Podcasts about New Economics

How do you run an offsite that actually changes performance — not just conversations? In this episode, Travis Timmons and Kelly Allan share with Andrew Stotz what happened during the Fitness Matters off-site. They discuss how a Deming-inspired approach helped their team tackle a critical business aim, align around system improvement, and turn employee engagement into measurable competitive advantage. 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 Travis Timmons, who is the founder and owner of Fitness Matters, an Ohio based practice specializing in the integration of physical therapy and personalized wellness. For 13 years, he's built his business on Dr. Deming's teaching. His hope is simple. The more companies that bring joy to work through Deming's principles, the more likely his kids will one day work at one of those companies. And we also have a special guest, Kelly Allan, who is a long term practitioner of the teachings of Dr. Deming. And he's also been instrumental in bringing the teachings of Dr. Deming to Travis and Fitness Matters, and particularly to this offsite. So the topic for today is how a Deming style offsite can strengthen your company's competitive advantage. Travis, take it away.   0:01:01.4 Travis Timmons: Hey Andrew, thanks again for having us and super excited to share with Kelly and your audience how our offsite went a couple of weeks ago. The short answer, kind of the upfront, is it was amazing. We had fun, number one, which is always important, but engagement from the team was through the roof. For four and a half hours straight. We worked on the work together and had Kelly there to make sure we were appropriately following Dr. Deming's teachings. Had Kelly there to facilitate and a couple of fun things we did. One was the red bead experiment, which I'm sure we'll talk about as we go through the conversation here. The short answer is I know in the last podcast we talked about the preparation that Kelly worked with myself and our leadership team on in preparing for a Deming focused and led offsite. We did that and it was just amazing. What were your thoughts, Kelly?   0:02:06.4 Andrew Stotz: I'm curious, Kelly, as an outsider helping them, observing, what are your observations of how it went?   0:02:14.2 Kelly Allan: I think there was just incredible energy and interest in figuring out some of the challenges ahead for the company. People came in well prepared and it showed. The interactions in the breakout groups, interactions in the full groups. Often when you're in a full group of 60, 70 people, folks are often, especially new folks, and the company's been growing and adding new people, new folks are often somewhat hesitant to speak up. But the culture of the people in that room, the culture of the organization is bring it on, let's have a conversation, let's hear what people have to say. Let's share theories, let's get down and debate and wrestle with some of these things that are not easy. There's no low hanging fruit here. It's complex stuff in a complex and highly competitive industry.   0:03:28.9 Travis Timmons: Some of the feedback we received, I think I shared last time, Andrew. As Kelly said, we've hired several new team members and they've all shared with me just a breath of fresh air from where they came from before. The power of this offsite with it being focused on some of the core teachings of Dr. Deming allowed them to see how is this different? They know they like it, they know the culture is different. They know they can provide care the way they want to. They know they can have a voice, have an impact on the system. But they didn't really know why they just liked it. Having a Deming focused offsite to explain a little bit, you can't fully explain Dr. Deming in four and a half hours, but we covered quite a bit. Make the system visible, operational definitions. What are a couple other ones with the red bead, Kelly? We did some tampering.   0:04:28.8 Kelly Allan: Making sure that we're not being confused by visible numbers alone. That what's important is how we work on the system so that we're not doing special efforts all the time to get great results. It's built into how we do things.   0:04:43.8 Travis Timmons: To Kelly's point, part of why our team, for four and a half hours we had over 50 people all in, sharing thoughts without hesitation because one of the things we talk about in the very beginning of the meeting, one of Dr. Deming's core philosophies, if that's the right way to put it, Kelly, correct me if I'm off base here, but 96% of issues within an organization are system issues, not people issues. When you put that out there, we're here to talk about the system and improve it and make it visible. We're talking about problems with systems and processes, not people. Then the gloves are off and let's dive in and we're gonna say whatever's on our mind and there's no drama, there's no feeling of any backstabbing or throwing under the bus. We just get to work on making the system work better for everybody. That's where it's fun and fast.   0:05:41.9 Andrew Stotz: What I'm hearing is that Dr. Deming, my favorite quote is "people are entitled to joy in work." And part of the key to joy in work is contributing. People want to contribute in life. I love that word because I think everybody wants to feel like they're contributing to a mission, to an aim, to a goal, to a team. And one of the biggest problems we have these days is siloing off people and getting them focused on this little area and missing the whole bigger picture. And so to some extent, you've proven through what you've done that people really do want to contribute. Throughout this discussion, what we're gonna be talking about is this concept of Deming style offsite. And I'm gonna push back at times to try to make sure that we're clear on what's a Deming style offsite. Because it's not to say that Dr. Deming said this is how you do an offsite. But what we're talking about is your interpretations of how do we apply this thinking to this particular meeting style and offsite and ensure that we're true to that.   0:06:56.6 Andrew Stotz: One of the first questions I would discuss is just the idea that maybe you just had a really open, caring environment. And so is that Deming or was that just that? Or maybe you did a lot of prep. You guys have done a tremendous amount of prep. That's what I was impressed about in our prior discussions. Maybe you prepped, maybe you focused on the one thing. Those types of things is what could go through people's minds. Why is it that you're calling this a Deming styled offsite?   0:07:34.9 Kelly Allan: Well, I think in part it starts with Deming's teachings and continued Deming's teachings. I think it might be useful to start with the aim, to have Travis talk about the time that he spent researching and thinking and what's going on in the industry. And even though we can talk later about their industry leading statistics and data and recognition etc, it's off the charts. It starts with the aim. And Dr. Deming said let's be focused on the aim. And so there are a couple, Travis, you wanna just talk about the content aim and then we can talk about even a more cultural Deming cultural aim.   0:08:21.1 Travis Timmons: That was one of my early learnings years ago, Andrew, was the difference of an aim versus a goal. And so from the perspective of this offsite through the Dr. Deming lens, our aim as an organization is to maintain one to one care because we believe that results in optimal outcomes. And it's very rare in our industry to have one to one care. Part of how we do that is we have to be industry leading in everything we do. And the thing that we are industry leading in, but I feel it was the one thing that we could improve upon was our arrival rate. Patients get better if they show up, team members are happy, they don't want holes on their schedules. Referring physicians are happy. Everybody wins. So that aim of a higher arrival rate was our aim of this offsite and conversation.   0:09:17.6 Andrew Stotz: Can you back up just for a second and define arrival rate for those that didn't listen to prior discussions on it?   0:09:23.9 Travis Timmons: Sure. Arrival rate is a visit we have on the calendar. Do they show up or do they cancel? And part of what we worked on and a little bit of an aside here is operational definition of what's a cancellation on our schedule to make sure we're measuring what we want to measure. A funny aside, competitors, we hired several new team members came from other organizations and they tout an arrival rate that is high, like 92% arrival rate. Right.   0:09:55.9 Travis Timmons: And I asked them in the meeting and Kelly will remember this, I said, I know your institutions claim a 90 plus percent arrival rate. Did you have a 92% arrival rate? And they said, absolutely not. But they had people on their team, for example, the front desk might have been bonused based on arrival rate. So how they would take visits off of the calendar would not negatively impact arrival rate. So we talked a lot about operational definition and our aim is to study what we want to study, not to tamper or. Kelly, you share your favorite saying. There's only three ways to get better numbers, and those are   0:10:39.6 Kelly Allan: Manipulate the numbers which you were referring to from another company. Manipulate the system that gives you the numbers. So that also kind of fits with, well, we're not gonna call that a late arrival or a late cancel or a non arrival. We're gonna call that something else so we can manipulate the numbers. And then the third way, which was Deming's way, which is how do we figure out how to improve the system so that late arrivals go down. So that they're a natural part of what we do when people show up, the patients show up when they need to.   0:11:14.6 Travis Timmons: Yeah. And I think that's one of the things to your point earlier, Andrew, is was it just a happy go lucky meeting because Travis and Kelly have great personalities. Well, we know that's not true.   0:11:26.9 Kelly Allan: Speak for yourself.   0:11:29.3 Travis Timmons: But no, I think anymore people know when they're working on something meaningful that's gonna have an impact on their lives or where you're just there to drink coffee and have snacks. People don't suffer fools, right? They want to be there. To have a team of 50 plus people leaning in for almost five hours doesn't happen just because it's a fun environment. To your point, it's the right question to ask. I appreciate you asking that. It comes down to they understand that we're a Deming organization. They understand that what we're talking about is gonna be implemented in a Deming way. We'll talk about that more as we go on, but that, to Kelly's point, was starting with the aim. Our aim is improving arrival rate. How do we do that? That's where the Deming offsite comes into play. Kelly and I and our leadership team worked on, okay, how do we best convey this problem and this aim to our entire team rather than just five or six leadership people working with Kelly and just coming up with our own ideas and then spitting it out to the team at a monthly meeting?   0:12:47.8 Travis Timmons: The power of them owning and seeing the problem and then working on system improvement is the power of that is unmeasurable, as Dr. Deming would say.   0:13:03.1 Kelly Allan: Yeah. I think we talked about the aim to be able to continue to do the one-on-one care with patients because most companies are doing two patients, one physical therapist, three patients. Locally here in Columbus, Ohio, where Travis and I are at, we sometimes hear about classes of five patients with one physical therapist. Physicians and insurance companies, these people are not getting better. Right? These people are... Or if they get discharged, 'cause that's a way to get a better number. "Oh, we got them out." But they come back because they're not really healed. They don't really know how to take care of themselves the way they do when they come out of Fitness Matters. One of those overarching aims has to do with building the culture even further so everybody understands the why behind the what. We could say the what is how do we increase those arrival rates, and then the meeting was about the how we're gonna figure that out, how to do that. But the overarching piece had to do with the why. Why does this matter?   0:14:16.9 Kelly Allan: How do we see...If we see the organization as a system and we use a fishbone chart as a way to visualize some of that, everybody can see handoffs. Everybody can see how different parts of the system, of that patient journey, that patient story, intersect and how what happens upstream affects downstream and how the feedback loop from the discharge point of a physical therapist discharging the patient, how that can wrap back into the understanding of the customer care coordinators and how they can work with that at the very beginning of that relationship with the patient. It's all a part of a system, all a part of continuous flow. We wanted to make sure that everybody, especially the new people, really had a visual, a view of the organization as a system and how they interact. Part of those weeks of planning, it wasn't every day all day long. You start with some ideas, you refine them, you get some research, you refine them, you refine further. Travis spent a lot of time on that. Part of that value is time for reflection, time to have the others on the leadership team weigh in, give their points of view so that we're really seeing this from a fishbone perspective as well.   0:15:44.5 Kelly Allan: So now we can go into that meeting with everybody, and their homework was in part the fishbone with some instructions on how to do that and some examples of how to do that. And that was pre-work. So people came into the meeting already successful. They had already figured some things out. This just gave launch, just gave liftoff to the energy. They'd done this work, to your point, Andrew, they're making a difference, and it just fed on itself. The output was stunning.   0:16:21.0 Andrew Stotz: Travis, I'm gonna write your company aim as I heard it from you, and that is, or from both of you, is maintain one-to-one care. It's best, it's rare, it works. And the off-site aim was different from the company aim. It was the number one thing that we can do to improve that company aim is improve our arrival rates. Correct?   0:16:51.4 Travis Timmons: 100% correct. And you talk, I think you used the term silos earlier, Andrew. Part of the aha moments and making the system visible and working on this and building culture and teamwork, when everybody sees the complexity within your organization and understands that, there's a lot more willingness to support, like, "Hey, we need to change this process at the front desk," even though it may not be optimal for the physical therapist, as long as it achieves our overarching aim and improves joy in work for the front or less friction for a client coming in. Now the team starts to see and understand, all right, that's a system win rather than silos or turf wars. The amount of energy that is spent on that in organizations is... I couldn't do it.   0:17:52.9 Andrew Stotz: Another thing I think that would be difficult for many people with an off-site is you just had one aim. If we were doing prep in the companies that I know and I own and others, we're gonna list out 17 things we want to talk about in that four-and-a-half-hour off-site. From your perspective, why is it so important to get this one focus, one aim? And then I want you also to tell us more about how it went. We've set it up now, so just one last thing on the setup is this idea of focusing on one thing when you've got 17 different problems in our company and we got everybody together and you're telling me just one thing.   0:18:40.5 Travis Timmons: Well, and Kelly can chime in here because he was instrumental in getting us from pre-work to meeting day. But part of it, that's why it's two-and-a-half, three months of work leading up to this. We had the aim of arrival rate. All right, what are we gonna do? A lot of different ways we could have tackled that. We landed on fishbone and making the entire system visible. And that turned out to be the right move. I think Kelly can correct me if I'm wrong.   0:19:15.0 Kelly Allan: I would agree.   0:19:16.0 Travis Timmons: So we started with the aim and it's like, okay, how do we get 50 people to work on this together? Dr. Deming says make the system visible. And so we chose to do that via a couple different breakouts of a fishbone. And to your point, Andrew, when we did that, now there's understanding of complexity and then where are the biggest opportunities? Because we have seven things we're working on to achieve that aim. There's gonna be three or four large PDSAs. We're doing a software upgrade, which in and of itself... And a funny aside, so our organization's been doing the Deming approach for 13 years. Right, Kelly? We announced that we're changing softwares at this meeting. Right.   0:20:13.7 Travis Timmons: Everybody was like, "Okay, let's do it."   0:20:17.4 Kelly Allan: Unheard of. I see a lot of companies, that's usually panic time.   0:20:23.5 Travis Timmons: And it was announced at the beginning of the meeting. Any questions? "Nope, sounds like the right move for our aim."   0:20:32.3 Kelly Allan: Well, Travis, you provided the why behind the what. The what was that we have to change the software. You provided the rationale from all points of view, including from internal people who deal with the software to making it even less friction for customers and for physicians and for insurance companies, etc. People understood the why behind that what, and now they're ready to work on the how.   0:21:06.4 Travis Timmons: And I would even argue, because I agree with that, and because we've done Dr. Deming and have had success and accomplished so many things that people don't believe we've been able to accomplish as an independent organization, having lenses to look through and "by what method?" That's one of my favorite Kelly Allan-isms. By what method?   0:21:33.5 Kelly Allan: That's a quote from Dr. Deming.   0:21:36.0 Travis Timmons: Oh, okay. We're good.   0:21:38.9 Andrew Stotz: We stand on the shoulders of giants.   0:21:41.6 Travis Timmons: Yeah. There's a high level of trust in our organization that we can implement change. I think that...   0:21:51.3 Kelly Allan: I agree.   0:21:51.8 Travis Timmons: I don't want to undersell that in terms of how powerful that is that I announce we're changing our entire operating software in a few months and the entire team was... And we told them why, to Kelly's point. But to make that announcement and then just have everybody say, "Okay. Cool." I think that's crazy to me. I believe it because of everything else I've seen happen over 13 years. But to have a way, by what method, using Dr. Deming's principles, PDSAs, operational definitions, system view, we're gonna diagram it. Everybody left there confident that, "All right, we can do this and we're gonna do it." Anyway, what would you add to that, Kelly?   0:22:40.9 Kelly Allan: Yeah. I would say that fulfilling the promises that have been made at previous offsites just builds the credibility that this leadership team gets it, understands it, and is interested in engaging people and making things happen and getting things done in a way that doesn't disenfranchise people, it doesn't beat up on people, it doesn't cause harm, but people work together because they wanna figure it out. It's fun to figure it out. Yeah.   0:23:17.5 Kelly Allan: It can be at times a little too much fun, a little too exhausting to figure it out. But we're born wanting to make a difference and people can come to work there and know that they have a voice, they're heard.   0:23:33.1 Travis Timmons: And I think that's our superpower that I've learned from Dr. Deming is if I'm the only one figuring stuff out, we're in trouble. We're in trouble. So the team knows that we're gonna bring stuff, we're gonna talk about it, and we're gonna solve problems collectively through the Dr. Deming philosophy. That's something that just popped in my brain, Andrew, because it was such a non-event. But in most instances, that would have been the entire meeting would have been about that, the side conversations, people coming up to me...   0:24:15.0 Kelly Allan: And Travis, there would have been a lot of discussions at a non-Deming company about, "How do we get buy-in?"   0:24:22.4 Travis Timmons: Right.   0:24:22.8 Kelly Allan: "How do we manipulate people into saying this is okay?" We didn't have any...We didn't spend a minute on that.   0:24:30.5 Travis Timmons: Not one person asked me about the software the entire evening at dinner. It was just like, "We're gonna do it." It just struck me because it was a non-event in the meeting, but I think that would have been rare had we not had our history of Dr. Deming's approach and how we presented it in the meeting.   0:24:52.9 Andrew Stotz: Kelly, you said something that made me think of a book that I read in the past by Richard Feynman called The Pleasure of Finding Things Out. Great scientist. You talked about contribution and the desire for contribution and you talked about how people were figuring things out. And that's fun, that's exciting. That's what people want to get out of their management team and out of their employees. In some ways, I feel like you're talking about recess, a playground. Put all that stuff aside, let's go out and let's build this thing. All the joy that we did have when we were young. Think about, "Let's make a sandcastle! Yeah, you do that, I'll do this." That excitement...   0:25:45.0 Kelly Allan: That's what it was in the room that day. Different breakout groups working on different parts of the fishbone and then bringing them together and debriefing around it. It was very exciting. The energy was high. Andrew, you mentioned something, I think in part you were channeling Dr. Deming there because he also pointed out about how we're born wanting to make a difference, to make a contribution. Then we go to school and that gets beaten out of us with grades and command-and-control teaching, et cetera, et cetera. But to your earlier question about what makes this unique, special in regard to Deming, Travis mentioned the complexity. And so we go right back to the core of Deming: understanding variation and special cause, common cause, the important few things versus the trivial many, and how do you sort through those? That makes it very Deming. It makes it very Deming. The other thing that you won't see, and I've been in a lot of them through the years, in most offsites is those conversations about the why. It's usually, "Competitor's doing this," or, "We gotta make more money," or whatever.   0:27:01.0 Kelly Allan: No, the why for Fitness Matters is to achieve those aims. Right.   0:27:07.1 Andrew Stotz: Some of the things that you mentioned: have an aim, what makes this a Deming style, have an aim, think system, not individual focus, understand variation and how that can help you think system, not individual focus. You talked about pre-work, taking it seriously, and I would say that kind of responsibility for your employees and the environment. I was blown away with the amount of pre-work that we talked about previously. You talked about some tools like fishbone as an example. You've talked about the why. Travis, why don't you give us a very high level... We arrived at this time, this was then, we did this first, then we did that, then that. So we can just understand the structure of this meeting a little bit.   0:27:59.5 Travis Timmons: Sure. We've been big on operational definitions. So the operational definition of start time is Travis will start talking at 12:30 to start the meeting. Learned that one over the years. And I...   0:28:18.2 Travis Timmons: It was at a new location, so we had a couple people go to the wrong place. We put the map inside of the homework, swim upstream, try to make this as easy as possible. But to answer your question, we had an operational definition of the meeting starts at 12:30, and that means the meeting begins at 12:30. Operational definition, we had name tags. From an efficiency standpoint, we had six tables when we were going to do breakouts. People picked up their name tags, it had number one through six on it, so they know what table they would be going to at breakouts. We did a quick intro of every team member and what location they work at because we have had a lot of growth. Put names with faces, introduced Kelly so that everybody knew who he was. There's probably 11 people that didn't know who he was in person introduction and how that was going to be diving more into Dr. Deming. I made it very clear up front that this meeting, we're going to celebrate wins from 2025, but I made it very clear we're going to go through those quickly, not because they weren't huge wins, but because we had a lot of work to do to make sure we stay on that growth and excellence trajectory.   0:29:38.2 Travis Timmons: So we went through all of our wins for 2025. We reviewed our BHAGs, and then we got into the aim. In 30 minutes, we introduced everybody, we went over our wins for 2025, we reviewed our BHAGs, one of which is to be the best, leverage technology better than any physical therapy practice in the country was one of our BHAGs. Then I dovetailed that into, and we're switching softwares in a few months. Any questions? No. We go right into, here's what we're going to be working on today, referenced they're going to be using their homework, so they brought their homework booklets with them. We had PowerPoint slides so they knew what the directions were for the first breakout group. Kelly and I got there early and some of the leadership team got there early. We had the table set. We had the, I call it newsprint, up on tripods ready to go. You want to be prepared. They hit their tables because of the name tag. We had leaders assigned for each table.   0:30:50.1 Kelly Allan: And they were trained in advance. Yeah. Facilitators. Yeah.   0:30:53.5 Travis Timmons: We had leadership.   0:30:54.7 Andrew Stotz: So there was an intro period and then you said, "This is our aim and now go to your tables," or how did that... What were you telling them to do at the tables?   0:31:06.0 Travis Timmons: We told them the aim, reviewed the aim. To your point earlier, Andrew, overarching aim is maintaining our one-to-one care model.   0:31:14.0 Andrew Stotz: Yep.   0:31:14.7 Travis Timmons: Our aim of the meeting is how do we improve our arrival rate as an organization to greater than 85%? One of the ways we're going to accomplish that is making the entire system visible. We're going to go to our tables and we're going to work on... We had the fishbones drawn at each table, but we wanted them to fill in the fishbone as groups from their homework because everybody brought different ideas to the table. We wanted some conversation around that.   0:31:44.2 Andrew Stotz: That was a general fishbone. I think I remember later you talked about then breaking it down into separate fishbones, but that was just a general one to review what they'd done.   0:31:54.8 Travis Timmons: General one, work on the work together. To Kelly's point earlier, just the energy around working on ideas or, "Hey, I hadn't thought about that," or, "I didn't even know we did that in our system." Right.   0:32:07.0 Travis Timmons: Just understanding the complexity and really just getting the juices flowing on, here's what we're going to be working on because the next layer is going to be diving deeper into each one of those.   0:32:18.5 Andrew Stotz: How long was that period of going through the first fishbone and looking at their homework, discussing it together? How long did that last?   0:32:27.7 Travis Timmons: That one was a half hour because they'd already done the pre-work, so we assumed most of it was already going to be done. It was just kind of...   0:32:38.4 Andrew Stotz: Did you have them present any of that or that's just, "Go through that and that'll prep you for the next thing"?   0:32:46.0 Travis Timmons: We had them spend 25 minutes on that and then we saved room for five minutes for them to have kind of sharings or learnings or ahas. What did this experience teach you? Do you have anything to share?   0:33:01.9 Andrew Stotz: They're doing that within their group or they're doing that...   0:33:05.1 Travis Timmons: We went table by table and had them share with the entire team. Table by table, we had the team lead or anybody at the table, "Hey, what'd you think? What'd you learn?"   0:33:14.3 Andrew Stotz: Someone may say, "I didn't even realize that this impacts that and I just realized that now after seeing it." Okay.   0:33:24.0 Travis Timmons: Yeah. What are some of the things you heard, Kelly? I heard, "Oh, this is complex."   0:33:29.8 Kelly Allan: I also heard things like, "Well, I know how to handle this, but I need to define a process so that if I'm out, someone else can do it." Right? It's those kinds of little aha moments. Others were just, "Oh, is there a way for us to systematize that even further?" Again, it was that thinking about the system coming out in their comments. I think another part of the appreciation was really recognizing that a lot of people have to win. Deming talked about win-win being very stable and win-lose is not. They wanted to make sure the patients and the clients win, the physicians win, that the insurance companies are getting what they need, that the PTs and the Pilates people and the MAT people, etc., and the customer care coordinators are also having joy in their work. Because when you have a joyful staff, customers, clients really appreciate that. They just know there's something different. There's something different.   0:34:42.0 Andrew Stotz: And one question is, did you have any drift at that point where people started talking about other things that were unrelated but were key problems they're facing, or was setting your aim and doing the pre-work really kept them on track?   0:34:56.8 Kelly Allan: Great question. Yeah.   0:34:58.5 Travis Timmons: They were focused. They were focused the entire meeting. One of the things I learned it from Kelly or Ray, or maybe you taught Ray, I don't know, but we have a piece of paper we put up at every off-site, Andrew, we call it the parking lot. So that if somebody does have an idea that's outside of what we're there to tackle, we just have them go up and write it down so that they're heard, and it could be important, for sure, but we're not working on that today. We gotta stay laser-focused on what we're here for. So we have a parking lot, which has been super powerful, but nobody went to the parking lot the first half of the day at all.   0:35:39.2 Andrew Stotz: That's good. That's better than the woodshed. Excellent.   0:35:43.5 Travis Timmons: Speaking of the woodshed, this is one of my... I think this is one of the critical learnings, one of the many critical learnings I've had with Dr. Deming and the approach to leadership's responsibility. For me as the owner, at the end of the day, the buck stops with me, is to create joy in work, to create engaged teams where they can do fulfilling work. So you talked about the woodshed. It reminds me another one of my favorite quotes. A lot of owners or leaders talk about, "We have a lot of dead wood around here. Have a lot of dead wood on our team." The first Deming off-site I went to, Kelly said, "Well, there's only two ways that could have happened. Either one, you hired dead wood, and if you did, that's on you with your hiring process. Or number two, you hired live wood and you killed it. Either way, it's on the owner and leadership."   0:36:52.4 Kelly Allan: And I stole that from Peter Scholtes.   0:36:55.5 Andrew Stotz: Okay, got it.   0:36:57.0 Travis Timmons: But that struck me in terms of, okay, responsibility's on Travis to ensure we don't have that. Can't point fingers anywhere else. It's not people coming in with bad attitudes. So anyway.   0:37:15.8 Andrew Stotz: Okay, excellent. So now you've had the general fishbone discussion, you've had people present what were their key learnings from it. What happened next?   0:37:26.6 Travis Timmons: Just some quick aha's, anything from the homework, stuff like that. And then from there we did a couple-minute break and then we went right into the...   0:37:37.9 Andrew Stotz: It sounds like a HIIT, like a high-intensity interval training here. We did a couple-minute break.   0:37:44.6 Travis Timmons: We had work to do, man. People were there to get work done and get on to dinner. We had snacks and water in there they could grab real quick. Restrooms were close. And then agenda, we've gotta stay... And the team understands we have to do what we're doing, we have to be excellent in all categories. So the next thing we did, we came back together as a team, the entire team, and Kelly did the red bead experiment in preparation for the next breakout. Super powerful. For those that have seen the red bead experiment and how Dr. Deming used that to show how the willing worker shows up wanting to get all white beads, right? And the white bead, it's the white bead company, but there's red beads intermixed. No matter how hard they try, or Kelly offered a hundred-dollar bonus to somebody if they would just only bring out white beads the next time they put their paddle in, and it just had that visceral, in-the-moment realization that people show up wanting to do a good job. And issues, so the red beads were what we called cancellations impacting our arrival rate. Therapists want their patients to show up. Front desk wants, the client care coordinators want their patients to show up. Physicians want their patients to show up. So what do we need to do? It can't be bonus them if they show up or just try harder. What's not working? So that was a great...   0:39:23.4 Andrew Stotz: Why don't we go to that for a second. We're gonna have Kelly, maybe you can tell us a little bit about what you observed from that, and then we'll continue on with the rest of the structure.   0:39:36.2 Kelly Allan: Well, the way we set up the red bead experiment was very much focused on the real challenges and real issues that everybody at Fitness Matters faces in terms of this topic of increasing the arrival rate and how complex that is. I think the red bead experiment demonstrates for not only the people who are the willing workers and the people who are the inspectors and the person who is the scribe who keeps the spreadsheet, they realize that the numbers alone are not telling us what's going on. They realize that unless there's a system improvement, process improvement, and people working together to make those happen, you can bribe people, you can incent people, you can threaten people, you can send them home, you can give them a performance appraisal, you can do every kind of command-and-control management, but you haven't improved the system in which people work. There's still red beads. There's still red beads. We have to reduce the friction, we have to change the paddle. We have to figure out how it is we can help make it possible and easier for clients to want to show up so that they can get healthy and so that they can really appreciate what happens when they don't show up, how they are a part of the system. Once they become a patient, they're a part of the system of Fitness Matters.   0:41:18.3 Andrew Stotz: I'm just curious if there was also anything different. You've done the red bead experiment a lot of times with a lot of different types of companies. Were there any observations you had of the way they interpreted that that was either the same or different? What were some of your observations there?   0:41:37.7 Kelly Allan: Well, we planned it so that Travis and his leadership team could really do more of the debriefing so that they would have the context for the people in the audience as well as for the people on the stage, versus just a more generic, which is still powerful, to talk about how the system's in control and is this a common cause system or a special cause, what's really going on. Travis and his folks were able to then bring that context to the red beads, which I think made it especially powerful for this audience, for this group.   0:42:16.2 Andrew Stotz: Excellent. Travis, why don't you continue?   0:42:22.0 Travis Timmons: As Kelly shared, the leadership team debriefed after the red beads of the learnings and how that might be. The red beads were the cancellations that we currently have. Then we introduced, "Okay, now what we're gonna do is go do a deeper dive into the fishbones." There's five primary parts of our system, five bones. Each bone we're now gonna break out and work on the granular details. We did a fishbone for each of the larger bones.   0:43:01.8 Kelly Allan: Why don't you give a couple examples of the bones if you have it handy?   0:43:07.3 Travis Timmons: First bone is what we call initial contact. The first time a client has an interaction with Fitness Matters. Could be website, could be a physician referral, could be a neighbor talking to them, could be driving by. Initial contact, that's bone number one. How does that entire process work at Fitness Matters? Where's the friction point? Are there people that we don't even get into our door efficiently? They're not coming in set up for success, for example. Next bone would be setting them up for the evaluation. Third bone is evaluation day. Fourth bone is every subsequent visit up until discharge. And the fifth and final bone is discharge to ongoing wellness and how do we continue to stay connected? Those are the five bones as you flow through as a client at Fitness Matters, and the five major gates, if you will, is how we looked at it.   0:44:07.8 Kelly Allan: Every one of those is filled with complexity. There are a lot of little details to reduce the friction for the clients and for the system, for the patients in the system. I think that was an aha moment for people as well because a lot of them are in the quadrant four of unconscious competence. They've been doing this job well for a long time and they tend to forget the complexity. We have to identify the complexity so we can work on it and make it less complex, more streamlined, and so new people coming in can appreciate why Fitness Matters makes informed, thoughtful decisions about how they do things. It didn't just happen. These have been thoughtful things that have been worked on for years, but they can still be improved further and we can document them and make them more visible. When people saw all those little bones coming off the main bones, it's like, "Wow, there's a lot of little things that happen and we can impact almost all of those."   0:45:18.1 Travis Timmons: In some of the work we've already done on the bones to already have industry-leading arrival rate, but I think we can do better. We're one of the few, maybe one of the few medical appointments people have in their lives, not just physical therapy, but in general, that you go to do a medical appointment, do you know what it's gonna cost you out of pocket before you show up? Generally, you don't. We've swam upstream to make that visible to clients, so they already are coming in knowing what the cost is gonna be and are we providing that value? Just an example of, okay, can we swim further upstream with that and make it easier to pay and make it visible on their insurance deductible and all of that?   0:46:05.9 Kelly Allan: Well, and also, Travis, I think... I was just gonna say in terms of how many times have people been to a doctor's office, they've had to fill out a whole bunch of forms either online or in the office and then nobody ever looks at it. Something that Fitness Matters has been a leader on for a long time, which is how many of these questions are really required? How are we really gonna use that information? Let's not have seven pages. Can we get it down to four? Can we get it down to three? And increase... Because remember Deming's teachings are quality goes up as costs go down. Quality goes up as we have to commit less time. Quality goes up as joy in work goes up. Right? So that's that Deming structure of, no, quality does not have to cost more. In fact, Deming said if you're doing it this way, quality will cost less. And that's in part how Fitness Matters can compete against these big, big companies and win. I think, Travis, you've gotta share some of the statistics about what makes Fitness Matters an industry leader. What kinds of things are measured that you and others look at in the industry?   0:47:17.8 Travis Timmons: One of the big things in the physical therapy industry, Andrew, is what they call outcomes. They're measurable questionnaire by body part that you have a patient fill out at evaluation day and at discharge day, and it gives you a percentage of... In our industry, they call it functional ability. Are you 100% able with your shoulder or do you have a 60% disability with your shoulder? For example, across all body parts, we're 30 to 40% above national average on our outcomes. Not even close. Because of the efficiency, our patients show up. Again, the one-to-one care model is why it's our true north, and everything we do has to support that because of those industry-leading outcomes. Our no-show rate is one of the other things we define. Again, something we're working to improve upon, but we're already nation-leading. Our definition of a no-show is 24 hours notice up into a no-show. Most companies in our industry only call it a no-show if the patient just doesn't show up. With our definition of 24 hours notice or less, we're at 4% to 5%. National average of true no-shows, just not showing up, is 15%.   0:48:45.8 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, I can imagine even probably higher than that, but 15, yeah.   0:48:49.7 Travis Timmons: 15 to 20% depending on the research. Just two examples there. The Deming approach to system thinking, team engagement, getting rid of silos, operational definitions. To Kelly's point, we worked years ago on that initial client intake. I used an example several years ago around the time we were working on that project. My one son, got him an Apple iPad for Christmas. Other son got an Xbox 360. One product we got out of the box and turned it on, it was fully charged and ready to go in about 37 seconds. The other product took all kinds of unpacking, had to plug it in, and as soon as it came up, it said software upgrade required, and it proceeded to spend the entire day of Christmas downloading the update. We just use that as an example of how hard is this? We want that same experience for our clients. How do we make it an unbelievable healthcare experience for our clients?   0:50:10.1 Kelly Allan: Well, and Travis is being way too modest here, so I have to jump in. I don't know if I have the numbers exactly right, but Travis will correct me. Let's say you have an injury or you're recovering from surgery or whatever it happens to be, and the industry average is it's going to take 17 visits with a physical therapist for you to be at some level of functionality. At Fitness Matters, it might be 13 visits. Travis, is that too high?   0:50:42.3 Travis Timmons: 10.   0:50:43.1 Kelly Allan: 10 visits. 10 visits. So cut it in half. They're getting better in half the time. That's Deming.   0:50:52.9 Travis Timmons: Yeah.   0:50:53.3 Kelly Allan: Quality goes up, costs go down. Which is why Travis then can... Insurance companies also love them, right? It's like, wow, these people are getting better and they don't circle back just because they were... Operational definition is they're well. Discharged by somebody else, oh yeah, they had their 17, 18 visits, 19 visits, they're well. No, they're not. They come back or they go somewhere else and they're claiming insurance again. Fitness Matters, they learn how to stay well.   0:51:22.4 Travis Timmons: And that brings in another important thing that we've learned over the years, Andrew, with the Deming approach. Our data is industry leading, and we've worked hard at that. And we've got a great team that works within the construct that we've created through Deming. To get back to the unknown or unknowable quote that Dr. Deming would use, our marketing costs are low because patients go back to their physicians and say, "Hey, this is the best PT experience I've ever had." And after they hear that four or five times with us and they get complaints when they send them elsewhere, all of a sudden we start getting referrals from these doctors we've not even heard of before.   0:52:07.6 Kelly Allan: Yeah. Yep.   0:52:08.9 Travis Timmons: How do you measure that? What amount of marketing dollars would have to be spent to get in front of... Like, we doubled the number of physicians that referred to us in the last year.   0:52:23.6 Kelly Allan: Yes. That's a double, Andrew. Unheard of.   0:52:27.5 Andrew Stotz: Yeah.   0:52:28.1 Kelly Allan: Unheard of.   0:52:28.5 Andrew Stotz: Incredible. So you got amazing outcomes. Let's now wrap up about where did you get to at the end of this? What did you personally and the management team end up with?   0:52:45.9 Travis Timmons: So we had some do-outs. Our closing PowerPoint slide was within two weeks we would report back with one to two updated operational definitions and probably three PDSAs that we were going to tackle. That was kind of our promise back to the team, that we would look at all the work. We have paper everywhere. People got to vote. We had a one-page paper on potential PDSAs, and we gave them little stickers to vote on where they think we should put our time and energy and resources. Our takeaway, our product, if you will, three PDSAs. One that has two under it is the new software. We're gonna start doing online scheduling, automated waitlists. I won't get into all the details, but PDSA one has software change. PDSA two, there was a lot of feedback on, "Hey, it would be great if we had kind of a scripted conversation point for the client care coordinators for these four scenarios: first phone call, first in-visit, how we take payment and make their benefits visible to them, how do we take a phone call and handle a cancellation when they do happen to ensure that it's a positive experience."   0:54:12.4 Travis Timmons: And then how do we handle kind of a no-show? Another PDSA is we're gonna have those client care coordinators create their first version of what they think the best script would be, 'cause they're the ones that do it all day. Why would I try to come up with that? And then have them send it to us and do some feedback there. Then we updated our operational definition of canceled visits so that there was clarity across the system to make sure we're measuring what we want to measure, which is how many people show up to their visits each day. We reported that back to the team last Friday, actually, to make sure we hit the deadline we promised to them. And then we let them know we're also gonna be working on kind of a third or fourth PDSA—I kind of lost track there of how we're counting it under the software—but training the entire team on what does it mean to have client engagement and what is our operational definition of client connection and client engagement. So they know we're gonna be doing that on a location-by-location basis at the March monthly meeting.   0:55:26.4 Travis Timmons: That was our takeaway. A lot of product to come away with, and they're gonna have all of the context from the team off-site to understand what we're getting ready to tackle, especially with the software change.   0:55:40.1 Andrew Stotz: My first reaction to that is, oh, those seem like kind of things that you could have figured out some other way, or there's not that many things, or there wasn't some stunning breakthrough. Explain why you're happy with what you got versus you prepared, you did a lot of work, you got those things. Some of it may be that, hey, we need to go through a process. I may have known some of those conclusions, but if we don't have a process of going through that, first we have the risk of maybe I'm wrong in what I think. And the second thing we have is that we have the risk that it's just a business run by dictate rather than getting real buy-in. I'm just curious if you could explain a little bit about that.   0:56:30.7 Kelly Allan: You said the bad word. You said the B-word.   0:56:34.5 Andrew Stotz: Buy-in.   0:56:35.4 Travis Timmons: Understanding, Andrew. Not buy-in.   0:56:38.4 Andrew Stotz: We're looking for buy-in. No. Okay.   0:56:40.8 Kelly Allan: We change it. How do we get... The conversation changes when you say, "How do we get understanding?" Now it's about the why behind the what that leads to the how, versus buy-in, which means, "How are we gonna sell this to somebody?" Sorry, Travis, I couldn't resist.   0:57:02.8 Travis Timmons: No, it's 100% true. And to answer your question, Andrew, my first answer and probably the most powerful answer we already talked about earlier, but it's very important to reiterate and maybe close with, is because of our approach and the time and investment we spent preparing for the meeting, doing the meeting, the fact that there was zero concern or stress around us switching our software system. The amount of engagement that there's gonna be, 'cause there's gonna be work to be done by all team members in preparation for that software change. I am confident I'm not gonna have to do any motivational speeches leading up to that. I'm not gonna have to bribe people. They want this to work because they understand why we're doing it, they understand the value it's gonna provide, and they understand, now that they have deep understanding of our system, they understand why we need to do this to continue to excel.   0:58:13.9 Travis Timmons: I don't know what that's worth. That's unmeasurable. But I know had I just announced this and not had any process, not a Deming approach, just, "Hey, guys, Travis thinks we need to do a new software and we're gonna change how you document, how you schedule," I feel fairly confident how well that would've gone. That would be my answer, Andrew, is the power of being able to present that to a team. They're already asking me questions about, "Have you thought about this in our system?" We have a shared Word document across the team. What questions are coming up in your system thinking? "How are we gonna message this to all of our clients so that they know they're gonna get new emails for their home program?" Great question. I had not thought of that. That is unmeasurable, but I know we're gonna be successful when we switch softwares because of our approach via Deming. What would you add to that, Kelly?   0:59:14.7 Kelly Allan: I think that's the essential nature of what happens. When you set out with a clear, healthy, thoughtful aim, you have conversations around that with your leadership team and what they can do then to filter that and start to talk about that with their teams at their locations, and then you have time to reflect and continually improve that, you're really creating a racehorse. Most off-sites, and Andrew, you've been to these, I know, they start... It's the 17 things. I thought of this when you mentioned it earlier. We start out, we have a racetrack and we want to have a racehorse. But by the time most companies get to their off-site, they've put so much stuff on that horse that it's now a pack mule. It will eventually make it around the track, but if you're competing with Travis, his racehorse, that team's racehorse has been around that track past you many, many times. You may get there, but they're already onto another track by the time you get to the finish line. You're finished.   1:00:36.7 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. You may even be releasing kittens and he's got a horse.   1:00:42.0 Travis Timmons: Kelly brings up another great point there. The other thing that gives our team confidence, because of our system view, 96% of issues are due to systems and processes, not people, the Fitness Matters team is confident that there's gonna be hiccups with a software change. They're confident they're gonna be able to talk about it in a system view quickly, and they're confident we're gonna implement change to rectify that. That goes into one of the reasons why I got zero shocked looks or zero sidebar conversations the entire day. The only feedback I've gotten is, "Hey, we're excited about it. We think we need to do this. And have you considered this as part of our system change?" I don't know what else as a business you could want.   1:01:40.4 Andrew Stotz: Kelly, I was thinking about a good wrap-up from you is to help the listener and the viewer think about how can they apply this into their business. Let's step back a little bit from Travis and think about the work you do and give us some hope, give us some guidance about, can we do this? How?   1:02:04.6 Kelly Allan: Yeah. Several things come to mind. One is that when you first start to learn about the Deming lens, the System of Profound Knowledge, his approach, it seems, it's different. It is different and it can seem to be, oh my gosh, that's so different. We'll never be able to do that. But the point is, the Deming Institute offers a two-day seminar workshop and they can learn not to be incredibly proficient or masterful in two days of how to go back and do Deming, but they know how to get started and they do get started. And then it just becomes part of, again, the Deming magic is as you start to work on these things, your costs go down, your quality goes up, and sometimes you can raise your prices because of the quality and sometimes you just are more competitive at the existing price, but you're taking work and rework and waste out of the system through the Deming approach, which allows you the time. That's the big constraint in most companies. I don't have time to work on improvement. I gotta fix this.   1:03:29.9 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. Right.   1:03:30.9 Kelly Allan: So that's a fix that's gonna fail. That's a fix that's gonna fail. So I think the message is you just want to read The New Economics. If you get the third edition, start with the new chapter. It's like 40 pages and it sums up a whole lot of what we've been talking about. Then there's DemingNext videos through the Deming Institute. You can get your feet wet there. You can then, if you want, attend a seminar or read more things or reach out and have conversations with people. But you just have to try it so that you can see that the payback is there, that the joy in work is there. And in a war for talent, they wanna work for Deming. People wanna work for Deming-based companies because they're not about manipulating people. They're about joy in work. They're about reducing the friction. So you just gotta get started and don't be just because it's so different doesn't mean you can't learn it quickly. You can.   1:04:36.7 Andrew Stotz: Yep. And Travis is a great example of that. In our prior episodes, he talked about the journey, about the pain and all that. I think that's exciting. I'm gonna wrap it up. I just have to laugh because I've been out of the corporate world for a while, just doing my own thing. But I was thinking, you mentioned about buy-in and then you said it means you're selling something. And I thought that's funny. I remember my father used to say, he used to get so annoyed because he'd say, "Yeah, let's talk around this," which was a common thing back in those days. But then I was also thinking another thing that we were saying was onboard. Let's get people onboard with this. What if you're onboard? It pretty much means you're drowning. And I just thought about those types of things that when we talk about fear and work or fear in what we're trying to remove fear and stuff, part of it is the way we speak and the way we communicate.   1:05:41.1 Andrew Stotz: Travis, I feel like I want to leave you with the last word. So why don't you bring us home?   1:05:48.0 Travis Timmons: Yeah, I think I would follow on what Kelly said is I would just the amount of joy, the amount of stress this took off of me as a business owner and as a parent thinking about things differently. And the first time you start learning about Deming's teachings and the System of Profound Knowledge, it seems a little off. Seems a little like this just doesn't seem possible. I've had several people I've talked to about that. It just doesn't work that way. To Kelly's point, I would encourage just try a couple things, whether it be do you have clear operational definitions? Have you done a PDSA? Do you know how to do a PDSA? But the two-day seminars is where you kind of do the deep dive into like, oh, okay, I need to think about things differently. So anyone struggling with a business trying the latest and greatest book that's been out or the latest and greatest compensation model to create ownership thinking within your organization or whatever the buzzwords are, this is a long-term path to clarity and to just an understanding of how you can make your organization a place that has a positive impact on the lives of your employees and your clients.   1:07:17.7 Travis Timmons: And man, if you get that right, everything else follows. Sales, profit, all the stuff that a lot of metrics look at. If you get the point of your job is to have a positive place for your team to work and how do you do that? Deming is the way to do that. Everything else follows after that, in my opinion.   1:07:38.6 Andrew Stotz: And on that note, Travis and Kelly, on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this discussion. For listeners, remember, as Kelly and Travis have both said, go to deming.org, go to DemingNEXT. There's resources there so you can continue your journey. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming. I constantly repeat it because I love it, and that is: "People are entitled to joy in work."

What do you do when a new data point drops—and all eyes turn to you? In this episode, John Dues and Andrew Stotz explore the leadership discipline required when performance data changes. Instead of reacting to a single data point, they unpack how Deming thinking (understanding variation, avoiding tampering, and pausing to interpret patterns) can protect trust, stability, and improvement. A practical conversation for leaders who want wisdom—not speed—to guide their decisions. 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 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 when the numbers change and everyone looks at you. John, take it away.   0:00:28.4 John Dues: Yeah, it's good to be back, Andrew. I think this is sort of an interesting topic. Many of us that have been in leadership roles have been in this position where the numbers change, whatever they may be. For me, they're dips in attendance, they're assessment results changing, something like that, a subgroup's results changes from the previous year. Sometimes the changes are small, sometimes they're big. But I'm thinking about times when they're just large enough to draw attention in a meeting. And it's not even really so much the size of the change that's important, it's what happens next.   0:01:12.9 John Dues: So you can kind of put yourself in one of these meetings where you're looking at data and maybe you didn't even expect it, but people kind of notice. Then someone asks what went wrong? And then the next thing that comes is someone suggests some type of fix or solution, and then this pressure starts to build. Especially if they're all sort of looking at you, the silence can feel irresponsible. And so what do we do? We react in some way. We call another... For explanations, maybe from others. We adjust a plan that's already in place. We launch a new initiative or tighten expectations on people, whatever it may be. None of it's out of malice. It's done out of care, most typically, or at least in the settings I've observed this sort of phenomenon.   0:02:13.1 Andrew Stotz: Don't just stand there, do something.   0:02:15.2 John Dues: Don't just stand there, do something. But the thing is, very often it just makes things worse. Right?   0:02:21.0 Andrew Stotz: Don't just do something. Stand there.   0:02:23.8 John Dues: Right, right. The opposite. But even if you know that, it's very, very difficult in the moment to...   0:02:32.5 Andrew Stotz: The pressures.   0:02:33.6 John Dues: Yeah.   0:02:34.9 Andrew Stotz: Well, I have a little... Little thing happened last night when a friend of mine came to see my mom and me, and we went out for there's a restaurant nearby, so we got the walker and got mom going. And her natural inclination was to help mom in getting up and that type of thing. And I was explaining to her the difference between what I call a caregiver and a caretaker. And I was saying that most people are caretakers where they're just taking care and they want to just help. And she's like, "It's irresistible. I mean, in my bones, I want to help." And I said, "It's very hard to see that sometimes the best help is to let her struggle and use her legs to get up, not to help her on that." And that was like a revelation for her last night, it just made me think about that.   0:03:33.8 John Dues: No, that's actually a perfect analogy because her health is sort of a high stakes environment. Just like schools are high stakes environments or many of the businesses that people run that listen to this podcast have high stakes. In our cases, it's students and families matter, outcomes matter. There's a lot of different stakeholders that are interested in what's going on in schools. And when those numbers do change, it can feel like neglect if you don't do anything. We're expected to notice. We're expected to... Good leaders are supposed to respond. They're supposed to act decisively, right?   0:04:12.0 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, because there's another aspect to it too. Let's just say that you have a boss that understands it and you're like, "Yeah, it's just noise. It's not signal." But how many times can you say that? Right?   0:04:27.8 John Dues: Yeah, that's right.   0:04:28.5 Andrew Stotz: That's another kind of pressure in that situation.   0:04:31.6 John Dues: Yeah, that's like the second-in-command type person, right? So they have their own pressure. And what you can see happening, this like visible action is sort of like evidence of competence because you can see it. And so the reaction becomes the default. So just like in this example you're giving with your mom, that action to help is very hard to resist. Even though by doing so, like you were saying, she doesn't get the physical exercise and actually makes things worse in the long term for your mom's health.   0:05:10.4 Andrew Stotz: "Boss, why did Kevin get a promotion and not me?" "Well, Kevin's a man of action."   0:05:14.8 John Dues: Man of action, right. Exactly. Exactly. And there's all these risks for a leader that doesn't react right away. Are they disengaged? If they're asking questions instead of acting right away, are they just uncertain? They lack certainty? Are you ignoring the data if you are pausing or waiting? Again, under these conditions, which I think are prevalent just about everywhere that I've been, at least, reacting quickly feels like the safest move. But I think the conflation is speed and wisdom. But speed is not, definitely not the same thing as wisdom, right?   0:06:02.1 John Dues: In all of our organizations, the data fluctuates naturally over time. No different in schools, like we've talked about. Attendance rises and falls, assessment results bounce up and down, behavior incidents they spike and they dip. And it's not necessarily a sign that something's broken. It's often just how systems typically behave, the systems that we're paying attention to. I think the main mistake leaders typically make in that moment when they see that movement is that they think that automatically means something changed. And so you get these concerns if it's a bad move in the data. If it's a short-term increase, maybe we trigger some type of celebration. So this works both ways, actually. But the main point is that one data point becomes a story. It becomes the story of what's... We try to attach an explanation to this dip or this increase that's actually not grounded in any kind of reality. We would say they're just reacting to noise, kind of like what you just said. And the problem, though, is that there's a number of then very predictable things that happen. First, educators, and I felt this as a teacher. I taught in Atlanta Public Schools, a big district that was trying lots of new things in the early 2000s. You feel this whiplash. So priority shifts, guidance changes. Yesterday's focus is replaced by today's concern.   0:07:44.5 John Dues: And what happens in a setting like that, that I found, is that people start explaining instead of learning. Especially when there's a strong accountability system like there is in education systems, results are questioned immediately, often. And so the safest response at almost all levels of the organization is just to justify what's already happened, not to explore what might be improved. Very, very, very difficult. And that then leads to trust eroding. And over time, what I've seen is that educators learn that any fluctuation brings scrutiny. They become cautious, defensive, quiet. And obviously none of that improves outcomes. And again, just like in the example with your mom, it actually makes things harder to improve in the long term. So this overreacting to this routine variation then often increases variation, and so the system actually becomes noisier and not more capable. You get this vicious cycle. What's that?   0:09:00.5 Andrew Stotz: Tampering.   0:09:01.8 John Dues: Yeah, tampering. Exactly. That's what Deming would call it, tampering. When you intervene in a stable system.   0:09:07.3 Andrew Stotz: It's interesting. The one data point becomes a story is a great, great line. In the world of finance, everybody's trying to get the next wave. As a financial analyst, you're trying to think, okay. And all we do constantly is look at the next data point and say, "Does this confirm or not my view that gold's going to crash now, or gold's going to rise, or US stocks are going to X, or the dollar is going to... " And most of the time, we're just making one data point become a story, and then the next data point comes out and it's like, "Okay, so there's a different story here." And then...   0:09:51.3 John Dues: Yeah. That explanation there it's sort of... The key idea is reaction. It's literally seductive. It is seductive because it feels productive.   0:10:04.3 Andrew Stotz: In my finance work, when I help people with their money, what I do introduce what I've learned from Dr. Deming to say it really helps me separate the signal from the noise in the stock market, and therefore, I will never react. And I even set parameters where I rebalance my portfolio every three months. So when they go, "What are you going to do about such and such?" it's like, "Everything's set. I'm going to wait until the results are in, and I'm going to reevaluate on a framework, on a systematic way," which just helps me from getting whipsawed this way or whiplash this way or that way. And it's proven to be not only great for helping people feel like I have a deeper understanding and follow what I'm doing, but it also improves performance.   0:11:07.7 John Dues: Yeah. And you know, I'm definitely no financial expert by any means, but it makes me think of The Big Short, the movie, when I don't know how true to reality it is, but when the character played by Christian Bale, Michael Burry, is sticking to his guns with his shorting of the housing market and people are coming into his office and screaming at him. He's getting emails that are coming in one after another calling him an idiot, threatening him with lawsuits, and he holds. So that's like an extreme example of not reacting to noise. And you can see what it does to him in the movie, the intestinal fortitude, before sort of it comes to the conclusion. He got less and less certain even though he stuck to his guns, that he was doing the right thing. Right.   0:12:00.3 Andrew Stotz: I got to get that clip because I want to combine that with Mel Gibson in that movie, I can't remember, the Celtic battles in England where he's saying, "Hold the line! Hold the line!" What is it?   0:12:13.6 John Dues: Braveheart, probably.   0:12:16.3 Andrew Stotz: Braveheart. Yeah.   0:12:17.9 John Dues: Braveheart. Yeah. That's because when you're having a conversation like this and you talk about this leadership concept, just about everybody's going to nod along with you. But when you are actually in the moment, very few people hold the line, very few people hold the line. But at least if you have this grounding, at least you'll be more likely to hold the line because you have some techniques and some ways to sort of paint this picture that there's a firm logic. There's never certainty, but at least there's a firm logic for why you're holding the line in a particular situation. But it's very, very hard. Very hard.   0:12:58.2 Andrew Stotz: One question is, could there be such a thing like a mantra that the management team could have? Something like, "One point is not the full story," or something that they talk about in non-emotional times so that they've got it set. So when all of these numbers change and everyone looks at you, it's like, "Guys, remember, one point is not the story."   0:13:28.1 John Dues: Yeah, no, that's a really good idea. That would be a good sort of internal value or something marketing-wise that you could sort of, something sticky that would remind people of this, especially in those moments of anxiety or even panic, depending on the particular situation and the type of data that you're talking about. That's a good idea. I think the key thing is that activity is not the same as improvement. It feels good. It feels good to change something, introduce something new, new rules, new expectations, even though the system itself hasn't changed. And like you said, that's tampering. You make adjustments to a stable system based on something that's just routine ups and downs and it degrades performance. I think a lot of people are familiar with Deming's Red Bead Experiment. Less of them are familiar with the Funnel Experiment. He basically talks about when you are trying to hit a target through a funnel and you move it each time to sort of adjust for the variation from the mark. You actually, he called it going off into the Milky Way in terms of where you end up when you make these adjustments every single time.   0:14:46.1 Andrew Stotz: I thought that demonstration was so... I don't remember that he did it in the seminars that I attended. I remember the Red Bead Experiment. But that tampering is so powerful to understand the mess you can end up in.   0:15:05.7 John Dues: Yeah. And that was in The New Economics. I don't think he ever did it in a four-day seminar that I remember. But the interesting thing is generally the best choice is just to keep the funnel in the same place and keep going. But again, that's very hard. Especially let's say you're doing this as a group activity and group two, three, four, and five, you're looking over and they're making these adjustments every time, and you're just sitting there. And you're like, "Maybe they're onto something," or "Maybe I do need to move." But at the end of it, they're much farther away than you are.   0:15:43.4 Andrew Stotz: And I feel like the title you talked about, "When the Numbers Change and Everyone Looks at You," is evoking that emotion of, "Am I doing something wrong? Other people would do it a different way. Oh, they're making progress. I'm just sitting here." Those kind of emotions are the types of things that cause that tampering.   0:16:02.7 John Dues: Yeah. And then that shows up as initiative overload. You get these contradictory messages, constant course correction like in the Funnel Experiment. And the irony is you typically have a leader who cares deeply and they don't realize they're creating the very instability that makes improvement impossible. It's a tough realization. So what I would say is that when the data does change, the most important leadership move is not action, but it's interpretation. So instead of asking, "What should we do?" maybe a good first question is, "Is this shift within the range of what we should expect?" So just that question kind of slows the moment down. It shifts attention from reaction to understanding and it invites the group to look at data over time rather than point to point. It opens up this possibility that nothing is wrong even if the results aren't yet acceptable.   0:17:15.4 Andrew Stotz: Love that. Love that.   0:17:16.8 John Dues: Yeah, I think it's a really important...   0:17:17.5 Andrew Stotz: Is this shift within the range of what we would expect?   0:17:20.6 John Dues: Yeah.   0:17:21.1 Andrew Stotz: Answer's going to be "Yes, this is in the range." So next topic in a meeting.   0:17:28.5 John Dues: Right. And we've talked about this before. And it's possible when you've asked that question that the system itself looks stable, but it also may be producing outcomes we don't like. And so the key is even in those cases, reacting to an individual data point is not going to help. In that case, if you have stability but outcomes you don't like, you need thoughtful system redesign. But these sort of urgency-driven immediate fixes, overreaction, that's not going to help. That's not going to help.   0:18:06.9 John Dues: So the big thing is pausing before reacting. But that's often misunderstood. We talked about is he or she ignoring the data? Are they lowering expectations? Is that leader just indecisive? I don't think so. I think that's really what discipline is. And pausing, being that person that says, "Let's take a breath and pause here," it creates the space to study patterns rather than focusing on those individual data points. It allows leaders to separate stability from acceptability. It prevents unnecessary pressure then cascading through the system, which is what often happens. And so what I think is when you actually pause, what you're doing is protecting the people in your organization. When you do that, I think in an education system it protects teachers from being judged on noise they can't control. I think it protects leaders from... They are often then turning around and making promises that the system can't actually keep. It's sort of like a short-term thing, but you're hurting the long term. And then it protects students because they don't then undergo all these constant changes that disrupt their learning.   0:19:43.1 John Dues: So I think what a leader, a strong leader does that's different is they ask questions. What does this look like over time? Is this a meaningful signal from what we've seen before? What should we expect if nothing changes? Just some basic questions. I think resisting the urge to explain every up and down movement. And it's really at the end of the day what it comes down to is you're not trying to assign meaning to every data point, but what you're trying to do is understand the underlying system behavior. Now sometimes action is warranted, and in those cases, you're going to act in a deliberate way. When it's not, they're going to communicate that and communicate why we're going to wait in this particular scenario and why that's the responsible choice. So there's got to be this underlying logic whichever direction you're going to go. And I think if you've ever been around a leader like this, it feels calm. It just feels calm. It feels steady. And over time, the key thing is it creates this system that's trusting and then as a result, it's far more capable of improvement. It's far more likely that improvement's going to happen.   0:21:13.4 Andrew Stotz: That's amazing. And I was just taking lots of notes, but I wrote down pause, have discipline, protect employees, protect students. But I wrote down protect the aim.   0:21:27.0 John Dues: Yeah, protect the aim. That's good.   0:21:28.7 Andrew Stotz: Protect the aim of the system. Why are we here? And if we can't do that pause and look at it carefully, there's just no way we're going to achieve that.   0:21:43.3 John Dues: Yeah, no, I agree. And I think the thing is with these situations is that the most damaging decisions in schools are often made after the numbers change, but not because of the numbers themselves. Like even if they've declined, typically it's not to the point that it's catastrophic, but what's catastrophic is the series of decisions that are made as a result of the decline. And so in those situations again, this reaction feels responsible. But really what happens when you react without understanding is it creates more noise, more stress, more instability, and you still don't have the improvement at the end of all that consternation.   0:22:30.1 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, I would sum up my sum of this is the bad manager says, "That's a terrible result. Let's make it worse."   0:22:42.0 John Dues: And that's really what's happening. They're obviously not saying it, but that's exactly what's happening. Exactly. That's a really good summary. And I would kind of sum it up with three big ideas that would be helpful for listeners. I think the first one is that not all variation is meaningful. Most fluctuations actually are just routine, should not trigger action. The second one we've talked about, that overreaction creates instability. Acting on noise makes systems worse, not better. And then the third thing I would say is that pausing is a leadership skill and understanding must come before action.   0:23:30.2 John Dues: And I say it's a skill 'cause you actually have to practice it. I think you have to prepare yourself for what you're going to do when you get in front of a group and you're going to talk about results and those results maybe aren't exactly where you want them to be. You have to practice that, rehearse it. What are you going to say? How are you going to back that up? What's the logic? But I think when leaders learn to have that pause before reacting, they actually protect learning, they protect trust, and then they actually create the conditions for improvement. And I think that's the work that matters most when everyone's looking at you to make a key decision. Not easy, but certainly important work.   0:24:08.6 Andrew Stotz: That's a great wrap. I'm not going to add anything to it. 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."      

Thanks to our Partners, NAPA Auto Care and NAPA TRACS Watch Full Video Episode In this episode, Carm Capriotto speaks with Tom Ham about the rising labor rates shaping the automotive repair industry. Drawing from the Labor Rate Tracker tool on the Automotive Management Network, Tom explains how shops across the country are steadily increasing rates, with many approaching the $200 per hour threshold. Geographic trends reveal higher rates in regions like the San Francisco Bay Area and Connecticut, and Tom recommends gradual monthly increases of $1 to $2 to maintain profitability without alarming customers. They also discuss shifting business realities, including rising repair order values driven by vehicle complexity, higher parts costs, and increased technician compensation, even as car counts may level off. Many shops are also setting vehicle age limits to improve efficiency and reduce liability. Looking ahead, Tom highlights how artificial intelligence will enhance diagnostics and workflow, supporting the rise of a highly skilled mechanical specialist working alongside AI. The episode offers a forward looking view of an industry evolving through smarter pricing, cultural alignment, and advanced technology. https://laborratetracker.com/ Timestamps (00:00:00) Introduction & Industry Updates (00:02:30) Tom Ham discusses the "Labor Rate Tracker" and how shops are breaking through psychological pricing barriers as they approach $200 per hour. (00:05:00) Geographic Heat Maps: A breakdown of where rates are highest (Bay Area, Connecticut) and lowest (Midwest, South), and the use of heat maps to visualize the data. (00:08:15) The Incremental Increase Strategy: Tom advises shop owners on how to raise labor rates by small amounts (1–2) to overcome the fear of price adjustments. (00:10:45) Rates by Shop & Vehicle Type: Analysis of which shops command the highest rates (RVs, Diesels) versus the lowest (Collision, Tire Stores), and vehicle makes (Euro vs....

February 20, 2026 In this episode, Scott, Mark, and Dr. Ray Painter break down the financial realities of the new prostate biopsy CPT codes and what they mean for urology practices. Moving beyond coding mechanics, the discussion focuses on the economic differences between transrectal and transperineal approaches, MRI fusion versus ultrasound guidance, targeted lesion add-on payments, and the site-of-service differential between office and facility settings. They explore how practice expense values, capital equipment costs, disposable supplies, physician time, and block scheduling all factor into the decision to bring advanced biopsy techniques in-house. The episode emphasizes balancing clinical judgment with financial sustainability—helping practices evaluate whether expanding in-office prostate biopsy services makes sense now and in the future. PRS Coding and Reimbursement HubAccess the HubFree In-Office Prostate Biopsy Calculator (Suppoted by UC-Care)Download NowPRS Coding CoursesFor UrologistFor APPsFor Coders, Billers, and Admins Join the Urology Pharma and Tech Pioneer GroupEmpowering urology practices to adopt new technology faster by providing clear reimbursement strategies—ensuring the practice gets paid and patients benefit sooner.         https://www.prsnetwork.com/joinuptpClick Here to Start Your Free Trial of AUACodingToday.com   The Thriving Urology Practice Facebook group.The Thriving Urology Practice Facebook Group link to join:https://www.facebook.com/groups/ThrivingPractice/ 

In this episode of Shift, investor and innovation leader John Ruffolo offers a bold, forward‑looking take on the forces reshaping Canada's economic future and the massive opportunity ahead. From digital sovereignty and the evolving implications of the U.S. Cloud Act to strengthening industrial strategy and anchoring homegrown innovation, Ruffolo highlights why now is the moment for Canada to rethink how it builds wealth and scale its brightest ideas.Candid, optimistic, and deeply pragmatic, this conversation offers a roadmap for how Canada can seize this moment and build world‑leading companies on its own soil. A must‑listen for executives, investors, and builders shaping Canada's next chapter.

Guest: Arthur Griffiths, Former owner of the Vancouver Canucks, Vancouver Grizzlies, and General Motors Place. Also a member of the B.C. Sports Hall of Fam Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Flashback Friday is from episode 613 published last Dec 29, 2015. Jason ushers us into this episode by taking us through Julie Malinowski's article "6 Trends Among Landlords and Tips to Outperform the Norm". He also reminds us there are a few tickets left to the upcoming Meet the Masters event and about the upcoming Venture Alliance Mastermind in Dubai. In today's guest interview, Alvin E. Roth has written a book about markets. If you are wondering what type of market, as Mr. Roth tells us himself, it's not important what type of market. It's the market itself. He guides us through the interview discussing chapters of his book, "Who Gets What and Why" with real life examples of the organ donation market, the online matchmaking market and even shares his thoughts on how realtors have survived in our internet-based, do it yourself economy.     Follow Jason on TWITTER, INSTAGRAM & LINKEDIN Twitter.com/JasonHartmanROI Instagram.com/jasonhartman1/ Linkedin.com/in/jasonhartmaninvestor/ Call our Investment Counselors at: 1-800-HARTMAN (US) or visit: https://www.jasonhartman.com/ Free Class:  Easily get up to $250,000 in funding for real estate, business or anything else: http://JasonHartman.com/Fund CYA Protect Your Assets, Save Taxes & Estate Planning: http://JasonHartman.com/Protect Get wholesale real estate deals for investment or build a great business – Free Course: https://www.jasonhartman.com/deals Special Offer from Ron LeGrand: https://JasonHartman.com/Ron Free Mini-Book on Pandemic Investing: https://www.PandemicInvesting.com  

Our South Asia Energy Analyst Mayank Maheshwari discusses how the unprecedented demand to power AI is set to transform the power industry for years to come.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Mayank Maheshwari: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mayank Maheshwari, Morgan Stanley's South Asia Energy Analyst. Today: how AI and electrification are rewriting the rules of global power. It's Tuesday, December 2nd at 9 pm in Singapore. If you've noticed your electricity bills are climbing and headlines are buzzing with talk of AI, you're not alone. The way we use – and need – power is changing fast, and it's impacting everyone from homeowners to major tech companies. Global power consumption is surging at the fastest pace in over a decade. Annual demand is set to rise by more than one trillion kilowatt-hours every year through 2030, with AI-driven data centers contributing nearly a fifth of that growth. We estimate about [U.S.]$3 trillion investments in datacenters by 2028, with power consumption growth of nearly about 126GW in these three years till [20]28. This is almost as large as Canada's total [annual] power consumption. And in this context, power prices are set to further rise. In 2024 – the latest full-year data available – global power sector investments hit a new high of $1.5 trillion, and consumer power prices have risen by about 15 percent. By 2030, U.S. power markets will account for half of the global data center power consumption. And Asia will also see about a 15 percent spillover of that U.S. hyperscaler demand, which will be also part of why some of the power markets in Asia will get a lot tighter. As power consumption rises, the difference between the price at which electricity is sold and the cost to generate it – also known as power spreads – are likely to rise by nearly 15 percent. This expansion in profit margins could lead to higher earnings forecasts for power generation companies and create $350 billion in value creation through the entire power supply chain. At the same time, years of under-investments in electric grids have led to bottlenecks, sparking a wave of new spending and pushing the industry to rely more on natural gas and energy storage and other new technologies – while also supporting that option of renewable power. In 2024, gas investments hit record highs, and starting in 2026 gas is set to become a new truly global source of new power generation. Looking ahead, natural gas is expected to meet about a fifth of [the] world's new power needs, excluding China. And nuclear energy is well positioned for increased investments; while batteries – which is energy storage – is also getting to get a new set in terms of new investments across datacenters and in markets like China . Moving forward, the power industry faces a multi-decade transformation, marked by unexpected shifts and opportunities. We'll see increased collaboration between fossil and non-fossil fuels, wider adoption of tiered pricing, and a surge in spot market and behind-the-meter sales all driving longer-lasting, elevated power spreads. Gas, nuclear, energy storage, and fuel cell supply chains – especially in Asia and the U.S. – stand to gain from stronger pricing power [and] new growth prospects, while grid operators benefit from higher investment and better returns. On the flip side, pure solar and wind producers may continue to see rising costs in Asia, something we have already seen in [the] U.S. and Europe, as [the] global grid leans more on batteries and steady fossil fuel supplies to balance the requirements of the rising needs of power across the supply chains – in AI as well as domestic utilization of manufacturing. Ultimately, as AI and electrification supercharge power demand, the real challenge isn't just adding renewables. It's about building a resilient, flexible grid and navigating the new economics of energy. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

As Jim Hill and Drew Taylor sit down just hours before Zootopia 2 preview screenings begin, they dig into the film's early reactions, the surprising box-office shape of the holiday season, and the escalating economics behind today's animated franchises. HIGHLIGHTS Early reactions to Zootopia 2 and what Drew learned from scoring sessions and long-lead press days. How Wicked: For Good outpaced the original film's opening—and why reviews may complicate the long-term outlook. Stephen Schwartz's long history with animation—from Pocahontas to The Prince of Egypt—and his record-breaking opening weekend. A surprise Thanksgiving return for Prep & Landing and why Snowball Protocol deserved more promotion. Drew breaks down the blockbuster salaries behind Frozen 3 and 4—and how favored-nations deals shaped the cast's negotiations. Tim Allen completes his Toy Story 5 recording, plus a look back at the franchise's evolving pay scale. Trailer talk: David, Hoppers, and what Pixar's 2026 slate signals for the studio. Hosts Jim Hill — X/Twitter: @JimHillMedia | Instagram: @JimHillMedia | Website: jimhillmedia.com Drew Taylor — X/Twitter: @DrewTailored | Instagram: @drewtailored | Website: drewtaylor.work Follow Us Facebook: @JimHillMediaNews YouTube: @jimhillmedia TikTok: @jimhillmedia Producer Credits Edited by Dave Grey Produced by Eric Hersey Sponsor This episode is brought to you by Unlocked Magic, from the team at DVC Rental Store — offering discounted Disney theme park tickets, including special events. Save on your next trip at UnlockedMagic.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As Jim Hill and Drew Taylor sit down just hours before Zootopia 2 preview screenings begin, they dig into the film's early reactions, the surprising box-office shape of the holiday season, and the escalating economics behind today's animated franchises. HIGHLIGHTS Early reactions to Zootopia 2 and what Drew learned from scoring sessions and long-lead press days. How Wicked: For Good outpaced the original film's opening—and why reviews may complicate the long-term outlook. Stephen Schwartz's long history with animation—from Pocahontas to The Prince of Egypt—and his record-breaking opening weekend. A surprise Thanksgiving return for Prep & Landing and why Snowball Protocol deserved more promotion. Drew breaks down the blockbuster salaries behind Frozen 3 and 4—and how favored-nations deals shaped the cast's negotiations. Tim Allen completes his Toy Story 5 recording, plus a look back at the franchise's evolving pay scale. Trailer talk: David, Hoppers, and what Pixar's 2026 slate signals for the studio. Hosts Jim Hill — X/Twitter: @JimHillMedia | Instagram: @JimHillMedia | Website: jimhillmedia.com Drew Taylor — X/Twitter: @DrewTailored | Instagram: @drewtailored | Website: drewtaylor.work Follow Us Facebook: @JimHillMediaNews YouTube: @jimhillmedia TikTok: @jimhillmedia Producer Credits Edited by Dave Grey Produced by Eric Hersey Sponsor This episode is brought to you by Unlocked Magic, from the team at DVC Rental Store — offering discounted Disney theme park tickets, including special events. Save on your next trip at UnlockedMagic.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ever wondered what Dr. Deming really meant by "profound knowledge" — and how it can still transform your work today? In this conversation, Bill Scherkenbach shares with host Andrew Stotz lessons from Dr. W. Edwards Deming on profound knowledge, systems thinking, and why "knowledge without action is useless, and action without knowledge is dangerous." Tune in for wisdom, humor, and practical insights on learning, leadership, and finding joy in work. 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 Bill Scherkenbach, a dedicated protege of Dr. Deming since 1972. Bill met with Dr. Deming more than a thousand times and later led statistical methods and process improvement at Ford and GM at Deming's recommendation. He authored the Deming Route to Quality and Productivity at Deming's behest, and at 79, still champions his mentor's message, learn, have fun, and make a difference. Bill, how are you doing?   0:00:36.3 Bill Scherkenbach: Doing great, Andrew. How about you?   0:00:38.6 Andrew Stotz: I'm good. It's been a while since we talked. I took a little holiday to Italy, which was. I was out for a bit, but I'm happy to be back in the saddle.   0:00:48.9 Bill Scherkenbach: Dove in Italia?   0:00:51.3 Andrew Stotz: Yes.   0:00:52.5 Bill Scherkenbach: Where in Italy?   0:00:53.6 Andrew Stotz: Well, I went to Milan for a trade show in the coffee industry, and then I went to Lake Como and relaxed and oh, what a paradise.   0:01:03.2 Bill Scherkenbach: Beautiful. Beautiful. Yep.   0:01:05.0 Andrew Stotz: And, of course, always great food.   0:01:09.4 Bill Scherkenbach: Yep, yep, yep. Well, you have a chance to use the PDSA on improving your mood there.   0:01:16.6 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, it was just... The resort I stayed at was a tiny little place on the side of a hill, and the food at this tiny little place was fantastic. We just didn't want to leave. Every single meal was great. So I love that. Who doesn't love that?   0:01:34.4 Bill Scherkenbach: They didn't have a food cart in the background.   0:01:38.0 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. In fact, they didn't really open for lunch.   0:01:39.8 Bill Scherkenbach: Like what they do over here.   0:01:41.3 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, they didn't open for lunch. They only served sandwiches at 2pm so we had to hold out. But we still, the sandwich was so good. We just thought yeah, just wait.   0:01:51.3 Bill Scherkenbach: Early lunch. Yep.   0:01:53.3 Andrew Stotz: Well, you've got some interesting stuff to talk about today, and I'm gonna share the screen, and then I think we can kick it off from there. So let me see if I can get that up straight here. One second in. All right, so hopefully, you see a white screen that says profound knowledge. You see that, Bill?   0:02:16.0 Bill Scherkenbach: Yes, I do.   0:02:17.2 Andrew Stotz: All right, well, let's... Yeah, let's. Let's get into it.   0:02:23.2 Bill Scherkenbach: Oh, okay. I'll go from the bullets that I've got, and we'll hear from Dr. Deming and how he couched it in a little bit, in a few minutes, but he recognized that leaders would say they had the knowledge. Oh, yeah, we do SPC. We follow Deming's philosophy, we do that. But they really only knew the buzzwords. And to an extent, and I don't know how he came up with the word profound, but I do know in speaking with him that he intended it to be a degree of expertise that was beyond the buzzwords. Now, he said you didn't have to be an expert in it, but you had to know enough to be able to understand it and in fact, use it, as we'll talk about in a little bit. And knowledge obviously includes, as he said, an appreciation for a system and variation and knowledge and psychology. And as we'll hear in the audio, he also didn't really limited to that when he said there was there... His point, main point was that there are a whole bunch of interrelated subject matters that are very, very useful in managing your business or managing any organization.   0:04:17.1 Andrew Stotz: You know, I was thinking about that word profound. It's oftentimes wondering exactly what is meant by that. This is helpful to help us understand. It's, number one, about expertise. And I think the thing that I've always also felt is like, when you understand appreciation for a system, knowledge about variation, theory of knowledge and psychology, it, like things click, like it comes together, it's a whole. And that's the way I've thought about it. But that's interesting about the expertise aspect.   0:04:51.8 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah. And that's something Don Peterson at Ford spoke about. He gave a very good talk to our leaders with Dr. Deming in attendance. And he said that a lot of you have said, "Oh, yeah, we already do this at Ford, " but you have to come to grips with a lot of you have been promoted for perhaps the wrong reason throughout your career, and you're gonna have to change. The change starts with us. So that was very impactful for Dr. Deming to listen to that.   0:05:32.7 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. And I just thought about the idea of profound action. Like, once you get this knowledge, does that mean that you're going to also, you know, the way that you do things is going to change substantially.   0:05:47.3 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah. I mean, that's been a philosophical question. In one of the slides, I quote Confucius. About 2500 years ago, essentially saying knowledge without action is useless and the action without knowledge is pretty dangerous. But that's been consistent with Eastern and Western. Aristotle did the same thing, and Mid Eastern folks did it as well. Philosophers dealing with, yeah, we've got knowledge, but everyone agrees, at least in the good thinker role, that, that you've got to take action, otherwise it's useless. Okay, so we've got, and the subject matters, as I said, are not new. And he coalesced on four, but the general thought was that. And you've got to remember Dr. Deming was a classically trained physicist in the 1920s. And because of that a lot of, although it had been a few years, but they were very aware that everything started in the both, the eastern philosophies and western philosophies. Everything started with philosophy. Science wasn't a separate subject matter. And so everything was connected on how people should live, on how the stars move, a whole bunch of stuff. It all was philosophy. And these various subject matters evolved over the years.   0:07:50.6 Bill Scherkenbach: So even though he stopped it for his general intent was that a whole bunch of things are interconnected. If you go study these various subject matters.   0:08:05.1 Andrew Stotz: It's interesting because I attended the seminars in 1990, 1992 and then I went to Thailand and then I did other things and I didn't really keep up with it because I was in the financial world and doing my thing. And then I got The New Economics years later and there was this discussion about System of Profound Knowledge. And then I think about also going back to your previous discussions of what it was like being in a classroom with Dr. Deming when you first met him and studied with him. You know, that these things were going on. Obviously he had a deep understanding of variation. He definitely understood about the theory of knowledge from his scientific background. But I'm just curious, as you... It's interesting what you said, these things are not new. It's the way he brought them together. I just find that, that fascinating. How do you see that journey for him going from when you first met him to a very full formed concept or theory of profound knowledge at his later years?   0:09:15.3 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah, I think things just solidified or codified. I mean, when I first met him in '72 at New York University Graduate School of Business, he didn't have 14 Points. He didn't have the Deadly Diseases. So none of the stuff that were codified as he progressed. I mean the one thing that I've mentioned it a number of times, the most important thing I learned from him is that you never stop learning. And he epitomized that sense of continual learning in improving oneself. So he tried to learn from everyone. But, but yes, for instance, as I mentioned, he was a degreed physicist and ended up doing a whole bunch of. And that transitioned into statistics which was a relatively. Well, I'm going to say everything is relative. But new in operationalizing the use of statistics besides counting people and the experiments at Rothamstead for agriculture. I mean, that really was some of the... But the earlier stuff, yeah. Was helping their patrons gamble better.   0:11:02.0 Andrew Stotz: And so I often take comfort in your descriptions in the first episodes about how he hadn't put all of these things in place at the age of 72. And I think there's still hope for me, Bill, to figure it out and put together my grand thinking.   0:11:22.7 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah. Oh, no, I understand. I mean, I'll be 80 in less than six months. But he really, he started out getting his foot in the water here anyway when he was 79 also. So there's a chance. There's a chance.   0:11:46.4 Andrew Stotz: There's a chance. All right, well, the next slide, you're talking about the connections.   0:11:51.6 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah. Again, all the subject matters are, again, evolve from philosophy and they all are interconnected in many, many ways. So, yeah, if you could play what Dr. Deming's introducing, that might set the stage.   0:12:14.0 Andrew Stotz: Okay, let me play this audio. Hopefully it comes across. Okay.   [video playback] Dr. Deming: Let us begin our study of Profound Knowledge. Profound Knowledge. Provides a roadmap to transformation, not just change, but a roadmap to transformation. Nothing else will satisfy our needs. Not just change, a roadmap to transformation into a new state. The System of Profound Knowledge, appears here in four parts, all related to each other: first, Appreciation for a System. Which we shall study, we shall study a system, and soon, I won't keep you waiting. And Theory of variation and theory of knowledge and knowledge of psychology and add anything you please, sociology, anthropology, whatever you please. I present these four parts to Profound Knowledge. They are interdependent, they cannot be separated. One need not be imminent in any part of Profound Knowledge in order to make it, in order to understand it and apply it.   0:13:30.9 Andrew Stotz: That's quite a mouthful.   0:13:33.1 Bill Scherkenbach: Yes, it is. Yes, it is. What I've got to do is go back to the tapes and get the lead in and follow on to that. But yeah, that's how he introduced profound knowledge in his later seminars.   0:13:56.2 Andrew Stotz: So what would this have been? What, 1990, 1991, 1992?   0:14:03.8 Bill Scherkenbach: Well, probably, I would say, yeah, maybe '89.   0:14:10.6 Andrew Stotz: Okay.   0:14:11.9 Bill Scherkenbach: In there. Yeah.   0:14:13.8 Andrew Stotz: So I took out a little transcript of that and I want to just go through a couple quick points, if you don't mind. He starts off by talking about it's a roadmap to transformation, not just change. Why would he say transformation rather than just change?   0:14:38.6 Bill Scherkenbach: Well, he changed really, transformation. And he thought a metamorphosis would be better. There's a butterfly in there somewhere, but it needs change. And it's not just, I know he mentioned the western style of management, but in my travels, Eastern style of management is just as bad. And again, knowledge is, is literally encompasses space and time. Looking at the past, projecting or predicting the future, little space, great space. And when you look at Western philosophies or western style management, we have emphasized the individual. So restricted space and short term. And the eastern philosophy of management took a longer term viewpoint of things. And they said it's not the individual, it's the team, the family. In my opinion, you have to, everyone, no matter where you live in the world has to balance those two, being able to take joy in your work as an individual. To be able to take joy in your work as a member of the team. And, I mean, I've been asked years ago, how long would it take? And I would say, "Well, Deming says it'll take 30 years." So over here in the US it's going to take a long time, but it's not going to take a long time in Asia, it's only going to take them 30 years. So time is relative, so is space.   0:16:53.2 Andrew Stotz: And there's something else he said in here that if you could try to help me understand and help the listener understand it. He talks about, you know, he gives a summary, theory of variation, theory of knowledge, knowledge of psychology. And then he adds in this line, "add anything you please, sociology, anthropology, whatever you please." What does he mean by that?   0:17:16.6 Bill Scherkenbach: That's what I said before he came from the the school that everything started with philosophy and things broke off science and all of these various disciplines. What he's saying is he's gone to, his theory of profound knowledge is included these four. But the general message is any discipline is interconnected with each other. So you don't have to be restricted to these four. And you're going back to how knowledge was developed in the first place. And perhaps it could be full circle, although I'm not going to get bogged down with the potential of AI contributions. But you need to, you need to recognize that many, many subject matter are interrelated because they were spawned from the original Eastern philosophy and Western philosophy.   0:18:37.5 Andrew Stotz: And one last thing on this, he wraps it up with this statement that also, you know, particularly given his depth of knowledge of the subject, he said, "One need not be imminent in any part of profound knowledge in order to make it, nor to understand it and to apply it." Why do you think he had this need to explain that you don't really have to know this in super deep detail?   0:19:02.7 Bill Scherkenbach: Well, I think he was being off a little bit. The word profound scares a lot of people. And so there's again a balance. You need to go far beyond the buzzwords, but you don't need to be an expert in any of those fields in order to grasp and be able to in some cases, I think, contribute to them. So he's saying that he's trying to better explain or define the word profound.   0:19:48.8 Andrew Stotz: Yep. Okay, now the next slide is incredible. A lot of different things on here that you're showing. Maybe you can explain what you're getting across in this one.   0:19:57.9 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah, this is a MEGO chart. My Eyes Glaze Over. What I tried and I'm. I'm continually updating it. The different colors are from the fields of statistics, the fields of epistemology, psychology and systems thinking. And I'm linking a whole bunch of them together to show that there are similar thoughts in all four of these fields that contribute to a better understanding and use of all of them. Now the next slide, hopefully is more visible. It should be. I'm focusing on a stable process, which is statistical concept. Stable process means you've got by definition of Shewhart. There's a... Deming would call them common causes. When common causes are... When a process is stable, you're able to do design of experiments. Some of the enumerative methods work very, very well or with some degree of belief with a stable process. The red bead experiment was stable. Rule one and two of The Funnel. Stable process. Common causes in theory of knowledge. There's comment, well, I've seen that before or no, jeepers, I've never seen that that hooks up to some other special causes and statistics. There's a concept in theory of knowledge where you're talking about general providence or specific providence that the storm just, it hit everyone and pick out anyone in systems thinking you can only have a stable process if you have negative feedback loops and negative feedback.   0:22:40.0 Bill Scherkenbach: Again, I think I had mentioned in a previous discussion with you, negative doesn't mean it's bad. It just means it closes the loop and it seeks a stasis so, and that's the only way you're going to get. I'll simplify just about the only way you're going to get a stable process. There's a negative feedback loop in there somewhere. Stable process leads to long term thinking versus short term thinking, the theory of knowledge, empirical knowledge is never complete. Knowledge is theory applied over time. Stable process over and over and over again. The theory matches the data or what you predict, you then have knowledge. So the point is that, that there are a number of specific learnings. Well, for instance, let me see here, what's on. I have to adjust this. Okay. From psychology you've got what the psychologists call a fundamental attribution error. And that is mistaking who, as Dr. Deming says, who, who did it, who did it, did the people do it? Or did the system do it? Did the process do it? And in psychology, although it's in a different place, you've got following Rule 3 of The Funnel is a psychological term called complementary schismogenesis.   0:24:42.3 Bill Scherkenbach: And that's easy for me to say, going back to the Greek schism of split in genesis of a birth of a split. What that means is in psychology it's two people trying to one-up another. I've got this example. Well, I can do it. I mean, who, yeah, and the move or the musical Annie Oakley. Anything you can do, I can do better. So, psychology has observations and subject matters that they didn't have a clue. That was rule 3 of The Funnel. So my point in looking at all of these is that as you dig into things, they are interrelated. Now I haven't dug through anthropology or started. I've just restricted it to the four things Dr. Deming spoke about. But that would be a challenge to our listeners. If you really know some of these sciences, some of these bodies of knowledge, how are they connected? Okay. The aim of profound knowledge, he says, has to have an aim. Confucius in the East, Aristotle in the West, and in the Mid east, someone essentially said knowledge without action is useless and action without knowledge is dangerous.   0:26:51.0 Bill Scherkenbach: And Deming said the aim of a system, of his System of Profound Knowledge is action. And as we discussed previously, it's a transformation of Western, I think it's a transformation of Eastern and Western style of management. And he, the way he pronounced it was metamorphosis. And I will have to check the OED, Oxford English Dictionary. I haven't done that yet. But he has been 100% right in his pronunciation and usage of the English language. So as I said, there's got to be a butterfly in there somewhere. But he's talking about a major, major shift, major rebirth if you will, management. Systems theory. A lot of this is obvious and these are what he mentioned in his, not Out of the Crisis, but The New Economics. A network of interdependent components that work together to try and accomplish its aim. And, and he, and this I had mentioned earlier, I think that in his work. Well, I've got... Going back to some things, this is a 1954 speech he gave in Rome and this is a 1940 speech he gave. And because he was a Renaissance scholar, they were talking about a Systems View before it was popular.   0:29:06.5 Bill Scherkenbach: Everyone knows that he introduced the improvement on the old: design it or spec it, make it, try to sell it. And he introduced his expertise, sampling theory to be able to check on the customers and see what they think about stuff and be able to create a system of production instead of just one way through. Now. And I'm sure anyone who has read any of his books knows he spoke about the interdependence. He said in the example he gave was bowling. You just add up the scores. In the orchestra, you don't use a bunch of soloists, but they have to work together to be able to make sure that the result is what the composer, well, we don't know, I don't think what modes are intended.   0:30:28.9 Andrew Stotz: One of the things that's interesting about that orchestra concept is even, you know, it's a relatively complex system, but there's a score, there's a rule book, there's a play guide, here's what we're going to play. But sometimes with business there is no guide particularly, you know, you're running your own business relative, you know, you're focused on your own development of your own business. And it's not like you wake up every morning and there's a manual that says, "Here's what you do, here's what you play today." Which makes it that interdependence even more difficult and the need for communication and cooperation even more challenging. I have a client of mine that they've struggled to get the team to work together. But what I've also found is that they never sat down as a team and really had honest discussions consistently to try to break down the barriers and figure out how we're going to work together for this aim. So I'm curious about how do you look at business compared to, let's say, that orchestra example?   0:31:36.9 Bill Scherkenbach: Well, yeah, and Deming made that exact same point, at the far end of complexity or just about is business. They are far more complex and require far more interaction than the orchestra. Now, in trying to operationalize Dr. Deming's philosophy, I've tried to emphasize. And we've got a process to be able to create a vision and it obviously is followed by mission, values and question. We covered the physical, logical, emotional a few talks ago. But, but you have to... Top management has to have that vision that will include everyone in its and all sorts of voices in its creation. And then you have to have a way to be able to master that vision or make sure that that vision is operationalized. And that requires a whole bunch of feedback loops, if you will, systems thinking, a whole bunch of being able to work with people. And so it literally needs the application of profound knowledge from the management's perspective. You need to be able to operationalize your vision, not just come up with the vision and put it on the bookshelf.   0:33:34.5 Andrew Stotz: And the final bullet, says "the obligation of any component is to contribute its best to the system, not to maximize its own production, profit or sales, nor any other competitive measure." Oftentimes in the world of finance where I teach and I work, a lot of stuff, people think that the objective is to maximize profit, but the reality is the objective is to maximize value. And so when we look at, for instance, the value of a business, it's two components. Number one, the profit, which you could consider is kind of in the numerator. And then we reduce the profit by the denominator, which is risk. So think about it. If you were to invest money in two projects. One, you invest $100 in two projects, and one is very proven and you're very confident that this is going to work, and the other one is brand new, very possible it doesn't work. We would reduce the second cash flow and say, "Well, yeah, the amount we're investing is $100, but the reality is the cash flows may or may not hit." So we would reduce the value by the risk. And I try to help my young students particularly understand that it's an intricate balance of profit and risk. And if you overemphasize profit, you could be increasing the risk, which actually doesn't increase the value of the company.   0:35:07.0 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah. And Dr. Deming had a similar statement saying that the cost of something doesn't mean anything. It's the value of what you get for the cost and value is determined by the quality. My look at systems theory, especially the obligation this last one is to contribute its best to the system. What many people forget is as I mentioned in the beginning, everything is defined as in space and time. And Bill Ouchi who wrote the book Theory Z stated that... And this is an eastern management concept that you have to have, I guess, corporate knowledge because in order for someone to say, "Okay, this department, I'm going to..." Well, for instance, lunches, the corporate lunch room will lose money so that the corporation can make. So the people would stay on site and be able to contribute more work. But that's in the longer term. And so if someone steps aside today to let someone else get the kudos or the credit, the corporation needs to remember that. He called it societal knowledge or memory. And if you ended up being saying, "Screw you, I'm taking what's owed to me, " that also will be remembered. So you have to introduce the dimension of time to any systems theory view. Time and space.   0:37:36.3 Andrew Stotz: You mentioned about... Oh, go ahead.   0:37:40.5 Bill Scherkenbach: No, it's a statistician's attempt at humor before Einstein. Yeah.   0:37:49.6 Andrew Stotz: You mentioned about metamorphosis and you mentioned about transformation and I was just looking it up and let me maybe if I'll read out what I found. "Metamorphosis is a biological stage based change. Like a caterpillar turning into a butterfly. It implies a natural structured process. Transformation is a broad change in form, character or condition. It can be physical, emotional or organizational. In short, every metamorphosis is a transformation. But not every transformation is a metamorphosis."   0:38:26.2 Bill Scherkenbach: Good point. Understand.   0:38:30.7 Andrew Stotz: So let's continue.   0:38:35.0 Bill Scherkenbach: Okay. Variation. I think the first noble truth of Buddhism is "life is suffering." And Deming equated variation with suffering. So when I presented similar slides to my friends in Asia, I... Life is variation.   0:39:02.2 Andrew Stotz: That's great.   0:39:03.0 Bill Scherkenbach: Now there are two extremes in taking action on variation. Well, in taking action, I know this is in front of us, but Dr. Deming spoke about Shewhart's contribution. And that is the two mistakes that people can make with variation, while in taking appropriate action on variation. And one is mistaking common cause for special causes or special causes for common causes. And that's really the primary view. But Deming seminars showed that if you're going to take action, there also are two extremes in taking action. And one was every action taken tends to make things worse, which he used The Funnel experiment. And the other extreme is every action taken has no effect on the variation. And that's obviously the red bead experiment. And so he, those were the two extremes that he wanted to show and demonstrate to people in order to solidify the folks learning. Theory of knowledge. Okay, Management is prediction, temporal spread, space and time absolutely required, knowledge is built on theory.   0:40:50.5 Bill Scherkenbach: He got that from Shewhart and indirectly through C.I. Lewis and on knowledge being built on theory. And with that, that jogged my mind as far as coming up with my theory-question-data-action cycle, which is a bit different than the Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle. But in knowledge development knowledge is built on theory. So anytime any data that you see you and he asked, he told people, by what method did these data get to me? If you see data you have to ask that. If you see data you have to say what was the question that was asked? If you're a question asker, questions come from theory. They're connections of concepts in your mind. And so theory could be a guess or it could be as proven as scientific law, but everything, and that scares people away, but everything really starts with theory. Given a theory you can ask a question. You can tell people when you ask the question what I'm going to do with the data so they have a better idea of how to collect the data and what data to collect. And then you take the action and go back and revisit the theory. So theory, question, data, action over time generates knowledge. And with some other emotional and physical constraints and consistencies, you're going to gain wisdom.   0:42:58.8 Andrew Stotz: There's something...   0:43:00.4 Bill Scherkenbach: Go ahead.   0:43:01.5 Andrew Stotz: There's something that I always, I've questioned, I think you can probably clear it up in this part of our discussion is that Dr. Deming used to say something along the lines of without prediction or without theory there is no knowledge. Something along that line as I recall. And sometimes I understood that clearly and other times I question that. What would you say about that? How should I understand that?   0:43:33.1 Bill Scherkenbach: Well, it's something that he and Shewhart spoke about a lot. And let's see, in his 1939 book The Statistical Methods from the Viewpoint of Quality Control by Shewhart and edited and commented on by Dr. Deming, they speak about that, as far as. And again Shewhart was influenced by C.I. Lewis. And as an aside, when, when I was at Ford and we had a speaker who had studied under CI Lewis. I had to get Dr. Deming to speak with them. And I've put part of a video of their conversation on LinkedIn, YouTube, I guess. But knowledge is built on theory. Now can you explain it again? I might be able to...   0:45:03.0 Andrew Stotz: So let me get a quote from New Economics. He said "experience by itself teaches nothing. Without theory, experience has no meaning. Without theory, one has no question to ask. Hence without theory there is no learning."   0:45:19.0 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah. Yeah, okay. He was getting to, and he had all sorts of examples on the, on the first statement that experience teaches nothing. If you're, you might have an experience that perhaps you were, you, you were picked on. And what are you going to do about it? Well, your theory could have been: well, they don't like me. It could have been that: well, that person was a bully. Could be a whole bunch of things. But without the theory, what are you going to do in the future to make that experience more to your liking? And so you have to go beyond the experience and look at what is the thoughts and motivations behind that, which is theory. And now I don't know why I mentioned that, but I mean a number of the way... Well, I'll leave it at that.   0:47:02.8 Andrew Stotz: Yeah.   0:47:04.3 Bill Scherkenbach: As the left and right dukes it out based on their own theories. Okay. Psychology, it's incomplete without knowledge of variation. You mention that if you know the red beads, you won't make the fundamental attribution error. I had mentioned schismagenesis earlier, which is rule three of The Funnel. It invites, it says helps us understand people as different individuals. In, again, my take on this part of psychology. And again Dr. Deming saying everyone is entitled to take joy in their work. And he spoke about extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Well, I have looked at it for many years as each one of us has an internal voice of the customer. We are the customer. And what makes me take joy would make another person perhaps take despair. And so it's management's responsibility who manages the people, materials, methods, equipment, environment to know me as a customer and be able to, if this works for me, then the management would try to arrange things that would help me take joy because it's more congruent with my internal voice of the customer. Deming used a number of examples that I gather some psychologists call it overjustification. But it in fact says the description was he tried to tip someone and it was an insult.   0:49:30.8 Bill Scherkenbach: And so instead of a thank you. He talked, he talked about the letter he sent to a surgeon of his, meant more than adding $500 to the bill. And the surgeon would carry the letter from Dr. Deming because he was, Deming was thankful for it. But it takes an astute manager to be able to understand all of the individual voices of the customers, their employees, and be able to construct a system that is going to be more congruent with each of them. And if you know that money doesn't influence or isn't congruent with someone, maybe it's retirement point, maybe it's a day off, maybe it's a variety of things managers would know that works for one person pisses off another. So that's where I stand on that, on the overjustification. And the obvious: fear invites wrong figures. Yeah. Although I think I had mentioned that in my work over in Asia, in China. So we don't have fear. It's called respect. So.   0:51:09.0 Andrew Stotz: I've just been reading a book about the Gaokao, the exam that students have to take in China to get into the elite university system. And it really makes you, it definitely gives you all kinds of both sides of the thinking on that. It really has got me thinking about this, one measure, everybody's ranked and they go through the pros and cons of it, which is challenging, it's good to go through that and think about that. So, fascinating. Well, that's been a great discussion for me, the idea of transformation, the concept of metamorphosis was interesting to me also the stuff related to having, you know, that how do we acquire knowledge? I think sometimes when in research, let's say in financial research that I've done all my life, I come up with a vague hypothesis and then I just start playing with numbers to see what I find. And so I'm kind of fiddling around. I wouldn't say that I have...   0:52:18.7 Bill Scherkenbach: What's the vague hypothesis? Give an example of...   0:52:22.7 Andrew Stotz: So, one observation that I've been able to make is that a particular ratio has fallen consistently across the world for the last 30 years, and that is the amount of revenue that assets generate out of companies. And I looked at 10,000 companies across the world. So the first thing I thought, okay, well, maybe it's a particular sector that's causing this. And I broke down that those 10,000 companies into 10 different sectors, and I saw they all had almost the same pattern. So that kind of showed me yeah, it's probably not that. And then I went through. I came up with kind of five different ideas of what it could be. And I could test that because I had a lot of data to be able to test it, but I couldn't find an answer to it. Now, I guess what you could say is that my fiddling around was based on some type of theory or guess or prediction. It wasn't until I came up to one final one, which was, could interest rates have a relationship with this? We have been through a period of time of very, very low interest rates.   0:53:39.7 Andrew Stotz: So could that decline have been caused by or related to interest rates? So I looked at the average interest rate that these 10,000 companies were paying over the past 30 years, and I saw it was going down, down, down, down, down, down very low. And I would say that that was the most plausible explanation I could find was that low interest rates incentivize companies to invest in projects that generated less revenue than previous projects.   0:54:13.2 Bill Scherkenbach: Okay. Yeah. I would think that the system. Well, you have to take into account the lag in response to lower and lower. Okay, am I going to wait for the next one? Whatever. And what's the lag in decision-making on the thing? But you need to codify, what's your theory? Okay, if X, then Y, then collect, ask the questions, make sure you understand how you got the data. And then try to take action there. But, yeah, everything starts with theory. Yeah. So it'll be good to be specific about it. What do you think it is?   0:55:09.8 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, that's, that's helpful. Well, let's wrap this up. How would you, if you were to, to bring this into a very condensed takeaway of what you want people to get from this discussion, what would you say is the core takeaway you want them to remember.   0:55:25.7 Bill Scherkenbach: Space and time. And I have done my best. Dr. Deming ended all of his lectures.   0:55:38.9 Andrew Stotz: I have done my best. Well, I love that. And let me wrap it up, Bill, by saying, on behalf of everybody at the Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this discussion, another one that I've enjoyed immensely and for listeners remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. And of course, you can find bill on LinkedIn in particular, where he's posting a lot of these cool discussions and thoughts and all of that. So this is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming, and it relates to what we were just talking about. And that is "people are entitled to joy in work."

As many regular listeners to the podcast know, on this channel we have been exploring the new kinds of educational institutions that are emerging in response to the challenges that our legacy institutions are facing. For the last 250 years we've gotten used to compulsory standardised schooling being provided at scale by either the state, as public government schools, or by the market, as private fee-paying schools. I'm fascinated by the question of what alternatives there might be to this binary choice. Home-schooling networks, religious and intentional communities are certainly examples, but often still very much at the margins. My guest this week, David Bollier, is a global expert in the the way that communities work together to steward shared resources often known as the Commons, rather than relying on the market or the state. So I was very keen to ask him about the implications of reframing education itself as a commons, what would this do to the ways that we provide, fund, and govern education.David is an author, activist, blogger and independent scholar with a primary focus on the commons as a new paradigm of economics, politics and culture. He is the Reinventing the Commons Program Director at the The Schumacher Center for a New Economics https://centerforneweconomics.org/, and co-founder of the Commons Strategies Group, an advocacy/consulting project that assists the international commons movement. David's work on the commons especially focuses on Internet culture; law and policy; ecological governance; and inter-commoning. David has written and edited many books on the commons, including the revised second edition of Think Like a Commoner: A Short Introduction to the Life of the Commons that was published this year. His other books include: Free, Fair and Alive: The Insurgent Power of the Commons and The Commoner's Catalog for Changemaking; Think Like a Commoner: A Short Introduction to the Life of the Commons (2014); Green Governance: Ecological Survival, Human Rights and the Commons (2013), co-authored with Burns Weston; and Viral Spiral: How the Commoners Built a Digital Republic of Their Own (2010). With Silke Helfrich, he co-edited two anthologies of original essays, Patterns of Commoning (2015) and The Wealth of the Commons: A World Beyond Market and State (2012).David spent many years in various policy advocacy jobs in Washington, D.C. in the 1970s and 1980s – with a Member of Congress, the auto safety regulatory agency, and public-interest organizations.  From 1985 to 2010, David collaborated with television producer, writer and activist Norman Lear on a wide variety of non-television public affairs and political projects.  In 2001, David co-founded Public Knowledge, a Washington advocacy organization for the public's stake in the Internet, telecom and copyright policy. David's website and blog: https://www.bollier.org/David's podcast, 'Frontiers of Commoning', with The Schumacher Center for a New Economics: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/frontiers-of-commoning-with-david-bollier/id1501085005David on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-bollier-254129/

Prof. Steve Keen talks with Class Unity about the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-8, the problems with mainstream understandings of it, and the contemporary situation. He is the author of:The New Economics. A manifesto. Polity. (2021)Can We Avoid Another Financial Crisis? Polity. (2017)Developing an economics for the post-crisis world. World Economics Association and College Publications. […]

Episode NotesThe discussion moves into how standards evolve beyond tools, the trade-offs of monocultures vs. consensus-driven teams, and why ownership matters when the original authors move on. Nathan also unpacks the cost of neglect, describing defects as anything that slows developers down—not just issues that impact end users.Later in the conversation, Nathan recounts a migration from a React SPA to Turbo and Stimulus that removed barriers between designers and developers. He highlights how keeping all problems on the radar together prevents teams from falling into local optima. The episode closes with reflections on TestBench, blind spots in testing, continuous improvement in remote teams, and advice for developers who feel stuck raising maintenance concerns.Episode Highlights[00:01:07] Defining Well-Maintained Software: Nathan shares his three key markers—up-to-date dependencies, adherence to team standards, and fixing defects immediately.[00:02:53] From Tools to Tacit Knowledge: Why norms start with tool-enforced rules like RuboCop but evolve into cultural agreements within teams.[00:04:49] Speed vs. Durability: Teams built on monoculture move quickly early on, but diverse, consensus-driven cultures go farther.[00:11:11] Owning the Architecture: When original developers leave, new teams must take responsibility for architecture rather than defer decisions.[00:13:37] The Cost of Neglect: Dependencies, drifting standards, and defects interact in compounding ways. Nathan reframes defects as “anything that impedes developer effectiveness.”[00:17:46] React → Turbo + Stimulus Migration: A costly SPA and siloed design team gave way to a simpler approach that reduced rework and empowered designers to contribute directly.[00:22:44] Avoiding Local Optima: Tackling problems in isolation creates dead ends—addressing them holistically opens real paths forward.[00:24:32] Who We Seek Validation From: Developer identities often align with whose approval they value—shaping front-end vs. back-end divides.[00:27:34] Comfort vs. Maintenance Burden: Silos built for comfort create tomorrow's maintenance problems.[00:33:45] Relentless Improvement in Remote Teams: Start as an ensemble, evolve into autonomous work cells, and use work logs to sustain consensus.[00:38:33] What's Missing from Remote Work: Nathan reflects on lost “hallway conversations” and the challenge of building social glue remotely.[00:40:50] The Story Behind TestBench: Dissatisfaction with existing frameworks and a desire for simplicity led to TestBench's creation.[00:47:38] Testing Blind Spots: The biggest blind spot is equating testing with automation—interactive testing and intelligible output remain essential.[00:50:35] Advice for Stuck Engineers: Nathan encourages developers to study quality traditions, connect with peers, and embrace continuous improvement.[00:53:16] Book Recommendations: Deming's Out of the Crisis and The New Economics, Toyota's product development work, and Rawls' A Theory of Justice.Tools & Resources MentionedBrightworks Digital – Nathan's current company, where he serves as Principal.Nathan Ladd on LinkedIn – Connect with Nathan and follow his work.TestBench – A Ruby testing framework co-created by Nathan.Turbo – Hotwire framework for building modern, fast applications without heavy JavaScript.Stimulus – A modest JavaScript framework for enhancing HTML with small, reusable controllers.RSpec – A popular Ruby testing tool for behavior-driven development.Minitest – A simple and fast Ruby testing framework.RuboCop – A Ruby static code analyzer and formatter.Lessons Learned in Software Testing – Classic book on testing by Cem Kaner, James Bach, and Bret Pettichord.Out of the Crisis – W. Edwards Deming's influential work on quality and systems thinking.The New Economics – Deming's follow-up book on continuous improvement.A Theory of Justice – John Rawls' seminal work on moral and political philosophy.The Toyota Product Development System – Insights into Toyota's continuous improvement and development practices.Thanks to Our Sponsor!Turn hours of debugging into just minutes! AppSignal is a performance monitoring and error-tracking tool designed for Ruby, Elixir, Python, Node.js, Javascript, and other frameworks.It offers six powerful features with one simple interface, providing developers with real-time insights into the performance and health of web applications.Keep your coding cool and error-free, one line at a time! Use the code maintainable to get a 10% discount for your first year. Check them out! Subscribe to Maintainable on:Apple PodcastsSpotifyOr search "Maintainable" wherever you stream your podcasts.Keep up to date with the Maintainable Podcast by joining the newsletter.

Send us a textIn this electrifying episode of Money Majlis, Suvo Sarkar sits down with Brett King, the world's most cited financial futurist, to unpack the seismic shifts reshaping global banking. Fresh from hosting the inaugural Dubai Futurists X Summit, Brett joins Suvo in the heart of Dubai to explore the end of physical branches, the rise of AI-powered finance, and the cultural fault lines between legacy banks and digital challengers. Brett's new book Branch Tomorrow forecasts that half of US bank branches will vanish by 2030, a seismic shift mirrored by trends across the Middle East, Asia, and Europe.But this isn't just about closures—it's about a new economic logic. Brett explains why digital-first banks like Nubank and WeBank are outpacing traditional players in profitability, customer acquisition, and operational efficiency. He argues that every dollar spent on branches is a dollar not invested in customer-facing tech—and that's a strategic misstep boards can no longer afford. The conversation dives deep into mobile wallet dominance, AI's transformative role in fraud detection and loan approvals, and the cultural inertia that keeps banks clinging to outdated models. Brett doesn't shy away from tough questions: Are we excluding seniors and rural populations as branches die? Can trust survive without face-to-face KYC? And what happens when AI becomes the banker? From “dark branches” to embedded finance, from GCC neobank economics to the shifting trust metrics of Gen Z, this episode is a masterclass in financial futurism. Brett's rapid-fire insights are provocative, data-rich, and deeply relevant for anyone shaping the future of money. Giving partner : GoodworldProduced by : Sabine Achkar @ Poddster Don't forget to visit www.moneymajlis.com to redeem your free $50 GiveCard for a charity of your choice. 

Kai Heron, Keir Milburn and Bertie Russell discuss Radical Abundance, transition and public-commons partnerships. Shownotes Heron, K., Milburn, K., Russell, B. (2025). Radical Abundance. How to Win a Green Democratic Future. Pluto Press. https://www.plutobooks.com/product/radical-abundance/ Kai Heron at Lancaster University: https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/lec/about-us/people/kai-heron Keir Milburn's contributions at Novara Media: https://novaramedia.com/contributor/keir-milburn/ Bertie Russell at the Autonomous University of Barcelona: https://portalrecerca.uab.cat/en/persons/bertie-thomas-russell Abundance (the collective): https://www.in-abundance.org/ on Marta Harnecker: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marta_Harnecker on Michael A. Lebowitz: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A._Lebowitz Lebowitz, M. A. (2013). Contested Reproduction and the Contradictions of Socialism. Socialist Project. https://socialistproject.ca/2013/09/b877/ on Yevgeni Preobrazhensky: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yevgeni_Preobrazhensky Preobrazhensky, Y. (1965). The New Economics. Oxford University Press. https://files.libcom.org/files/%5bPreobrazhensky%2C_Evgeny_Alekseevich%5d_The_New_Econo(BookZZ.org).pdf Nunes, R. (2021). Neither Vertical nor Horizontal. A Theory of Political Organization. Verso. https://www.versobooks.com/products/772-neither-vertical-nor-horizontal on Public-Commons Partnerships: https://www.in-abundance.org/what-is-a-public-commons-parntership https://www.in-abundance.org/reports/public-common-partnerships-building-new-circuits-of-collective-ownership for case studies on Public-Commons Partnerships, see: https://www.in-abundance.org/case-studies on Public-Private Partnerships: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public%E2%80%93private_partnership on council farms in the UK: https://www.cpre.org.uk/explainer/county-farms-explainer/ Common Wealth (the organization): https://www.common-wealth.org/ Common Wealth's recent project on privatization and Public-Private Partnerships in the UK: https://www.common-wealth.org/interactive/who-owns-britain/home on Che Guevara: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara on Stuart Hall: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Hall_(cultural_theorist) on Hugo Chávez: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez Gilbert, C. (2023). Commune or Nothing! Venezuela's Communal Movement and its Socialist Project. Monthly Review Press. https://monthlyreview.org/9781685900243/ on agroecology: https://agroecology-coalition.org/what-is-agroecology/ SCOP-TI: https://www.scop-ti.info/ the Berlin Housing Campaign: https://dwenteignen.de/en on the Wards Corner Market: https://www.in-abundance.org/case-studies/wards-corner Amarnath, S. et al. (2023): Varieties of Derisking. Phenomenal World. https://www.phenomenalworld.org/interviews/derisking/ on the Great Replacement conspiracy theory in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement_conspiracy_theory_in_the_United_States on marronage communities and their role in slave rebellions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maroons on the coal strikes in Appalachia in the late 19th and early 20th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_Wars on the Black Panther Party: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party on SYRIZA and their development: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/rethinking-populism/the-systemic-metamorphosis-of-greeces-once-radical-left-wing-syriza-party/ on Erik Olin Wright's “Transition Troughs” concept, see chapter 9 and 10 of: Wright, E. O. (2010). Envisioning Real Utopias. Verso. https://www.versobooks.com/products/2143-envisioning-real-utopias the “Abundance” report on the social property of water in the UK: https://www.in-abundance.org/latest/beyond-bailouts on the 2023 strike in France where workers cut energy to certain sectors: https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/03/30/robin-hood-electricians-and-oil-blockades-the-radical-tactics-of-frances-striking-energy-w van Dyk, S. & Haubner, T. (2021). Community-Kapitalismus. Hamburger Edition. https://www.hamburger-edition.de/buecher-e-books/artikel-detail/community-kapitalismus/ van Dyk, S. (2018). Post-Wage Politics and the Rise of Community Capitalism. Work, Employment and Society, 32(3), 528-545. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0950017018755663 on municipalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipalism Bianchi, I. & Russell, B. (eds.) (2026). Radical Municipalism. The Politics of the Common and the Democratization of Public Services. Bristol University Press. (forthcoming) https://bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/radical-municipalism on the Occupy Movement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_movement on Climateflation: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/26/tuesday-briefing-how-climateflation-is-pushing-food-prices-ever-higher-and-changing-how-we-eat on hernani burujabe (the tripartite economic planning system in the city of Hernani): https://hernaniburujabe.eus/es/que-es/ Egia-Olaizola, A., Villalba-Eguiluz, U. and Gainza, X. (2025), Beyond the New Municipalism. Towards Post-Capitalist Territorial Sovereignty in the Case of Hernani Burujabe. Antipode, 57: 1448-1469. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/anti.70030 on the Commons (concept): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons on Evergreening: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreening Klein, E. & Thompson, D. (2025). Abundance. Avid Reader Press. https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Abundance/Ezra-Klein/9781668023488 on Marx's concept of the realm of necessity and freedom: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/hist-mat/capital/vol3-ch48.htm on David Graeber: https://davidgraeber.org/ Suits, B. (2005). The Grasshopper. Games, Life and Utopia. Broadview Press. https://kevinjpatton.com/teaching/phil_3230/readings/Bernard%20Suits%20-%20The%20Grasshopper.pdf on the socialist ecomodernism and degrowth debate: https://www.resilience.org/stories/2023-01-23/ecomodernism-on-its-own-terms/ Future Histories Episodes on Related Topics S3E44 | Anna Kornbluh on Climate Counteraesthetics https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s03/e44-anna-kornbluh-on-climate-counteraesthetics/ S03E30 | Matt Huber & Kohei Saito on Growth, Progress and Left Imaginaries https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s03/e30-matt-huber-kohei-saito-on-growth-progress-and-left-imaginaries/ S03E29 | Nancy Fraser on Alternatives to Capitalism https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s03/e29-nancy-fraser-on-alternatives-to-capitalism/ S03E19 | Wendy Brown on Socialist Governmentality https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s03/e19-wendy-brown-on-socialist-governmentality/ S03E03 | Planning for Entropy on Sociometabolic Planning https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s03/e03-planning-for-entropy-on-sociometabolic-planning/ S02E51 | Silvia Federici on Progress, Reproduction and Commoning https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e51-silvia-federici-on-progress-reproduction-and-commoning/ S02E13 | Tine Haubner und Silke van Dyk zu Community-Kapitalismus https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e13-tine-haubner-und-silke-van-dyk-zu-community-kapitalismus/ --- If you are interested in democratic economic planning, these resources might be of help: Democratic planning – an information website https://www.democratic-planning.com/ Sorg, C. & Groos, J. (eds.)(2025). Rethinking Economic Planning. Competition & Change Special Issue Volume 29 Issue 1. https://journals.sagepub.com/toc/ccha/29/1 Groos, J. & Sorg, C. (2025). Creative Construction - Democratic Planning in the 21st Century and Beyond. Bristol University Press. [for a review copy, please contact: amber.lanfranchi[at]bristol.ac.uk] https://bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/creative-construction International Network for Democratic Economic Planning https://www.indep.network/ Democratic Planning Research Platform: https://www.planningresearch.net/ --- Future Histories Contact & Support If you like Future Histories, please consider supporting us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/join/FutureHistories Contact: office@futurehistories.today Twitter: https://twitter.com/FutureHpodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/futurehpodcast/ Mastodon: https://mstdn.social/@FutureHistories English webpage: https://futurehistories-international.com   Episode Keywords #KaiHeron, #KeirMilburn, #BertieRussell, #JanGroos, #Interview, #FutureHistories, #FutureHistoriesInternational, #futurehistoriesinternational, #Transition, #SocioecologicalTransition #DemocraticPlanning, #DemocraticEconomicPlanning, #Capitalism #BerlinHousingCampaign, #DWE, #Economics, #Socialism, #Socialisation, #Commons, #PublicCommonsPartnerships, #RadicalAbundance, #Abundance, #Municipalism, #Agroecology, #Derisking, #Investment, #Degrowth, #SocialistEcomodernism, #Ecomodernism

This government has taken a record-breaking plummet in popularity, our chancellor keeps telling us the Treasury has no spare cash for our crumbling schools and hospitals, and Reform have become the most popular party in the country. So, where did it all go wrong for Labour? Is it true that this government is hamstrung by the UK's ailing economy? And why are so many people turning to Reform? For the first episode in a new series of the New Economics podcast, Ayeisha Thomas-Smith is joined By Faiza Shaheen, chief executive of Tax Justice UK, and Alex Chapman, senior economist at the New Economics Foundation. Follow our Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/neweconomicspod/ Follow our Tiktok: https://www.tiktok.com/@neweconomicspod Music by Lee Rosevere, Free Music Archive: freemusicarchive.org/m... used under Creative Commons licence: cre​ativecom​mons​.org/​l​i​c​e​n​s​e​s​/​b​y​-​n​c​/4.0/. Produced by Katrina Gaffney and Margaret Welsh. The New Economics Podcast is brought to you by the New Economics Foundation. Find out more about becoming a NEF supporter at: neweconomics.org/donate/build-a-better-future New Economics Foundation is a registered charity in England and Wales. Charity No. 1055254

In this latest OIES podcast from the Electricity Programme, Dimitra Apostolopoulou talks to the Director of Research at the Electricity Programme and Senior Research Fellow Rahmat Poudineh about his latest paper titled “From Scarcity to Scale: The New Economics of Energy”. In this podcast, we begin by explaining how our energy system is shifting from an operating-expense […] The post OIES Podcast – From Scarcity to Scale: The New Economics of Energy appeared first on Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.

In a candid conversation with Zendesk CTO Adrian McDermott, it's become clear that enterprise AI has reached a pivotal moment. We're witnessing the end of AI theater and the emergence of practical platforms delivering real business value.   "We're moving from chapter one to chapter two of the application of generative AI," McDermott explains. "It's not just party tricks anymore - it's platforms. And we're really building things that have value and meaning." The Rise of Platform Thinking The shift from isolated AI features to comprehensive platforms marks a significant evolution in enterprise technology. Companies are no longer satisfied with flashy demonstrations - they demand measurable outcomes and clear ROI. This transformation is evident in Zendesk's new resolution platform, which integrates multiple AI capabilities into a cohesive system. The New Economics of AI Implementation Zendesk has pioneered outcome-based pricing for AI agents in the customer experience industry - a significant departure from traditional seat-based pricing models. This approach aligns vendor success directly with customer outcomes.   "You should really be able to run a model that would prove and predict the ROI upfront," McDermott notes, highlighting the increasing sophistication of AI implementation. Customers now expect vendors to demonstrate clear business value before deployment. Voice: The Critical Escalation Channel Despite predictions of voice's decline, it remains crucial in an AI-first world. McDermott explains: "In a world of automation, the escalation channel is voice, and you need it to be tightly integrated."   The future of voice in customer service is being reimagined through: Seamless integration with AI systems Warm handoffs between digital and voice channels Enhanced context preservation across interactions Real-time analytics and support The Resolution Platform Framework Zendesk's resolution platform represents a comprehensive approach to customer service, incorporating: Customer-facing AI agents Agent copilot systems Automated content generation Continuous analysis and quality assurance Unified governance and measurement Looking Ahead: The iPhone Moment? McDermott poses a crucial question: "Are we building Windows Mobile on top of generative AI, or is there innovation and disruption to come?" This reflection suggests we're still in early stages, with significant disruption ahead. Key Takeaways Enterprise AI has matured beyond demonstrations to delivering measurable outcomes Platform approaches are replacing point solutions Voice remains critical in an AI-first service strategy Economic alignment between vendors and customers is essential Continuous innovation and adaptation are necessary The shift from AI theater to practical platforms marks a new era in enterprise technology. Organizations must now focus on building comprehensive, outcome-driven AI strategies rather than chasing individual features or capabilities.

Playing for Team Human today, activist, Blogger, and Director of the Reinventing the CommonsProgram at the Schumacher Center for a New Economics, David Bollier.Team Human is proudly sponsored by Everyone's Earth.Learn more about Everyone's Earth: https://everyonesearth.com/Change Diapers: https://changediapers.com/Cobi Dryer Sheets: https://cobidryersheets.com/Support Team Human on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/teamhumanFollow Team Human with Douglas Rushkoff:Instagram: https:/www.instagram.com/douglasrushkoffBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/rushkoff.comGet bonus content on Patreon: patreon.com/teamhuman  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Get bonus content on Patreon Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Connor Boyack is the founder of the Libertas Network, and co-creator of the popular Tuttle Twins book series. He discusses a recent controversy in which the children's books were (temporarily) removed from public libraries in New York state. He also discusses Bob's new economics course which is part of the Tuttle Twins Academy.Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest:The YouTube version of this interview.The link to Bob's online economics course at the Tuttle Twins Academy.Connor Boyack's website, with links to his various projects.Help support the Bob Murphy Show.

Today we're examining the evolution of asset management and financial advisory services. As technology transforms how we invest and manage wealth, we're exploring the critical balance between innovation and human expertise. We'll discuss how disruption in the advisory space creates new opportunities for clients and advisors alike, why personal relationships remain essential even as AI expands, and how progressive firms are reimagining compensation models. We'll also look at the hybrid approach resonating with next-gen clients who want both self-directed tools and personalized guidance. Joining me to explore these topics are Steven Woods, CEO and Founder of Stirlingshire, and Jim Webb, VP of Investments. Their firm is working to remake the asset management model for both clients and advisors. Today, we'll hear about their non-traditional approach to wealth management, how they're balancing technology with the human touch, and why this matters for both financial professionals and their clients. The Big Ideas: Challenging the Traditional Asset Management Fee Structure: Stirlingshire allows advisors to keep 100% of asset management fees and commissions with zero expenses. This flips the traditional model where firms take substantial cuts from advisor earnings, creating better economics for both clients and advisors. The "Advice on Demand" Innovation: Stirlingshire offers a hybrid model between self-directed investing and full management. Clients can self-direct at zero commission but access professional advisors when needed, with advisors only getting paid when their specific recommendations result in profits. Technology-Enabled Compliance and Remote Work: By embedding compliance directly into their technology systems, Stirlingshire eliminates the need for physical offices and reduces compliance staffing. This automation significantly reduces overhead costs while increasing advisor flexibility. AI as an Efficiency Tool, Not a Replacement: Rather than replacing human advisors, Stirlingshire uses AI to make them more efficient. Their AI tools quickly analyze portfolios and provide market context, saving advisors time without making actual investment decisions. Disrupting the Industry to Drive Broader Change: Stirlingshire aims to force change across the entire financial advisory industry, similar to how Robinhood disrupted commission structures. Their goal is to push other independent firms toward more advisor-friendly compensation models by demonstrating a successful alternative approach.

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. 

In this episode, Doc Danny breaks down the latest trends in cash-based and hybrid physical therapy practices and why these models are thriving in 2025. From patient spending behavior to economic factors like inflation and interest rates, he highlights what clinic owners need to know to stay profitable and scale successfully this year. Key Takeaways: ✔ Cash & hybrid PT clinics are growing, not slowing—patient spending remains strong ✔ Hiring is the biggest challenge for growing clinics, not lack of patients ✔ High deductibles & co-pays drive patients to cash-based providers ✔ Inflation, interest rates & tariffs affect the economy, but PT clinics remain stable ✔ AI will automate admin tasks, but hands-on PT remains in demand ✔ A strong brand, niche focus & customer experience are key to growth ✔ Prevention & performance services drive recurring revenue and clinic stability Resources Mentioned:

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.

In this week's episode of Economic Update, Professor Richard Wolff delves into the heroic efforts of California firefighters and their extraordinary work in battling the recent wildfires in Los Angeles. We also explore the progressive transformations occurring within U.S. labor unions and shed light on the escalating housing affordability crisis across the United States. Additionally, we interview Professor Clara Mattei, Director of the newly established Center for Heterodox Economics in Oklahoma. Professor Mattei shares details about this groundbreaking initiative, outlining its goals, mission, and activities, as well as how it distinguishes itself from mainstream economic approaches.   The d@w Team Economic Update with Richard D. Wolff is a DemocracyatWork.info Inc. production. We make it a point to provide the show free of ads and rely on viewer support to continue doing so. You can support our work by joining our Patreon community: https://www.patreon.com/democracyatwork Or you can go to our website: https://www.democracyatwork.info/donate   Every donation counts and helps us provide a larger audience with the information they need to better understand the events around the world they can't get anywhere else. We want to thank our devoted community of supporters who help make this show and others we produce possible each week.1:01 We kindly ask you to also support the work we do by encouraging others to subscribe to our YouTube channel and website: www.democracyatwork.info

As we head into times where rising temperatures, superstorms, and mega-fires dominate the headlines, what has happened to our disaster-averting solutions? In this episode, we explore 'The Carbon Conundrum' and rethink our relationship with nature. Join host Jack Eidt as he features a discussion with post-humanist philosopher Báyò Akómoláfé and environmental leader and author Paul Hawken, moderated by Alex Forrester, Board Member of the Schumacher Center for a New Economics and Co-Founder of Rising Tide capital. They delve into the failures of current climate strategies, the pitfalls of solutionism, and the importance of reconnecting with Traditional Ecological Knowledge. This enlightening conversation challenges listeners to reconsider their approaches to environmentalism and climate action. Support the Podcast via PayPal https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=LBGXTRM292TFC&source=url Paul Hawken [https://paulhawken.com/] starts ecological businesses, writes about nature and commerce. He has written nine books, including six national and NYT bestsellers: ‘Growing a Business', ‘The Next Economy', ‘The Ecology of Commerce', ‘Blessed Unrest', ‘Drawdown', and ‘Regeneration'. His latest book, ‘Carbon, The Book of Life', is available from Penguin RandomHouse in February 2025. Paul is the founder of Project Drawdown and Project Regeneration (https://regeneration.org/), which is the world's largest, most complete listing and network of solutions to the climate crisis. Báyò Akómoláfé Ph.D., [https://www.bayoakomolafe.net/] rooted with the Yoruba people in a more-than-human world, is a posthumanist thinker, poet, teacher, public intellectual, essayist, and author of two books, These Wilds Beyond our Fences: Letters to My Daughter on Humanity's Search for Home (North Atlantic Books) and We Will Tell our Own Story: The Lions of Africa Speak. Bayo Akomolafe is the visionary founder of The Emergence Network, a planet-wide networking project and inquiry at the edges of the Anthropocene that seeks to convene new kinds of responsivities, sensuous solidarities, and experimental practices for a posthumanist parapolitics. He currently lectures at Pacifica Graduate Institute, California. He sits on the Board of many organizations. A frequent keynote speaker and guest lecturer, Dr. Akomolafe's critically popular expression, “the times are urgent, let us slow down,” with which he attempts to frame new concepts (such as ontofugitivity, the Afrocene, iatropolitics, curapoiesis, white syncopation, ecocognitive assemblage theory, postactivism and parapolitics) that reframe and renaturalize human action, agency, and responsibility in an immanent, agonistic worlding of possibilities for life-death. Dr. Akomolafe is a Member of the Club of Rome and an Ambassador for the Wellbeing Economy Alliance. He is currently writing his third book, ‘An Ocean of Milk: Morality, Desire, and the Monster at the Edge of the World'. Jack Eidt is an urban planner, environmental journalist, and climate organizer, as well as award-winning fiction writer. He is Co-Founder of SoCal 350 Climate Action and Executive Producer of EcoJustice Radio. He writes a column on PBS SoCal called High & Dry [https://www.pbssocal.org/people/high-dry]. He is also Founder and Publisher of WilderUtopia [https://wilderutopia.com], a website dedicated to the question of Earth sustainability, finding society-level solutions to environmental, community, economic, transportation and energy needs. Podcast Website: http://ecojusticeradio.org/ Podcast Blog: https://www.wilderutopia.com/category/ecojustice-radio/ Support the Podcast: Patreon https://www.patreon.com/ecojusticeradio PayPal https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=LBGXTRM292TFC&source=url Executive Producer and Host: Jack Eidt Engineer and Original Music: Blake Quake Beats Episode 249 Photo credit: Carbon book cover

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 this episode, we go back to the future with the groundbreaking book by Dr. W. Edwards Deming - "The New Economics." Join us as we explore this goldmine of wisdom on leading organizations that are built to last. This podcast is a no-holds-barred breakdown of Deming's System of Profound Knowledge and its four key elements:Appreciation for a system Knowledge about variationTheory of knowledgePsychologyWatch or listen to learn why pursuing short-term wins often leads to long-term ruin, and how to cultivate an organization-wide focus on quality as a strategic priority. With insights on leadership, teamwork, continuous improvement and more, this episode is a must-listen for managers, executives and anyone passionate about building great organizations!!!= = = = = = = = = = = =Watch on YouTube= = = = = = = = = = = =Subscribe on YouTubeApplehttps://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/agile-podcast/id1568557596Spotifyhttps://open.spotify.com/show/362QvYORmtZRKAeTAE57v3Amazonhttps://music.amazon.com/podcasts/ee3506fc-38f2-46d1-a301-79681c55ed82/Agile-Podcast= = = = = = = = = = = =Toronto Is My Beat (Music Sample)By Whitewolf (Source: https://ccmixter.org/files/whitewolf225/60181)CC BY 4.0 DEED (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en)

My guest today is Eric Beinhocker, Professor of Practice in Public Policy at the Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford, and the founder and Executive Director of the Institute for New Economic Thinking at the University's Oxford Martin School. Eric is the author of numerous academic articles and books, including The Origin of Wealth: Evolution, Complexity, and the Radical Remaking of Economics (2007). In our conversation, Eric and I contrast traditional economics (neoclassical theory) with new economics (complexity economics). We also explore the policy implications of these differing economic theories, discussing topics ranging from aggressive growth strategies to complexity catastrophes in digital economies. I hope you enjoy our conversation. References: The origin of wealth: Evolution, complexity, and the radical remaking of economics (2007) ⁠https://moldham74.github.io/AussieCAS/papers/Origins⁠ of Wealth.pdf Getting Big Too Fast: Strategic Dynamics with Increasing Returns and Bounded Rationality (2007) ⁠https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/pdf/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0673⁠ Fair Social Contracts and the Foundations of Large-Scale Collaboration (2022) ⁠https://oms-inet.files.svdcdn.com/staging/files/Fair-Social-Contracts-Beinhocker-v8-22-22.pdf⁠ Reflexivity, complexity, and the nature of social science (2013) ⁠https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1350178X.2013.859403⁠

When 460,000+ law firms compete for attention, casting a wide net is no longer enough. In this episode of Personal Injury Mastermind, we explore how AI and innovative business models are reshaping case acquisition. From precision targeting to owning distribution channels, discover how forward-thinking firms land premium cases by fishing with a spear instead of a net. Dominate your market today. Grab a copy of Chris' latest book, Personal Injury Lawyer Marketing: From Good to GOAT.  We discuss: How FirmPilot's AI platform uses psychographic data to target ideal clients Why vanity metrics like organic traffic matter less than qualified leads The real metrics that determine Google Ads placement and cost How Top Class Actions built a 1.5M monthly visitor platform The economics of commercial vehicle cases and mass torts Why traditional case acquisition methods are becoming obsolete Using data feedback loops to optimize marketing spend Guest Details Jake Soffer is the founder and CEO of FirmPilot, an AI-powered marketing platform helping law firms target premium cases. With a background in computer engineering and natural language processing, Jake is revolutionizing how firms approach digital marketing.  Jake Soffer: LinkedIn Firm Pilotl: Website  Scott Hardy is the founder of Top Class Actions and Leagify Law Firm. Through his innovative approach to case acquisition and Arizona's new rules allowing non-lawyer ownership, Scott has built a platform that attracts 1.5 million potential clients monthly.  Scott Hardy: LinkedIn  Top Class Actions: Website, Legal Fi Website Chris Dreyer and Rankings Details Chris Dreyer is the CEO and founder of Rankings.io, the elite legal digital marketing agency.  Rankings: Website, Instagram, Twitter Chris Dreyer: Website, Instagram Newsletters: The Dreyer Sheet  Books: Personal Injury Lawyer Marketing: From Good to GOAT; Niching Up: The Narrower the Market, the Bigger the Prize Work with Rankings: Connect Time Stamps 00:00 Intro  00:43 Meet Jake Soffer & FirmPilot 03:22 The Evolution of Legal Marketing  07:06 AI Marketing Capabilities  10:30 Scott Hardy & Top Class Actions  12:14 Commercial Vehicle Cases  14:59 Forward Integration Strategy  18:36 Closing Thoughts Additional Episodes You Might Enjoy 80. Mike Papantonio, Levin, Papantonio, & Rafferty — Doing Well by Doing Good 84. Glen Lerner, Lerner and Rowe – A Steady Hand in a Shifting Industry 101. Pratik Shah, EsquireTek — Discovering the Power of Automation 134. Darryl Isaacs, Isaacs & Isaacs — The Hammer: Insights from a Marketing Legend 104. Taly Goody, Goody Law Group — Finding PI Clients on TikTok 63. Joe Fried, Fried Goldberg LLC — How To Become An Expert And Revolutionize Your PI Niche 96. Brian Dean, Backlinko — Becoming a Linkable Source 83. Seth Godin — Differentiation: How to Make Your Law Firm a Purple Cow 73. Neil Patel, Neil Patel — Digital A New Approach to Content and Emerging Marketing Channels

What does 'sustainability' really mean and how do we get there? This radio documentary features some of Australia's most eminent thinkers. A  wide ranging analysis digs into the fundamental causes of our predicament, based on interviews I recorded for the book with Stephen Williams Sustainability and the New Economics and The Path to a Sustainable Civilisation co-authored with Mark Diesendorf.   This is a re-podcast from the Post Growth Australia Podcast https://pgap.fireside.fm/7rethinksustain   • Prof David Lindenmayer • Prof Will Steffen • Prof Clive Hamilton • Dr Kerryn Higgs • Prof Philip Lawn • Dr Mark Diesendorf • Prof Steve Keen • Ian Dunlop • Prof Steven Hail • High Court Justice Michael Kirby • Prof Ian Lowe

Welcome back to a brand-new Season Seven of Post Growth Australia Podcast! As our world teeters on the edge of an increasingly perilous environmental future—extending beyond climate change—we must ask: what does true sustainability entail? How far are we from it, what are the root causes of our current trajectory, and what paths could lead us there? Rod Taylor (author, columnist, radio host) asks these very questions to eleven esteemed Australian scientists and thinkers in a brand-new radio documentary. PGAP is proud to be the first platform to share this thought-provoking documentary, which explores ecological economics, planned Degrowth and Modern Monetary Theory. Rod Taylor is author of “Ten Journeys on a Fragile Planet (https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/scienceshow/ten-journeys-on-a-fragile-planet/13173096)”, co-author with Mark Diesendorf of “The Path to a Sustainable Civilisation (https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-99-0663-5)” and co-editor with Stephen Williams, of the groundbreaking book, “Sustainability and the New Economics (https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-78795-0)”. Rod is also host of the ‘Fuzzy Logic Science Show (https://fuzzylogicon2xx.podbean.com/).” Rod was a previous guest on PGAP (Fuzzy Logic on a Fragile Planet with Rod Taylor (https://pgap.fireside.fm/rodtaylor)). Stephen Williams and Mark Disendorf were also past guests on PGAP. You can listen to their episodes HERE (https://pgap.fireside.fm/stevewilliams) and HERE (https://pgap.fireside.fm/pathsustainableciv). The impressive list of guests on the documentary ‘Rethinking Sustainability' include (in order of appearance): • Prof David Lindenmayer • Prof Will Steffen • Prof Clive Hamilton • Dr Kerryn Higgs • Prof Philip Lawn • Dr Mark Diesendorf • Prof Steve Keen • Ian Dunlop • Prof Steven Hail • High Court Justice Michael Kirby • Prof Ian Lowe Last but not least, a shout out to environmental scientist David Tiller, who provided production assistance in the making of this documentary. This episode of PGAP was produced just before the disastrous election results in the USA. As such your co-hosts Michael Bayliss (https://michaelbayliss.org/) and Mark Allen come across as merely VERY pessimistic at the state of the world, instead of EXTREMELY. Stay tuned for our upcoming episode, where we'll address these events in more depth and discuss the underlying systemic issues that shape our society. In the meantime, you can explore these ideas further through Mark's Holistic Activism (https://holisticactivism.net/)movement. Now more than ever, it is important that progressive podcasts are supported, as some panacea to the extreme right leaning media that are dominating the airwaves. Please consider supporting PGAP by sharing this and other episodes with your networks, leaving a review on Apple Podcast (https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/post-growth-australia-podcast/id1522194099) and contacting us (https://pgap.fireside.fm/contact) with your thoughts and feedback. This episode of Post-Growth Australia Podcast was made possible with the kind support of Sustainable Population Australia (https://population.org.au/). Special Guest: Rod Taylor.

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."  

By the time this episode comes out, the new Labour government will have been in charge of the country for one hundred days. So what do we know about how they'll run the economy? Can they rescue our threadbare public services while promising a tight grip on government spending? And will their focus on growth deliver real change for those who need it most? Ayeisha Thomas-Smith is joined by Aditya Chakrabortty, senior economic commentator at the Guardian, and Ailbhe Rea, associate editor at Bloomberg UK, for the first episode in a new series of the New Economics podcast. ....... Music: Gathering by Poddington Bear (available: https://freemusicarchive.org/music/Podington_Bear/Encouraging/Gathering/), used under Creative Commons licence: creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. Produced by Katrina Gaffney, Margaret Welsh and James Rush. The New Economics Podcast is brought to you by the New Economics Foundation. Find out more about becoming a NEF supporter at: neweconomics.org/donate/build-a-better-future New Economics Foundation is a registered charity in England and Wales. Charity No. 1055254

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."

Bayo Akomolafe (Ph.D.), rooted with the Yoruba people in a more-than-human world, is a widely celebrated international speaker, posthumanist thinker, poet, teacher, public intellectual, essayist, and author of two books, These Wilds Beyond our Fences: Letters to My Daughter on Humanity's Search for Home (North Atlantic Books) and We Will Tell our Own Story: The Lions of Africa Speak. Dr. Akomolafe is the Founder of The Emergence Network, a planet-wide initiative that seeks to convene communities in new ways in response to the critical, civilizational challenges we face as a species. He is host of the postactivist course/festival/event, ‘We Will Dance with Mountains' and currently lectures at Pacifica Graduate Institute, California. He sits on the Board of many organizations including Science and Non-Duality (US) and Ancient Futures (Australia).In July 2022, Dr. Akomolafe was appointed the inaugural Global Senior Fellow of University of California's (Berkeley) Othering and Belonging Institute. He is also the inaugural Special Fellow of the Schumacher Centre for New Economics, the Inaugural Scholar in Residence for the Aspen Institute, the inaugural Special Fellow for the Council of an Uncertain Human Future, as well as Visiting Scholar to Clark University, Massachusetts, USA (2024). He has been Fellow for The New Institute in Hamburg, Germany, and Visiting Critic-in-Residence for the Otis College of Art and Design, Los Angeles (2023).Finally Bayo is the father to Alethea Aanya and Kyah Jayden Abayomi, the grateful life-partner to Ije, son and brother. In This EpisodeDr. Bayo Akomolafe's WebsiteBayo's writingsSocials:  FB: bayoakomolafeampersandIG: @the_emergence_networkBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-trauma-therapist--5739761/support.

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".

Harvard professor of international political economy Dani Rodrik has long been skeptical of what he calls "hyperglobalization," or an advanced level of interconnectedness between countries and their economies. He first introduced his theory of the "globalization trilemma" in the late 1990s, which states that no country can simultaneously support democracy, national sovereignty, and global economic integration.At the time when he proposed his trilemma, Rodrik was considered an outcast. However, economists and policymakers have come to accept his theory as governments seek to address populism, trade imbalances, and uneven growth through renewed interest in industrial policy, or government efforts to improve the performance of key business sectors. Rodrik joins co-hosts Bethany and Luigi to discuss changing attitudes towards globalization: its distributional effects, how it affects politics, and how it is still searching for a narrative consistent between academic circles and the media. Together, the three of them discuss what role corporate America should play in our world restructured by economic and political populism and if economics is getting too far away from the rest of the social sciences when it comes to shaping industrial policy and creating the jobs of tomorrow.Show Notes:Read Rodrik's co-authored December 2023 paper on the "New Economics of Industrial Policy"Read an ebook by ProMarket on cutting-edge contemporary debates around industrial policy

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 of Hawthorne Valley's Roots to Renewal podcast, we are honored to welcome Dr. Bayo  Akomolafe. Post humanist thinker, poet, teacher, essayist, and author. Together, he and our host, Martin Ping share a thought provoking conversation exploring a rich tapestry of ideas, beginning with Bayo's inspiring fellowship at the Schumacher Center for New Economics. The conversation delves into the concept of drifting and its relevance in our current times, the value of embracing uncertainty, grieving as a form of politics and so much more. It's a deep and reflective dialogue you won't want to miss. Learn more about Bayo's work and explore his writings and offerings at his website, https://www.bayoakomolafe.net. To get tickets for the carnival, Vunja: A Gathering of the Seeds, with Bayo Akomalafe and Friends at the Schumacher Center in Great Barrington on August 6-8, visit https://centerforneweconomics.org/events/vunja-carnival-2024/.More About Bayo:Bayo Akomolafe (Ph.D.), rooted with the Yoruba people in a more-than-human world, is the father to Alethea Aanya and Kyah Jayden Abayomi, the grateful life-partner to Ije, son and brother. A widely celebrated international speaker, posthumanist thinker, poet, teacher, public intellectual, essayist, and author of two books, These Wilds Beyond our Fences: Letters to My Daughter on Humanity's Search for Home (North Atlantic Books) and We Will Tell our Own Story: The Lions of Africa Speak, Bayo Akomolafe is the Founder of The Emergence Network, a planet-wide initiative that seeks to convene communities in new ways in response to the critical, civilizational challenges we face as a species. He is host of the postactivist course/festival/event, ‘We Will Dance with Mountains'. He currently lectures at Pacifica Graduate Institute, California. He sits on the Board of many organizations including Science and Non-Duality (US) and Ancient Futures (Australia). In July 2022, Dr. Akomolafe was appointed the inaugural Global Senior Fellow of University of California's (Berkeley) Othering and Belonging Institute. He is also the inaugural Special Fellow of the Schumacher Centre for New Economics, the Inaugural Scholar in Residence for the Aspen Institute, the inaugural Special Fellow for the Council of an Uncertain Human Future, as well as Visiting Scholar to Clark University, Massachusetts, USA (2024). He has been Fellow for The New Institute in Hamburg, Germany, and Visiting Critic-in-Residence for the Otis College of Art and Design, Los Angeles (2023). He is the recipient of an Honorary Doctorate from the California Institute of Integral Studies (CIIS) and has been Commencement Speaker in two universities convocation events. He is also the recipient of the New Thought Leadership AThanks for listening to Hawthorne Valley's Roots to Renewal podcast. We are an association comprised of a variety of interconnected initiatives that work collectively to meet our mission. You can learn more about our work by visiting our website at hawthornevalley.org. Hawthorne Valley is a registered 501c3 nonprofit organization, and we rely on the generosity of people like you to make our work a reality. Please consider making a donation to support us today. If you'd like to help us in other ways, please help us spread the word about this podcast by sharing it with your friends, and leaving us a rating and review.If you'd like to follow the goings-on at the farm and our initiatives, follow us on Instagram!

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."

US government debt isn't a crisis to Paul Krugman. The Nobel laureate has long argued that history and arithmetic suggest a crisis is unlikely. But does that hold true in other countries around the world? Can they live with the levels of debt that have become the norm, or is there a nasty shock or full-blown crisis in the offing? Krugman joins host Carmel Crimmins to talk global debt, spending and the politics driving decision-making. Plus, we take a ride on a Berlin commuter train for a real world look at the downside of balancing the books. Sign up for the Reuters Econ World newsletter here. Visit the Thomson Reuters Privacy Statement for information on our privacy and data protection practices. You may also visit megaphone.fm/adchoices to opt out of targeted advertising. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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?  

Henry Hazlitt's The Failure of the New Economics remains the best criticism of J.M. Keynes's General Theory.Original Article: Hazlitt Against Keynes on Unemployment and Wages: A Lesson for Modern Macroeconomics

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.    

Henry Hazlitt's The Failure of the New Economics remains the best criticism of J.M. Keynes's General Theory. Narrated by Millian Quinteros.

Over the past few decades, economists have gathered a lot of empirical evidence supporting the underlying truth of middle-out economics: that a thriving middle class is the cause of economic growth. Our friends at the Roosevelt Institute have produced a new report which outlines the events that led to our new understanding of how the economy really works. Suzanne Kahn, Vice President of the Think Tank at the Roosevelt Institute, joins us to talk about what's in the report and share how the progressive economic policies of the Biden Administration could mark a lasting shift away from neoliberal, trickle-down economics and toward a new era of middle-out economics. Suzanne Kahn serves as the Vice President of the Think Tank at the Roosevelt Institute, where she oversees and manages projects to develop critical research and policy to rebalance power in our society and economy. Previously, Suzanne was Roosevelt's director of education, jobs, and worker power and the Great Democracy Initiative. Her research and writing focus on building a network of robust public goods—for example public higher education—and labor organizations that together can empower workers to counter corporate power in the labor market and public sphere. Suzanne Kahn @SuzMKahn Roosevelt Institute @rooseveltinst Think Tank at the Roosevelt Institute @RooseveltFwd   Sea Change: How a New Economics Went Mainstream https://rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/sea-change  Website: http://pitchforkeconomics.com Twitter: @PitchforkEcon Instagram: @pitchforkeconomics Nick's twitter: @NickHanauer