistance from those who feel threatened. And that was so invaluable to our efforts is, if people don't take it seriously, fine. 'Cause what Barry talked about is, he said, "for every proponent," as you're trying to get this message to the Cloud, he said, "for every proponent, he'd say there's nine opponents." So they're out there. So as I'm trying to get my boss smart, you've got this. And I come across Edward's work, and he says, you just take it in stride. You just try not to be dissuaded. You get up every day and say, what can I do? And how do you get to the Cloud?   0:41:14.2 AS: Bam. Well, Bill, on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute, I wanna thank you again for this discussion. And for listeners, remember, go to deming.org to continue your journey. And if you wanna keep in touch with Bill, just find him on LinkedIn. He's there. This is your host, Andrew Stotz. And I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming. People are entitled to joy in work.

What does it mean to "commit" to transformation? What does "transformation" mean? In this episode, John Dues and host Andrew Stotz discuss Point 14 of Dr. Deming's 14 Points for Management - with John's interpretations for educators. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.2 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W Edwards Deming. Today I'm continuing my discussion with John Dues, who is part of the new generation of educators striving to apply Dr. Deming's principles to unleash student joy in learning. This is episode 20, and we are continuing our discussion about the shift from management myths to principles for transformation of school systems. John, take it away.   0:00:31.1 John Dues: Hey, Andrew. It's good to be back. Yeah, we're on principle 14 today, which is Commit to Transformation. So I'll just start by outlining the principle itself. So Commit to Transformation - "clearly define top management's commitment to continual improvement of quality and its obligation to implement the 14 principles, plan and take action to put everyone in the organization to work to accomplish the transformation. Transformation is everyone's job. Start with education for all and positions of leadership." So, basically, we've been through these 14 principles, and the final one is, put it into action, basically. So I think a good place to start is just remembering or recalling what does Deming mean by transformation? And he's saying transformation is a change in state from one thing to another. So we're going from one thing to something completely new, and there's these 14 principles that help us get us there.   0:01:34.9 JD: And of course, when Deming was talking, he was talking about the prevailing system of management and changing into this new system of management and about this sort of, older version, this prevailing style from 30 years ago, which still is the prevailing style today. He said something that was really interesting. He said, it's a modern invention that cedes competition between people, teams, departments, students, schools, universities. And so when... What he is really saying is that when you transform your organization, you work together as a system. And he is advocating for cooperation and transformation. And I think of course, people are gonna say, yes, absolutely, we need to cooperate. And that's, that's the way that everybody wins. But in reality, I think that's not always what's happening in organizations because I think what you need in order to go about this switch is what Deming called Profound Knowledge.   0:02:41.5 JD: And most people don't have an understanding of, of what that is. So what happens I think is that the prevailing style of management, it's rooted in those management myths we've talked about before we started the principles. And it's sort of this false foundation for your organization. But that's where I think most people, people are. And so part of this commitment is then if we're gonna commit to transformation, there's some things that leaders have to realize, and then there's some steps you have to take if you're gonna sort of go down this path. I think the things that you have to realize as a leader, and these are things that are true for me as I continue this process and my organization is number one, there's gonna be a struggle. There's gonna be this struggle over every one of the 14 principles because it's so different from what we're doing today.   0:03:39.1 JD: I think another thing we're gonna have to realize is that this can't be one or two people at your organization. The entire leadership structure at your organization, it's gonna have to be educated in this new way of thinking, and then you're gonna have to bring along the entire organization. And this can be a challenge because if you are the person doing this at your organization, you very well may be fairly new to this new way of thinking, this new philosophy yourself, unless you've brought in someone externally to help you through this. And even if you do that probably for a good portion of the time, you're gonna have to be leading this before you may be feeling like an expert yourself. And that was definitely true in my case. But I think the emphasis in this initial introduction is that you gotta get that system's view and you have to help people understand the theory of variation.   0:04:43.0 JD: So that has to be sort of initial part of that introduction. And then of course, you have to take your organizational context into account and so how this sort of rolls out or plays out, it's certainly gonna vary by size of organization, by organizational type. But the good thing is, is regardless of size or type of organization, industry, sector, whatever, Dr. Deming offered several steps to get started in this process. So I think maybe as a start to how you commit to the transformation, if you wanna go down this route, it might be helpful to sort of outline those steps first.   0:05:24.8 AS: Definitely. And it just, the idea of everybody, being committed to the transformation, like this isn't something where you can say, well, maintenance department doesn't wanna do it. [chuckle]   0:05:36.4 JD: Right.   0:05:38.3 AS: Or the third grade teachers don't wanna do it, but the sixth grade do. So that's... Of course things can start in kind of piecemeal as they they go, but it is a true transformation. The other thing that's interesting is if you have a situation where you have been through a transformation as a unit at a school or as a company, it's also possible that a new person could come in and destroy that transformation real fast. And I have an example of a company that I've experience with where they had implemented the Deming principles to an extreme level, and the CEO resigned eventually. He was older, a new one came in and he said, I'm not in that school, I'm not in that camp. I got a new idea. I got a different idea. And it went right back to the prevailing system of management.   0:06:35.9 JD: Wow. That's really interesting. On the first point, I think, you're not necessarily gonna get all the departments or everybody at once. Obviously it's gonna be a process. On the second point, I think that actually is a good segue into step one because basically what he says, and I've translate this for education environment or education audience, but he basically says the school board and the superintendent have to study the 14 principles. Understand them, agree on a strategic direction, and then make a deliberate decision to adopt and implement the new philosophy, so why bring this up now? As I follow on to your comment there is that it seems to me that well, assuming that this was a company that had a board, then what that board should have done is include something about the System of Profound Knowledge and the job description for the new CEO. That's interesting that they didn't make that a point of emphasis.   0:07:41.5 AS: I think what's fascinating to me about it is that I think on the one hand, cooperation and working together and not living in an environment of fear is kind of our normal state, I would argue, but society just pushes us in so many different ways, that all of a sudden you find yourself in a very different state. And another example of that is how KPIs have taken Thailand in particular by storm, and now all of a sudden you have people who have been very cooperative in the way that they work together, all of a sudden pitted against each other, and it's so painful for them, because it's not the way that they naturally operate.   0:08:33.5 JD: Interesting.   0:08:35.3 AS: And so yeah, it's just... I think you gotta work. And I guess the thing you're saying about the board is that you really gotta work to make sure that this is something precious, and you could lose it in a blink of an eye if you don't...   0:08:52.4 JD: Yeah, yeah, and I'm not hiring a CEO obviously, but I have started including... I don't use System of Profound Knowledge, I don't use that terminology when I write job descriptions for people on my team, but what I do say is, what we're looking for is someone that can think in systems, understand variation and data, run small experiments to find out what works and do that with sort of like while working with people in a cooperative fashion, so I've sort of incorporated the four elements of the System of Profound Knowledge in the job descriptions for people that I'm hiring on my team, so then when I actually do use System of Profound Knowledge, describe the elements once they're on board, it's not a surprise 'cause it was a part of that hiring process. And part of that, even the job description itself, but step one basically is so that, you know, if you do have it at your organization, it includes both board and sort of the senior leadership being bought into that philosophy and that's not a guarantee, but at least if both components have that then if that CEO moves on, maybe it's more likely to continue on in your organization.   0:10:10.4 JD: That's step one. Step two is interesting, Deming basically said that the board and the senior leader or the school board and the superintendent in my case, must feel he said a "burning satisfaction", sorry, "burning dissatisfaction" with past procedures and a strong desire to transform their management approach, so it's almost like you almost have to be hitting your head against the wall, you have to be looking for something, because what he goes on to say is that you have to have the courage to break with tradition, even to the point of exile among peers, as you're going through this transformation process, because from an outsider looking in, if you're adopting the Deming philosophy, much of the stuff is gonna look so different that people are gonna be asking you, what exactly are you doing? And this has happened repeatedly. Not, not, I don't think that to that extent that I've been exiled, but for sure people will be like, well, I don't understand why you're just not setting a goal, just tell people what the goal is and then let them get out of the way and let them achieve it. That's not the approach with the Deming philosophy. So you have to...   0:11:33.2 JD: Again, for me, it wasn't exile, but constant pushback, questioning, why are you saying this, why are you operating in this way? I don't get it, why don't we just tell departments what their goals are and let them all meet them, those types of things, the typical way of operating, and it does take a lot of time and energy to explain that, but that's a part of the process.   0:11:55.1 AS: It reminds me of working with alcoholics and drug addicts, generally, they don't turn around until they've hit a bottom.   0:12:04.8 JD: Yeah. Yeah.   [overlapping conversation]   0:12:05.4 AS: And they have a burning desire.   0:12:05.6 JD: Learning to satisfaction. I think that's right, and I think from the standpoint of someone that's really motivated to look for something new, look for a different way of doing things, that's not all together a bad thing, that they've sort of hit rock bottom. Step three is, again, it seems common-sensical. But even here, even as I was going through this, it was sort of a reminder of a number of things that I need to do on a regular basis, and one of the things he said in step three is that once that sort of senior leadership team, the board, the superintendent, whatever that make up is that your organization is that then you have to go out and explain, whether it's through community meetings or seminars or whatever to sort of a critical mass school system staff, he said, students, parents, why you're going on this transformation, why you're... This change is necessary. And then actually educating your people across the organization, what is this philosophy, what is the System of Profound Knowledge? What are the 14 principles? What are the typical ways that we work? Why are those management myths don't work.   0:13:36.4 JD: You gotta go out and do all of these things. It's gonna be a completely new language, a completely new operating for most people, and it has to be a part of the process, bringing people along and this... I think this isn't an overnight process, obviously. Deming said no instant pudding. He generally said, I think transformation was a five to 10 year process, depending on the size of your organization, but I've definitely found that to be true. There's fits and starts, there are some things that you seem to be able to sort of put in place pretty quickly, and then there's other things where there's a couple steps forward, a couple steps back, and you gotta bring people along, people turn over, you gotta re-educate those types of things. So it's a process. It's definitely a process.   0:14:27.4 AS: I was thinking about. I can't remember whether I heard Dr. Deming said that or whether it's somebody, or I read it or somebody told me, but that somebody asked him, "How long has this transformation take?" And he said, "Well, it can take as long as 10 years or as short as 10 years."   0:14:49.8 JD: [laughter] Yeah, so no matter what. It's a significant amount of time. There's no doubt about it. Step four, he basically says that every job and every activity within the school system or your organization is a part of this process that can be improved. And he talks about using flow diagrams for important processes within your organization so that people can see that this is about optimizing that whole system, and not the individual stages. But he really wanted people to see visually, even if it's just a simple sort of flow diagram, how one stage connects to other stages for us, maybe it's the teaching and learning process going from kindergarten to first to second to third grade.   0:15:37.3 JD: That again, seems obvious that that should be how the system works, what I think is less typical and common is actually doing activities from a systems thinking lens, where you are making sure people understand that the kindergarten teacher is also serving the first grade teaching team in addition to the students and families in their classroom and simple things like we have two elementary schools, two middle schools, do the middle school principals leave their school at some point and go to the elementary schools on their side of town and introduce themselves to the fifth graders, so things as simple as that is what I'm talking about.   0:16:28.8 JD: There are lots of other things. For sure. But how often does that happen? In some places, it may be fairly typical, in other places, it's not happening at all, but in the case, even where it's happening, do you explain why it is that you're doing this activity. Are people making that connection that they're part of a bigger system. I once consulted at a very small rural school district here in Ohio, and when we talked about systems, they just had two buildings, they had a sort of an elementary building and then a seven through twelve building. And talking to people, they said, I've never been to the high school - an elementary teacher, I've never been to the high school. And so people may say, Well, that seems strange. But when you were in the school system, it is very difficult sometimes to get out, so you actually have to make it... The leader has, or the leaders have to facilitate this, bring this about... There has to be some coordination of efforts, so that's step four. I think step five is you have to teach and then utilize the Plan-Do-Study Act cycle. You have to use it as a procedure to learn how to improve the organization's processes.   0:17:48.1 JD: I think that we've talked to your... And the Deming community is familiar with the Plan-Do-Study Act cycle, PDSA cycle, but most people aren't. Most people don't have this... Some people might call it sort of like a scientific thinking approach to testing ideas and see if they work, but most people don't approach change like that. They just try something, there's no system for collecting data, a lot of times it's just sort of a mass implementation, there's no process for testing on a small scale, seeing if it works, getting feedback on a short time frame, like a week or two weeks or three weeks, and then trying that next test. So that's, that's in terms of putting the Deming philosophy into action, I think that's a critical part using the PDSA cycle.   0:18:44.0 AS: Yeah, I'm just thinking about my Valuation Masterclass Bootcamp, and we're just about to start our round 13. And so having taught it 12 times before, but part of our PDSA, part of our process of understanding the cycle is that, at the end of every bootcamp, every single student gives us their recommendations for improvement. And we do it through a survey where they're all excited at that moment in time, because they're at the end of the process, but they've gotta go through the survey. And they give some great ideas, and then we capture all that into a document, and then we go through it and we see there's some ideas that just seem like obvious we should have implemented that a long time ago, or we knew. And then, so we say, okay, how do we implement this? But then there's others that are also a question. Right now, one of the ideas is to do one of our class sessions per week as a live session.   0:19:52.4 AS: And it's the feedback session where students get feedback, and in that case, people from outside can watch it. And it has some benefits. There's a marketing angle to it for us, but also, there is the excitement of showcasing your work and all that. But on the other hand, it could be terrifying and it could be that it doesn't do what we think. So in the end, we asked what is it that we think we would want from this as an outcome? And then we said, why don't we just try it one night in week four? And so we've set up that we're gonna do it on one night, we're gonna prep them ahead of time, and we're gonna see how it goes. And if it produces the effect that we want, which is, we think it's gonna up the intensity in, all of that, that it's gonna work. But if not, then we'll abandon it. And so that's a little bit of our little PDSA thinking on how do we test out an idea and see the result of it?   0:21:00.5 JD: Yeah, I love that. I love that because it's not... We're gonna just do this new thing in our course. We got this feedback, we're gonna just do it. We're gonna actually test it on a very short cycle, one session and get the feedback back right away to see if this works. And if it does, we're gonna do more of it. And what's likely gonna happen is you're probably gonna learn something, and you're probably gonna have to sort of change the approach a little bit, and you're gonna do it again and again and again until this is... Assuming the feedback is positive, then you'll do more and more of it. And, you know, if it doesn't work, then you'll learn that in a very quick, easy fashion and you'll know not to do, you know, more of that thing in your course.   0:21:44.2 JD: So I think that's the exact type of thinking that Deming was trying to get us to do, to improve our organizations, versus this sort of plan, plan, plan. We're planning these grand changes, then we put them in place, and then they don't work out like we thought, and then all of a sudden, we've had this significant investment in time and/or resources and sunk costs. And maybe we even keep doing it because we feel like we can't make a change at that point. So that sounds...   0:22:12.1 AS: Iterate, iterate.   0:22:12.2 JD: Iterate. Yep. Small, small, small test of change. So that was step five is use the PDSA cycle. Step six I really love, he says, Deming says, "Transformation is everyone's job." So no matter who you are in the school system, student, staff member, parent, you have to play a role in this transformation. And one of the ways that this can be set up is that you have these cross-functional teams on which parents, students staff members from various departments can be set up to work together on a problem. And one thing that we're doing right now, we have a new position in our network called Network Medical Coordinator. We're very fortunate. We actually have a pediatrician that's on staff, and one of the projects she's working on is critical care. So basically, when students require some type of critical care at school for something like, let's say diabetes, that's not something schools are used to sort of dealing with or maybe don't typically have the internal expertise to deal with. And in this case, there's a team of people figuring out the best approaches for various critical care areas.   0:23:35.3 JD: And this includes the Network Medical Coordinator. It includes one of the operations managers at one of the schools. It includes a parent and some outside partners, a pediatrician from a local hospital, for example. So you have this cross-functional team that's coming together in a way that's not super typical in a school system, but for a very important reason, it includes these various functional areas. And I think the outcome, what comes out of this project is gonna be better because it's not just the doctor saying, this is what we're gonna do. There's the parent, there's the ops manager that understands like how the office works, and how kids come to the office to get this care and things of that nature. And so you have this sort of cross-functional team working in a way that's gonna improve our system. So transformation is everyone's job, putting everybody to work for the transformation is step six. And there's various ways to do that a cross-functional team is one of those areas or one of those ways of bringing that to fruition.   0:24:37.1 JD: And then step seven is interesting. He basically said to deliberately construct your system for quality with certain percentages of staff understanding continual improvement at different levels. And sort of the way we've characterized that is sort of everybody, the goal is to have everybody have sort of like a basic level understanding of continual improvement. And by basic level, everybody knows what a run chart is in our network. The goal was, so everybody can sort of put one of those together. That's a pretty simple chart. Everybody could put together a process map to understand how do we map out, how a process unfolds at one of our schools. So everybody sort of gets that basic level of understanding.   0:25:28.8 JD: And then there's this sort of next level, we call it intermediate level understanding. And basically, this centerpiece of this level of understanding is, this is maybe 25% or 30% of the people really understand the process behavior chart. They really understand how to construct a chart, interpret a chart, and understand data over time and how to use that as an improvement tool. And then at the advanced level, that's something we're still working toward. Maybe you have one or two people. We have about 120 staff members. We have one or two people that have an advanced level of understanding. And so an example there would be, someone knows how to run design of experiments, basically something you may use on a limited basis outside of like an engineering sort of setting. But it would be good to have some advanced understanding. But I think the biggest bang for the buck is at those first two, that everybody has a basic level understanding of certain tools and techniques. And then you have this intermediate group that really has an understanding of how to use the process behavior chart to drive change and bring about improvement in your organization. Those are sort of the seven steps. So sort of concrete advice on how to bring the 14 principles to life.   0:26:53.1 AS: How would you... We've gone through so much stuff in this series. How would you wrap it up? How would you... I guess the first thing is like, what is the core takeaways? And the second thing is like, what would be your advice to the people who've made it to the end of this, who are by this time in their own process of transformation at various stages. So maybe the sum up of kind of what's the core concepts you want people to know? And then the second thing is, how would you advise people to continue their journey?   0:27:29.4 JD: Yeah. I mean, I think, just like, I think step one was this does require study. But what I found is, reading the 14 principles is really helpful after you read about the System of Profound Knowledge, because the 14 principles are sort of a logical extension of the System of Profound Knowledge, and give you a little bit more sort of concrete sort of...it's not a list of do's and don'ts, it's not a recipe, but it's some concrete stuff that you can start to understand, okay, and this is how you actually put the System of Profound Knowledge into action. I think it also again, not a recipe, but the 14 principles do paint a picture for what a healthy work environment looks like. So I think that's really helpful to understand those things. They're not a checklist, they're not... The 14 principles aren't completed in sequence. Rather, they're this interdependent mutually supporting sort of set of guiding principles for system leaders that do help make that transition to the Deming philosophy a bit more concrete.   0:28:52.5 AS: And so for someone who's on their journey, they've been following this. What words of encouragement or words of wisdom would you provide for them?   0:29:11.4 JD: Yeah. It's like a two-parter. There's like, I just sort of reiterated, the study is important. This takes study. You're gonna have to dedicate time to this. You're gonna have to commit to understanding this first yourself, and then starting to sort of dip your toes in the water in terms of talking about this approach with other systems leaders in your organization. And that's sort of the long term play. On the short term, there are things you can do just to start to put the System of Profound Knowledge into action. And I think to me, that's also a good way to learn that doesn't take years and years. And I've said it before, but I think pick one thing that you wanna improve, let's say that thing is attendance rates in your classroom. And just start plotting those rates on a line chart over time. Just see what happens. Plot it over two weeks.   0:30:13.3 JD: So two school weeks is 10 days. Look at those points over the course of two weeks, and start thinking about what you learn when you see that pattern of your data, the ups and downs. Anybody can do that. Anybody can make a simple line chart. And for two weeks, just jot down, okay, on day one, 94% of the kids in my class came to class that day. On day two, it was 91%. On day three, it was 95%. I can start looking at that data over time. And then at the point where you've gathered that baseline, simply draw a vertical line and say, I'm gonna try something to improve this problem. I'm gonna plan it, I'm gonna do it. I'm gonna study what happens when I try this one small change, and then I'm gonna decide on the next thing to do, and I'm gonna do this with the students in my class. I think that's a way to put, basically combining that data over time with this small change, what I call a PDSA cycle, basically an experiment, that's the System of Profound Knowledge in a nutshell. And I think anybody can do that. And I think that both the long-term study and putting some of this into action right away are both sort of important ways that people can continue on this journey.   0:31:40.3 AS: I'll, I'll end on with little story. When I was 20 something, maybe 23, my grandfather passed away and my father and I, and the family went to the funeral, and it was my father's father. And we were in the car driving there, and I was sitting in the front seat with my father. By this time, my father and I had had, begun to have a really good relationship, a deep relationship. And I asked my father, "Dad, why is it that I haven't seen you cry when your dad died?" And he said, "I cried 30, 40 years ago when I lost him." And what he was explaining to me was something he never told me. And that was, that his father treated him in a lesser way. He just didn't pay attention to him. He didn't give him time. My grandfather was kind of a famous guy in the world of architecture and history, and I don't think that he disliked my father, his son. I think he just was so busy, he just didn't give time to him and he didn't really show that he cared.   0:32:56.1 JD: Interesting.   0:32:57.5 AS: And what I respect the most about my father was that, he made a conscious decision not to treat his children that way. He married a woman who believed that you don't treat people that way, but he also made a conscious decision, and it took effort. And it wasn't until as we started getting older that the fruits of that effort started to pay off. But I can say that my dad created a trusting environment. And when my dad was close to his death, I asked him, what was your biggest proudest moment in life? And he could have said my best golf game I ever did which he was, he was almost a professional golfer or the great accomplishments, he had in work and life and whatever. And he just looked at me and said, "I created a trusting family."   0:34:00.4 AS: And I think about when you're going into this world of Deming, you're going into a world of chaos, of grading and scoring people, and blaming and all of this crap that goes on in schools and in businesses. And Deming is providing us a way to think differently and provide a more of an environment that drives out fear and sees the potential of humans. And funny enough, you're gonna have to work hard to create that environment. And you're also gonna have to work hard to protect that environment.   0:34:37.5 JD: Yeah.   0:34:39.4 AS: And my dad was an example of somebody where I learned that you can do it, and you can change. And so that's my words of inspiration for everybody listening. You can make a major change and make it a lasting change.   0:34:54.5 JD: Yeah, that sounds like transformation. It sounds like he had the psychology component down too. He sounds like an incredible guy.   0:35:00.9 AS: Yeah. So, John, on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute, I wanna thank you for taking this time to go through all of the stuff that we've been through over this time that comes from your book and your work, and your experience. It's very valuable. And for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey, and you can find John's book Win-Win, W Edwards Deming, the System of Profound Knowledge and the Science of Improving Schools on amazon.com. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming. People are entitled to joy in work.

In this episode, Bill Bellows and host Andrew Stotz talk about where and how to start using your new knowledge when you're learning Deming.  TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.1 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with Bill Bellows, who has spent 30 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. The topic for today in episode 15 is Start Where You Are. Bill, take it away.   0:00:25.0 Bill Bellows: Thank you, Andrew. And for our audience, you may notice there's a different background. This is not a green screen. This is actually a bedroom at my in-laws in upstate New York. Hey, Andrew, I've been listening to some of the podcasts, and I've collected some data on each of them. Would you like to see it?   0:00:53.0 AS: Yeah, definitely.   0:00:54.2 BB: I've got a control chart, I've got a control chart for each of the 14 sessions for how many times I say, holy cow.   0:01:02.9 AS: Holy moly.   0:01:04.4 BB: In each episode. Yeah, and the process is stable. [laughter] So I say holy cow, I think the average is 2.2, and the upper control limit is... I'm just kidding.   0:01:25.4 AS: You're a sick man.   0:01:27.7 BB: But I think outside of this podcast, I don't know if I use that expression. And I don't know where it comes from, I just, it must be...   0:01:37.7 AS: Did you grow up around cows? You said you're near where you grew up.   0:01:44.4 BB: Yeah, I am staying at my wife's sister's place. And my wife's father, when I met her, had cows in his backyard. And we used to chase the cows. When they got out, we would chase them. And let me tell you, they move fast. [laughter] And I came down several times, severe cases of poison ivy, trying to herd this one cow that was always escaping. And I thought, oh, I'll tell my father, let me go out and I can scare this cow back. Now, no the cow got the best of me. I got covered with mud and went home with poison ivy. Those things, they move fast. So that's my only personal experience with cows. [laughter]   0:02:33.5 AS: Did the cows ever go to a nearby church?   0:02:38.9 BB: No.   0:02:39.2 AS: To become holy.   0:02:40.1 BB: That's a good point? I don't... Yeah, how do those words tie together? I don't know.   0:02:43.4 AS: I don't know.   0:02:45.4 BB: I have to go find out who I got that from. So what I thought we'd talk about today is this, Start Where You Are, Start Where You Are. And first share where I... One context for that expression was the first time I saw Russ Ackoff speak, well, first where I met Russ. I had seen him speak before at a Deming conference, but I didn't get a chance to talk with him. But I saw him a few years later, and he was doing a one-day program in Los Angeles as part of a management series that he would do around the country. And there are about, I don't know, 150 people in the room, 25-30 from across Boeing sites in Southern California that I had invited. And at the end of the day, with about an hour to go, Russ says, okay, I'm going to give you a break. I'm going to give you time to formulate some questions and we'll spend the last hour discussing wherever you want to go. Well, I took the time to go up to Russ and ask him a couple of questions. I had met him earlier in the day. He knew that most people in the audience were there from across Boeing and that I had arranged them.   0:04:06.3 BB: And so I had a chance to talk with him. So I went up and said, I said I've got two questions for you that are not relevant to the audience, but I'd like to ask you one-on-one. He said, sure, go ahead. Well, no, I said knowing that you've known Dr. Deming for, since the early '50s, I said, over that period of time, what do you think he would say he learned from you that would stand out? And vice versa, what did you learn from him over those years that you would say stands out? And he looks at me and he says, well, I don't, I don't know what he learned from me. Then he says, then he answers the question and he says, he says, I think Ed, and he liked to say Ed, 'cause he liked to brag that, yeah, everybody calls him Dr. Deming. I call him Ed. I've known him since 1950.   0:05:05.2 BB: But Russ, by the comparison, if I ever introduced him to you as Dr. Ackoff, he would say, Andrew, call me Russ. So he says, relative to what he learned, what Dr. Deming learned from him, first he says, "well, I don't know what he learned from me. But I think his understanding of systems is very implicit and I helped him develop a better explicit understanding." And I think that makes a lot of sense. I think Dr. Deming's understanding of systems is a lot of what he talks about in The New Economics is what he learned from Russ. It's a very, I think you know when Dr. Deming shared the Production as a Viewed as a System that flow diagram in 1950, he always talks about systems, what comes around, goes around. But Russ was a master at systems from an academic perspective, and that was not Dr. Deming's forte. Now, when it comes to variation, that was Dr. Deming's academic forte. And that's where I would find Russ's understanding of variation, I would find to be very implicit, whereas Deming's was explicit. But anyway, he said he thought it gave him a better understanding of systems, that it was very implicit, very intuitive, and it helped him develop a better, a more academic sense of it. So I said, okay, so what did he learn... What did you learn from him? And he says, "well, I never gave that much thought to the whole quality movement.”   0:06:38.7 BB: “But he... I got a better, a warmer feeling of it." Russ would talk about quality of work life, and there's parallels with what Russ has talks about quality of work life that resemble Dr. Deming's work very well. And I'll give you one short story which ties in well with the Deming philosophy. Russ says he was at an Alcoa plant once upon a time, and he happened to be there on a day in which two workers were honored on stage in front of a bunch of coworkers with an award. Now, we both know what Dr. Deming thinks about giving people awards. So, but the fun part of the story is, Russ says he went up to these two guys afterwards, after they came down off the stage and he says, hey. And he says, and Russ was so precise with language. I mean, he walks up to these two guys and he says, ready Andrew? He says to them, I caught them at their point of maximum puffery. I mean, have you ever heard anyone use the word puffery...   0:07:56.7 AS: No.   0:07:57.1 BB: In a sentence? So he says, I walk up to these two guys and I said, I caught them at their point of maximum puffy. Right? And then he punctures them with the following question. "For how long have you two known about that idea that you were awarded for?" And they looked down at their feet and he said, "Come on, for, for how long have you had that idea before you shared it with management?" And they said, "20 years." And then Russ says, why did you wait so long to share it? And Russ says, he says to him, "Those sons of bitches never asked."   0:08:51.8 BB: And so, and Russ would talk about that as a quality of work life issue. Now, I've heard him tell that story many times, and I once asked him, I said, so what was the idea they came up with? And he said they would take these four foot wide rolls of aluminum foil off a machine, and these are the types of rolls that get used to make aluminum cans. And the roll may be, you know, so it's four foot tall. It's a, it could be easily a foot in outer diameter. And he said when they, when they're taken off a machine, they stand them on the concrete floor. And then to move them, the workers would tilt them back a little bit and then roll them.   0:09:43.9 AS: Which damages...   0:09:47.0 BB: The edge.   0:09:47.7 AS: Yeah.   0:09:47.8 BB: Exactly. So their idea was to, instead of putting them on a the concrete floor, to put them on a piece of plywood. So, what Russ saw was, which very much resembles a... The prevailing system of management where you're gonna wait 20 years before somebody asks you a question, until there's a program, until there's an award, then I'll come forward. All right, so let's go back to the audience. So I went up and asked Russ those questions, and now he is fielding questions from the audience. And one question really struck me and he says, Dr. Deming, not Dr. Deming, the guy says, "Dr. Ackoff," he said, "what you're talking about all day makes a lot of sense. And most organizations have little understanding of it, where you're just talking about, you know, managing interactions, the system, whatnot." He says, "but don't we have to wait for senior management to get on board before we do something with it?   0:10:54.2 BB: Don't we have to wait?" Right. And I'm listening to this, and I don't know what Russ is gonna say, but I'm hearing where the guy's coming from. And Russ turns right at him and he says, "Andrew, John, Sally, you have to start where you are." And I told him later, I said, I could've run up and given him a big hug, because if you're gonna sit back and wait for your management to get on board, you know how long that's gonna take? And so I just love that perspective of starting where you are. Now, let's flip to Dr. Deming, and a great quote that I like to use with students and clients with his work is "The smaller the system, the easier to manage. The bigger the system, the more complicated, but the more opportunities." Right? Now we'll go back to Russ.   0:11:54.0 BB: Russ would say, if you're a school teacher, like our daughter's an eighth grade teacher, start in your classroom. Why? Because you're not gonna start at the elementary school level or the junior high's, that's bigger than you. You're not gonna smart start smaller than that because then that's minimizing what your impact could be, but start where you are and then expand. Now, what that also means is it may be that when you start where you are, as you expand the size of the system, you might need to go back and change what you did now that you're looking at a bigger system.   0:12:37.8 BB: And so that's a great likelihood that what is optimum for you in the classroom may not be optimum when you're starting to think about the elementary school. But even if you start at the elementary school, what is optimum may not be optimum if you have the school district. So there's, no matter where you start, there needs to be an appreciation that in hindsight, what you did before may not be what's best for the bigger system. And the same thing applies when you're talking about integration. You know, Dr. Taguchi's loss function and the ideal value of a given characteristic, well, what I tell people is the ideal value depends upon the size of the system. And so if I'm designing two things to come together and I'm looking at the clearance between them, well, there's a clearance that makes it easy for these two things to come together if you're Andrew doing assembly. But let's say downstream of you is somebody who's using that product, you know, where that clearance is important, so the clearance that makes it easy to go together may not be the clearance that improves the functionality.   0:14:00.2 BB: And that will always be the case that you, that what is optimum where you are, may not be optimum when you expand the size of the system. So you have a few choices. One is, don't do anything. You know, for fear of making it worse, do nothing. Or, run a small scale experiment, use the PDSA model, try some things. But, that is still not a guarantee. 'Cause that small scale experiment still could be with me in my classroom and I run that experiment for a month, two months, three months.   0:14:44.4 BB: So even if I use that model, I can't know everything. And that's the... I mean, those are the complications of viewing things as a system, is to know that the system is not closed, it's open. I met a professor years ago at a conference and he had a model in his presentation that was very much a closed system. You know, they're working within this model, looking at these factors and these factors and these factors. And he went up after us. And I said, yeah, there's factors outside of that system. And he says, "Well, yeah, but we're just looking at this in scope." I said, "You have to frame it to a given size, but you know there's always the possibility that what's outside [chuckle] that you're not including, could haunt you for some time to come." And I didn't get the impression... I mean, it was almost like in engineering we talk about a free body diagram where you take whatever is your list you're looking at and you draw a line around it and you say, "That's the system I'm analyzing."   0:15:58.1 BB: But there's always a system which is bigger than that. And then again, bigger. So no matter where you start, again, and I look at the options are, if you're fearful of not including everything, well, then you're gonna do nothing. And that's easily what Deming and Ackoff were not saying. What they're saying is start where you are. Run experiments. Now, what I expect to be the beauty of a Deming-based organization, a "we" organization, is flexibility.   0:16:29.9 BB: And the flexibility is when things don't go as planned and we learn something, that we have the ability to reflect, note what we've learned, share it with as many people that we think could... would benefit from that. Get back on the horse and try again. I've worked with groups who were quite willing to do that. I worked with groups that were quite... They wouldn't get back on the horse. We were running some experiments dealing with hole machining of some small drills, you know, like on the order of a 16th of an inch, very small. And the experiment was, let's say eight... Seven different factors at two values each, eight experiments. And I don't know, they might've been machining in each experiment, 10 holes, say. And I wanted them to measure diameter of the top and the bottom of each hole, something like that.   0:17:29.3 BB: And I get the data prior to meeting with them. They sent me the data and I had enough experience running fractional factorial experimentation using Doctor Taguchi's ideas that upon first blush looking at the data, I either get a warm feeling or I get a queasy feeling. So in this case, I get a queasy feeling and there's... I'm looking at the data and immediately I knew this is... But I didn't know why. I just knew that, I'm not... And I'm wondering how am I gonna say this to them in the meeting? 'cause they're all excited. For a couple of them it wasn't their first study; they had done this before with great success. So I'm in the meeting and I'm listening and then one of them says, you know, in the experiment we're looking at starting each experiment with a new drill. And the experiments we're looking at different speeds of the drill, different cutting fluids, different parameters associated with machining these holes. And one of them says, they didn't... In hindsight, they didn't use a brand new drill for each experiment. So now I'm thinking, okay, say some more.   0:18:50.0 BB: Well, the drills we used in the experiment had all been used before and were resharpened to be like new, I mean, not new, but like new. And I said, "So say more." And then he said, "Well, when they looked at them under the microscope, the very tip of the drill was not in the center of the drill." 'Cause if you look at a drill, there's a cutting edge on the very top, you can say that near the left side or the right side. And those two cutting edges weren't the same length. So when the drill is cutting, it's not... The hole is not gonna be round, it's gonna have an oblong... So now I'm thinking, kind of explains the data. So he says, one of them say, "Can we salvage the data?"   0:19:45.3 BB: I said, no. And they said, why not? I said, because the assumption we had was that that the drills were reasonably the same. I mean, of course, even eight brand new drills are not identical, but now what you're telling me is the biggest source of variation is in the drills that we thought were the same. And that is wiping out the variation that we introduced. That's the issue, is that the signal coming from the drills that we didn't ask for is bigger than what we asked for. "So you mean we have to run all the experiments again?"   0:20:26.9 BB: And now they're, and I said, well, let me ask you this. So here's the good news. The good news is we didn't spend more time than we did on this experiment. That's the good news. I said, the good news is, we now know that the sharpening process needs to be relooked at. And as it turned out, probably the biggest thing we learned in the experiment, was that it ain't worth resharpening the drills. At that size, throw them away. But what I was hoping is that they would get back on the horse and go back to what we originally planned to do with eight brand new drills. It never happened. But we learned something, but what we learned is not what we had planned to learn. And that gets me to what I would tell people, is if you don't look, you won't find. But then you have to be willing to take the existing system and what is...   0:21:39.3 BB: Do anything, but that just means it stays the way... So if you don't look, you won't find. And if you do look, there's no guarantee. So that was a situation where I was very bummed. And every time, I mean, what I, one of the things I learned early on was preparing management and the team for such situations.   0:22:02.6 BB: That everybody was expecting, you know, a grand slam every single time. I said, no, that's not the way it works. In the real world, you try, you fail, you try, you fail, you learn, hey, you learn what we did here is that the sharpening process doesn't make sense. Had another experiment where, and I don't know which is, which was the bigger disappointment, but in the other one, there were 18 experiments with a lot of hard work, oh my God, and incredible precision as to how each of 1080 holes would be machines. So there were 1080 holes in a ring that was about eight feet in diameter. So there are holes about three tenths of an inch in this ring. The holes were all numbered one through 1080. Every hole had a different recipe. Somehow, the machinist wasn't informed of that.   0:23:08.5 BB: And the manufacturing engineer went to a meeting and he came back only to find out that the instructions, so machinists didn't know. And I said, "So, so what'd you learn?" He said "I learned not to go away to a meeting." So these things happen. Another thing I say in terms of starting where you are, my boss at one time knew I was involved in half a dozen to a dozen different Taguchi studies. And he calls me in one day and he says, "So how many studies are you working on?" I said, half a dozen to a dozen. He said, "Which of them is gonna have the biggest improvement?"   0:23:55.8 BB: So like the biggest... So I said, "So you mean like the biggest percent gain?" He says, "Yeah, which one's gonna have the biggest percent gain?" I said, "I guarantee you that we'll be smarter about everyone after we're done, I guarantee you that." He says, "But which one's gonna have the biggest percent improvement?"   0:24:17.2 BB: I looked straight at him, I said, if I knew the answer to that question, would I be working here? I'd be doing what you do, Andrew, I mean, financial forecasting. But he's like, "Well, don't give me that." I said, "I don't know which is gonna have the biggest gain, but I know we're going to be smarter. And I know all the things we try that don't have an improvement, we're smarter about it." But I said, "if you don't look, you won't try." So you have to start where you are. Another thing I want to point out is, and I wrote an article about this for the LEAN Management Journal, and if any of our listeners want a copy of the article, they can reach out to me on LinkedIn, and the article is about the, gosh, pragmatism. And viewing things with pragmatism.   0:25:15.3 BB: And I uh, and the possibilities of pragmatism, anyway, there was a lot of alliteration at the time, there was a lot of P's, 'cause what started dawning on me is this need to be practical, pragmatic. And I've got a dictionary definition, "pragmatic, dealing with things of sensibility, and dealing with things that are sensible and realistic in a way which is practical rather than theoretical," right? And where that comes from, in terms of starting where you are, is...   0:26:04.2 BB: Everyone is right. And there's a philosopher years ago that came across this. He says, everyone is right. And so everyone works in an organization where they believe, firmly believe that what they're doing is right, is practical, is pragmatic. And so in a non-Deming organization, would you work on things, Andrew, that are good and going well, that arrive on time, would you spend any time on those things, Andrew?   0:26:33.0 AS: No.   0:26:33.8 BB: And why not, Andrew?   0:26:37.0 AS: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.   0:26:42.1 BB: And that's very practical and pragmatic of you, isn't it?   0:26:46.6 AS: Exactly. I've got limited time. I gotta put out fires.   0:26:51.2 BB: Yeah. And that started to dawn on me, is that in a non-Deming "me" environment, working on things that are good doesn't add value. And so I thought, I mean, how do you argue with that? Now, in a Deming organization, it'd be pragmatic to work on the things that are not broken to either prevent them from breaking or to improve integration. And to not do so would not be practical. So there's two different environments of practicality depending on how you see the world. Um, oh, and last time I named the company, this time I'm not gonna name the company. So I was in an environment with a very well-known consultant.   0:28:00.6 BB: I was invited to travel with this consultant several times over a few years. I could take notes, I was given access to a lot of information on how these ideas were being used in the organization, but I can't talk about where it was, what they were doing, but it was really cool. So in one of the first scenarios, a team came in, led by this guy, and he presented to the consultant over the course of two hours a situation that he was dealing with. And teams would come meet with a consultant for a couple hours. This is one of the very first meetings, so that the engineer came in and said, here's where we are. We've got this issue. And the issue involved a commercial product with a... Let's just say, something about the product, how the customer interacts with it was very laborious. Let's just say like banging it together.   [laughter]   0:29:08.7 BB: It was very laborious. And the resulting warranty claims were on the order of $10-20 million a year in warranty claims. And the solution was kind of like giving the customer a bigger hammer, and actually along those lines. So that scenario was presented and that 10-20 billion at that time was a fraction of the total warranty claims for the company, which was on the order of 2-3 billion. So this was not the biggest issue, but it was a lot of $10-20 million issues. So the engineer proposes a solution, which I would paraphrase as: Spending, hiring someone to manage the variation in the parts that went together to mind the gap. And his theory was that if we minded the gap, we could make these things go together as the customer used it and get rid of all those warranty claims. So I'm thinking, hiring the person to collect the data because it definitely involved hiring someone to give them responsibility. Let's just say putting in place the use of control charts on the respective parts, minding the gap that, you know common cause variation and whatnot. So at that time I'm thinking, salary and benefits, that's maybe a $100,000. Saving the corporation $10 to $20 million. How's that sound, Andrew?   0:30:42.6 AS: Sounds good.   0:30:44.3 BB: Spent a $100,000, save $10 million. So the consultant says to the engineer, so what did the plant manager say? And he said, the plant manager says no. He said, why did the plant manager say no? He said, the plant manager said, why should I spend my budget to save the corporation?   [laughter]   0:31:08.4 BB: Now, if I told you the consultant's response, then you would know the name of the company. So I'm not gonna tell you what the consultant's response was other than the paraphrase would be, I thought you were looking at things as a system. Isn't that the company's slogan? He says, well, not quite. But if you're the plant manager, you're being practical. You're saying, why should I spend my budget to save the corporation? Does that get me promoted? Does that give me visibility or does it make my boss angry? In terms of starting where you are, this is a story you're gonna love. I had an intern one summer, his father was a coworker, he came to a class I was offering twice. 'Cause we allowed employees to bring family members and our vision was to get these ideas out there, fill the empty seats in the classroom. So one is we're filling empty seats, two is, the thought was if we bring in volunteers from the community, and that was a... The training was open to what we called members of the community. Members of the community are people who are working full-time, part-time to serve society. The fact that they work for, you know, General Electric or Lockheed Martin, that was not the issue.   0:32:28.1 BB: So you get to come in because you're a soccer referee, you're a Girl Scout leader, you sing in your church choir, we're gonna fill the empty seats. So this was not taking the space of employees. This is, we have employee space, we have customers, space for customers, place for suppliers, but we still have extra spaces. Let's fill those seats. Boeing's vision was to help the communities in which we live. So I went to my boss with this proposal and he said, go right ahead. And so the operational definition was we invited members of the community. A member of the community is someone who works full-time, part-time to benefit the community.   0:33:05.5 BB: So this, and also we invited family members. And so this guy brings his son in and it was an evening class and which, you know, second shift, which means it ends around midnight. And the one who came in, the son was a, graduated from high school two years early, one of the brightest people I've ever met in my life. And he's an economist by training. So he starts asking economic questions. And he brings up, because hears me talking about how, you know, this movement within Rocketdyne that moved from being a "me" to a "we" organization, the progress we're making, the improvements we're, you know, that we could at least properly talk about. And he says says in economic theory there's this thing called the freeloader principle. Have you heard of it? And I said, no. I said, how does that work?   0:34:00.8 BB: And he says, well, economists will talk about, there'll be people that do the work, and then people who want to ride the train for free. So in your effort for Rocketdyne to move in the direction of being, you know, more of a "we" organization, how will you prevent people from freeloading? And I said, it's easy. I said, everyone will see them and they will know we see them. [laughter] So what you have at Deming organization is, if I leave the bowling ball in a doorway without asking you, you have the visibility to see that. So anyway, he threw that question out. He contacts me a month or so later and he says, Hey, Bill, he says, I'm, I'm gonna be home from college for the summer. I'm looking for a summer job. If you don't, I dunno if you have budget, if you don't have budget, I'll work for free. So I said, I don't have budget. So I made a deal with him. I said, you can come and attend all this training that we're offering over the entire summer. In exchange, here's some things I'd like you to do. So I arranged for him to get a badge. He came in every day.   0:35:10.0 BB: Everywhere I did training across Southern California, he would come with me, be a fly on a wall. And he got to see some really cool stuff. Well, towards the end of the summer, around middle of August, he comes to me and he says he's gonna quit. He's done. Next week is my last week. He says, did I tell you about my other job? I said, no, what other job? He says, oh, I told, I guess I didn't tell you. He said I wanted to see during my last summer in college, 'cause once I graduate, I'm gonna go get a real job. So this is my last summer in college and I figured if the ideas I'm learning from you are worth anything, I wanna go see now. So I says, so what'd you do? He says, I've had a summer job applying these ideas, starting where he is.   0:36:02.6 BB: And I said, okay. And he says, I got a job at a Western Wear store, in Thousand Oaks, that had a sign, walked into the mall, saw a sign at the door looking for a salesperson. So I hired in as a salesperson. I said, so how'd that go? He said, well, the way it works is the salespeople rotate as to who gets the next customer. So there's like three salespeople at any point of time. While I'm working on this one, you sit behind the counter with the others,   just sitting there, you know, twiddling your thumb. So, I said, so, so what'd you do? He said, well, what I started to do was, instead of just sitting behind the counter, if I saw the person waiting on the customer needed a calculator, I'd have it ready for them. If I thought they needed a stapler, I'd have it ready for them.   0:37:00.0 BB: I said, holy cow. I said, what'd that lead to? He said, well, next thing you know, there's, we're doing that for one another. Well, he ended up, after about a month of working there, he was named manager of the store, as a walk-in. I said, how'd that work?   [laughter]   0:37:01.5 BB: How did you after a month become salesperson, you know, moved from being a salesperson to being a manager? He said, well, they keep track of who sells how much each week. You know, it's not a commission system, but they keep track. And because I had the most sales, I got promoted. I said, well, how did you get the most sales? He said, I started asking questions that I learned from you and Tim and the others in the training. I started asking questions about, so somebody comes in, they're looking for a suit, I'm asking them, what's the engagement? And the better I understand where they're coming from, the better I know, you know, you don't need to buy this, you can rent this. And so I started asking questions. The better I understand the questions, the better I'm serving them. So one is, I'm helping my coworkers.   0:38:08.3 BB: Two is, I have been named manager because I'm helping the clients understand...we're better understanding their needs. So he starts off as a salesperson, wins over his colleague and start mimicking his behavior, gets promoted to manager. Now, what he starts to do, in the manager role, is he, there's a, there's... He in the manager's role gets like 10% of all the sales above a certain value. So he starts sharing that profit with all employees on a prorated basis. And there's, the overall sales for the store have improved dramatically.   0:38:56.6 BB: Now he's gonna go off and work on this other big project which was his senior thesis, which also involved taking Deming's ideas and Ackoff's ideas and putting them into a company that he wanted to start. But before he did that, he hired another student, turns out a Stanford graduate, and brought him to class such that this guy could take over for him and keep this thing going. And I said, so are you gonna bring the owner of the store? And he says, no. He says, they have no interest. I say, so what's gonna happen after you leave and after Sam leaves? He says, this is gonna go back to zero. But he walked away having just tried to do what he could with what he learned that summer and made a difference from where he was.   0:39:45.7 AS: Well, that's a great point to end on. And the idea being that when you look around at your company, at your school, at your job, at your life, and you wanna start implementing these ideas, it can get overwhelming as you look at the bigger and bigger systems or other things. So the objective really is just start small and start where you are. Anything you would add in a wrap-up?   0:40:11.6 BB: Yeah. Another thing I'd like to add to that, have you heard the expression, management works on the system, people work in the system?   0:40:24.8 AS: Yeah.   0:40:27.6 BB: Okay. That's attributed to Myron Tribus. And people have said to me, Bill, management works on the system, people work in the system. Well, I've heard people use that expression as a means of saying, if you aren't in management, then you can't... Then just wait. Just wait. Because if you're a willing worker, Andrew, you're just a machinist in the factory, well, Andrew, you're not, that's not management. I mean, you're working in the system. The people in management work on the system. And so a disagreement I've had with some people is that if I was to believe that expression, then I would wait for management to take action. And that may take forever. And so...   [laughter]   0:41:23.7 BB: In fact, I had a guy who was working with Deming, or a guy who was somehow affiliated with some Deming consultants, and he came to a class at Rocketdyne years ago and he says, so Bill, how often do you meet with the president of Rocketdyne? I said, not very often. He said, does he support what you're doing? I said, of course he does. If he wasn't, you wouldn't be here and I wouldn't be here. But how often do you meet with him? I said, not very often. He says, you know what Myron Tribus says, I say, oh, no. What did Myron say? He says, Myron says, management works on the system, people work in the system. He says, you need to be meeting with him all the time. I said, he's in Washington DC trying to get us next generation contracts, and I think that is far more important a point of work for him than anything else. And he says, oh, no. He says, I think you're wrong. And I said, I look at him, I said, so actually, I said, I think there might be a bigger system.   0:42:27.0 BB: You know, it's something more important to do. "More important than working with the president of your company, Bill?" I said, "What if I am meeting with people at NASA headquarters? What if I am meeting with the Army's first [woman] four star general," which I had. I said, what if that? I said, "So you just want me to start, you think the system is constrained to me just getting the president smart?" And so there I would say is, one is, if you follow the belief, and Myron was brilliant, and I don't... But I think if you take that verbatim, management works on the system, people work in the system, now you're back to Russ Ackoff and that student asking the question, where do I... Yeah, don't I have to work for management to get on board? And I said, no. What I try to do in my classes and with clients is help people on any level get smart about these ideas, try to give them everyday examples that they can share with their peers relative to givng an everyday example of Dr. Taguchi 's loss function.   0:43:40.1 BB: Giving an everyday understanding of the difference between managing actions and management systems, so that individuals can become more articulate in explaining to others. And simultaneously, what Ackoff would say, the best way to learn something is teach it to others. And so, my hope is that people listening to our podcast, don't think you have to wait for senior management to get on board, start to make a difference from where you are, practice your understanding of these ideas, explaining them to people outside of work where you might be given more time to explain it than somebody at work.   0:44:18.3 BB: Use that experience to try to do something with it. Maybe the experiments you run are at home, in some manner. And hopefully that then inspires you to go a little bit further. And another thing I'll point out is in a future podcast, I'll talk about what I learned from a good friend on how to create change within an organization starting at the bottom of the organization, which gets into some more detail, but it's still based on the premise of starting from where you are with a theory and understanding that what people call practical, there's Deming practical and there's non-Deming practical. So if they're saying they're being practical, they are truly being practical, don't be dissuaded by that.   [laughter]   0:45:04.4 AS: Boom. Well, Bill, on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this discussion. For listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. And if you wanna keep in touch with Bill, just find him on LinkedIn. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming, "People are entitled to joy in work."

What's the difference between education and training? Why is the distinction important? How does the Deming lens offer a new perspective on teacher effectiveness? In this episode, John Dues and host Andrew Stotz talk about why it's important to go beyond skills training and encourage education for personal growth.  TRANSCRIPT 0:00:00.0 Andrew Stotz: Here we go. My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W Edwards Deming. Today I'm continuing my discussion with John Dues, who is part of the new generation of educators striving to apply Dr. Deming's principles to unleash student joy in learning. This is episode 19 and we're continuing our discussion about the shift from management myths to principles for the transformation of school systems. John, take it away.   0:00:31.2 John Dues: Andrew, good to be back. Yeah, principle 13 today, Institute a Vigorous Program of Education. I'll just start by reading the Principle, "Institute a vigorous program of education and encourage self-improvement for everyone. The school system needs not just good people, but people that are improving with education. Advances in teaching and learning processes will have their roots in knowledge." It's interesting, when I was reading about sort of this particular principle, Dr. Deming took this actually pretty far when he was asked where would you draw the line? And he basically said, I would allow any educational pursuits that people are interested in. So that was his sort of take on this particular principle. But I think it's maybe the first thing is to differentiate between training and education. When he was talking about those things, we talked about instituting training on the job back when we talked about principle six, and he basically said the training is for a skill and a skill is something that's finite because it ends when performance has reached a stable state for a person when thinking about that particular skill.   0:01:51.3 JD: The differentiator with Principle 13 is that it's focused on education and it's meant for growth. And in the Deming philosophy, this is sort of a never ending process of education. So skills, so training is focused on skills, whereas education is focused on knowledge and theory. And this is really an important distinction in my mind, and you need both, training and education are complimentary components I think of an effective school system or really an effective organization in general. So I think, I mean, obviously training is important. It's something that's necessary, especially when you come into a new job. We have lots of new teachers that come to us 'cause we're a relatively young organization. And it's pretty typical for these new teachers to come even if they majored in education many times, they don't have sort of the basic classroom management skills, the basic lesson planning skills, the basic lesson delivery skills that they need to be successful in the classroom.   0:03:00.9 JD: So we have a training program, and in the absence of that training program the teachers would probably flounder or it would take a lot longer time to get their legs under them. So training is important, but we have to sort of shorten that runway. So we have to be good at training 'cause we're like a relatively young organization and we have students that come to us on average that are below grade level. And so they can't wait a long time for these sort of teachers to get up to speed. And I think we've talked about the fact that we have this sort of three week training program before the school year starts for new teachers for that reason. And so training is obviously important, very important. But I think what I've sort of come to appreciate is this idea of... And Deming stressed this, that leaders, systems leaders understand this idea of a stable system.   0:04:00.7 JD: One of the things that he said was that "The performance of anyone that can learn a skill will come to a stable state upon which further lessons will not bring improvement of performance." And this for me, reading Deming at this point in my career was really an interesting revelation because for many years I had heard sort of policymakers, education reform types sort of lament the fact that teachers improvement largely levels off in about year five of their career. Now, there has been some more recent longitudinal teacher research in terms of effectiveness over time. And basically people have found that that's not quite true. And that teaching experience is positively correlated with student achievement gains sort of across the teacher's career. But it's definitely true that the gains and effectiveness are steepest in those initial years.   0:04:55.2 JD: And so when you put those two ideas together that there's sort of this leveling off in about year five with Deming's sort of concept of stable systems, it really sort of dawned on me that it was this perfect explanation for this phenomenon. When a teacher is in their first five years there's a lot of foundational skills like the things I was talking about, like lesson planning, lesson delivery, classroom management, those basic things. There's sort of this period of rapid improvement or growth, and then it sort of levels off after you get the basics of how to be a teacher. And then after that happens, you have this... The potential for improvement sort of lies within the organization, within the system itself and not in the individual. So this really lined up with this thing I had heard for a long time, even though I think sort of it was misinterpreted.   0:05:52.0 JD: And I think a lot of those people that were talking about teacher skills leveling off after five years, they didn't have this lens of a stable system. They didn't have that part of it. And so they were saying, well, teachers aren't improving. Well, it really wasn't the teachers not improving. It was the fact that most of the capacity, like we've talked about here for improvement lies within the system itself and not the individuals. And I would also make the argument that this is not just educators, that this is other sectors as well, healthcare or whatever that thing is.   0:06:27.0 AS: Yeah. I mean, a good way of imagining that is a person who knows nothing that has the prerequisites, the education or whatever's necessary to get the job. And they know nothing about teaching and about the school system or anything that you can just imagine that so much of the initial phase is just understanding how the system, how they operate within that system to do certain tasks, which can be a process of trying to understand all of that. But then it's like they become, it's like entering the stream and then they become the stream floating down the river where everybody's kind of doing the same thing. And then you realize, okay, by this time now their, their, the amount that they can improve has been hit for some specific tasks and things like that. And then all of a sudden their output is a function of the system.   0:07:23.0 JD: Yeah. Yeah. And I think where this can really go off the rails is when people don't understand the stable state of systems. I think that, and I think a lot of the educators from reformers were sort of talking about it as if teachers were kind of replaceable because they didn't improve after those initial five years, especially 10 years ago that was sort of the common way people talked about this. And you could then sort of the next step is to draw the conclusion that experienced educators aren't that important since that improvement sort of levels off pretty early in their career. But I think that is the completely wrong conclusion to draw. I think experienced teachers are incredibly important because of the stability they provide a school. They can provide mentorship to inexperienced teachers, they have longstanding relationships with families as multiple students come through the system.   0:08:25.0 JD: That stability is really important for all those reasons, which are hopefully fairly obvious to anybody that's worked in a school. But I think even maybe more importantly is this idea that once teachers have that baseline level of knowledge and skills, they can run a classroom, they can deliver a well-planned lesson. The reason that it then becomes important for improvement to have those folks is because once those basic things are in place, now we can actually start to work on the system where the real potential for improvement lies. And I think that was a point that was missed or glossed over in a lot of those conversations about education reform and this idea of the teacher skills leveling off after year five.   0:09:23.8 AS: Mm-hmm. One of the the things about education that I have a story that's... I guess one of the conclusions is that the next level of improvement of the system oftentimes comes from outside the system. And that's where education takes the mind into another space.   0:09:40.9 JD: Yeah.   0:09:49.2 AS: From that other space, they're getting knowledge and theories of what's going on out there. And I had an example, John, that was... When I was the head of research at Citibank, and I had been head of research before taking care of a team of analysts, and analysts are always late in their reports, they're writing long reports about whether to buy or sell a company. They're trying to gather as much information, talk to the company, things get delayed. They set their deadlines and then they... The job of a head of research is juggling those delays so that the sales team and the clients need an idea day. And it's always the case that you're juggling around and okay, we don't have something this day, let's make something up with what we've got. Okay, this guy couldn't produce on that day, but he's gonna come in on Monday. So I felt pretty good about my skills at managing that process. And then I got a job at the number one foreign, the number one broker, let's say, or investment bank at that time in Asia called CLSA. And when I talked to them, I asked them how do you handle the flow and how bad is it here [chuckle] with the analysts being late? And they said, the analysts are never late.   0:11:13.3 AS: And I was like, that's impossible. My whole career it's been about handling the analysts being late. And they said, no, analysts are never late here. And I was like, how are you doing that? And they're like, well, we have a three week plan ahead. Everybody knows it. You know your day. There is no excuse, there's no shifting, there's nothing, it has to be delivered on that day. So it's up to you to kind of bring your project to a head so that you're ready to present on that day. And if you have some kind of major setback or problem, talk to another person and switch the day with them and sort it out. And every single day we had great stuff coming out. And I would've never, I mean, I was operating at a certain level thinking I was really knocking it out of the park, 'cause I was accommodating. I was careful, I was thoughtful. I understood the pressures that people were feeling. I was doing my best, but I didn't have a knowledge that it could be a very different way of doing it. And that's where I think about going outside of your own system to observe and learn and see. And then all of a sudden you're like, oh, [laughter] Okay. And that's where I feel like what you're talking about, about the education aspect is really the most amazing part.   0:12:33.2 JD: Mm-hmm. Yeah. That actually... I hadn't planned to talk about this, but I've been reading recently about the... Called the... Well, there's a book called Toyota Kata and Kata is from martial arts. It's the various movements that you have to do sort of repeated deliberate practice so you can sort of, they become ingrained in your muscle memory. Well, the same idea is in place in Toyota. They call... Well, they don't, but the author called it... They don't call... They don't have a name for it, but he sort of observed it and gave it the Improvement Kata name Mike Rother. Yeah, there it is. Yep. There it is. That one. And one of the things that was interesting, and it kind of reminded me of this as you were talking, is that part of the improvement kata is there's a sort of a target that's aligned with the organization's vision that guides anything that the folks in the organization are working towards.   0:13:27.0 JD: And so there's always a target condition. There's an understanding of sort of where each individual is and the departments are. And they're always setting a new target on the way to that sort of vision target and running these experiments all the time. And they constantly set those targets so that they are ambitious but within reach. And then they're coached on the way repeatedly. And in that way they're sort of always moving forward the organization. And so I think of when you've changed investment banks and you're at this new bank and they're saying, Hey, this thing is possible, it's possible to do this. Here's the way we do that. Here's how we work towards that. And so you can imagine a place like Toyota being so successful, because if everybody has got this mindset, this scientific thinking where they're constantly moving towards a target and there's a method for doing so, [chuckle] that is an incredible education right there if you're an employee working in an environment like that. So that just made me think of the Toyota Kata.   0:14:41.4 AS: Yeah. And it's a great example of how reading books is part of education because you're getting exposed to new ideas and exploring and thinking about things. And that's where, well, think about the repetition in let's say a martial arts as an example. And when Dr. Deming talks about opening up education to everything for everybody, there's something to learn in almost everything out there. Like if it is about... What is it about those repetitions and why is that important and could that benefit our business? And he talked about painting and other things, you know? Like education very widely can bring you new ideas that can come back to improve your system.   0:15:27.3 JD: Yeah. And I think you have to invest in that sort of broader education, 'cause it's sort of an investment in the future, you know? Especially right now, things are changing fast. And you could have the best training program in the world, but if you are not also sort of looking out for what's next beyond that, to adapt to whatever's changing in your environment... A good example is this, we have a much better understanding of cognitive science than we did 20 years ago. And so if we didn't adapt... If we didn't sort of learn that and then adapt that and sort of include that learning in our training system that we're gonna start falling behind pretty quickly. And I think this can get... This may be part of the most important responsibility of a leader on the learning front.   0:16:28.5 JD: Because what I also see is that education leaders are often getting enticed by many, many fads that sort of come along. And so how to sort of actually latch onto something that represents a potential advantage, that's a real important skillset to have. And I don't think... That's a key... I think a key function of systems leaders is sort of to know what to let go of or what not to latch onto at all and what to sort of sink resources into because if you're gonna go do these educational pursuits, you're obviously gonna have to sink time and money resources into these things. And so being able to differentiate between what is good and what is bad is a real key skill.   0:17:22.6 AS: And one of the things about Toyota is it's like the ultimate Asian family business. And although it's now a big public company, the largest automaker in the world, and the family's ownings in the company is relatively low, it still has the influence of the family. And I was thinking about another huge company that I know of in Thailand here that shifted its focus away from, let's say, Deming in this case, to when a new CEO came in, he said, well, there's a different way and this is my way. And one of the things that's interesting about what Toyota's done, you know, Toyota gets a lot of blame for being slow to progress and stubborn and all of that, but man, they have built a machine and a... You just can't change the direction of that quickly, you really nurture what has been developed and how do you not just throw away. I was presenting to my students last night in my finance class here at Sasin School of Management in Thailand and I was showing them the DuPont Analysis in the world of finances where you break down the return on equity of a company. And I explained why they call it the DuPont Analysis, and that's because the DuPont company bought shares in General Motors in 20- or 1912 or something like that and they instituted this method of financial controls on General Motors. And I said to my students in passing, General Motors has been going bankrupt since 1912.   [laughter]   0:19:00.9 AS: And it's like every... It's not a cumulative level of learning. And that's where I feel like Toyota, what Toyota has achieved is a cumulative learning process.   0:19:16.9 JD: Mm-hmm. Yeah. You know, and it's a part of their DNA. I think certainly there have been challenges as they've grown across Europe and the United States and the world really. And a lot of the challenges that I understand is because people... That improvement Kata is sort of combined with a coaching Kata, like an approach to coaching and managers at different levels coach folks that are sort of a level down from them. And everybody in the organization, especially early, had sort of this mentor-mentee relationship. And so part of the challenge with growth was the fact that there are only so many of these folks that are grounded in this scientific thinking in the coaching part of this. And so that was a challenge as they grew, you know, in California and Kentucky and other places across the world.   0:20:17.9 JD: They had to build this coaching capacity across all of these new production facilities and other types of facilities across the world. So... But I think that what I really like about this principle...I, you know, if push came to shove, I started this by talking about Deming would basically allow almost anything when it came to allowable educational pursuits. And I think I would be much closer to that than I would be to limit those things. I think that is a really... That's a good sort of approach to take as a leader. I think here where I am at United Schools Network, one of the things that I was able to do was go take an improvement advisor course which required significant resources and time and money at the Institute for Healthcare Improvement.   0:21:19.6 JD: And so someone could look at that very easily and say, well, why are you an educator going to a healthcare organization? And I think it's one of those things where people maybe don't realize that the Deming philosophy and some of the continual improvement stuff, it's sector agnostic. And so when you can learn the philosophy, the methods, the techniques, you can bring them back to your own organization. So I think had I not gone down this path to study Deming, I wouldn't have made it to IHI and then bring this stuff back to my organization. I think it's benefited our organization in lots of ways, even though that might not have been immediately apparent to folks, you know, initially.   0:22:09.8 AS: So how would we wrap this up for the listeners to make sure that they truly understand the idea of vigorous education, self-improvement, this type of stuff?   0:22:14.0 JD: Yeah. I mean, for me the main point is that systems leaders should really encourage education among the whole workforce with a pretty wide latitude for allowable pursuits. I think especially for educators, when we seek those types of opportunities, we're also modeling this idea of continual learning to students as well. They see that just because I have a degree or a master's degree or even folks here that have a PhD, we have I think an organization that's pretty hungry for learning. And that's a model for students. Oh, this doesn't end when you graduate high school. This doesn't end when you graduate college. It doesn't even end when you graduate from graduate school. People all across the organization have books piled up on their desks and we're sending people to various learning programs and stuff like that.   0:23:09.4 JD: And I think that's a good model for students. And I think within that another big thing is to think about do you have an understanding of the stable state of systems and understanding that training programs are only gonna take you so far? Individuals are gonna come to a sort of a stable state once they've sort of maxed out on any particular skill. And that's why this idea of education is so important. Skills are important, training is important, but this other side of the coin, you have to pay attention to education. What's on the horizon? How are you gonna push the boundaries within your system? And I actually think to your point about outsiders or having an outside perspective, that's sort of, I think the benefit of education, because I think without that sort of push from an outsider, the push from the education, breakthrough improvements aren't possible in our school systems. They're not gonna come from training programs. They're gonna come from this continuous learning, this idea of continually pushing the targets, having sort of an improvement mindset. Having a coaching mindset that's always pushing towards those things. And I think this requires not just skills, but it requires new knowledge and new theory continually. And I think that has to come from this vigorous program of education.   0:24:39.7 AS: And the beauty of capitalism is that if you don't go out and get the education, your competitors will, and you don't want your source of learning to be facing constant defeat from your competitors.   [laughter]   0:24:56.2 JD: Yeah, you can't sit around and wait, that's for sure. That's for sure.   0:25:00.0 AS: Exactly. Or someone's gonna take it. And that's the beauty of the capitalist system, the adversarial aspect between companies definitely gets people riled up when they see that all of a sudden someone's doing much better with some new technique or idea. Well, I think that was a great discussion to help us understand the difference between training and education and why it's so important. John, on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this discussion. For listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. You can find John's book "Win-Win: W. Edwards Deming, the System of Profound Knowledge and the Science of Improving Schools" on amazon.com. This is your host, Andrew Stotz. And I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming. "People are entitled to joy in work."  

How do grading systems, teacher ratings, school rankings, and other programs like those create barriers to learning? Should we eliminate them entirely, or do they have their place? John Dues and host Andrew Stotz talk about how to preserve joy in learning. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.4 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz. I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with John Dues, who is part of the new generation of educators striving to apply Dr. Deming's principles to unleash student joy in learning. This is episode 18, and we're continuing our discussion about the shift from management myths to principles for the transformation of school systems. John, take it away.   0:00:31.3 John Dues: Good to be back, Andrew. In this episode, we're doing the 12th principle. So we're on 12 of 14, remove barriers to joy in work and learning. So that's a certainly a concept that we've talked about, but I'll start by just reading the principle. "Principle 12, remove barriers that rob educators and students of their right to joy in work and learning. This means working to abolish the system of grading student performance, the annual rating of staff and accountability rating systems for schools and school systems. The responsibility of all educational leaders must change from sheer numbers to quality." There's two really great quotes I like from Deming. One on joy in learning where he says, "Our schools must preserve and nurture the yearning for learning that everyone is born with. Joy in learning comes not so much from what is learned, but from learning."   0:01:24.4 JD: And then for joy in work, he says, "Joy in the job comes not so much from the result, the product, but from contribution to optimization of the system in which everybody wins." So he is saying basically the same thing in those two quotes, but he is talking about the contributions to the process is where the joy comes from, not necessarily the outcome. And so much of the time, we're focused on the outcome, be it the work product in a work setting or the test scores perhaps in a, in a school setting. But he's really talking about what is that process that you're contributing to? And, and you know, how do you feel because of that, those contributions you're making? I think whether you're talking about joy in work or joy in learning, sort of unifying theme in principle 12 as it's, this concern with the pride of workmanship, whether that's the workmanship of making a product or in the learning that you're doing or something you're doing as a result of that learning, like a report or a poem that you've written or whatever.   0:02:31.6 JD: And so I think as a result, it's barriers that get in the way of joy in work and learning. And you know, maybe one of the most important obstacles to improvement of the quality of our education systems in the United States. And you know, just like, sort of, it says in the outline of the principle, there's really sort of three levels that these barriers exist at. You got the students and the grading of students. And then you have oftentimes some type of rating system, evaluation system for teachers, for principals, perhaps sometimes those rating systems use test scores or other similar metrics. And then that third level is, you have the actual schools or school districts themselves that are being rated within these state accountability systems. So you sort of have, you know, these three levels. And then there's this common problem at all three levels, regardless of which one. And that's basically this thing that we've talked about repeatedly, where you under-appreciate the contribution of the system to the performance of the people, whether you're talking about students, teachers or, or you know, school systems. So I thought that's where we could focus today.   0:03:49.8 AS: Yeah, you know it strikes right at the heart of everything that we believe, as particularly as Americans, but certainly spreading that around the world, that it's all about measuring, ranking, tracking. You know, when a parent puts a kid in school, what do they want to know? What was their grades? When a student's in trouble, it's 'cause of grades. And what a student wants to know, like everybody wants to know and rely on grades. So it's just so, it's so difficult. You know, I was talking with someone else talking about why Dr. Deming's philosophy hasn't been adopted as as widely as you'd hope. And I think it's part of, it's just because it's just sacred, the sacred heart of everything that we believe. And if you can measure it, you can track it, you can feed that back and give it to people and show them where they are and you deserve where you are based upon your efforts, and you've gotta move yourself from there. That is so ingrained. And I'm just curious, like what's the hope from your side that this can be seen. I think it can be seen if you stop and look, but it's so hard to implement.   0:05:18.7 JD: Yeah. Well, I mean, I think one thing that can be confusing is obviously Deming was a statistician. So he is, has no problem with using data to improve the quality of our schools or even an individual lesson that a teacher delivers, gathering some data on how students are doing and tracking that over time. There's no problem with that. There's no problem with that I don't think at the school level either. I think the problem comes in when you create a reward and sanction system around that data. And I think that's, Deming actually think he indicated that, that system of reward or sanction on the other side is one of the main constraints from being able to develop this win-win culture. Whatever level of the system that you're talking about, that student level, the educator level, or the school and system level. They're, all those grading systems are really reward and sanction systems. And I think when you take the data and use it in that way, that's when I think Deming is talking about the real problems, the manipulation, you know, the competition for top spots that leads to all kinds of strange behaviors, those types of things. That's really where he's focusing most of his attention.   0:06:49.1 AS: And if you had no constraints from governments or other outsiders and you were setting up a new school right now with zero constraints, the only thing was absolutely optimizing the learning of young people. How would you handle this - grading? How would you handle all of this? Would you do it in a different way? Would you just do it and de-emphasize it and say, oh, well, it's not so critical? It's just information feedback, or would you teach them how to use that data like Deming may, or like how he uses data? Or would you say, no, that's just that there's no redeeming benefit, if we're not required to do it, then we wouldn't do it?   0:07:43.4 JD: Yeah, I mean, I think it'd be some combination of the things that you mentioned. I mean, on just from a practical sense, Demings certainly understood that we live within the world that we live within. And so if that hypothetical school that you're talking about is a public school and I was in Ohio, I would obviously give the state test and take whatever data I could use and use that in a positive way that I can. So I'm gonna do the thing that I'm caught on to do as a educator in a public school system. So I wouldn't opt out or anything like that. I think in terms of how I set up internal systems, I think, ..GAP. Yeah, I thought a lot about this but I haven't maybe put to paper exactly how I would do it.   0:08:36.2 JD: I think...I certainly would use assessments. I certainly would track how students are doing on standards. I would involve students in doing so they could track that over time. In terms of grading, I don't know exactly what I would do. I would definitely de-emphasize that to the extent that I possibly could so that the emphasis is on the learning and not on the grades. That would be a key sort of guiding principle. There's certain things that I think are outlandish that schools do, where they do pep rallies or pep rallies or something like that to, as the buildup to state testing comes, I find those things ridiculous. So I would stay away from doing anything like that. Kind of how we've treated state tests in the past, even prior to discovering Deming was matter of fact.   0:09:47.2 JD: Like, this is something we're preparing for, we're gonna do our best. We're gonna try our hardest, we're gonna learn from the experience, we're gonna work hard on it, and then we're gonna move on. You know, that's the type of mentality we had. In terms of like the mindset of the school I led, there was a poster in the hallway that said, you get it wrong and then you get it right. So that was the mindset is, we learn from our mistakes. We talked about creating a culture of air in our classrooms so that students felt, you know, safe, I guess is the word I would use to, or willing to call out when they didn't understand something, or they did make a mistake, and then we work together to rectify that. So that's a little bit a long-winded answer. I don't have it all worked out. I have some ideas, but I think overall using data is fine. I think it's, when you get into the rating and the ranking, that's where the problems and the rewards and the sanctions, I think that's where the problems generally come from.   0:10:50.8 AS: Yeah. I mean, I'm kind of unconstrained in my Valuation Masterclass Bootcamp, because I'm not under any, there's no supervision of what I'm doing by anybody. It's just me trying to make a better experience for the students. And the idea of grading never really came into my process. It's interesting, John, that one guy who was a student of mine, he graduated and then I hired him to work with me to take care of the other students. One of the first things he did was come up with a matrix and a grading system, [laughter] just because that's what he knew. And now he uses that system and he has little points that he gives. That system doesn't have any connection to whether you're gonna pass the class or not, or there's no ranking or anything related to it. It's just that, okay, you only got six points out of 10, which means you haven't really done the assignment. He's clearly defined what are the things that you need to have done? And then he goes through and says, did you do them? So it's definitely a, I think it's a good feedback mechanism.   0:12:08.4 JD: Yeah.   0:12:10.2 AS: But, you know, whether it's valuable. I think what I'm trying to do is create the experience that young people are learning how to value a company through the process of learning and discovery and, and discussion and, and, and going online and going through my material, asking me questions, and then demonstrating, showing different things. And then they're slowly putting those pieces together. And I can also see that it takes time. You know, it can't all happen in one week. We have six weeks and where they're at at the end of the six weeks is so much further along than where they were at the beginning. But I guess my point would be if I was completely unconstrained, which I am, it's just that it wouldn't be pro or con grades and ranking, it wouldn't even really exist because it's not a core part of learning. Core part of learning is providing the environment, the excitement, keeping people on track, helping them see, okay, here's what you gotta do now, see if you can do it. You know?   0:13:18.8 JD: Yeah. And I think what I was gonna do today is bring this alive. You know, we've talked about grading of students and even the performance appraisals in some of the past episodes. So what I thought we would do here is, sort of, focus on why grading schools could also be you know, a barrier to joy in work, how this might play out. So I think generally most people are now familiar with, because in the public school system, we've had various types of rating systems. You know, each state has their own. And I think it's, what's important here is to look at examine if the ratings help the public differentiate between schools that are doing a good job of educating kids and those that are not, because that's the point.   0:14:09.7 JD: Right? At least one of the points. And on its face, it sounds simple, you know, up until this year, Ohio has like an A through F grading system for schools, and there are sub components and you get an overall grade A to F. Right? And so it sounds simple. Schools with more A's are better schools, except for it's not that simple when you go beyond like a surface level analysis. So I thought it'd be helpful to just zoom in on two schools located here in Columbus. One's called Jones Middle School. It's in the Upper Arlington School District, which is close by. And then Columbus Collegiate Academy, I'll call it CCA, it's also a one of our middle schools. Both the schools serve grades six through eight. They're less than 10 miles apart here in Columbus.   0:15:03.6 JD: So they're geographically proximate. And this analysis comes from an article I wrote in 2020. So it's from a few years ago. So the results are a few years old, but you know, I think they're fairly representative of how the schools have performed over the last decade or school or so. So let's start with just the grades that the schools received. So the schools get an overall grade. Jones Middle School has an A, CCA has a B, so you know, fairly close there, but Jones outpaces. And then there's the achievement grade. And that's basically looking at all the kids' test scores, how they do overall. Jones gets a B, CCA gets a D, right? So Jones has quite a bit better performance. And then there's a progress category. So how much progress did the kids make during that particular school year?   0:15:57.9 JD: How much growth did they make? Now this is interesting now, CCA gets an A and Jones got a B. So just to recap, the overall grade for Jones was A, achievement B, progress B, for CCA overall, B achievement D, progress A. So basically a higher percentage of students at Jones begin year on grade level 'cause they have that higher achievement grade, but they don't grow as much as the students at CCA once they're there. This difference between achievement and progress grades becomes even more interesting as you start to factor in not only the school characteristics, but also the neighborhood characteristics. So let's talk about inside the school just to start with. So in terms of student population, Jones and CCA are pretty similar in terms of students with disabilities. So those kids with special education needs tend to, as a general rule score lower on standardized tests.   0:17:02.9 JD: So those populations are roughly equal, but 100% of the kids at CCA are economically disadvantaged as defined by the state. At Jones, just 2.4% of the kids are economically disadvantaged. When you look at other report card measures such as attendance, chronic absenteeism, Jones has much better rates. So 97 plus percent attendance rate, just 2% of their kids are chronically absent. At CCA 93% attendance rate, 21% of the kids are chronically absent. But when you start to look at these, some of these metrics framed in terms of the poverty rates in the community surrounding CCA, these numbers start to take on a different meeting. And I think what they're, especially things like chronic absenteeism, that's all the rage right now, attendance, I think what you start to need to understand is these are indicators of inequity, housing instability, neighborhood violence, lack of access to healthcare.   0:18:15.5 JD: I think they're more an indicator of those types of things than they are of school performance. So as you start to think about things in those ways, what you realize is that the students at CCA are just as capable as the students at Jones, but they face sometimes overwhelming obstacles related to poverty. It's also interesting to take a look outside the schoolhouse. So the median family income in the census tract where Jones is located is $184,000. So the median family income in that neighborhood, so it's a pretty affluent area. In the neighborhood surrounding CCA in that census tract, the median family income is just over $20,000. So we're talking about an order, orders of magnitude higher family income in upper Arlington than in the neighborhood that CCA sits in. And then there's all types of factors. Some grounded in historical reasons that relate to this, but they're also compounded by funding disparities. So the per pupil revenue at CCA for this year is $10,600. In Upper Arlington, it's nearly $17,000...   0:19:35.0 JD: This Jones Middle School has almost no students living in poverty, yet gets $6,000 more in additional revenue per student than the students that attend CCA. So think of the implications of that.   0:19:52.3 AS: When you say they get more revenue, you mean the state or the government's providing them more money per student?   0:20:00.1 JD: Yes, all in. From all sources. So when you look at what the federal government provides, the state government, and then local funding sources. When you look at all those sources combined, this more affluent middle school gets $6,000 more students, dollars per student.   0:20:14.5 AS: Obviously, it's not based upon need. Is that based upon the grade or some other?   0:20:19.0 JD: Well, it's because the funding is heavily influenced by local property taxes. And because of the affluence of...   0:20:26.7 AS: They have the resources.   0:20:28.2 JD: They have the resources. And in Ohio, charter schools don't have access to local money. So that explains most of the gap. Most of the gap. But back to my point, when you think about CCA, having kids with more challenges, less money per student, less resources to pay for a facility, to pay teachers a competitive salary, extracurricular activities, all those types of things that we want to equalize are highly inequitable between those two schools. So then you start to ask yourself, well, what are the report card grades measuring exactly? Are those grades on those state report cards a fair representation of what's happening inside the school? Or can a significant portion of those grades be attributed to this larger context in which the school sits? And I think that's where you sort of put on this systems thinking lens and realize that, sure, what teachers and the principal is doing inside the schools, they are certainly making contributions to those state report cards. But you cannot ignore what is going on outside those schools and those neighborhoods when you're thinking about these grades.   0:21:54.1 JD: And so if you're sort of thinking about... Like a formula that would sort of lead to the school's results and you just... Let's just call it A+B+C+D+E=71, where 71 is the score that the school gets. Let's just call it that. And let's call the school's contribution letter F. A, B, C, D, A+B+D+C... Or A+B+C+D+E+F=71. The school's contribution is F. Well, that equation cannot be solved unless you know the values of A through E or at least some of those values. But what we try to do with this state report card system is that we assign this value to F, the contribution of the school, with no knowledge of the effects of these other variables.   0:22:57.3 AS: So it's, in other words, the contribution of the school is 100%. You mean you're responsible for your results? Is that what it means?   0:23:04.4 JD: Well, right. So if you're going to give me... If you're going to give CCA Main Street a D in achievement, that means the only thing that contributed to that grade was the school. But there's all those things that we talked about. Some, sort of, when you look at the variables A, B, C, D, and E, those other variables, you could look at things like, what are the state standards? Or what's the test design? What's the school funding? Household income? Home environment?   0:23:34.1 AS: Education level, maybe, of families.   0:23:37.2 JD: Education level of parents. Teaching methods. All of these things are variables that are outside of the school's control, or most of the ones that I just mentioned. But we don't, we don't see that when we look at these report cards. Right? You know, and just like I said at the beginning, despite all of that, I'm in favor of administering these state tests that are standards aligned, reported annually to the public. I actually think understanding how students are performing in a standardized way is actually... Could be useful information, I think. But when you extend those systems to the grading, the rating, and the ranking, I think that's a misuse of the information. Because too much of the rating and ranking comes from the system, as opposed to being directly assignable to the school or to the individual educators within that system. I mean, I think, if you analyzed report cards in this way, I think my opinion is that a reasonable person would conclude that the comparison between Jones Middle School and CCA is not a fair one.   0:24:56.4 JD: Because those students that arrive in those schools are not on equal ground upon enrollment. And I think our time would be better spent figuring out how to make things more equitable between those two groups of students than constantly recalibrating these rating systems that at best communicate confounding information, conflicting information.   0:25:27.5 AS: KPI experts around the world listening and viewing this are saying, "oh, come on, John. What? All you got to do now is you just got to break it down. And now we're going to do the KPI by adjusting for these factors. And now we're going to compare schools based upon that." Of course, what we've learned and I've learned over my life is that every time you think you're going to break it down and make it more comparable, it gets harder and harder to do that. And it just becomes less reliable and less useful in a lot of cases. Not completely. I mean, making some simple adjustments just for, let's say, yeah, I suspect that just one factor could probably represent A, B, C, D and E probably pretty well. Maybe that's the income of the area or the amount of funding that they got. One or two of those factors probably is enough to say, okay, we gotta compare schools that have these factors similar as a first step. But every time that I've ever gone down to go deeper into measuring, it just gets...it, it, the answer isn't there.   0:26:40.6 JD: Yeah, and I'm going to tie this back to joy in work. So if you think about that current school rating system, what we fall prey to is that fundamental attribution error that we've talked about before, where we have this tendency to underestimate the impact of situational factors on other people's behavior and overestimate the impact of individual factors, you know, when it works in our favor. But what happens is if I'm a teacher at CCA, there's a likelihood that I'm going to get blamed for the results. Let's say the achievement results. If I'm at Jones Middle School, there's a likelihood for praise. Because the school is doing pretty well. But in both cases, in both cases we're vastly underestimating the impact of the situational factors or the system on those results. So over time, I think this can have an impact on joy in work of educators working in these challenging schools.   0:27:49.3 JD: Even, even in the case where in many of these schools, like the one I just talked about with CCA, that there's solid evidence that staff and these schools are often getting better outcomes if you go beyond the surface level analysis. Because if you remember, they did quite a bit better on the progress, meaning they grew the kids more in a single year, even though they may have not hit the proficiency standard at the rate that Jones did, they grew the kids more. So you could make a solid argument that CCA is actually better, even though they got lower grades on the report card, right? I've often said, what would happen if you just switched the two staffs?   0:28:33.6 AS: Yeah. Problem solved.   0:28:36.3 JD: What would happen to the report card? You know. That's interesting. Obviously, it's never going to happen, but it's an interesting hypothetical experiment. My guess is a lot of teachers will find out that would go from Jones Middle School to CCA in a much more challenging environment would find out pretty quickly, that a lot of their methods don't work as well, right? So I think that these are the types of things that we're talking about. Imagine if you're at CCA year after year after year after year, get these lower grades. Right? And even if there's some evidence, like the progress score, who's digging in to find this? That score is often harder to find than the overall grade. That score is often not in the headline and what makes it into the newspapers. You know? And so you start to ask or you start to doubt yourself. You start to think about, am I really good at my job? Those types of things come in. And if you don't have someone there doing this deeper analysis, putting this in context, that's not easy to do.   0:29:52.1 AS: Yeah, when the pressure's on.   0:29:54.4 JD: When the pressure's on. And even if you're good at doing that type of analysis, sometimes people won't believe you because, well, that's not what I'm hearing. That's not what I'm... That's not what my family's saying. Those types of things. And then, and then, if you have those good teachers that at a certain point say, I'm just going to go somewhere where it's easier. Then those kids at CCA wind up in a worse place. And that's, I'm using CCA as an example, but I think this plays out at you know challenging schools all across the country all the time.   0:30:36.2 AS: Yeah, when you were talking about the morale of the CCA teachers, I was just thinking some brilliant bureaucrat would probably come up with the idea of why don't we post this grade right on the front of this school?   [laughter]   0:30:51.4 JD: Well, yeah, they're easy to find. That's for sure. These are all public, public reports. Sure. And in fact, actually, back during, I think, during the Obama administration, during Race to the Top, when it became really in vogue to rate teachers based on their progress scores, the individual teachers. The school report cards are easy to find, like a report card on any public school in Ohio or any public district. But in some cities, what started happening is they were, newspapers were getting a hold of the list of the progress rankings for individual teachers and posting those. I remember some of those were in the newspaper. And I think we've talked about this here as well, that what researchers have shown over time with these progress scores, these value added scores, is that some of the score is attributed to the teacher from before. Teachers that take on more challenging groups of students tend to have scores that are... Progress scores that are lower, all types of things And you want good teachers in those rooms. And what you're doing is disincentivizing that to happen when you have these types of rating and, rating and rating systems. So it's a tough thing.   0:32:15.2 AS: It's such an interesting topic. And I think, it got me thinking that we should start a new series on the Deming Institute podcast, which is, bad use of data. Like examples of, you know, here we have a misuse of data or just the simple thing of not making adjustments for situational factors and the misattribution. You could argue if you just improve that, maybe there's a little bit more meaning to this. But then, of course, there's also all the unintended consequences. And I just would imagine, I'm thinking about a book I have called the... By Terry Mueller, I think, or Jerry Mueller, which is the Tyranny of Metrics.   0:33:05.9 JD: Yeah, we got a lot of copies of that in our, right in this room where I'm sitting.   [laughter]   0:33:10.8 AS: Yeah. And I think that that would be kind of fun to bring out from the audience examples of what you're seeing.   0:33:17.4 JD: Yeah. Well, and one thing I didn't even mention that is also a key contributor here is, so let's say these two middle schools get this state report card. And another contextual factor is that most of the kids that go to Jones Middle School went to, I don't know the name of it, Upper Arlington Elementary School. And a very stable neighborhood. And of course, there's a few families here and there that will move in and out. But for the vast majority, I guarantee a vast majority of the kids that took these tests in sixth, seventh and eighth grade at Jones have been in Upper Arlington since kindergarten or preschool.   0:34:00.4 AS: Yeah.   0:34:01.2 JD: CCA Main Street, because of the nature of charter schools in Ohio, is a standalone 6-8 middle school. So that means 0% of the kids went to our elementary school during these years. And now whatever happened K-5 in a school, those kids school career, that certainly plays a big role in how they're going to show up when they enroll at CCA. So the only rule in terms of counting for CCA's test scores is that the kid had to be enrolled by October, let's say the first week of October. And they take the test in March. So six months later, let's say.   0:34:49.2 AS: Yeah.   0:34:49.6 JD: So let's say probably 50% of the kids at CCA, were brand new to that building, to that district, that school year, whereas the vast majority of Jones middle school students had been in that district for seven or more years. Because kindergarten is a year, and then when you're a sixth grader. So the time that they've been there, that's not taken into account either. And that may be the most important.   0:35:19.0 AS: Yeah. That's fascinating. So how would you summarize the one thing you want the listener, the viewer to take away from this.   0:35:30.5 JD: Yeah, I mean, I think it can be easy to start to think that data is bad. That is not the problem. You need data to help inform your decision making.   The problem comes when you then take the data and attach the ratings and the rankings to it, that's when the problem comes in. So you need to detach those two things.   We need to keep it public, keep it transparent, keep it known by all stakeholders, be it parents, the public, policymakers, students themselves. But it's the rating and ranking, that's the problem. That's the key takeaway.   0:36:11.9 AS: Great. Well, on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this discussion. And for listeners, remember to go to Deming.org to continue your journey. You can find John's book, Win Win. W. Edwards Deming, the System of Profound Knowledge and the science of improving schools on Amazon.com. This is your host, Andrew Stotz. And I'm going to leave you with my favorite quote from Dr. Deming, which is totally pertinent to what we just discussed. And that is: people are entitled to joy in work.

Many businesses equate "manager" with "leader," excluding potential leaders from across the organization. In this episode, Bill Bellows and host Andrew Stotz talk about leadership in Deming organizations - with a great story about senior "leaders" making a huge error in judgment at a conference of auditors. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.0 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with Bill Bellows, who has spent 30 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. The topic for today, episode number 14, is Beyond Management by Extremes. Bill, take it away.   0:00:29.7 Bill: Number 14 already, Andrew.   0:00:32.0 AS: Incredible.   0:00:32.6 Bill: It's a good thing we skipped number 13. That's an unlucky number. [laughter]   0:00:37.0 AS: Not in Thailand. It's a lucky number.   [laughter]   0:00:40.6 Bill: No, we didn't skip number 13. This is 14.   0:00:42.1 AS: Yes, we didn't.   0:00:43.5 Bill: Alright, so I just enjoy going back and listening to all of our podcasts, once, twice, three times. And then I talk with friends who are listening to them. And so I'd like to start off with some opening comments and then we'll get into tonight's feature, today's feature.   0:01:00.9 AS: So let's just, to refresh people's memory, episode 13, which we just previously did, was Integration Excellence, part two.   0:01:09.2 Bill: Yes. And that's what we called it. [laughter] So... [laughter] So last week I...   When we thought about getting together, but I had the wrong time, and it worked out well in my schedule. Last week, Andrew, I did three presentations. A two-hour lecture for Cal State Northridge, which is part of a master's degree program, where I do a class in quality management. That was Tuesday night. Wednesday morning I did a one-hour presentation with one hour of conversation afterwards with the Chartered Quality Institute, which is kind of like the American Society for Quality in the UK, and this... So this was several hundred people from the UK and also the Caribbean chapter from Trinidad Tobago, Jamaica. And so there's a bunch there. And then on Thursday morning I did a three hour session for a group in Rotterdam, which was really early for me and late afternoon for them.   0:02:25.4 Bill: And in all three, I covered similar material for all three groups, which included the trip report that we've done on the ME Versus WE, how did you do on the exam? How did we do? And so it was really neat to present that to the three. And in each case, when I threw out the question, "how did you do on the exam?" And then explained as I did one of our earlier podcasts that if you've got a long list of inputs, which includes - the woman I was talking to and, 'cause I said to her, the question is how did you draw on the exam? What are the inputs? And she said, the inputs are, my energy, my enthusiasm, my commitment that she got stuck. And I said, have other students helped you? And she said, yes, other students have helped you. I said, that's another input.   0:03:17.3 Bill: I said, given that input, how many can you see? And she said, oh my gosh. She said, my professor, my parents, my brother. And then all of a sudden there was this long list of inputs that she couldn't see. And so I explained that to the people and then say, "if you've got that long list of inputs and the original question is, how did you do on the exam? Does that long list of inputs change the question or are you okay with that question?" And what I look for is, and what we've talked about is, does the whole idea, how did we do on the exam jump out at you? No, it doesn't jump out. So, in each case, I said, here's the situation, might you reframe the question? And in all three situations, most of them that I asked said, there's essentially nothing wrong with the question. And if they did restate the question, they kept the "you," "do you think you could have done better?" Do you think... And that's what's so cool is that they just hold onto the you. Well, and for one of the groups it came a... It was kind of like what I was saying was semantics.   0:04:32.6 Bill: And I said this is not semantics. I said, there's a big difference between somebody, you know referring to our kids as my son and my daughter and our son and our daughter. And this, "my," is singular ownership, "our" is joint ownership. And so what I was trying to explain is that, saying “How did you do versus how did we do?” is the difference between being an observer of your learning if you were the student, Andrew and a participant. Those are not... Those are enormous differences. It's not, just, it's not just a simple change in pronouns. And so when I... And when I got to next, I was at a meeting years ago, I was at the annual, you ready Andrew? I was at Boeing's Annual Auditor's Conference.   0:05:40.5 AS: Sounds exciting.   0:05:41.4 Bill: 1999. So I got invited to be a speaker, Andrew at Boeing's Annual All Auditors Conference. Right? So I'm thinking going into this, that these are a bunch of people that don't feel valued. Because it's not like I get a phone call and I say, hold on, hold on. Hey Andrew, I got good news. And you say, you're a coworker, what's the good news? Annual... Andrew, we're gonna be audited next week!   [laughter]   0:06:10.2 Bill: You're like, "Holy cow. Hold on, lemme go tell everybody." So I thought going into this meeting is, these are a bunch of people that don't feel valued. I'm an auditor at least that was, so that was my theory going into this, so it's a Monday afternoon gathering with a dinner and then all day the next, all day for a couple days. So the opening speaker, speaker on Monday night was the senior executive of a big Boeing division, it might have been Boeing defense let's say. And my theory was first of all, you got a bunch of people that don't feel valued and I came away from the three days thinking there's a whole lot going on in audit whether it's financial audit, data integrity audit, quality audit, these are necessary roles. And so I came out of it with great respect for that whole organization otherwise would think right, but I'm thinking this executive is going to come in, going to do the Friday, Monday night presentation and I'm thinking it's like they drew straws and they say well okay I'll go, I'll go up there and talk with them.   0:07:22.8 Bill: Within minutes of him speaking I'm thinking this guy's excited to be here. So I'm thinking he's going to kind of phone it in, now I'm watching this I'm thinking he is, he is really engaged with the audience. He's talking about, the future role of the audit organization being partners and all this and he's talking, I mean he's giving them an enormous bear hug and I'm thinking this is not what I thought and again and so... I'm still thinking he's either a really good actor or he really wants to be here. Then my theory was and I thought, holy cow, now I get it. How many people in the room Andrew would it take to leave the room with their nose out of joint and shut down the F18 program by noon tomorrow? How many people would it take?   0:08:21.3 AS: Not many, one.   0:08:22.9 Bill: Right, so then I'm thinking these, he needs these people to love him, because if he disrespects them, it's a bad day. So I went from thinking why would you want to be here if you were here, then I'm thinking, oh no. Now I'm thinking this is brilliant so then I look at the program and I'm thinking which other executives have figured out how valuable this is and I see the next day at lunch is Boeing Commercials I'm thinking they figured it out but the organization I was within was Boeing Space and they weren't on the program so I contacted a friend that was connected high up in Boeing Space, I said we've got to be in this program, right? So the program ending, it ended nice and I'm thinking wow, wow. So then just prior to lunch the next day is the number two guy for Boeing Commercial. Not the number one. The Monday night guy was the number one. The number one guy for Boeing Commercial at the time was Alan Mulally, it wasn't Alan Mulally, it was his number two person.   0:09:33.7 Bill: So he's up on stage, he's up on stage, he's up on stage. And he's talking to the audience and in parallel Jim Albaugh who at the time was CEO of Boeing Commercial, no Boeing Space and none of Jim's people were there, Jim wasn't there. Jim a couple weeks prior he had asked me to get with his speech writer at a presentation he was doing and he wanted some words in there about investment thinking and all the things we've been talking about in this. He said get with him and put some of that stuff in there put there some of that stuff in there. I said okay. So as I'm listening to the number two guy speak there's a lot of "we" and "you" but who's the we? And who's the you? So I'm making notes to myself to tell Jim don't say "you." Say "we" and make the "we" inclusive, 'cause the guy on stage is, the you and the we and the you and the we, and I said no no stay away from "you" focus on we but make sure they understand that "we" is all of us, right?   0:10:35.1 Bill: So this is what's going through my head and I'm writing it all down, writing it all down and then this guy says and I'll paraphrase. I wish I had the exact words and the paraphrase is pretty close to what he said as judged by what the audience heard, right? So when I heard the comment and I'm thinking to myself, you said what? Then I look around the room and I thought he did. Here's what he said again the paraphrase is: he made reference to those within Boeing that do the real work, and he said it in a way that was present company excluded right? Right, so I hear him say 'cause I'm getting, I'm making literally I'm making notes to myself and then I hear that comment and I'm like, did you just say what I thought you said? And I look around the room with 300 people and I'm thinking, Oh my gosh, you did and I'm seeing I am seeing people irate, you see the body language, right?   0:11:44.3 Bill: And I thought wow, how could you say that? So then the lunch speaker was Harry Stonecipher, the chief operating officer. And he was up, walking around the stage. I don't think he knew anything about what happened prior so he's up there talking, okay. After Harry we're getting back to the program and the guy running the entire event is now up on stage and he's very deliberately he's got a, he's got a piece of paper rolled up, he's walking around on stage, "yeah Scott misspoke no doubt about it. He misspoke, I hear you." I hear you, you are ready Andrew? You are ready, you are ready?   0:12:36.8 AS: Give it to me.   0:12:37.4 Bill: And then he says then he says "But let's be honest we don't make the airplanes." And I thought, really? And as soon as he said that, I had this vision of 250,000 employees, which was about the employment at the time. And so as soon as he said that, I just imagined being at the Everett facility, which is huge, where all the twin-aisle plants are made. And I had this vision of 250,000 people in the building. And the CEO Phil Condit says on the microphone, "Okay, I'd like all of you who make the airplanes to move to the west end of the building."   0:13:26.4 AS: And everybody else.   0:13:27.4 Bill: And it's what you get, is all the flight line mechanics move all the way over there. And then you show up and somebody looks at you and they don't see any grease on your hand, and they say, "ahhh you don't make the airplanes." And you say, "you see that tool in your hand? Who do you think ordered it?" And so this "we" and the "you" stuff, how did "you" do? How did "we" do? It was just, it was...   0:14:00.3 AS: He wasn't deliberately setting up the auditors to be pissed and then to be really, really tough on the rest of the organization. I'm teasing with that.   0:14:12.7 Bill: It was, it is just, I shared that with you and our audience as how uniting language can be and how divisive language can be. And so how did we do, how did you do, and what, with just, this is what I find fascinating is - these words bring people together. What I love, I love watching politicians or State Department people speak and 'cause what dawned on me is they are very deliberate on, I mean they to great lengths to not be divisive.   0:14:57.1 Bill: That's their job. And so they introduce people in alphabetical order, countries in alphabetical order. But they, and I thought, what a neat way of not inferring that the first one I list is the most important one and I just thought there's a just an art of diplomacy. And that's what, to me, that's what diplomacy is, is that the art of uniting, not dividing.   0:15:25.7 Bill: Alright. So now I wanna get into, in the three different groups last week we were doing the trip report and we got down to the hallway conversations and the ME Organization versus a WE Organization. And then a question I asked him was, who are the managers in a ME Organization and what do they do? And you got, those are the ones that set the KPIs. Mark the KPIs, beat you up, sit in their office. Okay. Who are the managers in the ME Organization? What do they do? Who are the managers in a WE Organization? And what do they do?   0:16:01.8 Bill: They are mentors. They're out there on the shop floor, they're working with people. People work for managers in a ME Organization. They work with managers in a WE Organization. So I get that and I think "Okay, pretty good. Pretty good. Pretty good." And then I follow with "Who are the leaders in a ME Organization and what do they do?"   0:16:26.4 Bill: And what's really cool is you get the same answers as the managers. And that's when I started noticing in a ME Organization, we'll refer to the senior leadership team, the senior management team, and we're talking about the same group of people. And I said, what we've just said is that manager and leader are the same. And then I say to people, so what is that message in a ME Organization? The message is, if you're not a manager, Andrew, then you're not a leader. Which means what? Which means you have permission to wait for direction.   0:17:12.5 Bill: Boeing had a leadership center in St. Louis. It was called the Boeing BLC, the Boeing Leadership Center. Yeah, Boeing Leadership Center. And in order to go there, you had to be a manager. You either had to be a first level manager, you would take frontline leadership, a middle manager, which I was, which is leading from the middle or an executive. But the model... So then I think part of the confusion is in a ME Organization, on the one hand we say, our managers are our leaders. If you're not a manager, wait for the direction, wait to be told.   0:17:49.7 Bill: But then we said, we want our managers to be leaders. But that's the ME Organization. In a WE Organization, in a Deming organization, I think of leadership is the ability to bring forth a new order of things, a new order of designing hardware, a new order of designing software, a new order of marketing, we're talking earlier and the ability to create a new order of things and the ability to create a path for others to follow.   0:18:20.6 Bill: And so then in a WE Organization, it's like show and tell. When we were in elementary school, you go in and say, I have discovered this. And I thought, in a WE Organization, everyone has the ability to be a leader on something within their realm. And why would you, why would you make leadership incl...exclusive, which is the ME Organization. And when I tell companies that I consult for I said, when you make leadership exclusive in a ME Organization, to me, that's a kiss of death 'cause you're telling a few people, you're in charge and you're telling everyone else, you're inferring that everyone else, you wait for direction, again.   0:19:09.0 Bill: And I'm not proposing, everyone's all over the place doing it. No. There's got, this is not chaos. And if I have an idea on something and it's not my assigned responsibility, then I know to reach out to you because you're the marketing guy and I just throw the marketing idea to you and then you do with it what you want. But I look at leadership in a WE Organization as being inclusive. And then we get into this idea of, driving...driving change.   0:19:38.0 AS: Let me just ask you about that. Would this really be down to the core principle of Appreciation of a System? That somebody who appreciates a system knows that there's all kinds of components to that system?   0:19:55.5 Bill: Yes, yes.   0:19:55.6 AS: And that you can't say, oh, well this system really is only the people that are working on the production line, when in fact we know that there's all kinds of people working in that system. If I think about my coffee business as an example, we have a hundred employees and not all of them are working on production. And some are moving paperwork and making phone calls and others are out in the field. So an appreciation of a system brings you to the "we" rather than....   0:20:23.0 Bill: Yes.   0:20:23.5 AS: And a person who gets up and says about me, or, tries to identify that there's a certain number of people that are really driving the performance of this company are, they just have no appreciation for a system.   0:20:39.1 Bill: They have a narrow, a narrow view, a narrow view. So what you just said triggered another thought. But, um, the thing I wanted to add to this, in a ME Organization, it's about driving change. And we've talked about this in prior podcast. I go to, you put a gun to your head and I say, I want this KPI by Friday, Andrew. And you're like, yes, sir. And then I said to people in the past is, if driving change is the mantra of a ME Organization, like you're driving cattle driving, driving, and which is not an endearing concept. It is, it is, this is the where we're going. And I say to people, so what would you call it if driving is the ME construct, what is, what's the language of a WE Organization? And people will be wondering "ah," I say "lead, lead, lead." And if we like where you're going, we will follow. That's you creating the path that we will follow.   0:20:40.0 Bill: So I just wanna throw that out. But the other thing you mentioned about the metrics and the design of the organization and the thinking that, these are the critical people. At lunch with an old friend today, and I was sharing with her I taught a course at Northwestern's Business School, Kellogg Business School in the late '90s. And Kellogg then, and today is the number one or number two business school in the country. And I had a friend who was a student there in..., they liked what I was saying. So they hired me to teach a five week course for four years. And I presented, these ideas to them and it was pretty cool. I was, what was exciting is one of them told me that, what I was sharing with them about Deming, you are ready Andrew? contradicted what they were learning in their other classes.   0:22:46.2 AS: Huh. Funny that.   0:22:48.7 Bill: Yep. And so I did that for four years. There were three classes in quality. One was the use of control of charts, mine was called Quality Management, or TQM or something like that. And so there were roughly 80 students in the program, and they had to take two of the three, five week courses. So I got two out three students in the program. Then after four years, they waived the requirement. And so nobody signed up. And so I, um, after, right after 9/11 was when this happened, they invited me back because the person I was working with really liked what the course was about. But they wanted to, make it optional for people to attend. And he said, why don't you come out and talk with them and, that'll inspire them to sign up for the following year. I said, okay, fine. So I went out and he says there'll be 80 people there. I said, why are you so confident? He said, well, we've made it mandatory for everyone to show up. I thought, well that's, I said, that's one way to get people in the room. I said, do me a favor. I said, let them know I'm coming out and I'll have breakfast, I'll have lunch with whoever would like to meet with me beforehand.   0:22:50.7 Bill: So a dozen of them show up. And one of them says to me he says, you're gonna have a, he says something like, it's only fair to say we had a presenter like you last week. And to be honest, it's gonna be a really hard act for you to follow. So I'm thinking, "well, tell me more." "Well, we had a presenter last week who works for a company that makes pacemakers," I'm thinking, okay, "he had a video and showing people before and after their pacemaker one of the fellow students fainted. It was emotional." And I'm thinking, I'm talking about rocket engines. I don't even have a video. It's not gonna be emotional. I let the guy talk. And at one point he says "they keep track." He said "they keep track of who makes each pacemaker." I said "what do you mean?" He says, "they have a list of the people."   0:23:42.9 Bill: Every pacemaker is associated with a team of people who made the pacemaker. And part of what they saw on the video is people who have received a pacemaker now and then go to that company and they meet the people on their team, Andrew, who made their pacemaker. How do you like that concept? Right? Does that, when you graduate from this MBA program, Andrew, isn't that a neat idea that you can take away and use with you? Right? Right? Isn't that a takeaway? Right? So I'm hearing this [laughter] so I said, "let me see if I got this straight. So you're saying they keep track of who makes each pacemaker?" "Yeah, they do." And that's because, when people come well, people come to visit and they keep track. So let's say I said to the student, "let's say I'm the guy who orders the plastic that goes into the pacemaker. Would I be on the list?" you know what he says, Andrew?   0:26:01.9 Bill: No, you didn't make it.   0:26:04.0 Bill: He says, "no," let me try this. I'm the one who wrote the check, Andrew, that paid for the plastic. Would I be on the list? What he says Andrew? "No, you wouldn't be on the list."   0:26:20.2 Bill: So, I said, "well, why not?" And he says, "you have to draw the line someplace." So, I had with me, post 9/11, ready? I had with me a United We Stand two-foot by three-foot poster, which were all over Los Angeles and likely all over the rest of the world, at least the States. So, I held up the poster, and I said, "Have you seen this before?" He said, "Oh, yeah, United We Stand. I'm all about that." I said, "No, you're not." [laughter] I said, "You think you can draw the line and know who contributes and who doesn't, right?"   0:27:02.8 Bill: And you can suddenly see him kind of back up. I said, "Well, let's be honest." I said, "If teamwork doesn't matter, then draw the line any way you want. It doesn't really matter. But if teamwork does matter, be very careful where you draw that line." And to me, in a WE Organization, "we" is, who is the "we"? It's a big list of people. It's the employees, it's the suppliers, it's the customers. And so anyway, it's just that, so what's neat is, go ahead, Andrew.   0:27:41.6 AS: While you were speaking, I was able to go online and find the website of North, what was it? North?   0:27:49.5 Bill: Northwestern.   0:27:50.3 AS: Western, yes. And I was able to actually find the course that you're talking about that was the one that the students said that what you're teaching is contradicting.  The name of that course, I just found it, here it is, "How to apply KPIs to drive in fear and division in your company." No, no, I just made that up. [laughter] "How to apply KPIs to drive in fear and division in your company?"   0:28:16.7 Bill: All right. And so, and we're gonna get to that. So, so as, so I look at management, there's management as a position, but I look at management as an activity of how we allocate resources. And so, are the resources mine or are they ours? And are we proactive or reactive? And then we talked in the past about purposeful resource management, reflective resource, reflexive resource, resource management, which is being highly reactive. Another thing that came to mind. Well, actually, let me jump to the loss function. We looked at last time because I was going through and listening to it. And I thought, let me, let me clarify.   0:29:00.7 Bill: And so when Dr. Taguchi would draw his, his parabolic loss function, a parabola is a curve that goes higher and higher as you get farther and further away from the center. It's like a bell and it just gets steeper and steeper and steeper. And his loss function would be an upward facing bell. And, and then, and he would draw it sitting on the, on the horizontal axis. The idea of being, when you're at the ideal, the loss is zero. And that's, if you're getting exposure to this for the first time, that's okay. But in fact, let me even throw in here a quote from Dr. Deming. Do I have it right here?   0:30:00.4 Bill: Oh, gosh. Anyway, Dr. Deming made reference to, he said, the Taguchi loss function is a better description of the world. And he talks about how loss continuously gets higher and higher and higher. The point I wanted to make is, what I tell people is, once you get used to that concept that loss gets higher and higher, and what matters is how steep that curve is. And so if that curve is very flat, then no matter where you are within the requirements, nobody really notices. And in that situation, you could have a lot of variation 'cause it doesn't show up. It's not reflected in terms of how...   0:30:40.2 AS: And maybe just to help the listener to visualize this, imagine a V.   0:30:44.6 Bill: Yes.   0:30:45.1 AS: And imagine a U. And a V has a very tiny point that is at zero loss. And it very quickly rises to both sides where loss is getting higher and higher. Whereas a very, kinda, let's say, a deep U could have a tiny little loss that's happening for a distance away from the minimum loss point, and then eventually turn up.   0:31:14.4 Bill: Well, but even, even Andrew, and I like the idea of the V. We could also be talking about a V where the sides, instead of being steep, are very flat. So it's a very wide V, and it never goes high because there's situations where, where the impact on integration is very minimal no matter what. All right. So anyway, um, the point I wanted to make is, I would say to our listeners and viewers, loss, the consequences of being off target, are the difference between what happens downstream at integration. And what I love, I went back and listened to the podcast, the one, you talked about your partner in the coffee business.   0:32:12.2 Bill: The point of integration is when they drink the cup of coffee. And that's integration. I mean, the point when they're, when we're eating a food, that's integration. So the piece of coffee is out there, whatever it is. But when the customer's using it, drinking it, that's integration, Andrew. And a...   0:32:32.2 Bill: And so... What I look at is what the loss, loss is the difference between what you see happening at integration and what you think is possible. So if we're at the Ford factory banging things together with rubber mallets day after day after day and you're the new hire and I show you how to do this, as soon as you begin to believe this is how we do things, then loss is zero. Because that's what we think is the norm. But if you have the ability to rise above that and say, I don't think it needs to be that difference, when you look at it and say, I don't think it needs to be the difference between what you think is possible and what it could... Difference between what is and what you think could be that's loss. And what I also say to people is it takes a special eye that you have to see that. It's like your coffee business, somebody's tasting that coffee and you're thinking this is pretty good. Then they say, "well, try this", whoa.   0:33:40.1 Bill: So it takes a special eye to see loss. But then it takes a whole lot of other people to make that happen. So whether that's people in engineering, manufacturing. So a WE Organization is where someone has the ability to see that opportunity, but it's dependent upon all the others to make it happen. So now let's talk about Beyond Management by Extremes. And these are... Has a lot to do with KPIs and also say in one of our last, wasn't the last one, it was a couple before that you had made clear your firm belief that KPIs need to be thrown away in the morning trash. And I remember on the call listening to you and I'm hearing you, we ought to get rid of them, we ought to get rid of them, we ought to get rid of them.   0:34:38.5 Bill: And I'm thinking they aren't bad, it's how they're used. And so I wasn't sure I was in agreement with you on that call. But when I went back and listened to it and that's what what I, what I told the friend is, I said, if you listen to what Andrew says, I don't say anything at the end. And the reason I didn't say anything is I wasn't sure I agreed. But when I went back and listened to it most recently, I said, yes! yes! yes! 'Cause what you said is: if they can be used without an incentive system. And I thought, yes, yes, yes, yes. And so we are in agreement on KPIs, [laughter] they are... But what we have...   0:35:25.2 AS: Which, which my, which my point is, number one, that as long as you don't attach some kind of incentive or compensation system, then, you're not that, you've eliminated a lot of risk that they're causing damage. The second part is a lot of times what I'm looking at is individual KPIs. And what I'm trying to say is that even if you don't add in compensation, it's, it's, it's a fool's errand to try to set up, three KPIs for a thousand people, three thousand KPIs individually and think that now we've got that set. Our organization is going to really rock now.   0:36:06.0 Bill: Well, then what you get is the KPIs are always round numbers. We want to decrease by 5%, increase by... And you're thinking, so how much science getting to these numbers anyway? And you're thinking, but early on in your career, you look at this, you think, well, somebody's thought about this and you realize, no. And so what management by extremes is about is KPIs that are extreme. And so I my PhD advisor in graduate school, I was studying heat transfer and fluid mechanics and and before each of us graduated, went to work in corporations, he'd pull us aside and he'd say, he'd say, "Bill, he said you're gonna be in a situation one day where your boss is gonna come by and is gonna give you.... He's going to give you an assignment, that gives you, he's gone give, that gives you five minutes to figure it out."   0:37:05.7 Bill: And he says, "so, if he or she comes he comes to you, she comes to you and they give you five minutes to figure out, he said there's only three possible answers and I'll tell you what they are and you got to figure out which of them it is and so it'll take you a minute to figure out which one it is. And then the rest of the time you're going to explain it." I remember saying to him, I says, so, "Okay, so what are the three possible answers?" And he says "zero, one and infinity", 'cause it turns out in the world of heat transfer and fluid mechanics, those three numbers show up pretty often as ideal solutions for different cases. And so what he's saying is when your boss comes to you and says, boom, then you have to say, which case is that? 'Cause if that's this case, it's zero.   0:37:51.0 Bill: This case, it's one. This case is infinity. So I thought, okay. Well, in Dr. Taguchi's work, he talks about quality characteristics. So we're running experiments to improve something and a quality characteristic could be as large as possible, infinity being the ideal, the strength of the material. We want to make it stronger and stronger and stronger. But it's referred to as larger is best, meaning infinity is the ideal, smaller is best I'm trying to reduce leakage. I'm trying to make something smoother and smoother.   0:38:25.9 Bill: That's smaller is best. Zero is the goal. And the other one is to get your first who is nominal as best, where a finite number is the answer. And so what I had in mind with this management by extremes, inspired by my Ph.D. advisor, inspired by Deming, Dr. Taguchi, is that, if the KPI is driving to zero or driving to infinity, we want the inventory Andrew to go to zero. We want sales to go to infinity. I said, if you're thinking about things systemically, I don't think zero or infinity is what we're going to do. And so I throw that out as not all the time, but I think quite often if the KPI, if you're working on something where you're heading to zero, heading to infinity, to me, that's a clue that you're looking at something in isolation. And I would say to people.   0:39:25.2 Bill: Let's say you're, you call me in Andrew and you say, "Bill, we need your help getting the cost down of this project." And I say, "well, what'd you have in mind?" You say, "Bill, we'd we'd love to get 10% out of this cost. Boy, 10%." I said, "Andrew, I can double that." "No way. No way" And I say, "Andrew, on a good day, I could do more than that." And then what I say is that the more you get excited by how much we could lower that cost, eventually I'm going to say, "Andrew, gotcha." And you say, "what do you mean?" "Gotcha. Andrew, you're looking at cost in isolation." What's the clue? You'd love it to go to zero. Or... And that's what we end up doing is we want to drive variation to zero. That's the Six Sigma people. Well, first of all, cloning does not produce identical.   0:40:30.6 Bill: Photocopies don't create identical. Dr. Deming would say that of course there's variation. There'll always be variation. And then there are people, and and I cringe. But Dr. Deming was once asked. He was interviewed by somebody I believe with the BBC back in the '80s. And the interview ends with "So Dr. Deming, if we can condense your philosophy down to two, down to two words, what would it be? Or down to a few words, what would it be?" And he said, "reduce variation" or something like that. And I said, "no, it should be manage variation. We should have what the situation needs." And so I'm going to absolute agreement with you. On how can we have KPIs without goals which make make things even more isolated. And then we talk about by what method are we going to achieve those goals? But I think if we're talking about driving variation to zero, then you're looking at things in isolation. If you are driving waste to zero.   0:41:20.8 Bill: then you're looking at things in isolation. If you're talking about, the non value added efforts driving to zero. I'd say value shows up elsewhere. I had somebody within Boeing once say to me "Bill, you know, being on target, you know being on that ideal value, I've had people tell me that once you achieve the minimum size of a hole, going further doesn't add value." And I'd say "If all you're doing is looking at the hole, I can understand that. But if you're focusing on what goes in the hole, that's different." And the other thing I throw out is I was doing some training years ago. There was a guy in the room that I, I mentioned the term "value engineering" 'cause I remember when I got excited by Taguchi's work and Deming's work, somebody said, "The last big training, big thing was value engineering." "What do you mean?" And they pulled out their "That was the wave of the sixties was value engineering." So I asked this guy in class. I said, so, he mentioned he worked at GE back in the '60s and value engineering was really big. So I said, well, "So tell me about that. What was behind that?" He says, “We were taught to look at a contract and all the deliverables. And our job in the value engineering department was to figure out how to, how to meet each deliverable minimally because anything more than that doesn't add value." And I thought, you can't make that up!   0:42:53.0 Bill: Let's look at all the requirements and how do we go to? What's the absolute minimum we have to deliver on the term paper, on the project.   0:43:06.5 AS: How could we kill this through a thousand cuts?   0:43:10.8 Bill: So that's KPIs. Driving to zero driving to infinity. But, but we're in agreement that if you, in a Deming organization where we're not driven by incentives then KPIs are measures of how we are doing. And why isn't that enough to be able to say, how are things? How are things? We can talk about how might we improve this? But then we're going to look at: Is that a local improvement that makes it worse elsewhere? Are we driving costs to zero and screwing this up? So that's what, that's what I wanted to throw out on this management by extremes zero and infinity, and getting beyond that.   0:43:47.6 AS: Well, I think that's a great point to end it went through so many different things, but I think one of the biggest takeaways that I get from this is the idea of appreciation of a system. When you have a true appreciation of a system and understand that there's many parts and, you know, adding value in that system basically comes from more than just being on a production line, for sure and creating value in an organization comes from not only working on improving a particular area but the integration of the many different functions. And if you don't understand that, then you end up in not a Deming organization, not a WE Organization, but more of a ME Organization. That's kind of what I would take away. Is there anything you would add to that?   0:44:51.9 Bill: Well, what, what reminds me of what you're just saying is I was doing a class years ago for a second shift group in facilities people, painters, electricians, managers, and one of them says, he says "so Bill, everyone's important in an organization." I said, "absolutely. Absolutely everyone's important."   0:45:13.2 Bill: Then he says, "everyone's equally important" right? And as soon as he said that, I thought to myself, "I remember you from a year ago." So he says, "So so everyone's important." "Yeah, everyone's important!" "Everyone's equally important." So as soon as he said that, within a fraction of a second, my response was, "No, if you wanna get paid what a quarterback gets paid, you better, you better train to be a quarterback." So what Dr. Deming is not, he's not saying everyone's paid the same. We're paid based on market rates for quarterbacks, for linemen, for software people. And the, and the better we work together, ideally the better we manage resources, the better the profit, we get in the profit sharing, but we're not equal. Our contributions are not equal. The contributions cannot be compared. They are, they're all part of the sauce, but we don't get into who contributed more." Right, and I think that'... We're all contributors.   0:46:28.3 AS: The more you learn about Dr. Deming's teaching, you just realize that there's an appreciation of a system, but there's also an appreciation of people.   0:46:40.1 Bill: There we go.   0:46:43.2 AS: That's really where, as I have said before, when my friend was working with me on my book, Transforming Your Business with Dr. Deming's 14 Points, after many many weeks of working together, he's like, "I figured it out. Dr. Deming is a humanist. He cares about people." It's pretty true. So appreciate the people around you, appreciate the contribution that everybody makes. Nobody makes equal contributions. And even great people who are making amazing contributions could have down months or years where there's things going on in their family or other issues. They're not contributing what they did in the past.   0:47:17.1 AS: That's a variable that we just can't control. But ultimately, appreciation of the system is what I said in my summary. And now I'm gonna add in appreciation of the people.   0:47:30.6 AS: Bill, on behalf of everyone at The Deming Institute, I wanna thank you again for this discussion. Again, entertaining, exciting, interesting. For listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. And if you wanna keep in touch with Bill, just find him on LinkedIn. This is your host, Andrew Stotz. And I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming. "People are entitled to joy in work".  

Who wins when teams and team members compete with each other? In this final episode in the Role of a Manager in Education series, David Langford and Andrew Stotz discuss why cooperation beats competition, particularly in schools. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.5 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today I'm continuing my discussion with David P. Langford, who has devoted his life to applying Dr. Deming's philosophy to education, and he offers us his practical advice for implementation. Today we continue our discussion of Dr. Deming's 14 items that he discusses in The New Economics about the role of a manager of people after transformation. And we're talking about the 14th of these different 14 items. And this one I want to read out, it is, "He understands the benefits of cooperation and the losses from competition between people and between groups." We decided to title this one: "Do you think you're winning from competition?" David, take it away.   0:00:53.7 David Langford: That sounds great. Great. It's good to be back again, Andrew.   0:01:00.4 AS: Yeah.   0:01:00.6 DL: Yeah. This is a great point, and it really is the basis for Deming's philosophy about everything that he brought to management and it got people to think differently. When I would give seminars with educators around the world and stuff, and we'd start talking about the differences between competition and cooperation, I'd often get people speaking very strongly that, "Competition is the way the world works and you have to have competition to get people to do stuff. And sports teams are always competing." And when you start to think about it, sports teams that, that usually have a sole focus of just beating the, the other team, generally don't have multi-year winning streaks, [chuckle] because you're not building a program, you're not building a whole philosophy, a whole basis to how you do things.   0:02:06.0 DL: And I've made it a point to really listen to all kinds of interviews with coaches over time. And one common theme I usually hear over and over and over from really good teams is they'll talk about the next game that they're playing. They don't talk so much about, "We're gonna beat these people." They talk about, "This will be a really good test for us." Or they'll say something about, "We're probably gonna really learn a lot this weekend [chuckle] at this game." Well, to me, those are really good coaches because they're lowering the fear level, they're lowering the anxiety. And the better we... The irony of this statement, this point number 14, is the better you cooperate, the better you compete. [chuckle]   0:03:04.0 DL: And when you're not doing that, you potentially could just go down in flames. And the same thing happens in a classroom. If you set up a classroom so everybody's competing against each other, or what Deming called the artificial scarcity of top marks, you'll end up with a whole bunch of people that are just basically at each other's throats, not cooperating, not getting along. You'll have all kinds of discipline problems and behavior problems and things that are going on in classrooms like that because it's all just set up on a competition level. So grading on a curve is a scarcity, artificial scarcity of top marks. So if there can only be three top marks or three A's or whatever it might be in this class, and people that are actually struggling in the class and actually trying to learn, they're gonna quickly learn, "There's no point in me actually trying because there's no way I'm ever going to get to that point. There's only gonna be three people that are gonna get the A."   0:04:14.2 DL: And that's the biggest thing about this, is getting to the point where you're understanding the losses of setting up artificial competition for, whether it be grades or points on a soccer field, or whatever it might be. Deming often used the analogy of the difference between a bowling team and a orchestra in terms of cooperation. So people that go bowling, they're generally just out for your own score and whatever you're trying to work through, and it's not really a team activity. Even if you're on a bowling team, it's still... You're just doing your own thing and doing your own score.   0:05:07.8 DL: So they have a very low level of interdependence in that environment. But I used to be a band teacher and orchestra leader and things like that. And so when Deming used the analogy of an orchestra about that being the pinnacle of interrelationships, it really struck home for me that like he said, "A 1OO people in an orchestra or a band, they're not there to compete [chuckle] who can play the loudest or who could play the biggest solo or... " Right? 'Cause that'd be a terrible thing to listen to if you went to a concert like that.   0:05:47.3 DL: But the reason we give people standing ovations, is because we recognize the interdependence and the cooperation it takes to reach a pinnacle performance. Even in a very small group, maybe just three or four people in a band or something, it takes a tremendous amount of cooperation to get to that level of performance. And just imagine some of our famous rock bands and stuff, if everybody on the stage was competing against each other, it would sound terrible. [chuckle]   0:06:24.9 AS: Yeah. It's interesting about the orchestra concept. I like to talk... When I'm speaking to audiences about Deming's teaching, I say, "Imagine that we have a new generation of leaders that are KPI managers, and they sit down with every person in the orchestra and say, 'You've got a KPI, we've got a limited pool of bonus here, and we're gonna distribute it amongst all the players based upon who was the A players, and C players you're going to get zero.' And so now you need to think about what is your contribution here. And then you pull up... The curtain goes up and you rise up and everybody claps. And then everybody in the orchestra stands up and plays to their best ability."   0:07:03.6 DL: Yeah. You'd have chaos.   [laughter]   0:07:07.5 AS: It's interesting in this one that he sees the need to highlight that it's... He's talking about competition between people and between groups. Why did he have the need to say that rather than just competition in general?   0:07:25.1 DL: He did talk about competition in general a lot. He also talked about... He made statements like, "It's really good to have a good competitor." And that seems like it's the opposite of what this statement is about, but I think there's a difference between competition and comparison. So if you have another company, another school, another grade level. So let's say I'm a fourth grade teacher in an elementary school or something, and there's maybe three other fourth grade teachers in that same building. Well, I'm not trying to compete to [chuckle] win in that situation, I'm actually trying to cooperate. And the more that we all three cooperate together, share ideas, maybe even share kids and make a very fluid situation, everybody wins. The number of people that get to higher and higher and higher levels of performance increases and increases and increases.   0:08:35.9 DL: You may never get to a 100% of the people learning a 100% of the material a 100% of the time, but you're gonna get closer and closer and closer, the higher, the more that you cooperate. And the more that you set up competition, we're not talking about games, Deming talked about the difference between games that everybody knows it's a game. You go to a soccer game, everybody knows this is a game. We even call them games. [chuckle]   0:09:07.8 AS: Games.   0:09:09.4 DL: Something we can play, but that's not real life. And that's why I always try to explain to teachers that you can't set up your classroom as a game, because really what you're doing is teaching life and death situations. Somebody that can't learn to add is gonna have a tough, tough time in the rest of their life. So we can't just reduce it down to a simple game, or do this and you get a lolly or an M&M or a piece of candy or something. And we often have teachers that would say things like, "Oh, well, kids like that." "Okay. Well, I like that." [chuckle] But don't tie it to something so critical as performing well on fractions, [chuckle] that if you do really well on this, then you're gonna get a prize or you're gonna get something out of that. I remember, 'cause we're talking about the orchestra thing, as a band teacher, I had to learn the hard way when I was teaching young kids how to play, say, "Look, you need to be practicing 20 minutes a night. And that's the firm rule, is just you need to be doing that."   0:10:23.9 DL: Well, it was really pretty foolish on my part because they have a system too, and they have all kinds of things going on in their lives, that was what was happening. And when I really pushed it really hard, and they'd get little cards that they'd have to fill out how many times they'd practice, and their parents had to sign it and all this stuff. Well, what I found out is I had a bunch of kids cheating, writing down times even though they didn't practice. Some of them would even forge their parents' signatures, [chuckle] all kinds of stuff. And it's really easy to blame the individual and say, "Wow, look how ineffective kids these are. If I can get some better kids, we'd have a better program here."   0:11:05.7 DL: But after learning about Deming and studying all this, I made just one simple change. I just gave them a little run chart and I said, "All I want you to do is just mark down how many minutes a night you practice, that's it. And all you have to do is just, I don't care if it's one minute or no minutes, or whatever it might be, you just put that on this chart." And then we would turn that into a little run chart for a whole week's performance. And lo and behold, the average number of minutes per night that kids were practicing just went up and up and up because they wanted to see their chart get better. [chuckle] It's a human phenomenon that Deming tapped into, that people want to improve. And when they could just see the number of minutes going up.   0:12:00.5 DL: And I'd have really good conversations with them and sit down and say, "Hey. Well, how do you feel about that? Look at this. Look at your chart?" And you didn't have to have anybody verify it or anything else, but it was just you keeping track of your own performance within that. And then when we come together as a group, that's our time to optimize the situation. And Deming talked a lot about that. Sometimes people or groups would have to be sub-optimized, they may not be working to their full potential, so that the whole group or the whole system will work more efficiently. That's a hard concept to get somehow. But again, back to the orchestra thing, there's a lot of people in an orchestra when you play a piece that they're sub-optimized, [chuckle] they're just playing one little part of the whole big piece. [chuckle]   0:12:57.7 AS: Yeah. The cymbals.   [vocalization]   0:12:57.9 DL: Yeah.   0:13:00.8 AS: There's a moment.   0:13:02.7 DL: But it's necessary. [chuckle]   0:13:04.7 AS: There's a moment. T And just because the cymbals guy is sitting there and not participating, as long as he's contributing that moment, that's really performance in that sense. There's a quote that I like by what Dr. Deming said that's somewhat related to this, and I see this in my work with companies here in Thailand. And that is, "A company could put a top man or woman at every position and be swallowed by a competitor with people only half as good, but who are working together."   0:13:40.1 DL: Absolutely. Yeah, exactly. [chuckle]   0:13:43.4 AS: Yeah. I think that really says it all, as to what...   0:13:46.2 DL: Yeah. That's what he is getting at here. The more you cooperate, the better you're gonna compete, even though competition was not... Were really never your goal to start with.   0:13:57.9 AS: Yeah.   0:13:58.9 DL: Well, this made me think about when I was a high school teacher, and I tapped into how much the students really loved learning about Deming and everything. And we started going out and doing presentations actually, and going to the universities, corporations, all kinds of places to do presentations. And every person that did a presentation had to have like four or five people that were helping them, making sure that their video was working and making sure that the sound was right and all kinds of things. And the idea being so that they could concentrate on their presentation. And I'll never forget, we were at a state department somewhere, and somebody at the end got up and said, "The information you shared with us and everything is very [chuckle] profound and very wonderful, but the real show was the high degree of cooperation going on amongst all the students as things were happening." So somebody just didn't get up and do their thing and then just go sit down in a corner somewhere and just wait, everybody had an interrelated job to help people put on a really good performance, basically.   0:15:15.5 AS: Well, what a great way to end our discussion on the role of managers of people. And this was 14 items that Dr. Deming talked about in his book, The New Economics. And this final one, I think really stands out to me, and that is the idea of today, starting right now, stop pitting individuals and groups against each other and start figuring out how we can get people cooperating and how we can coordinate effort, because the coordination and the cooperation is where the real value is created and the real experience is created, whether that's in a classroom, whether that's on a factory floor, or whether that's in an office. All of those spaces, the idea of cooperation is so valuable for performance and getting the most out of people, but also, gosh, it makes it a happier day. [laughter]   0:16:17.8 DL: Absolutely. And not just limited to businesses and organizations, family works the same way. I have five children and I used to always tell people in my seminars, "How do I go about figuring out who amongst them is the greatest child?"   [laughter]   0:16:38.0 AS: Child of the month.   0:16:38.1 DL: Yeah. And out of five kids, what? Two or three of them were gonna be below average probably. [chuckle] And so, if you start thinking about it that way, you start thinking about, "Oh, we wouldn't wanna do that." But I had the opportunity to take our family to Europe, we went to Singapore, we went to all kinds of places. And I remember when we went to Singapore to visit relatives there, we had 15 pieces of luggage [laughter] that we flew with for the seven people that were all going on this trip. Well, no one person can be responsible for all that, it has to be an interrelated related system. And everybody's working for the common aim of to pull this off and make sure that we can go on another trip. And it's really enjoyable and everybody had fun. And so... That's my final comment.   0:17:32.0 AS: Well, let's wrap it up there. David. On behalf of everyone at Deming Institute, I wanna thank you again for this discussion. And for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. And listeners can learn more about David at langfordlearning.com. This is your host Andrews Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming. "People are entitled to joy in work."

What are unhurried conversations, and why should managers prioritize them? In this episode, David Langford and host Andrew Stotz talk about the kinds of conversations managers should be having with their team members. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.5 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with David P. Langford, who has devoted his life to applying Dr. Deming's philosophy to education, and he offers us his practical advice for implementation. Today, we continue our discussion of Dr. Deming's 14 items that he discusses in The New Economics about the role of a manager of people after transformation. In the third edition, that's page 86. And in the second edition, that's page 125. So we are talking about item number 13, and in that point, I wanna read it to you. It says, "Number 13, he will hold an informal unhurried conversation with every one of his people at least once a year, not for judgment, merely to listen. The purpose would be development of understanding of his people, their aims, hopes and fears. The meeting will be spontaneous, not planned ahead." We're calling today's conversation the unhurried conversation. David, take it away.   0:01:17.5 David Langford: Thank you, Andrew. It's good to be back again. So always fun to discuss these points and talk about the depth of what it means and how to work through that. So once again, this all sounds really simple. You know, hey, just have this unhurried conversation with people at least once a year. When I talked to Dr. Deming about this years ago, he was recommending more like once a quarter, if you can do that, to work that through. But what are we really talking about? So in this world of managing with data and KPIs, key performance indicators and, you know, holding people's feet to the fire and really making them toe the line and all that kinda stuff, Deming is sort of just pretty much kind of the opposite. Those things all have their place and time, but that's not the kind of conversation that he's hinting at here or he's talking about here.   0:02:24.4 DL: I find it really interesting that he says, you know, it shouldn't be... The meeting will be spontaneous and not planned ahead. And so what he's getting at is that you're not, you're now coming in with an agenda for what you wanna hear from somebody. And on the opposite side, as an employee or somebody that you're working with, they're not prepared with some kind of an agenda where they're telling you what they think they... Where they're telling you what they think you want to hear, kind of thing. And I think that's what he is talking about why it needs to be spontaneous. He also goes deeper and he talks about, you know, find out people's aims and hopes and their fears and what's happening. And I was just thinking about that movie The Intern where the guy is hired in the company and he is 80 years old, and so they're doing the interview with him. And this young kid asked him the question, where do you see yourself in five years? I think, he looks at it and says, "You mean when I'm 85?" So, different...   0:03:47.4 AS: Dead.   0:03:48.1 DL: Yeah. Different points of life, different ways to think about it. So yeah. But he's just talking about, hey, just set up a time, be spontaneous, come in, sit down with somebody, and just not necessarily talking about business. Right? What are your hopes and fears and where do you see us going? And do you think we're on the right track? And...   0:04:13.2 AS: I'm curious, why do you think that... I mean, in some ways it seems like such an obvious thing. Why do you think he even needed to say this?   0:04:18.7 DL: Because it's not happening and it's even even worse today, I think, than in Deming's time in the 1990s when all this, all the computer technology, KPIs, all that stuff was just coming into being. Well, nowadays, it's sort of just a way of life to have all that kind of stuff. And I, I hate the phrase about being data managed or managing with data or data-driven. That's what it is. Well, we're a data-driven school district, and we make all of our decisions. Well, there's a lot of problems with that, just the word "driven" kind of drives people a little bit crazy about stuff. And really, the data is just there just to be informed. So you could still make informed good decisions, but I think Deming even talked about if you just make decisions just based on the data, you're probably gonna go out of business because you're not really paying attention to the people and what's really going on in the organization, what's happening and that type of thing.   0:05:34.4 DL: So it can also be really intimidating if you're the boss, and you're just popping in and saying, hey, you got a few minutes, you wanna sit and talk for a while? Because especially if you're in an organization where you've always... Or your predecessor, or you've always had an agenda for that meeting, it can be somewhat threatening for people. I know when I was a superintendent and I tried to do this with the principals that I was working with and stuff, and one of them, I'll never forget, she was just, she was just shaking the whole time. And I just had to say just, let's just sit here a minute and just calm down and what are you so nervous about? And just get to know her and everything else. Well, always before, the person before that had been the boss had come in and only time you had a meeting was when something was wrong.   0:06:42.7 DL: And she was gonna get ripped into. And so her fear was super great like that. Also found teachers just the same way that when as a new superintendent, I'd walk into their classroom just... I just wanted to sit and watch what's going on and maybe help out or participate or do whatever. And they'd just be almost shaking in their boots that the boss came in today. And what I found out is that it wasn't until at least six or seven months of doing that just spontaneously popping in, observing, watching what's happening, et cetera. Maybe chatting with them a little bit afterwards or doing something like that, that pretty soon that started to go away and people started to sort of function on a normal level. So one of Deming's 14 points in Out of the Crisis was pretty simple, drive out fear.   0:07:42.8 DL: And I think that's also what he's alluding to here is, here's a way that you can drive out fear, you know? And at the same time, just really get to know people. I've done a lot of study with neuroscience and the science of how do we actually think and et cetera. And there's a lot of that in neuroscience as well, that if you have a very fearful situation, you actually downshift and your brain actually shuts down. It goes into the survival mode of... And you're not gonna think creatively about a different option. You're simply trying to find out, what do I have to do to get out of this situation? And I think that's a lot of what Deming's talking about here is, hey, you gotta have these meetings and spontaneous and make it a joyful experience and just talk to people about what they wanted to have happen.   0:08:41.3 DL: Other thing I'll never forget in his seminars, he used to talk about this point or these points and stuff, and he said the purpose of the conversation is not for me to find out how you're doing. He said, I wanna know how I'm doing. And I remember the first time as a superintendent, sitting down with people and say, tell me about how I'm doing. They would look at me just kind of blankly like, what? Yeah. Well, how do you think I am doing with this job? And what do you think I need to be doing differently? And I always found those conversations really interesting, and again, it wasn't until like the second or third time having conversations with people that they actually started to tell you stuff that was useful. Because they don't wanna tell you something and then you end up firing them. So they have to have trust that you really do wanna find out how to improve, how to get better, so.   0:09:48.8 AS: Yeah, it's interesting. When I worked for Pepsi, when I first got out of university, it was three years I worked at Pepsi, and I would say we probably never had one company outing that I could remember. And in Thailand, I remember when I worked at one of my first jobs as a broker, and I was an analyst, and there was a questionnaire passed around, this was 25 years ago, that was questionnaire passed around, "Would you like to wear a company uniform to work?" And I said, well, obviously no. I was like, yeah, no.   0:10:27.9 AS: And then, I was stunned to see the results that majority of people said yes. And that's when I realized like, what Thais value in work is the comradery and the connection and the closeness. And they appreciate the relationship. And so therefore, you also have outings and things that we do and parties and go bowling or go hiking. And those things are where some of these unhurried conversations happen. Oh, well, yeah, this is what's going on at my home and with my family, and this is why I'm struggling and all that. And so what I realized in American culture, it's just not that common. You go into work, work's work.   0:11:14.4 DL: Yeah. So I'd say my last comment on this is that it's really not so much about work. I mean, it is work related, and obviously, there's an employee employer relationship going on, et cetera, but it's more about what you just talked about, really getting to know somebody, really getting to understand them. And again, back to neuroscience, I used to advise teachers all the time to try to do the same thing or at least do an exercise with kids. What's your aim? And have kids actually set aims and hopes and fears? And if you can do that very same thing. Where do you aim to be? And et cetera. Because if you have a second grader who wants to be an astronaut, and soon as you find that out, well, there's all kinds of ways you can tie everything that they're learning to eventually becoming an astronaut. And suddenly, everything that they're learning becomes relevant, and relevance is the key.   0:12:20.3 AS: Yeah. And the next year, they may say they want to become such and such, and then take that and run with it. You know? One of the last thing I would say about this that I always say when my students are giving their final presentations in my Valuation Masterclass Bootcamp, is I say, okay, now the last thing I want to tell you before you present is we're on the same team. Which I'm trying to convey to them that although I'm gonna critique you and I'm gonna challenge you and all that, we're here together for the same purpose.   0:12:54.6 DL: Yeah. I'm gonna give you feedback, but yeah, we're both here to accomplish the same aim, so.   0:13:01.4 AS: Yeah. So I love the unhurried conversation. So any last thing you wanna add to this before we wrap up?   0:13:08.9 DL: No, that's pretty much it. So I think we don't wanna make it too much out of it. I mean, it is on face value, it is pretty much what it says, have these conversations and understand who people are. And you'll find out that pays off in multiple ways down the road.   0:13:29.7 AS: So I'll wrap up by just saying to the listeners and the viewers out there, start today. Start today to have an unhurried conversation that's not connected to performance, compensation, company goals. It's an unhurried conversation to have two human beings sit down and take an interest in each other. And that's really the challenge I think that we got from this discussion. David, on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute, I wanna thank you again for this discussion. And for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. Listeners can learn more about David at langfordlearning.com. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming. People are entitled to joy in work.