Podcasts about rocketdyne

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

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

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.

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."  

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

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

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

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."

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

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

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."

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

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?  

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should we strive to better understand what happens "downstream" to our defect-free work? No matter the setting, if our work meets requirements and we pass it on, are we responsible for how well it integrates into a bigger system?  In this episode, Bill Bellows and Andrew Stotz expand on the interaction between variation and systems and why Dr. Deming regarded Genichi Taguchi's Quality Loss Function as “a better description of the world.” TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.8 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 am continuing my discussion with Bill Bellows, who has spent 30 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. The topic for today is, in episode 13, Integration Excellence, part two. Bill, take it away.   0:00:31.4 Bill Bellows: Thank you, Andrew. Always a pleasure to connect with you. Alright.   0:00:40.1 AS: Mine too.   0:00:40.1 BB: [laughter] In episode 12, I thought it was great. We shared perspectives on the human side of integration, what it means to be connected, to be synchronous, to feel included, to feel connected, to feel included or connected when something good happens where you're like, well, I was part of that, or to feel separated is when something bad happens. And, we somehow have the ability to not feel associated with that. I pass the puck to you and you hit the slapshot, it goes into the stands, off the goalkeeper. Y'know, girl gets hit in the head and you feel bad, but I go home and I can sleep. And so why is that? And so anyway, but I thought, and listening to it, and I thought it was a lot of fun to look at the human side of feeling connected or feeling separated. And what I wanted to get into tonight, and perhaps in another episode as well, is the physical side of connections.   0:01:46.5 BB: One thing I wanted, and I got a couple anecdotes. I had a woman in class at Rocketdyne years ago, and she said, "Bill, in our organization, we have compassion for one another." And I said, "Compassion is not enough." And, and so you, Andrew, could be in final assembly at this Ford plant, where you're banging things together with a rubber mallet 'cause they're not quite snap fit, and you're banging them together. I mean they all meet print perhaps, but where they are within the requirements is all over the place, and you're having to bring them together. That's called integration. And so when this woman said, in our organization we have compassion for one another, I said, well, that's like me saying, "Andrew, I feel really bad that you're, I can't believe, Andrew go home. You can bang that together tomorrow. You've been banging it together all day." And what I said to her is that "compassion is not enough."   0:02:54.7 BB: When I feel connected to what you're doing, when I begin to understand that the parts you're banging together meet requirements, but how they meet requirements is causing you the issue. Now, the compassion plus my sense of connection, now we're talking. But short of that, what I think is we have organizations where as she would say, we might feel bad for others. And it means I hear about your injuries and your ergonomic training because of all this, but I don't, until I feel associated with that, I just feel bad. But feeling bad is not enough. But I like that, that sentiment. But what I wanna look at tonight is a greater sense of Dr. Taguchi's so called Loss Function and look at more why we should feel more connected to what's happening downstream. So I wanted to throw that out. [chuckle] On the topic of variation, I just started a new cohort with Cal State Northridge University. And this is my, fifth year in the program doing an eight week class in, seminar in quality management. And the cohort model is, anywhere between two dozen and 30 some students that start, the ones I'm getting started a year ago.   0:04:23.5 BB: And they have class after class after class after class. Then a year into the program they get to meet for eight weeks so then onto other professors in the program. So I was showing them, first quarter, second quarter data points from an incident that happened at Rocketdyne years ago. And I was in a staff meeting and the vertical axis is number of accidents per employee. And the horizontal axis is quarter one, quarter two. So the quarter one data point is there, and I don't have the original data, the original data doesn't matter. But what I say to the students is, imagine we've got the first quarter data, what would you expect for the second quarter data? And what's funny is a number of them said, it should be lower. And I said, "Well, based on what?" And it's like, said "Well, we're gonna go off and study what went wrong and we're gonna improve the process."   0:05:20.6 BB: And I said, "Okay, that's all right." So then, I said, "I'll accept that, that's a possibility." Well, then I showed them the actual second data point was lower than the first, which in the meeting I was in, led to the question from one of the senior managers to one of the more, let's say the vice president of operations, "Hey, Andrew, why is safety improved?" To which the executive said, "Because we've let them know safety is important." And so I asked him, "So what do you hear in that?" And we went around and we went around and we went around. It's not the only time it has happened that what they're not hearing is the separation that "we" have let "them" this this. And so in part, I think with my Deming perspective finely tuned. I pick up on those things. And they're not picking on it picking up on it yet which is which is fine. And then but I kept asking, kept asking, kept asking. And then one person said, "Well maybe we need to look for a pattern." I said, "Oh brilliant. What if we've got this run chart of all this extra data?" So then I got them to buy into how easy it is to take two data points draw conclusion up and down. That's called variation. And so it was neat to... The first conversation with them on the topic of variation was really cool. And there's so much more to follow. Well then it, what I wanted to follow with this once upon a time our son when he was in third grade this is 20-some years ago invited me to come to his class.   0:07:07.6 BB: And I don't recall why other than he said, Can you come talk to the class? And I said, Okay fine. So my biggest concern was that the teacher wouldn't know I was coming but she knew I was coming so it was good. So I walk in talked with her briefly and I said I've got some things I'd like to do. She's like oh, I didn't wanna monopolize. But she said okay why don't you show your video? I said I got a video of rocket engines blah blah blah. And then I've got a little exercise I wanna do. Okay we'll do the video then we'll do some reading. So we're doing the reading. And so I'm helping her with the reading. And then what I noticed is now and then a word would come up and she'd write the word on the whiteboard and ask the students if they understood the word. So I clued in, I cued in on that. So when it got to me I wrote the word theory on the whiteboard. This is third graders Andrew, third graders. [chuckle] And I said do any of you know what a theory is? And a one of the girls Shelby whose name I'll never forget, she raises her hand and she says a theory is a prediction of the future. Third grade Andrew third grade! [chuckle] right? Now...   0:08:18.8 AS: And you know what they'd say now they'd say Ethereum is a type of cryptocurrency. [chuckle] Oh Ethereum. No no "theory" not "Ethereum." [laughter]   0:08:30.2 BB: You're right. You're right.   0:08:31.6 AS: Okay. That's a great answer.   0:08:33.9 BB: Well oh but what I tell my students is I didn't correct her. I didn't say well technically a theory is a prediction of the future with a chance of being wrong. But we'll just, I just, oh we'll just stop with that. So I invited her to the front of the room. So she comes to the front of the room and I brought with me this little plastic bag with half a dozen marbles in it. And the bag was also a holes from a three hole punch, little dots of paper. So I held the marble up and I said Shelby I'm going to drop the marble from this height predict where it will land. And what I tell students is she was able to predict where it would land without any data.   0:09:18.3 BB: So she predicts the first data point, the marble lands someplace else. I marked the spot with a marble. I then said okay Shelby I'm gonna drop it the second time. Where will it land? And I'll ask people in class so where do you think she predicted, exactly the same spot of the first drop [chuckle] Exactly right. That's what we do as adults. And so we went through this cycle again and again. And and finally after about 10 drops where these you know 10 different dots on the floor I said Shelby where's it gonna land? And she drew a circle, she said somewhere in here which is kind of like a control limit you know kind of thing.   0:09:55.9 BB: So the one thing I'll say is and I'm sure you've heard people say well you can't predict the future. No, as Dr. Deming would say [chuckle] you know he gave the example you might recall of how will I go home? I'm gonna take a bus. Will the bus... I'm gonna take the train. Will the train arrive? And so I'd ask adults in the class that says how many drove here today? All the hands go up. And I said so at the end of the day will you walk in the direction of where you left your car? Yes. What is your theory? It's still there. [chuckle] Is that a guarantee? No! [chuckle] So I throw that out as a predictions and her sense of variation and this sense of a third grader not acknowledging, I mean one understanding having some sense of a theory, not a lot of understanding of variation but I don't think that's unique to third graders.   0:10:51.8 BB: So that brings us to...there's variation. We can look at the variation in the Red Beads. Okay the Red Beads are caused by the system not the workers taken separately. Then we got into variation and things that are good. And when I introduced the students to last night in class is, I asked them "So how often do you go to meetings where you work to discuss things that are good and going well?" And I get the standard answer, "rarely." I said, "Well, why is that?" "Well 'cause we got, we're focusing on the bad." They said, "to make it good." "Well why do we focus on the bad to make it good? Why don't we focus on the good?" "Well the good is good." And we went around the room, went around the room online and and I said "what's the likelihood that we could prevent bad from happening by focusing on the good while it's good?" And it's like, "...interesting." And so where that leads us to is, is two aspects of looking at things that are good.   0:11:57.1 BB: One is the better we understand the variation of things that are good whether that's on a run chart or a control chart. My theory is we could prevent bad from happening by keeping track of the bad. Whether it's your pulse, your weight, [chuckle] how much gas is in your car. And so there's if we focus, if we pay attention to the good with some frequency you know every second, every hour, once a month, whatever it is, we could prevent an accumulation of damage to an appliance at home. Another aspect to focusing on things that are good is that it can improve integration which is boom, here we are. And that integration that I mentioned last time that understanding integration could be looking at candidates for a new hire and looking for who is the best fit because there's degrees of fit. Fit is not absolute. Last time we talked about reflections of an engineer who is worried that his hardware on the space shuttle main engine may have contributed to the disaster of the second... Of the Columbia space shuttle blowing up in reentry. Well let me share another story from a coworker at Rocketdyne.   0:13:19.8 BB: And this guy's father worked at Rocketdyne in the '60s. So in 1999, 30 years after the lunar landing, there's news teams, you know, from the local TV stations and television. It's 30 year anniversary of the Lunar Landing. And Rocketdyne was known for the Apollo engines that get the vehicle off the ground, as well as the engines that got the, Orbiter off the moon. So there's an article in the newspaper a couple days later, and this coworker is quoted and he says, "Boy, I would've loved... My father worked here back in the '60s, just to be a fly on the wall would be so cool. Oh my gosh, it'd be so cool." And the article ends with him saying how exciting it is to feel like you're part of something big. That's what we talked about last time.   0:14:09.8 BB: And I used to use that quote from him on a regular basis because it, the article was about something that happened at Rocketdyne. Then I would share that this is a quote from a coworker. And after quoting him for several years, it dawned on me, I've never met this guy, so I call him up one day and he answers and I say, "Hi, this Bill Bellows." And he laughs a little bit. And I said, "have we ever met?" And he says, "No, no, no," he said, "But you quote me in your class." And I said, "Well, I apologize for never calling you sooner." I said, "I do quote you." And I said, "Let me share with you the quote." I said, "you feel how exciting it is to feel like you're part of something big?" To which he says, "I wish I still felt that way." [chuckle] And I said, "can I quote you on that?" And so you can join an organization with this sense of being connected, but then depending on how the organization is running and you're blamed for the Red Beads, that you may lose that feeling.   0:15:15.6 BB: And on another anecdote, it's pretty cool. Our daughter, when she was in fourth grade, was in a class, they were studying water systems. And the class assignment was to look at a, they had an eight and a half by 11 sheet of paper with a picture of a kitchen sink on it, like a 3D view of a sink with a pipe out and a pipe in. And the assignment was, we're about to study water systems. How does the water get to the sink, where's the water go?   0:15:47.2 BB: And so my wife and I were there for the open house and there were 20 of these on the wall colored with crayons showing all these different interpretations of water coming in, water going out. And I was fascinated by that. And eventually got copies of them and the teacher wasn't sure what I was doing with them. Well, I turned them into laminated posters. And so I gave one to our daughter one day. I said, take this to Mrs. Howe so she sees what we're doing. And so the following weekend I bumped into this woman at a soccer field, but she wasn't dressed like a teacher. She's dressed in a hoodie. And she says to me, "Allison shared with me the posters." And I'm looking at her thinking, "how do I know who you are?" She pulls the hood back. She says "I'm Allison's fourth grade..." Oh! I, her comment was when Allison shared with me how you're using those posters, handing them out, and people are inspired by them. And she says, "I cried." So that you get that emotion for free Andrew. [chuckle] Right. And that's all the integration stuff.   0:16:58.5 BB: Now let's talk about Dr. Taguchi and his Loss Function. So, um, the Taguchi Loss Function says Dr. Deming in Out of the Crisis is a better view of the world. The Taguchi Loss Function is a better view of the world. Dr. Taguchi says following...   0:17:15.3 AS: Wait a minute. I was confused on that. You're saying Deming is saying that Taguchi is better, or Taguchi is saying Deming's better?   0:17:22.3 BB: Dr. Deming in The New... In Out of the Crisis, Dr. Deming wrote "the Taguchi Loss Function is a better view of the world."   0:17:30.3 AS: Okay, got it.   0:17:34.5 BB: And that's what amongst the things that I read into Deming's work and I thought, boy, that's quite an endorsement. Dr. Taguchi is known for saying quality is the minimum of loss imparted to society, to the society by a product after shipping to the customer. So what does that mean? And we'll come back to that. Deming met Dr. Taguchi in the 1950s. There's a, at least once, there's photos I've seen in Deming's archives of the two of them on stage at a big statistical conference in India, and I know they met in September, 1960 at the Deming Prize ceremony where Dr. Taguchi was honored with what's known as the Deming Prize in Literature. There's Deming prizes for corporations, and there's also Deming prizes for individuals.   0:18:35.0 BB: And Taguchi won it 1960 for his work on the, on his, this quality-loss function concept. 1960. So then in 1983, Larry Sullivan, a Ford executive, was on a study mission to Japan, and he wrote an article about this for the American Society for Quality in 1983 the title of the article is “Variability Reduction: A New Approach to Quality,” so if any of our listeners are ASQ members, well I'm sure you can find a copy of it. The Variability Reduction: A New Approach to Quality. Well, Andrew in 1983, Sullivan's article, 23 years after Taguchi's awarded this Deming Prize in literature, I'm convinced that's the first time Taguchi's Loss Function was heard about in the States. 23 years later. And in this article, Sullivan says, he says, "In March of 1982, I was part of a group from Ford that visited Japan, we studied quality systems out of variety of suppliers," this is ostensibly the first time the auto industry in the States is sending people to Japan.   0:19:52.8 BB: Right so 1980, summer of 1980 is the Deming documentary Why Japan? If Japan Can, Why Can't We? And so here Ford is in 1982, sending a team over. I know it was the late '80s, I believe, when Boeing sent executives over. So then in this article, he says, "The most important thing we learned, right, in this study mission, is that quality in these companies means something different than what it means in the US. That it's a totally different discipline." And so this is like the beginnings of people hearing about Dr. Deming in 1980. They're now hearing about Dr. Taguchi's work through Larry Sullivan. And it turns out Larry Sullivan and Dr. Taguchi became business partners and set up Dr Taguchi's consulting company in the States, which still exists. So they became fast friends and I've met the two of them many times.   0:20:53.6 BB: What Taguchi is saying is, is when it comes to things coming together, we talked about integration, whether that's combining, mixing, joining, weaving, this is the synchronicity. So in sports, we're talking about not, not where I am on the field, but where I am relative to the others, in music, and we're talking earlier about music and I've, I've played a musical instrument one time, Andrew with a group and I was with a, hockey band on a road trip when I was in college. And the cymbal player, they were missing, so they asked me to bang the cymbal, "you want me to do what?"   0:21:36.9 AS: When we signal you.   0:21:39.4 BB: So I'm boom! and what I didn't realize is I'm controlling the pace, like being in is like, okay, slow down, slow down. And I and a former student last year in the Cal State Northridge class who plays with one of the Beach Boys, and I went to watch her in the play and I was asking about these speakers, which are on stage, facing the players. And I said, so what are those about? She said, "Those help us stay synchronized." I said, "what do you mean?" She says, "the speakers next to me," she's the keyboard player. She said, "What I'm listening to in those speakers is the drumbeat. I need to make sure that I am playing synchronous with a drummer." And then what about the others? "Well, the others have their own speakers synchronized. They get to select who they wanna be synchronized to." And so I throw that out because we take for granted when we're listening to Coldplay, whoever these musicians are, we're not paying attention, at least I'm not paying attention to what if they're playing it... What if they're not as synchronous? How would that sound? 'Cause we're so used to it sounding pretty good.   0:23:00.1 BB: And, um, so there we go with synchronization and things fitting together, it's not just that the note was good, but is it played at the right rhythm and pace and, um, you know, with timing. So we talked about the Loss Function. We talked about last time about ripeness of fruit. Depending on what we're doing with the bananas, we wanna put it into a muffin mixed or eat, slice it up. Are we looking for something soft and hard? And I say that because what Dr. Taguchi is talking about is for a set of requirements, a min and a max, we're used to a sense of anything between the min and the max is okay, is "good."   0:23:45.2 BB: What Taguchi is saying is there's the possibility that there's an ideal place to be. And how do you know what that ideal place to be is? Well pay it, as you're delivering that piece of fruit to the next person, whatever it is, to the next person, deliver them something on the very low end of the requirement and see what they do with it. Then, it could be the next hour or the next time you give them something a little bit, a little bit further along that axis. How are they doing? How are they doing? How are they doing? And what you're looking to see is, how, how does, what is the effect of where you are within requirements on them? And this is how Toyota ends up with things being snap fit, because they're not just saying, "Throw everything to Andrew in final assembly." They all come together.   0:24:42.3 BB: My theory is they're doing what we do at home, at home I create the part, I cut the piece of wood. I'm, making the part, but I'm also using it. So I'm the one responsible for the part and integration, in a work setting that may not be the case. So what Taguchi is talking about is there could be a sweet spot in the requirement. And so towards that end, if we're talking about baseball in a strike zone, the World Series is teams are defined, not that I was gonna watch this year, the Dodgers, we're out of it. But in baseball, there's, for those understand baseball, there's a strike zone. If the ball somewhere in that rectangular ball zone is called a strike, outside is called a ball. And depending on who the batter is, it might not matter where the ball is in the strike zone, 'cause this player can't hit the ball anyway. But for another player, you may have to put that strike somewhere in particular to make it harder for them to hit. And that's what the loss function is about, is, is paying attention to how this is used and I wanna share a couple of stories that are, one that's kind of hard to believe. Well, I'd say one that's easy to believe. As you're driving down the highway, Andrew, in Los Angeles, right? You've lived out here.   0:26:07.2 AS: Oh, yeah.   0:26:07.4 BB: And no matter where you're driving down, right, do you stay to the left side of the lane, Andrew? Do you stay to the right side of the lane? Or do you kind of go down the middle of the lane, Andrew?   0:26:17.9 AS: I'm kind of middle of the lane guy.   0:26:20.5 BB: Yeah. And I think that people in the other lanes, you know, like that 'cause I know when I drift to the left, you're like, Hey, what are you doing? So being towards the middle is saying, I get the entire length of myself, but being down the middle is probably, what is that? It's minimum loss to myself and others. So I spoke at a, at a NASA conference ages ago and learned, this is uh '97, '98 timeframe, and I learned that the two greatest opportunities for destruction of the space shuttle are at launch, you can have a catastrophic failure, or at landing. And so at launch, it could be a problem with the engine, any of the engines or the solid rocket motors. Okay, so that I can understand. But I'm thinking, what's the issue with landing? Well, I say, well, the issue with landing at that time was the space shuttle's coming in at a couple hundred miles an hour.   0:27:24.9 BB: And when you're landing on a dry lake bed called Edwards Air Force Base, it's not a big deal. You got all that open space anywhere you want. You just get her down. But then in that timeframe, NASA converted. It was easier for them to have the shuttle land in Florida because they don't, they don't have to fly the shuttle across country. The shuttle is going to land there, launch there. So what they were talking about is, a lot of the pilots for the space shuttle are military pilots. They're used to landing in the center of the runway, Andrew, in the center of the runway. Why? 'cause they're landing on an aircraft carrier. And if I'm a little bit too far from the center, one way or the other, I either crash into the structure or I'm in the ditch and enter the water. So they've got these military pilots landing the space shuttle, wanting to be right down the center. And so they said what happened was if they land and they're a few feet to the left or to the right, going a couple hundred miles an hour, should they quickly steer the nose gear to be on the center?   0:28:32.5 BB: And he said, when you're going that fast, if you steer, you may cause the shuttle to just flip. When you're, once you touch down, don't steer to the center of the runway. Just go, go straight. No more steering. And they kept having this message and it kept being ignored and they kept having the message that kept being ignored so what was the solution, Andrew? You ready?   0:28:58.7 AS: Yes, here, tell me.   0:29:00.8 BB: They painted the center stripe to be wider. [laughter]   0:29:05.5 AS: I was thinking they were going to paint like 10 stripes so that there was no center one.   0:29:10.3 BB: So the center stripe is like three feet wide. You can't miss it. Well, and so I use that because what they're saying is when you land at the Kennedy Space Center, you could be off target left and right a lot, and it's not a big deal, we got a lot of space here.   0:29:29.4 AS: Yep.   0:29:29.6 BB: And what does that mean relative to loss of the vehicle, relative to bad things happening downstream? The loss function that Dr. Taguchi would describe as a parabola, and a parabola being a curve that has a minimum, and then the curve goes up faster and faster to the left, faster and faster to the right. That's if the parabola opens up, it could open down. But in this case, Taguchi draws the loss function as being opening upwards as like a bell and it gets steeper and steeper. But, what, but depending on your system, it could be very steep, which is you're landing on an aircraft carrier, or it could be very shallow.   0:30:13.6 BB: So when I ride on a bike trail in Santa Clarita where I live, I go down the middle of the bike trail. And to my right, depending on which direction I'm going is a split rail fence so I don't go into the Arroyo, which is this gully for all the water running off. And so there's... I go down there and the worst, I stay away from that split rail. When I ride in Long Beach where you went to college where our daughter lives, there is no split rail. So I stay not in the center when I ride in Long Beach. I ride to not the center of my lane, I steer closer to the to the center of the overall lane, which means I'm closer to the bikes going the other way. And that's and that's my understanding of: I go off that off that side is gonna be a bad day.   0:31:08.0 BB: And so that's what Taguchi is saying relative to the loss function. But I think a better way to think about loss, I think that may be kind of a weird concept. I think if we think about integration, and in making the integration easier or harder. So again, if we're talking about space shuttle landing, maybe the loss makes sense. But if we're talking about putting things together, we've talked about the snap-fit that Toyota pickup truck that Toyota was producing in the late 1960s. And what struck me when I first read that is, Holy cow, they've developed a system of hardware which goes together without mallets, and I immediately associated that with what I had heard that Dr. Taguchi was influencing, working with them, consulting with them back in the '50s. And I thought that kind of fits. And so why aren't things here in the States, why are they being banged together? Because over in the States, going back to Larry Sullivan's article, we've got an explanation of quality which is "part" focused. Everything meets requirements. And so what really amazed me is that Toyota in the late '60s, had things which were going together well.   0:32:25.9 BB: Ford in 1982/83 timeframe, they had been working with Dr. Deming for a couple years. They discovered that a transmission they had designed and were building was also being built by Mazda. And part because they owned one third of Mazda and they were outsourcing production. And these transmissions went into Ford cars. And what I've mentioned in a previous episode is that the Ford warranty people figured out that the Mazda transmission, which was designed by Ford, but built by Mazda, had one third fewer complaints than the Ford transmission designed by Ford, built by Ford. And in this study that Ford did, led by their executives, and then they sent out the documentation to their supply chain and it, and it talked about the need to... Their explanation was what Mazda was doing was what's known as "piece to piece consistency." And what they found is that the parts, instead of being all over the place in terms of dimensions and whatnot, that they were far more uniform, yet what you won't hear in that video, what they talk about is within Ford, we're all over the place we're consuming the greatest, a big portion of the tolerance. We've got scrap and rework. But these Mazda parts, boy they only consume a fraction of the tolerance compared to us. And that's the difference. And that's the difference.   0:34:02.6 BB: And so what I wanna close with is, having less variation is not the issue that gets us back to precision, but not accuracy. So my explanation is that Mazda was actually focusing on accuracy - being on target of the respective parts. And as a result, they got great functionality outta the transmission. But what Ford, at least, I'm willing to bet the path Ford was going, was saying, "oh look Andrew, their parts are more consistent than ours. Consistency is the name of the game." And that's precision, not accuracy. So what I wanted to do tonight is build upon what we did last time, bring it to this loss function as being a parabola. Depending on what happens downstream, you don't know how steep that parabola is, and not knowing how steep it is, we don't know how much effort we should spend on our end upfront providing those components to improve integration 'cause we don't know how bad the integration is.   0:35:17.6 AS: And that's a wrap. 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 want to keep in touch with Bill, you can just find him right there on LinkedIn. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming. "People are entitled to joy in work."

What does it mean that people feel connected and included when something good happens yet dissociate when something bad happens? In this episode, Bill Bellows and Andrew Stotz discuss the human side of integration. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.9 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with Bill Bellows, who has spent 30 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. The topic for today, in today's episode, number 12, is Integration Excellence. Bill, take it away.   0:00:32.2 Bill Bellows: Thank you, Andrew. So before we talk about integration excellence, I wanted to throw out a couple thoughts. And listening to the podcast, I was reminded that when I share examples, there are times when I mention companies by name, and there's times I don't. And my hope is that people in those organizations don't feel offended. So what I found with students is, if I use the name, there's the risk of someone in the class having worked for that company who feels offended. If I don't use the name, then there's a sense that I'm making the stories up. [chuckle] So I just want to say I um... But there are... What I find is that most organizations are run with what Dr. Deming would refer to as a prevailing style of management, in which case examples such as replacing the cardstock paper with regular paper, and all organizations have those types of stuff. So I just want anyone to feel offended by that.   0:01:40.1 AS: Well, we can make an announcement.   0:01:43.3 BB: Go ahead.   0:01:45.3 AS: Remember those shows that we used to watch that says the names have been changed to protect... but here we're going to say the names have been changed to protect the guilty, [chuckle] not the innocent.   0:01:57.3 BB: Well, there are some stories, I can't share the names for a number of reasons, but they're all the same. Anyway, next thing I wanted to share is, again, on a recurring theme, we talked in the past about red pen companies and blue pen companies, or me and we, or last straw and all straw. And I was recently in... I was in the Netherlands last week doing a class live session for a group that I'm just starting to work with, and we did a physical simulation, a live experiential thing that built upon all the ideas we're talking about here. And I had the group do the trip report, looking at blue pen companies and red pen companies, or however you want to look at the contrast.   0:03:00.1 BB: And we talked about what are the hallway conversations in both organizations? And another was, what are the survival skills in both organizations? And the fairly straightforward survival skills in a last straw organizations are, be really good at shifting blame, be really good at hiding errors, hoarding information is power. And I look at, what are survival skills in a blue pen company or an all straw organization? That's sharing knowledge as power as opposed to hoarding it, it's sharing it. And so we got into those, all those, the usuals. And then I said to them, "Okay, so imagine we are, here we are in a last straw organization, I'm the president of the company and we're in a Friday afternoon staff meeting.   0:03:56.7 BB: And because it's a last straw organization, that means you work for me." I said, "If it was an all straw organization, you would work, and people always say with,": I said, exactly, it's with versus for, but it's a last straw organization. So you work for me. I walk in to the end of the week staff meeting. I apologize for running late. And then I turned to you and say, "I just got off the phone with a customer. I need to know who's responsible for last week's shipment." And then I turned to you, Andrew, and I say, "Andrew, was it you?" And you say, "No, it was Joe." [chuckle] And then I go to Joe and I say, "Joe, according to Andrew, it was you. And he says, "No, no, no, it was Sally."   0:04:44.6 BB: And then I'll go to Sally and actually I won't go to Sally. I'll then go to somebody next to Sally and I say, "It sounds like Sally was involved in this. Can anyone corroborate that?" Then someone else raised their hand and said, "Okay." 'Cause in the olden days, we went by one witness, but nowadays we need two witnesses. Okay, so we've got two witnesses. So, okay, Sally. So then I turned to Sally and I say, "I need you in the front of the room right now." And they're like, "Right now you want me to come?" "Yeah, I want you to come to the front of the room in front of the entire class."   0:05:18.0 BB: And I've had times people get really anxious. I've had times when people walk up on stage and they're like, "You want me to... " "Yeah, I want you up here right now." And they stand alongside me and I say, "So Sally, I understand you're responsible for last week's shipment." And she's like, "Uhhh, yes." And I say, "I just want to thank you. The customer has never seen such high quality before." [chuckle] And then there's this great sigh of relief. And I turn to the audience and I say, "Meet your new boss, same as your old boss." And then kid them that this is a point of time where Andrew says, "Oh, well, I provided the packing tape... "   0:06:00.6 AS: Yeah, I was involved.   0:06:00.7 BB: "That allowed that to happen." And then somebody else says, "And I licked the stamp and put it on... " So what you get is, in a last straw organization, what you have is failure is an orphan, as John F. Kennedy would say, and success has many fathers. So what I point out to them is survival skill in a last straw organization is now and then it might be good news. So when everybody else is playing duck and cover, that might be your opportunity to ask for a little bit more information and find out something good happened. Now you raise your hand, you get promoted because you're now the one who was responsible for this. And then the others then realize, "Well, wait a minute, I played too." And so what I find interesting is in organization is, we don't know if we were connected until we know it's good news or bad news.   0:06:55.2 BB: So what you get is situational association. And that leads me to a real story. I was mentoring a young engineer who worked in the Space Shuttle Management Program at Rocketdyne and I was, had been away, I was in England for about a week. And so I was just getting back to work. And on the day I landed in England, I landed at 9 o'clock in the morning. So it was middle of the night back in Texas. And so I walked in, my friend, Alan Wendlandt picked me up at the airport as usual. We went back to his home, walked in the front door and his wife's in tears because the Columbia shuttle had blown up on re-entry.   0:07:46.9 BB: And so back in the States, people are, yes, middle of the night. So I get back to work the following week. There's an engineer I met with regularly and he comes into my office and he tells me that, you know, what it was like. I said, "So... " I wasn't there. It was the first time I was at Rocketdyne when a disaster happened. Back in '86, I worked in Connecticut, wasn't on the program, wasn't at Rocketdyne. So it was interesting that, so I said, "What was it like?" And he said, "Everyone got a phone call. Everybody goes to their station and we follow this protocol." And I said, "So what was the protocol?" He said, "Every component, team, every component team in the space shuttle and men engine goes through their hardware, looking to see, could they have done something?"   0:08:39.5 BB: 'Cause he said, the early indications were it could have been a spark in the engine cavity, the rear, and that could have led to, led to, led to. I said, "So what'd you do?" He said, "Well, we each went through our planning." And he said, he in particular was thinking, "Oh my God, oh my God, oh my God. We recently came up with a new version of one component. I hope we followed the new process." And he's panicking. He said he was feeling a lot of anxiety over this. Yeah, at first, until he goes in and he's thinking, "Oh my God, oh my God, did we follow the new process?" 'Cause if not, that could have been a contributor. So he found out that he did follow the new process. Which means what, Andrew?   0:09:29.7 AS: He feels relief.   0:09:31.9 BB: A huge sigh of relief, because he followed the process, he's no longer associated. And that's what I started thinking is, we go through life and there's times we feel connected and there's times we dissociate. And I asked a psychologist friend years ago, and I said, is that how we survive? We have the ability to feel connected sometimes and other times we dissociate. There was a hockey game in the National Hockey League in the early '90s where on a shot off the goalkeeper, the puck went into the stands and hit a teenage girl. She would, eventually into a coma, died a few days later. And so I have the headline and the headline says, "Player Distraught Over Death of Girl."   0:10:29.5 BB: And so I would show people that headline and say, "Which player is distraught over the death of the girl?" And people say, "Well, it's the guy who hit the slap shot…was the one feeling distraught." And I thought, why not the goalkeeper? Why doesn't the goalkeeper feel distraught? What about the person who passed the puck to the one who took the slap shot? How do they feel? And so this is this last straw mindset that, and I think psychologically we go through life and if we were that last straw, we feel all this weight. And if we're dissociated somehow, we don't feel it. Well, integration is about understanding how things come together.   0:11:14.7 BB: And in the world of integration, there is no separation. It's it's understanding that there's many contributions to the performance of a system. And I used to ask students, "If I gave you a 10 minutes to list all the people who contributed to who you are, would you miss some people?" "Yes." And then once you come up with a list, could you measure their contribution? And measuring it means that number, if you take all those numbers, like 10% from your mother, 10% from your father, X%, you add them all up to 100. There's no such thing. So in the world of integration that I wanna get into with Dr. Taguchi's work, it's about understanding that things are connected as in an all straw mindset. They are not separate. Okay?   0:12:10.2 BB: So then next I wanna get into, I've taken, I've been fortunate to take some training in the Lean manufacturing, Lean management, Lean thinking, whatever you call it. And it's not uncommon, there'll be simulations where there's a bunch of parts to put together a car, or you're building something out of Legos. And there's a model, you need so many rectangular Legos of this size, so many square ones and you... And, you know, we're creating a flow, putting all these things together. And I've been in situations, university classes where the students are doing that and they're doing that ahead of me presenting something to them. And I remember one time, they're putting, you know, these cars together, they had four wheels and a little motor and a windshield, and they're putting it all together, this assembly line.   0:13:02.6 BB: And I participated in that. And then when it came my turn, I held up a tire. And I said, what is this? And they said, "It's a tire." And what is this?" That's a tire." I said, "Are they the same?" And they're like, "Yeah, they're the same." I said, "Well, actually they're not." If you understand variation, and no two snowflakes are the same, then no two tires are the same. And so I say that because we get stuck in this model of: if the parts are good, which means they conform to a set of requirements, then the sense is because they're good, when we pass them onto the next station, then they all come together, just like that, with no effort.   0:13:48.9 BB: And I say, sometimes that's the case. There could be degrees of effort, but this model that says, because they're good, they fit. And then we treat good as it's good or it's bad, which is black and white. It fits or it doesn't. And then the model we have is because they are good, all the things that are good are equally good, and then they fit equally well. And that's just not the case. And an everyday example would be going to a supermarket and sorting through the fruit. And I would ask students or attendees of a seminar to say, if I told you all the fruit in the supermarket was bruised or otherwise physically damaged, would you sort through it? And there'd be people that say yes, and then people say, no, I don't sort.   0:14:35.8 BB: Well, I point out is the reason we sort through the fruit is because there are different ripenesses of the bananas or the oranges different levels of juiciness. And our needs depend upon either something very juicy or very ripe or something green or something that's gonna be ripe later. What is that? That is saying that we're looking at the integration as we're going to use those oranges and integrate them into our breakfast by making orange juice out of them or taking the banana and turn it into a smoothie. So the bananas and the oranges don't exist in isolation. We have a sense of how we're going to use them. And then we have a sense of how much variation do we want or more so within a set of requirements, we're looking for something in particular and we're looking for a particular parking spot. We're saying there's all these parking spots and we're looking for the one with the most shade because there's degrees of shade. When it comes to hiring...   0:15:39.5 AS: Bananas is a good example because if I'm just gonna buy the banana to eat it, it needs to be reasonably ripe. If I'm gonna buy it to put in a smoothie, it's less critical that it's ripe.   0:15:52.3 BB: That's right. Yes, exactly. And what we're saying is that your integration of that banana depends upon its use. Since you have in mind I'm making banana bread, what does that mean? I want one which is very soft, it doesn't really matter because I'm not eating it as I'm out cycling. Then when it comes to what I've also shared with students, you'll say, well, is there a place for meeting requirements? And that's all. I said, yeah, there's a place for meeting requirements and that's all we need. And then there's a place for going to the next step and saying, I want the juiciest one, I want the freshest one, I want a parking spot which is furthest away from the door, closest to the door. And the same thing happens with staffing.   0:16:37.3 BB: We hire, we're looking to fill a position in our organization, we post something on LinkedIn and we put down the requirements we want and we go from 20 people down to three people. We invite them in for an interview. And what are we looking for? We're looking for, on paper we're saying these people are relatively…on paper, they are the same. The reason we're inviting them in is we want to know what is the degree of fit of each of these people into our organization? And what we're saying is fit is not absolute on a scale from zero to infinity, where are these people on that scale? And our judgment is which one fits in best.   0:17:18.7 BB: I'd say the same thing goes in when you're dating, thinking about marriage or thinking about a long-term relationship even with a supplier, you're looking for degrees of fit. And that's where Dr. Taguchi's loss function comes in. What he's saying is, is all these things meet requirements but depending on how the requirements are met from the very minimum to the very maximum, chances are there's a place in there which has the best integration. And that could be it goes together the easiest. And then, and then in terms of integration excellence, what I want to speak to is shifting from the model that things are good, then they fit. And then when you turn the thing on, it works. That we think about an alternate model, which is there's degrees of good, which leads to degrees of fit, which leads to degrees of performance. And an advantage of that model is it allows for improvement. The model of good equals fit equals works. How do you improve once you get everything good? And that goes back to a far earlier conversation we had over the red beads and the white beads. And of all the beads are red or gone, we're stuck with the white beads.   0:18:39.0 BB: Can we continually improve? Yeah, when you begin to think about improving integration, what we've also spoken about, Andrew, is, you know, we ended a conversation, you said, "So what's the aha moment for people listening?" And I said, "Would you like your organization to be known for products or services that integrate incredibly well in terms of how they perform in the use, as used by a customer, whether their customers are using it exactly or next immediately, or it gets plugged into their system. And do you wanna have... " The reputation that I find... Well, the reason I buy Toyotas is they tend to last very long. And I associate that with their appreciation of Dr. Taguchi's work, which supposedly goes back to the '50s, that they are looking at the parts as a system, how they work together and looking, not just meeting requirements minimally or maximally, but trying to find out where in the requirements of the associated parts should you be for this entire system to come together easily on a scale from zero to infinity and perform incredibly reliably. Andrew, you're gonna say?   0:20:01.0 AS: There's a couple of things. The first one, when you talked about the act of separation that people go through when blame's being tossed around, as an example, let's say, but it's happening all the time. What I was just thinking about is that act of separation is in their mind only.   0:20:20.5 BB: Yes, absolutely.   0:20:21.6 AS: Just because, just because you declare separation doesn't mean that there's not integration of the system. You're just denying it, running away from it. And the other thing I was thinking about about Toyota, it's a very interesting situation with Toyota because the company's being totally beat up for not having electric vehicles to the level that the market wants them to have, the investors want. And when you go against the, the EV crowd, the people that want this for climate or whatever reason, you're gonna get beat up. And they really have been attacked. And to the point that their share price went down seriously low. But when you listen to the CEO of Toyota, he's trying to speak in a system thinking way.   0:21:13.2 AS: He's trying to develop hydrogen as a possible solution. He's got hybrids. Yes, he hasn't moved as fast on the EV, but he also sees other problems. And he sees the research and development that they're doing, which they've just recently announced that they've got some fast charging and long mileage EV vehicle. And so he's trying to manage this whole system. Whereas take a weak manager or a manager, maybe he just... The CEO came in for the last five years or so at Ford or at GM or wherever. And they're like, "Hey, the market says EV, let's go." And then without thinking about the whole system, they end up losing billions of dollars in EV. Whereas now I think that what I've seen with Toyota, and the reason why I'm talking about this is because I've been working with students in my valuation masterclass.   0:22:10.5 AS: They're valuing Toyota and some say it's a buy, some it's a sell, some are beating them up just like the crowd is on EVs, but others are seeing, some, that integration. But ultimately the job of a manager, I guess, is to figure out, I like the degrees of fit. That is such a great thing of how it's good enough. Like Taguchi's loss function was specifically can be a tool to look at one particular thing. But the idea of then bringing that all into the whole system is fascinating. And it's hard.   0:22:44.3 BB: Oh, yeah.   0:22:44.9 AS: The last thing I would say is it's hard. And I think most people, most managers spend their lives trying to break that because it's just too hard to manage. I would rather say, "Okay, you guys do this. You're responsible for this. You're accountable for this. And you guys do that. And I want accountability around here." It's just, it's easier. It's hard and complex what you're talking about.   0:23:12.2 BB: Well, and let's go back to this, this separation. And I don't, and a couple of things come to mind is, one is when the young engineer found out on the Space Shuttle Main Engine that his component was manufactured using the most current process, he was able to go home and sleep. So what I would propose is that we live in a society where when our task meets requirements, we don't, we can separate it. And that's what that, failure is an orphan. It wasn't...It wasn't…I didn't contribute to that. I passed the puck to you. You're the one, Andrew, who hit the slap shot. It wasn't... Yet, let's be honest that, where the, where the puck ended up that you hit did contribute. But that's what I find is, is that the newspaper article says, "Player Distraught," which player? You who hit the puck last.   0:24:39.9 BB: And then I thought, well, I wonder if we ran a study at what point would the goalkeeper, the goaltender feel responsible? Yeah, because it's just, it's off his or her stick. And that's what I find is that we have the ability to separate physically. So when I hand my part off to you, I'm separating physically, but then, when you're having trouble putting those parts together, my claim is that I didn't cause that. So I hand off to you because it's good you accept it. If it's not good, you give it back to me. But when I hand off to you physically, and there's nothing wrong with handing off physically, we have to hand off physically. But I find in a, in an all straw organization, I do not hand off mentally. So if you come back to me, "Bill, I'm having trouble getting these together." I'm thinking, but of course, of course.   0:25:37.9 BB: Right? I am contributing to that. So I don't have... This is... What I also find is, if you understand the psychology of an all straw organization, success has many fathers, but then failure has many orphans. And so you have to be able to go both ways. We're used to associating, all of us associating with success. But what I would want to, Andrew, going back to Toyota's, how do they deal with an organization where everyone feels responsible for the good times, and then but we also feel responsible in some way for the others. And this is the psychology piece of Dr. Deming's work, but notice how it's, there's a bit of variation in terms of how each of us feel contributed.   0:26:25.9 BB: We're talking about systems. And so there's a psychological piece of this. There's a physical piece of this. And what I admire, I think what we both admire about Dr. Deming's work is that he's tying all of this together in his System of Profound Knowledge, that in order to improve integration, integration is not just a physical thing, how these parts go together, but it also requires us to mentally be connected and, and, and feel each other's pain. And that we're not, instead of this, we've got a few hidden figures associated with putting man on the moon. You know what, Andrew? There's a lot of hidden figures that help helped put man on the moon and everything else that happens. But the other thing is I wanted to throw... Go ahead, Andrew, you want to say?   0:27:14.4 AS: I was just going to say that one of the interesting features living in Thailand, and I often wonder after 31 years in Thailand, if I went back to manage people in America, you know, how would I do it? I don't really know, 'cause Thais are so different. And one of the ways that they're different is if you're working in an office with a bunch of people and one person is going to have a late night, they're gonna have to work instead till 6:00, they're going to work till 7:00 or 7:30. The other people in the office, many of them, not all, but the ones that are closest to that person, they'll stay with that person.   0:27:53.2 AS: They won't leave until that person leaves, even though they don't have any work to do. They may ask them if they can help, but they may not. They just will be there. And I just thought that's so fascinating because in America, I remember, you could be like, "That's your problem, dude. You didn't plan or you didn't do this or you didn't think about that. So I'm out of here. Have fun, see you tomorrow." But here there's this connection in the workforce that's really important to Thai people. And I would say probably important to Asians in general, but Thais specifically is what I know best. And it's just, there is that connection that I think particularly for Americans, it's a lot easier to disconnect than it is maybe for the Thai worker.   0:28:40.3 BB: Well, what we're talking about in large part is, what does it mean to work together? And that second word “together” is not separate. This is not working independently. You and I opposite ends of the ditch, one plus one equals two, one plus one equals...you know, right? The opportunities we find appealing in Dr. Deming's work is that when we focus on relationships, not just I hand the part to you and you know you say, so you say, "It's good." And so I say, "Whew." So I separate physically... And I would do that with people in a classroom. I would hand the part to you, Andrew, and I say, "What if I deliver a part to you that doesn't meet requirements? What do you do?" And you say, "Hey, not on my watch." You didn't dot that I, you didn't cross that T. Hey, and you send it back to me. Then I cross the T, dot the I, and I give it to you. And what do you say? And I would physically give you something. And I say, "What do you say now, Andrew?"   0:29:44.8 BB: Actually, what I would say is, "What just happened?" So I would say to the audience, I just gave Andrew something, which is good. What just happened? I don't know what just happened. I said, I separated physically and mentally. So when you come back to me the next day and say, "I can't get this to fit quite right." I'll say, "Why are you calling me?" But I mean, so this integration is about together, working together, thinking together, learning together. And I think what Dr. Deming is offering us is insights that one plus one could be three, could be four, could be five, in terms of the positive synergy within the organizations. And really what it comes down to is, do we want to have no synergy? One plus one equals two. Do we want negative synergy? We're working at odds because how we're meeting requirements is pushing us against one another. And, and we're none the wiser for it.   0:30:47.1 BB: Or are we interested in what's called positive synergy in terms of getting performance out of the system, which you cannot explain by looking at the parts taken separately. So there's a lot of economics here when you begin to shift from looking at the parts in isolation, there's good/bad thinking. And again, there's a place for good and bad thinking. What we talked about last time is compliance excellence. But there's also an opportunity where depending on how we manage the components, we can end up with exceptional performance that they are, "Snap fit," that the transmission lasts much longer. And there's plenty of examples that when you manage the system that way, you get something out of it, which cannot be explained by looking at the parts taken separately.   0:31:39.3 AS: I wanna wrap up, but I also wanna just tell a quick story. In my ethics and finance class that I teach, which I was mentioning I'm teaching this afternoon, I have debates because part of ethics is independent and objective thinking. And I want to help students think independent and objectively. And so the first debate topic that I have, which will come up next week, the proposition is: individual performance-based compensation such as KPIs are the best way to get the most out of an organization. I'll have a group arguing for that proposition and a group arguing against that proposition. And I don't get involved in the... I raise the questions, you know, at the end of the debate, but I let them go and try to see what they come up with. But the point is, is that individual performance-based compensation is a great way to destroy integration.   0:32:48.5 BB: Yes. Yeah, exactly.   0:32:51.0 AS: So, all right, I'm gonna leave you with the last words on this. So let's have you sum up, we talked about integration excellence. Let's wrap up all the different stuff that you've talked about and say, how can we apply this in our lives?   0:33:09.1 BB: Well, one is I would say the recurring theme we've been focusing on from the very beginning is an understanding of systems variation, the psychology piece, that's the human spirit piece and the opportunities. And the last piece being that, this Theory of Knowledge from Dr. Deming, all we know is what we know and can we articulate our theories and a theory being a prediction of the future with a chance of being wrong. And I find that what Dr. Deming is offering is great insights on to how to, how to prepare your organization for an uncertain future. And I find that what a last straw organization does is get people to focus on themselves as you're just describing, avoiding blame, shifting blame to others when mistakes happen.   0:34:11.3 BB: And when you're living in that environment, now you're back to, you get into firefighting modes, you get into, is this a manufacturing problem or a design problem? And all that finger pointing associated with that. And I find is what you're really doing as an executive team in such an environment is you're praying that the future is like the present. And why do I say that? Because when you turn your people into concrete, when you turn your people inward as opposed to outward and they become all about avoiding blame, then boy, what's gonna keep your organization in business is if the future is like today.   0:34:58.0 BB: But if the future is not like today, then you're in a really bad situation because your people have become concrete, they have ossified. And the beauty of a Deming organization is that you've got people who have flexibility. So after the concrete is poured for the walls and after the tables and the equipment are put in place, yeah, you've got chairs on wheels, you can move some equipment around. But boy, if the most flexible part of your organization, your people, aren't flexible, then boy, you better hope the future is like the present. But if you're a betting man, as you and I would be, boy, I would not bet for the future to be like the present. I'm expecting there's gonna be changes going on either caused by people, caused by who knows what. And we want an organization where people are flexible and I'll just close on that thought.   0:35:55.2 AS: 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. 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.” Now go get yours.

What's the difference between Compliance Excellence and Contextual Excellence? Is one better than the other? Which one does a Deming organization pursue? In this episode, Bill Bellows and host Andrew Stotz talk about the variety of types of excellence, and why they matter. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.7 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with Bill Bellows, who has spent 30 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. The topic for today is episode 11: In Search of Excellence. Bill, go ahead, take it away.   0:00:28.9 Bill Bellows: All right. So, as I've been doing for the last few episodes, I like to go back to the prior episode. Because I listen to these again and again and again. Oh, there's other things I wanna say. [laughter] Remember the title of the last session, Andrew?   0:00:46.1 AS: Well, that depends. [laughter] The title was, It Depends.   0:00:50.7 BB: Alright. Alright. So you know I'm fond of that phrase. So I wanna... I thought of after, you know, in the last couple weeks is, I took a class in program management at a big university in Greater Los Angeles. I mean, it could have been anywhere, but it was in Los Angeles, and there were 25, 30 people in the room, maybe more, from around the world coming into this university. It was a three day program, you know, like, $1,800. $1800. I had just joined a department called The Program Management Office, and I thought, I should go find out what program management is it all about? I had some ideas, but I thought, "I want to go take a real class on this." The class was presented by an aerospace veteran in project management. He had been involved in major programs with Hughes, installing, you know, working on airports around the world and other DOD stuff.   0:01:48.6 BB: And I mean, he was, he was a very interesting guy. I got there early every day looking, I was hoping there'd be an opportunity I could start a conversation with him, have lunch with him, that never happened. But three days long. And so, on the second day, he threw out a question to the audience, and people are sitting in a... It's kind of an amphitheater, with the rows were kind of curved. So he throws out a question to the audience and the guy in the front row answers, "it depends." [laughter] And the instructor very deliberately walked from the front of the room, a good 15 feet without saying anything, just walked right at that person in the front row, you know, all at the same level, gets right in his face and says the following, Andrew, are you ready?   0:02:47.6 AS: I'm ready.   0:02:48.6 BB: He says, "Are you an attorney?" [laughter] And I thought to myself, "All of that for the answer, "it depends," really?" And so, [laughter] later that afternoon, somebody asked the instructor a question, "Hey, what if you're in a situation where you gotta deal with blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, this, this, this, this, this, how would you handle that?"   0:03:17.3 AS: And for the listeners out there, you know the punchline here, come on, give it to me. What did he say?   0:03:23.5 BB: No, here's what he said. He said, "Well, if it involves this, I would do this. If it involves that, I would do that." And so, what did I say, Andrew?   0:03:42.6 AS: What did you say? What do you mean?   0:03:44.7 BB: I bit my tongue.   0:03:45.9 AS: Oh, you didn't say anything when he said that?   0:03:48.6 BB: Because what he just said was, "it depends."   0:03:50.4 AS: “It depends” in another way.   0:03:52.8 BB: Yeah. He found another way to say “it depends.” So it was also...   0:03:56.0 AS: He sounded kind of smart, you know, well, let's just narrow it down to two potential options.   0:04:00.8 BB: “Are you an attorney?” Yeah. But he still... What he was still saying was, it depends on the situation.   0:04:09.3 AS: Yep.   0:04:09.8 BB: And I just thought... I mean... And not that I didn't mind that answer, but I was just dumbstruck as to why he was so emphatic in challenging this answer, "it depends"? And I just thought, again, I never went up and asked, but I just thought, I wasn't sure it was gonna go anywhere. So anyway, so I wanted to throw that out. Going back a couple episodes, I wanna talk about metrics and KPIs and point out that there's nothing wrong, I mean, we're not saying KPIs are bad. What we're talking about is, when KPIs are used as goals and in a way that unnecessarily drives the organization in different directions, but if a KPI is just a metric of how we're doing in sales, that's one thing.   0:05:03.7 BB: But if the metric is, I want sales to be this number, and I go to people in procurement and say, "I want you to cut back on procurement," you know, we can end up with a conflict. You know, I had a woman in class once who worked for a gym, health club. And her job was to sell memberships and get on the phone every day, sell memberships, sell memberships, sell memberships. And she told her boss, she says, "Now, if I do a really good job, lines will form if we don't get more equipment. So, while I'm doing this, shouldn't we be working on that?" And her boss' attitude was, "You keep working on that and don't worry about that." So what she realized, it was just a revolving door of replacing old people with new people. They were just managing the parts in isolation. But another thing I think we had agreement on, you know, also had agreement on KPIs is it's... We're not saying there's anything wrong with metrics, but in organizations where we've worked, we've seen people drive change with, "give everybody a KPI."   0:06:17.5 BB: We could have great ignorance of variation. We have... Leading to dissolution of, just increased separation of organization. What I'm also reminded of is a quote that Dr. Deming used to use of his statistician colleague, Lloyd Nelson, who said, "the most important numbers used to manage an organization are unknown and unknowable." And one example from when I worked for Boeing is a good friend of mine was at the Boeing Leadership Center and there was a big emphasis at that time on what's called the Economic Profit Calculator. Making sure that business decisions close. They were not gonna build the next generation airplane unless they've got all the sales lined up and you have to have closure and closure within some timeframe, and that person came out.   0:07:12.4 BB: That was the big driving change in that era. Well, right after that presentation by somebody senior, the Chief Operating Officer, Harry Stonecipher presented. And what was near and dear to Harry at that point was something he started when McDonald Douglas was separate from Boeing, then Boeing bought McDonald Douglas, and he was really big on an education program that allowed anyone to pursue any degree, all reimbursed. So if he wanted an AS degree, a Master's degree, a law degree, not only were they paying for the degrees, but there were people getting a Bachelor's and then getting a Master's in Science and a MBA, so he just go at it, go at it. And he's very proud of that.   0:08:00.5 BB: So, my friend Tim is listening to all this and he says, "This afternoon, we heard from so and so in finance about Boeing business decisions needing to fit into this Economic Profit Calculator, how does your education reimbursement program fit into that model?" And his answer was, I thought really profound, he said, "there are some things you just do." And to me that fits in with Deming saying, you can't measure the price of education. We brought an instructor in, we had you away for so many hours...   0:08:34.6 AS: You can measure the cost.   0:08:36.1 BB: And so, we can put some numbers on it. But what are the benefits? The benefits show up in the future. So I really admire that Stonecipher's answer was, I think very much in keeping with Deming is, we're gonna spend money on education. So, I just wanna throw that out for in terms of metrics and what not.   0:08:52.9 AS: And I would just throw in my thoughts on KPIs, which has gotten stronger and stronger over the years, and that is that, I really think people should stop KPIs. And the reason why is, because I think they've gotten to the point where it's just so misused and so, people are so reliant on it. Now, I know that that's an extreme view and so... But I say it to also challenge people to think about it, but if you can't stop the KPIs, then I would say the most important thing from my perspective, is make sure that compensation is not linked to the KPIs. Which of course, people will come back and say, that's the whole point of KPIs.   [laughter]   0:09:44.4 BB: Exactly.   0:09:44.5 AS: And if you remove compensation connection to KPI, and instead of that, you use coaching and working with your team, and you have metrics of what you want to achieve as a company, as an organization, as a department, and you look at those metrics... Nothing wrong with that, but it's when you bring in the personal, particularly the personal incentive or the division incentive that can then sub-optimize... Can optimize a part of the organization, either an individual or a department, and therefore, sub-optimize the total.   0:10:22.0 BB: Oh, yeah. If you tie those metrics... Yeah and that becomes the... What makes them sinister, when you provide that incentive that... And I'm sure we've both seen people given incentives and they're not gonna leave, what I tell people is, they're not gonna leave a penny on the table, whether it's get rid of that division, lay off so many people, they are going to achieve that metric, because there's money on the table and in the way of that problem.   0:10:55.2 AS: And for those people who are listening or viewing, who feel like, "My God, what would I do if I don't have KPIs, because that's kind of the way we've been managing?" The first thing is, I would say is that, if you know that... So first, talk to your staff, because once you go out and talk to the people in the company, you realize that almost nobody is in favor of KPIs, because they're being manipulated in many ways and they all see it. But if you know in your heart that it's not the right thing to do, my argument is, don't wait to stop doing the wrong thing until you know what the right thing is. You know? Stop... "I don't wanna stop beating my child, because I don't know the other way to do it." [laughter] No. Stop beating your child today, that would be a first step. Don't worry about what it is you're gonna do next. Anyways, that's enough on KPIs.   0:12:00.4 BB: You've reminded me of a story that's coming to me, but it's not coming in loud and clear, so I made a note, I'll share it next time 'cause you're gonna love it. I wanna give an example of what, of what, of what a narrow focus on KPIs can do. Just a couple of little ones, that are, you just can't make these up. In 1999, while at Rocketdyne, there was a focus on reducing costs. And this is, all organizations have these stories. And this is one I use to talk about in class all the time. So I don't think anyone's gonna be offended. Hopefully they'll laugh more than be offended by it.   0:12:37.9 BB: So there's a big focus across the company of reducing cost. Reducing cost. What do people do in a non-Deming organization? They look at cost in isolation. Where I wanna reduce the cost of this, not look at how it affects the others. And so, at that point of time, again, we're talking over 20 years ago, all the documentation to make every space shuttle main engine was on, was on paper. Every page used to fabricate the engines on paper. And there were page by page instructions of manufacturing to do this, do this, line by line by line, and on every line it might say, torque this bolt to 55 inch pounds, and it was stamped by me, the mechanic, and by you the inspector. Boom, boom, boom.   0:13:28.2 BB: So if NASA ever wants to know, was that bolt torqued on that engine on... And we have all the documentation. Guess how many pages of documentation there are? Nowadays it's likely all electronic, but in that day it was all paper. Guess how many pages of documentation for every single space shuttle main engine of which they're on the order of 18 made? Take a wild guess.   0:13:55.9 AS: Gosh. I'm just thinking thousands.   0:14:00.5 BB: 18,000 pages of documentation. So Andrew, that's like, 60 3-Ring Binders and I mean, 300 pages in a 3-Ring Binder, right? So imagine every engine's got 60 3-Ring Binders. So in 1999, all the pages in those books are on card stock heavy... Card stock paper, heavyweight paper, right? And why is that, Andrew? Because these are a storage document, right? So, I kid you not, one week I'm doing a class, you know talking about paradigms of variation and all the things we've been talking about. And somewhere in the conversation, somebody mentions that the card stock paper was replaced by lighter weight photocopy paper. And then, the person mentioned that, shared that, as a result of that, in the use of these 3-Ring Binders, the pages were falling out.   [laughter]   0:15:05.4 BB: And when I... And then the person went on to say...   0:15:07.1 AS: Oh, that's okay.   0:15:09.3 BB: Oh, no. Hold on, Andrew. So, as a focus on reducing costs, the heavy card stock paper is replaced by a lighter weight paper. The pages are falling out. So when I asked the guy, what are we doing with it? And the answer was, we're putting hole reinforcement circles on the pages to put them back in the binder.   0:15:34.2 AS: Absolutely.   0:15:35.1 BB: Right? And so, for those who don't know, hole reinforcement circles are little circles about the size of a, of a cheerio that get put on either side of the sheet of paper...   0:15:46.9 AS: With adhesive on the back of it.   0:15:48.1 BB: And it's a heavy cloth to keep it from pulling up. So, I mentioned that a couple of days later to some colleagues and they looked at me like I was from Mars. They're like, no, I mean, you've got some great stories, Bill, but they weren't buying the story. So the following week in class, [chuckle] I said, Hey, last week somebody mentioned, anybody know anything about that? And the guy in the front row, not only does he nod and say, yeah, he pulls out of his box a roll... Pulls out of his pocket a roll of like, 300 of these. And I said, so, this is really going on. He says, Bill, I go through a box of these a day.   0:16:29.9 AS: Oh, my God.   0:16:34.5 BB: So when you focus on the cost of the paper and forget that the paper is actually a storage document, not just a sheet of paper, you end up with hole reinforcement circles as a solution. Now...   0:16:46.1 AS: And the cost of the circle, the reinforcement, hole reinforcement adhesives that you put on and the cost of the labor that's spending time doing that by these high value added people.   0:17:04.6 BB: Well, and I also realized, if the space shuttle is on the pad and ready to go, fueled, if you're in that window and something comes up and somebody in NASA calls up Rocketdyne and says, we need to know for the second engine in that vehicle, if this work was done? If this work is done? If you delay the launch, if you're in the window, the vehicle was fueled, it's like a million dollars a day. So imagine going to the binder and the phone call back is, we can't find that sheet of paper. So this is...   0:17:46.8 AS: That was on page 47. I've got 46.   0:17:52.7 BB: We've got 40...   0:17:53.3 AS: And I got 48.   0:17:55.5 BB: So, but I use that. Okay, well, pre-pandemic, I was doing some training in New Zealand at a university. I needed to staple... I needed... [chuckle] I needed to staple these documents together. And so, the instructor who was hosting us, said, "What do you need?" I said, I need staples. So he goes to his office, comes back five minutes later, gives me a couple reams of staples and I go to put them in the stapler. And he says, "You're using these?" I said, “yeah, I'm using them.” He said, “wait.” He says, "Let me go get the good staples." I said, [chuckle] “what do you mean?” He says, "The university buys us really cheap staples. So all of us in the faculty keep a private stash of good staples. Let me go get the good staples." Right?   0:18:48.8 BB: You can't make up... Right? This is little stuff. All right. So now I wanna get to what Dr. Deming said last time I used a quote from Dr. Deming about it would be important for people to work together. And what I share in some of my seminars is an Aesop fable, from Aesop the Greek fablist. So we're talking like, 500, 600 BC and the particular fable I referenced is the four oxen and the lion. Are you familiar with that one?   0:19:23.7 AS: No.   0:19:25.1 BB: Okay. Well, I came across this, because I was doing some research on the expression "United we stand divided we fall." And I'm thinking united, divided, I'm thinking Abraham Lincoln, Civil War and to come up with, no, that's the punchline for Aesop's Fable about the four oxen and the lion. And the storyline goes that these four oxen would stand looking outward with their tails connected. That's the united we stand, they looked outward and the lion would circle them, but the lion couldn't do very much, because we're protecting one another. And then when the oxen broke rank, the lion jumped in and ate them. So the united we stand divided we fall. So the reason I use that is, I'm not proclaiming that Dr. Deming is the one who figured out the importance of teamwork. [laughter] I think that was figured out a long time ago. I look at what Dr. Deming's work is about - is helping us understand what are the obstacles to what I think we all really want. But I don't think he... So when he references teamwork, that's an old concept. That's why I like to use the Aesop fable, as it goes back a long way.   0:20:41.3 AS: Yeah.   0:20:42.2 BB: All right. But in terms of division, I'm gonna share from Russ Ackoff one of the many things I learned from him and that is that the adjective in front of the word "problem" is divisive. And so, when I worked in Connecticut for the jet engine company, we're making 120 tank engines a month, 1500 horsepower $300,000 each. And at least once a year there'd be an issue. We gotta stop production. Which would lead to the conclusion that it's a design problem in which case manufacturing did what, Andrew?   0:21:24.5 AS: Not sure.   0:21:25.1 BB: Breathed a huge sigh of relief.   0:21:26.7 AS: Not our problem.   0:21:28.4 BB: Or if it's not a design problem, it could be a manufacturing problem, in which case engineering said... And the engineering people felt slighted, because the president of the company was a manufacturing person. And so, what I saw was, yeah, as soon as you define the problem from that vantage point, then it's stuck on someone. And everybody else just says, whew! Thankful it wasn't us this time. So, I wanna share from Russ, what if we aren't so divisive?   0:22:02.4 BB: So Russ has a really neat story going back to, could be the '60s and you'll know by the punchline the timeframe. So at that point in time he was invited to GE's Appliance Center in Kentucky and he brought a graduate student with him. And he said, in the room, in the center of the room of this conference table, they're discussing this issue they're having. And around the perimeter of the room are all the major appliances that GE is selling at the time from refrigerators, freezers, stoves, washing machines, dryers, they're around the perimeter. And the issue they're facing is, what is labeled a "forecasting problem." And store owners are complaining that when the people are coming in to buy the appliances for the kitchen, they need to remodel the kitchen, they need a new refrigerator, they need a new washing machine, I mean a dishwasher and a stove.   0:22:54.2 BB: They need those three. And the forecasting issue is they come in and we only have two of the three, or we don't have the right... We don't have the matching colors, the matching styles. And so, that's why we're losing sales to the others. And we needed a better forecast. And in addition to having the right colors and the right model, another feature in that timeframe was the refrigerator door had to either open from the left or open from the right to match the configuration of the kitchen. So you may have the right... All three are right, but now you've got a left-handed door and the refrigerator needs a right-handed door. Oh. All right. So the graduate student upon hearing this uses a Swiss Army knife, Russ said, to take a door off of the refrigerator and said, have you ever thought about a reversible door design?   0:23:49.1 BB: And so, the reason I share that story for our audience is, that's what happens when you involve design in a solution to a forecasting problem. You get their inputs. And so, anything short of that, when we, when we focus on a manufacturing problem, only invite manufacturing, not invite others and as is prone in a non-Deming organization you end up with solutions that don't involve the others. And so, I just wanna throw that out that these are... The everyday things we do in organizations to divide. Alright. So now let's talk about the featured movie tonight.   0:24:27.3 AS: Yes.   0:24:27.8 BB: In Search of Excellence inspired by the book by Tom Peters and Robert Waterman. Correct?   0:24:35.3 AS: Yes.   0:24:35.9 BB: Roughly '82, '83 timeframe. And so, Dr. Deming's work has been known for a couple years and Tom Peters and Waterman wrote a book talking about... There's US companies doing excellent work, so let's go look at them. So at Dr. Deming's last seminar there were three assistants helping him. He was very frail, he was in a wheelchair, ended up dying 10 days after the seminar ended. And I think I mentioned sitting next to me for all four days was a rabbi praying for him. So, Dr. Deming is very frail in the wheelchair the entire time, when he would get fatigued, he'd be wheeled off the stage. One of these three assistants would come up and pick up the pace. Couple hours later Dr. Deming comes up. And so, during one of the breaks I went up and introduced myself and, to them. And one of them told me that...   0:25:30.0 BB: You know, he traveled with Dr. Deming. He was one of what's called a Deming Scholar. So at that point of time, there was a cadre of people that would travel with Dr. Deming if he was doing a seminar or he's at GE headquarters, wherever he was that week, this cadre came with him. So he said, somebody once in one of these sessions, said to Dr. Deming, “what's the difference between Jerry Falwell and Tom Peters?” And he says, Dr. Deming says, “who's... Well, who's Jerry Falwell?” And he says, “oh, he's a Baptist minister.” He says, oh, he says, so.   0:26:02.8 AS: A very famous one at the time.   0:26:05.0 BB: Very famous Baptist minister. And he says, “so what's the difference?” Dr. Deming says, so what's the difference? He says, "Jerry Falwell has a message." And so in that timeframe, I remember... I used to remember... And you likely watched these as well. So Tom Peters would be working on his next book and whatever the theme of the book was, he's doing research. And I give him credit. I mean, he's a Stanford Business School graduate. He's doing all the research, incredible at marketing. So he picks a topic, does his research, writes the book, goes on PBS to do this presentation with a thousand people in the room. And he's using real life people and companies to tell this story one at a time, one at a time, one at a time. So I thought, well, what if Tom Peters was to write a book about how to live to be a 100? Well, what do you do, Andrew? You've got to go find people who are a 100, right?   0:27:05.3 AS: Yeah.   0:27:06.2 BB: You can go find them, right?   0:27:07.1 AS: Yep.   0:27:07.8 BB: And so, I used to imagine that if Tom Peters is, you know, writing a book about how to live to be a 100, he's gonna go... The recipe is find the people, find the successful companies, go research them, a chapter on each one of them. Each of them comes up and presents. And so, there we are on PBS and the first guests that come out are a 101-year-old gentleman. And he comes out and he's chain smoking and he explains that, how does he live to be a 100? He says, well, "you...smoking is good, cigars sometimes, shots of Old Granddad and that's how you live to be a 100." And then next we have the sisters, live together, twin sisters, never married, lived together their entire lives, don't drink a thing, teetotalers, and that, you know, vegetarians. And so, you say, oh, so that's how you live to be a 100, Andrew, you drink, you drink tea, no, you stay away from alcohol, stay away from red meat.   0:28:14.6 BB: Next one comes out, right? And the point is that all these companies are different and you're left to figure out which one to think. And whereas what Dr. Deming's talking about is a theory by which to understand organizations that you could take to your organization and figure out how to live to be a hundred, not just what we see otherwise. So anyway, I was aware of all that, studied all that. I wasn't aware at the time that's what was going on, but as I started to research this Peter's and... Why Dr. Deming thought of him that way. And so, Rocketdyne was sold by Pratt and Whitney, sold to United Technologies after Boeing, and they had a big Lean Six Sigma program, but they didn't call it Lean Six Sigma.   0:29:02.7 BB: And the Rocketdyne people are asking, why did you call it Lean Six Sigma? He says, well, it is Lean Six Sigma, but GE calls their program Lean Six Sigma, and we're not gonna use the same name as those guys. Those are the light bulb people. So we've got our own name. Well, what's your name? Well, we call it ACE. What is ACE? Achieving Competitive Excellence. But it's really Lean Six Sigma. So I spent a few years trying to wonder, what does it really mean? And I'm and I'm embarrassed that it took me as long as it did, but it dawned on me what it really means is achieving Compliance Excellence.   0:29:42.9 BB: And it was all about, does this meet requirements? And so that's what I referred to early on as question number one. Does this characteristic, have you passed... You know, have you met all of the requirements? And that's all it was, it was meeting requirements, meeting requirements, meeting requirements. And then, and what it reminds me of is, I was doing a seminar in England once for a one-on-one, went over for three days through a translator, and the audience was a physician from Kazakhstan who was anxious to learn as much as he could about Dr. Deming's work and that led him to England. And through some fortunate situation, I had a chance to meet with him one-on-one and went through and explained to him, Me and We organizations, Red Pen and Blue Pen companies, all that, all through a translator. So I had asked a question in English, the translator would translate, boom.   0:30:36.5 BB: So the question I asked him was, that I wanted to share is, I said to Ivan, I said, "what's the fastest way for a Red Pen company to become a Blue Pen company? What's the fastest way?" So that gets translated into Russian. Then it comes back to me and he says, "what?" I said, "spray paint." [laughter] And to me, that's the epitome of Compliance Excellence where we're... You get a really light surface texture, where it's looking good, but it misses the deep sense of the theory of Dr. Deming's work. But I'm not saying Compliance Excellence is bad. And so, when I wrote an article about this, and if any of the listeners want to contact me on LinkedIn, I can send them an article I wrote about it. And so, 'cause when you go to write about something, now you start to think deeply about this, does this make sense as opposed to just having a conversation? And it dawned on me that Compliance Excellence is not a bad thing.   0:31:39.3 BB: And the example I want to use here is, I was listening to two friends, husband and wife who spent a whole year serving society. They were compelled, had incredible military careers, and they decided we wanna pay back society. So the plan was that the husband, Doug would ride his bicycle every day through every state in the United States, including Alaska and Hawaii over the course of one year. So they started upstate New York, crisscrossing around the country. So he was on his bike every day riding, raising awareness for veterans' issues. 'Cause for those who don't know, there's... The the suicide rate of veterans is enormous. And so, they're looking... They're out there trying to help veterans. They were compelled to do that. And Doug's wife Deb, rode the motorhome, either ahead or behind, hooking up with local radio stations, trying to get PR.   0:32:38.8 BB: Then Doug would show up and he says one day they're riding through the Rockies, having dinner... And they're having dinner that night. But all day long, Doug is going up these hills, down these hills, up these hills. And so at dinner, Doug says to Deb, he says, I mean, "how'd you like that hill?" [laughter] Deb says, "what hill?" [laughter] So to Doug, every mile is not the same. [laughter] Right? So it's 18,066 miles. Doug felt the difference in every one of those miles, more so than Deb did. So if somebody says, how far was that route, Doug? For Doug to say 18,066 miles, 67, that's ups and downs, he felt every one of them. For Deb, it was a little bit... They were more of the same. So I'm not saying there's anything wrong with answering the question 18,067, but to me that's a compliant... That's looking at every second being the same, every hour being the same, every widget being the same, not understanding the differences or how they're being used.   0:33:49.1 BB: So now I wanna talk about, instead of Compliance Excellence, again, I'm not saying Compliance Excellence is bad. What I would say is that non-Deming organizations thrive on Compliance Excellence in this sense of interchangeability. Everything is the same, looking at things in isolation. So then I started thinking, well, if that's what they do, what is it that that Deming organizations do? And that's what I would call Contextual Excellence. There's an understanding of context, understanding of the context of the system. Tom Johnson, who has written about, Management by Means, which I wanna look at in a later episode, when Tom was doing research, this is around the time I met him, 1997, '98 timeframe. He was, he was visiting Toyota Plants, definitely in the United States. I'm not sure how many overseas, but he is taking copious notes, going behind the scenes. So this was before the world was all over Toyota.   0:34:47.3 BB: So Tom had free access. He said eventually they start charging for all this stuff. But Tom was there way ahead of the crowd. And he said one day he is with his notebook and he is walking around, he is looking at the stamping presses. But they're notorious for stamping out one part at a time. One single minute exchange of dyes. So they don't make a thousand parts and then figure out how to use them. They figured out how to change the dyes quickly. So Tom said, he asked the guy, "how long does it take to change this dye?" And the guy says something like, 28 minutes. And so Tom writes down 28 minutes and later the guy came back to Tom. He says, "just so you understand" he says "28 minutes is not world class, but this does not require world class."   0:35:32.3 BB: And so this is when I was explaining Contextual Excellence to Tom. And he says, is that what you're talking about? I said, that's exactly what I would expect to see within Toyota, that things are... They fit the situation. So it's not speed for the sake of speed, it's speed that fits the context of the situation, which is also like saying, have card stock paper where it makes sense. Have the appropriate staples where it makes sense. And so, when I talk about "in search of excellence," with my classes or in presentations, what I'm trying to get across is, there's a place for Contextual Excellence and there's a place for Compliance Excellence. But I think that difference is far better understood in a Deming organization that has a great understanding of systems and connectedness and synchronicity and teamwork, and lacking that non-Deming organizations, I think unknowingly default to Compliance Excellence, driving things to zero, thinking you could have zero waste in these things.   0:36:39.9 BB: And then you end up with cheap staples, lightweight paper, and you end up paying for it somewhere else in the system. So I just wanted to point out that there's... I'm not saying one is better than the other. What I'm saying is, I believe a Deming organization would have a profound appreciation of when to use each. And as simple as, if you were to say to me, Bill, how far is it to the nearest airport? I could say, it depends Andrew, what are you... How are you getting to the airport? You say, I'm riding my bike. I said, "okay." Right? And again, not that we're always gonna say it depends, but that's what I think that appreciation has. Let me just stop there and...   0:37:19.6 AS: Yeah.   0:37:20.2 BB: See where you are.   0:37:21.6 AS: So, I have two little stories that I wanna share in relation to this. One of them is about my uncle Ham. Hamilton.   0:37:28.4 BB: Yes.   [laughter]   0:37:29.8 AS: And then the other one is about my own business, Coffee Works. And when we set up our factory 28 years ago, my business partner Dale, was absolutely passionate about coffee. He roasted every bean for our first 10 years. And he sold and he did the accounting and he did everything basically, until eventually he trained staff. And some of those staff still, they've been with us for years, for decades, and they take care of the roasting now. But what Dale really understood was what he called, "in the cup quality." The idea that when... When it's in the cup, that's about to touch the customer's lips, that's the quality that matters. Nothing else matters.   0:38:15.1 AS: If you don't get that right then, you know, it doesn't matter how much you've documented or did whatever you've done in the past, in the temperature of the water, in the grind, you know, in all of these different things. So he was really all about excellence, and we didn't get... We never got complaints. Maybe we got an occasional one, but it wasn't very common. Anyways, we got a big, big multinational company came to us and said, we want you to bid along with some other coffee companies for our business, and we bid for the business. And they said, "We're picking you. And now we're gonna go out to your factory and we're gonna inspect your factory. And if you get a score in our quality audit below 70, you're basically in trouble, [laughter] already, and you're gonna have six weeks to fix it or else you're fired."   0:39:05.9 AS: And this was a huge amount of volume and a prestigious company for us. So we pulled everything together to get ready for their audit. And they came and they gave us their score and we felt like we were pretty damn good. And they said, 65. [laughter] And you know, what we realized to them, quality was about paperwork and quality was about, you know, compliance to that paperwork. And so, we had to do that, because that's what quality was to them. We'd never done anything like that. You know, now, 15, 20 years later, we still supply that same customer and they still do their annual audits and our scores are much... They're in the 90s, which puts us in like, world class. But the point is, we learned a lesson, you know, the difference between contextual quality or let's say, intrinsic quality that Dale was working on versus this kind of, what did you call it? Compliance Quality.   0:40:08.5 BB: Yes.   0:40:09.9 AS: So that's my first story. The second one is about my uncle in Germany where he was in charge of the, of the logistics of a base of a US military base. And the commanding general came to see, and they had cleaned up everything. And they got to the end of the whole thing, and they kind of dumped out to the parking lot where there's, you know, 700 or 500 vehicles lined up in different ways and whatever, all kinds of different sizes of vehicles. And Uncle Ham said, "Sir, so how did you like the tour of the facility and all that?" And he says, “of the base?” And he said, "Ham, everything was great except one thing."   0:40:48.4 AS: And my uncle's like, "Okay, what is that, sir?" And he said... And he looked at the vehicles, a long line of vehicles parked side by side. And he asked him, he said, "Next time I come here... " Now remember, these vehicles are all different lengths. "Next time I come here, I want these vehicles all lined up. It's a mess the way you've got it done." Yeah. And so, my uncle said, "Yes, sir!" And he said, "Before you leave, sir, could you walk to the back of the vehicles for a moment with me?" "Yes, yes, I will." And he said, "Sir, would you like them lined up in the back or in the front?" And they had lined them up in the back, which meant their noses were in different lengths. And the point is, is that you can't have it all, right? Everything's a tradeoff. You want it this way. There's a compromise here, there's a challenge there and all that. And that's a lesson I learned from Uncle Ham.   0:41:46.1 BB: Well, and then he, I'm sure he learned it from that point on is, you know, when, when he is asked to line them up and make them more uniform, the question is, help me understand what that means.   [laughter]   0:42:00.3 AS: And the answer's gonna be, it depends. 'Cause this general likes them lined up in the back and this general likes them lined up in the front. We're gonna need to wrap up. So how would you close out this episode?   0:42:17.0 BB: The main thing I want to get across saying is that, first of all, Contextual Excellence is the bedrock of investment thinking. To look, when you begin to look at things as a system and to understand that every mile is not the same or do I need to... Does that matter to me? But to me, instead of everything could be improved, you know, we focus on where are the most red beads, get all the red beads to zero and then go across the organization. And what is that? That's managing actions. We talked about that months ago. And to me that's Compliance Excellence. It's looking at the parts in isolation. But to me, what Contextual Excellence is about is the better we understand, the greater how things fit together.   0:43:10.5 BB: And there, the challenge is that everything we work on is part of a bigger system, which is part of a, then again, bigger system, which is part of, then again, bigger system. So we're not proposing that you're going to infinity, you know, that there's this big picture of you, whatever that means. It's, it's, and I like it... You know, people talk about, well, you know, Andrew's a systems... You and I, Andrew are systems thinkers, as if the others aren't. What does that mean? That means that we think of the big picture. There's no such thing as a big picture. So there, what we're talking about is Contextual Excellence, is trying to gather as much context for the system as it makes sense with appreciation that you might still be missing something.   0:44:00.3 BB: And that's where learning comes in. But that understanding is part of, is fundamental to investment thinking. You know, is the education system paying off? How would you know? Where are we gonna see that benefit? What is your theory for that? So I just wanna point out is, I'm not trying to condemn Compliance Excellence. I think Deming organizations are gonna have a place for that. Just like there's a place for, you know, does it meet requirements? Yes or no? It's just becoming more mindful of these choices is, is what I'm suggesting or proposing.   0:44:31.1 AS: Yes. 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. There's so much there for further learning. And if you wanna keep in touch with Bill, just find him on LinkedIn. He's right there. 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."  

When we answer a question with "it depends" we are asking for more information about the possible variables that will inform the answer. In this episode, Bill Bellows and host Andrew Stotz discuss how, in the Deming world, "it depends" can trigger improvements in processes or products and services. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.6 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today I'm continuing my discussion with Bill Bellows, who has spent 30 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. The topic for today is, in this episode 10, It Depends, Rethinking Improvements. Bill, take it away.   0:00:34.6 Bill Bellows: Rethinking improvement, yes.   0:00:38.3 AS: You're always teasing us with your titles, Bill.   0:00:43.2 BB: I hate when that happens, I hate when that happens. No, I uh, what I would tell managers when I was doing these one-day seminars all over Boeing for year after year after year after year, and the managers would wanna know, so what should I expect from the people afterwards? And I said, or I would warn them, I said, here's what's gonna happen, just so you're ready. I'd say, you're gonna hear a lot more of people saying, "It depends." 'Cause to me, Andrew, "it depends" is the beginning of an appreciation of a system. So Andrew, you and I are going out to dinner and then you say, would you like to have some wine? And I say, sure. Then you say, red or white? And I say well, it depends Andrew, what are you having? Right, I mean, so to me, it depends is an understanding of what Ackoff would call interactions, that I cannot order the wine without knowing the meal. Planning a wedding, we can't order the food without knowing the guest list, can't order the music without going to the guest list. The colors of the flowers depend upon, the color of the tuxes depend upon it. And what is that? It is looking at things, not in isolation, but as a system. So when I tell my students, graduate and undergraduate is, you already manage systems, you already manage interactions.   0:02:09.0 BB: You don't use that word, but you couldn't plan a vacation without looking at things in context. You couldn't run errands on Saturday morning without knowing what time the store is open, what time... So, so I think we have a natural proclivity of looking at things as a system, quite often, quite often. It could be better. But I... So I just throw out, I just, I mean, if somebody asked me a question on a topic I've never heard about before, what I find is, one is I think, well, how would a red pen company, a me organization, a last straw organization look at that? And they'd look at things in isolation. Which reminds me of an Ackoff quote. He says, "getting less of what you don't want doesn't get you what you want." So we're gonna drive variation to zero, and when I was listening to the last podcast, it was talking about this driving variation to zero. You can't go to zero, 'cause Andrew, cloning does not produce identical, twins are not identical. So for those who think you could drive variation to zero, you can't. Get under a microscope and you're gonna see differences in snowflakes. The question behind reducing variation is, is it a worthwhile investment, which gets us into this continual improvement thing.   0:03:32.6 BB: But, so whether we're reducing variation to zero, reduce... Eliminating waste, eliminating non value-added efforts, what Ackoff asking is, he is challenging us saying, getting rid of what you don't want, what is it that we want? And here I had a great quote from a good friend, Dr. Deming, he says, "it would be better if everyone worked together as a system with the aim for everybody to win."   0:04:00.2 AS: He was saying, win-win before everybody was saying it.   0:04:06.3 BB: Well, what I like about that quote is, did the word quality appear in that quote? Did you hear the word quality anywhere in there, Andrew?   0:04:14.8 AS: No, I didn't hear it.   0:04:17.1 BB: Huh. And Dr. Deming was that quality guy, right?   0:04:20.9 AS: Mm.   0:04:22.4 BB: So he's got quotes that don't have to do with quality? [laughter]   0:04:25.0 AS: Yeah, and so that's one of the things that I think people come, when they first come to Deming, they're looking at, they're thinking of quality in terms of tools, you know...   0:04:35.6 BB: Tools, techniques, yeah...   0:04:36.8 AS: And then they find...   0:04:37.1 BB: And so part of the reason that I wanted to throw that quote out is, to reinforce my point, that I look at what Dr. Deming is doing, is providing guidance for how to manage resources, time, energy, money, space, equipment, tools and techniques, ideas, as a system. And the ideas as a system, is the idea that things are interdependent; I depend on you, you depend on me. And I think the better we understand that, you realize is that improved quality, what he would call quality, would come from that, improved safety would come from that, improved profit would come from that. Again, Ackoff would say, you know, profit is the result of how well we work together, which is how well we manage resources and the idea of being deliberately proactive, deliberately reactive, we talked about last time. And I also made reference last time through the term purposeful resource management, purposeful... And then also reflexive resource management, which is the "me organization," the non-Deming organization being reactive, why?   0:05:58.3 BB: I'm not thinking about it. [laughter] I just, why would I be proactive? I'm gonna be reactive. I'm not gonna work on things that are good. I'm gonna focus on the problems. I'm gonna focus on the defects. Whereas in a Deming organization, a "we organization,: I think there'd be, we're gonna be reactive, where it makes sense, it depends. When does it make sense? We're gonna be proactive when it makes sense, it depends. And another term I'm gonna throw out to build upon this purposeful resource management, which I would... I look at management as an activity, we're managing resources, we're thinking locally...   0:06:33.3 BB: Thinking globally, acting locally. And I think everyone in a Deming organization has that responsibility. You don't ask for twice as much resources as you need. So you don't, so you make sure you get things done as you would at a non-Deming company where you ask for way more than you need on everything, because you don't wanna be the bad guy, so you protect yourself. I would believe in a Deming organization, you would ask for what you need. But again, when I'm working on a project in the backyard, it involves going to the hardware store, you know, I'm gonna go there a few times that day. And, but I anticipate that. And in fact, now I get smart and instead of on one visit, and then going back, I'll say, I'll buy, if it's three different things I might need, I'll buy all three.   0:07:19.8 BB: I say it to myself, what am I doing? Managing resources. But a new term, to build upon purposeful resource management, so purposeful resource management is, "I know when I go to the hardware store, I buy more than I need. I can always return it next week and when the project is done." And that's how I manage projects. But I didn't always do it that way. So what I wanted to say is that purposeful resource management is how I currently manage resources. And then when you and I come up with a whole 'nother way of managing resources, I refer to that as purposeful resource leadership. And leadership is about creating a path for others to follow. And you say, holy cow, I should do the same thing, you know, in my part of the organization, again, where it makes sense.   0:08:05.2 BB: So whether that's focusing on an ideal value when it comes to improving integration or managing and improving how we manage interactions, purposeful resource leadership to me is everyone...I mean, someone coming up with a, then again, better way of doing it, and then we spread it around the organization, then somebody else takes the lead on their thing. The other thing I wanted to share with you is, is a quote from, quotes from two friends who spent a good deal of time with Dr. Deming, conversations. I met him twice, never asked him a question. The first time I didn't have a question to ask. And the second time he was health-wise, not in good shape. I just wanted his autograph. And I just wanted to just be thankful for being in the room. But Gipsie Ranney, who was the first president of the Deming Institute, and before that she was a professor at the University of Tennessee and a senior consultant at GM, she told me, she was a mentor for many years, she said she asked Dr. Deming once, she said, "so, um what are people getting outta your seminars?" And he said, he says, "I know what I told them. I don't know what they heard."   0:09:21.1 BB: And I think... And the more I thought about it, it's just I think that's part of the problem. So a big part, of what I was trying to do at Rocketdyne was to make it easy to read The New Economics. 'Cause I think there's, I think yeah, you can read it on your own, but I think the meaning you'll get being guided by others first, and that could be listening to the pod... You know, listening to these podcasts, watching videos on DemingNEXT. I think It's important to realize that there's words he's using that have perhaps a different meaning than you're using where you are at work. I just throw that out. And the other quote I wanted to share was from Bill Cooper. And Bill Cooper is approaching 90, he lives in San Diego, and he's a great guy.   0:10:07.7 BB: And I, I met him 20 some years ago and remained in touch. And he was a senior civilian officer, senior civilian at the US Navy's Overhaul facility in San Diego at a place called North Island, in the early '80s he came across Deming's work and became riveted, along with Phil Monroe, who was a senior military officer. And they went off to do Deming Consulting around the world. And, and Bill said he asked Deming once, Dr. Deming once, he said, "so what percent of people who attend your four-day seminars really walk out understanding what you said?" And his explanation, his answer to Bill was, "very few." And I think that's consistent with Gipsie, because I think you have to step back and realize that there's, there might be something more going on than what you're thinking. And I'm hoping these conversations help to spur that. Now, relative to teamwork, I had a colleague within Boeing, he was at Boeing Corporate, and somebody went by his office one day knowing that he was very fond of Deming's work and Taguchi's work. And the guy sticks his head out and he says to him, "you know the reason I don't like Deming, there's no equations, you know there's no equations.   0:11:30.0 BB: If you had equations, it means something." And so I told my friend, I said, next time the guy comes by and says that, say to him, "do you believe in teamwork? Is teamwork important?" 'cause at that time, within Boeing, Boeing's corporate slogan was "people working together as, as a one global aerospace companies"... But people working together. And I said, ask him, does he believe in working together? And he'll say yes. And then say, "so what's the equation? What's the equation?" And so I wanna share in advance of a, of another session where we get more into this, an example of teamwork. And I think, I think... I think if executives had an understanding of what teamwork is, that it improves profitability, no one would be against it. Now again, I've also come across people who think teamwork means everyone's involved in every decision, and they get turned off by that.   0:12:30.2 BB: And I'm not saying I agree with: everyone's involved in every decision. But what if, Andrew, in terms of a task, let's say you and I have to dig a trench that's 50 yards long. And I give you a shovel. That's a tool. I take a shovel. That's another tool. We start at opposite ends. And let's say we can each dig the trench at one foot an hour. So that means in one hour we're digging two feet, in two hours we're digging four feet. And so what is that? That's one plus one... One hour plus one hour equals two feet. That's addition, right, Andrew, addition. But if you're at one end of the trench and I'm on the other end of the trench, where's the teamwork? [laughter] There's no teamwork in that model. But Andrew, what if I came along with another tool called a pickaxe, and what if I get in there and start softening up the dirt? And then as it's softer, you can shovel faster. That's teamwork, Andrew. Teamwork is that you and I, again I'm changing tools, but what I'm showing is that you and I working together, my work depends upon yours, yours depends upon me. Two of us can be digging three feet an hour. So what's that Andrew? One plus one is three. My wife and I, a number of years ago, were scraping the spray off the ceiling in our hallway, and the work split was, I climbed the ladder and scraped off the acoustic spray. Right?   0:14:07.2 BB: And her job was to be ahead of me spraying it with water to soften it. And I use that example at class because we were doing far more together than the example I gave you. But if her ambition was to get to the end of the hallway before me, then the acoustic spray would be dry long before I got to it. That ain't helping. And so this is an example of would you like to be in an organization where two people are doing the work of two, or two people are doing the work of three, or two people doing the work of four or five or six. Or, or worse than that Andrew, would you like to have two people doing the work, falling behind [laughter] and get into the... 'Cause I also think people think, well, what's the worst case scenario? Two people equals zero? No, falling behind each day.   0:15:00.9 AS: Two people equal negative one.   0:15:02.7 BB: 'Cause they think well, how bad can it be? It can get better and better or worse and worse. And the other thing I'll add relative to the, "it depends" and the answer to every question. I think if you think of in a Deming organization, you're thinking about, "it depends." And so Andrew, if we're in a red... If we're in a non-Deming organization and I say to you, "Andrew, will that report be done by tomorrow?" How would you answer it in a non Deming organization, Andrew?   0:15:34.7 AS: In a non... Yes, sir.   0:15:36.1 BB: You're gonna salute and you're gonna say, "yes sir." All right. And I do this with my students and they'll be quick enough to figure out the answer is yes. Then I'll say, I'll call on a different person and I'll say, "Okay, let's say we're in a Deming organization, a 'we organization' will the report be done by tomorrow?"   0:15:55.5 AS: It depends.   0:15:57.6 BB: And they're like, it depends. It depends on what Andrew? It depends on what time tomorrow. It depends on those other five things you've asked me to do. And you might say, is this a five minute task or a 20 minute task or a two hour task? And so if you're unwilling to answer "it depends," then what's the chance the effort you're gonna apply? And so that's what I find is, I think the beauty of it is not, "it depends" is a smart-alecky response, it's trying to get a better sense of the system. And they, but I also say that I confess of thinking about "it depends" all the time. If my wife, of 40 years, was to ask me, do I have plans for Saturday morning? You know what my answer is, Andrew?   0:16:50.5 AS: For whatever you want, dear, I am free.   0:16:54.2 BB: I do not say, "it depends." [laughter] So it depends is the answer other than when your significant other says, do you have plans for...? And you say, no, I don't.   0:17:07.5 AS: Yes.   0:17:07.8 BB: All right.   0:17:08.3 AS: All right. So I got so many different things that you triggered.   0:17:12.2 BB: Good.   0:17:13.4 AS: The first one I wanted to mention was I have a friend of mine, Bevin in Bangkok, and he helped me edit my book, Transform Your Business with Dr. Deming's 14 Points. And he didn't know anything about Deming, so it's kind of fun to write it and have him going through it. And he actually worked with me side by side in my office and he was reading it and going through and editing and going back and forth chapter by chapter. And then after he was pretty deep into it, he looked at me and he says, I think I just figured it out. Dr. Deming is like is a humanist that cares about people.   0:17:49.8 BB: Yeah.   0:17:51.2 AS: And that was such a... And I think for the listeners and the viewers out there, you're gonna get to a moment where you move beyond tools and techniques into the way you think about getting the most out of a system, getting the most out of people. And that's really where you really get into the meaning to me, the most powerful part of the meaning of Dr. Deming.   0:18:14.5 BB: Well, when you start to think about the potential for one plus one, and then you realize that in a non-Deming organization, you deliver the report by, you know, without understanding the context, you deliver the part without understanding the context. You have the ability to, as we've talked, spoken before, meet requirements minimally, leave the bowling ball in a doorway and... 'Cause I say, Andrew was the task completed? And you're like, yes sir, it was completed. But to do so with the absolute minimal effort and then to realize that that then is creating a ripple effect for the next person. And what we end up doing is a one plus one is a big negative number, or you go off and get the cleaning solution, which is really, really cheap, but it doesn't cut whatever the grease is on the table. And we're saving a lot of money, but we're putting all this manpower. When you start to realize how easy it is to end up in a situation where one plus one is a big negative number, why would you treat people other than with the greatest of respect? And I've had people say, "Well, oh, so it's a feel good thing." I said, are we... Is the result at the end of the day to make... I'm not saying we're in business to make a profit, but I said if we wanna be sustainable, then the better we work together, the more sustainable we are. So, do we wanna be sustainable? And you get what you get.   0:20:00.0 AS: I had some other things that came up. First one is, for the audience out there, you may not know what Bill's talking about when he kept saying Ackoff, Ackoff. But what he's talking about is Russell Ackoff.   0:20:12.5 BB: Russell Ackoff. Yes.   0:20:15.7 AS: And I just wanna go back to an article that he wrote in 1994, and it's titled Systems Thinking and Thinking Systems. But what's critical for our discussion is his description of a system, which is very brief. So let me go through it.   0:20:32.4 BB: Yeah, please do.   0:20:33.5 AS: "A system is a whole consisting of two or more parts, one, each of which can affect the performance or properties of the whole, none of which can have an independent effect on the whole, and no subgroup of which can have an independent effect on the whole. In brief then, a system is a whole that cannot be divided into independent parts or subgroups of parts." Now, I just wanna talk briefly about my... One of my areas of expertise is in the financial markets. And I say something a lot like what you say, when I go into my class and I said it last night in my valuation masterclass boot camp, when you finish my class, you'll be less confident than when you started. If you are less confident when you finish this class, I have succeeded. Well, this is very painful and difficult for people to think about because we're going to school to become more confident. But the stock market is not like physics where we have immutable laws that we can...   0:21:52.2 BB: That's right.   0:21:52.7 AS: Grasp and understand and then watch the interplay of those laws. The world of finance is a messy ball of activity. And the fact is, is that the minute you touch that ball, you have now affected that ball. If you place a buy order, you have just affected that ball. If you maybe place a very big buy order, you've really affected it. Some people could even say that just by looking at that ball of activity, you could influence it. When you face a complex, constantly changing system, then you start to realize that we have so little...to expect definitiveness, I'm just gonna do this.   0:22:49.0 AS: I'm just gonna take care of my department, if... And you're talking about a company, you are ignoring that the system, in this case I'm talking about the stock market, but now let's take it into a factory or into a business or into an office environment. All of these component parts. And if you write an email, a scathing email and you send it into that group of people that is working in a system, congratulations, you have made an effect or an impact on that system. For better or for worse, that system must react to every interaction. It cannot be divided into independent parts or subgroups. And therefore, the typical manager nowadays, that's all they wanna do. "I got my KPIs, that's my subgroup."   0:23:39.2 BB: Yes.   0:23:39.5 AS: We'll take care of that. And they're missing the word that I love in... When I work with management teams, the word I love is "coordination."   0:23:49.9 BB: Yeah. Synchronicity.   0:23:52.2 AS: Yep. So there's a lot there. But I just wanna highlight one other thing. You made me think of a book and earlier I was looking around for that book. So I'm gonna get out that book 'cause my books are right here and for everybody that's in business that's looking at competitive strategy of your business, Michael Porter is the guy...   0:24:14.3 BB: Yes.   0:24:14.8 AS: That's the best of all. But what I can say is that Michael Porter can be a bit dry. And the lady who worked with Michael Porter is a lady named Joan Magretta and she wrote a book called Understanding Michael Porter, a simple, small book to teach all the main things that Porter teaches. But what he teaches, the most important thing is that to develop a competitive advantage in a company, you wanna build that competitive advantage in the supply chain of that business, the flow of that business. And then he talks about the importance of fit, of how different components of that supply chain fit together.   0:24:57.3 AS: That that's the right person running the right part and that they're coordinating their efforts. And when you build that competitive advantage in your supply chain through the coordination of efforts, it's almost impossible for the competitor to copy. A great example is if General Motors, if the CEO of General Motors came in and he says, what I wanna do is start building cars like Toyota. Good luck. It's never going to happen because they've built their whole competitive advantage in their supply chain and it's not something that you can just go out and replicate.   0:25:36.0 BB: Well, to add to that, and I have a...students in one of my classes watch a one hour lecture by Porter. And then I explained to them Porter's five... I think it's a five forces model.   0:25:49.9 AS: Five forces. Yep.   0:25:52.1 BB: And all of that, I think it's absolutely important to know about. What I learned from Tom Johnson, is a retired professor from Portland State University and we'll talk more about Tom in a later session. What Tom pointed out to me that I would have paid no attention to in Porter's model is, in Porter's model it's about "power over." Power over your customers. Where else are you gonna go, Andrew, for Internet? Right? Power over your suppliers, power over your employees. I think and when we get into this "power over" model, so we're gonna go to our customers, start demanding things, put a gun to their head, drive change and they're gonna respond by leaving bowling balls in the doorway when it... So what's missing in that model is... I mean, if the model's based on all white beads are the same, everything which is good, everything is, there is no variation, then it might work. But if you now go back to the humanist, if you've got people in the loop who have vested interest in their survival as an employee, their survival as a supplier, and you go to them and start wrenching them and squeezing them and driving them to...   0:27:18.4 BB: And they respond with things that are thinner and break more often or still meet requirements, it doesn't work out as well. To your point on Toyota, my sense is Toyota has a sense of relationships with suppliers, which is not mutually self destructive. I think there's a better understanding, I think, again, not that I've spoken and gone to visit Toyota's suppliers. But I'm thinking, in order to deliver what they deliver, there's got to be some sense of, shall I say win-win, because if it's win-lose... Boeing, when Rocketdyne was owned by Boeing, you know, severe downturn in the market, there was a lot of pressure within Boeing to improve things and it was a pretty stressful situation. And Boeing was going to suppliers, not only asking them to take back inventory, all those parts you bought from the last six months and we're having trouble selling airplanes. But the reason we want you to take them back, Andrew, is it's not so much that we need the space. We want you to buy them back from us. [laughter] Yeah. Are you okay with that, Andrew?   0:28:44.9 AS: Absolutely not.   0:28:45.6 BB: And I'm thinking, what's gonna happen when you go to that supply chain and say, we're ramping up, we've got customers, and we... Andrew, we need your help, we need your help. Are you there for us? And you're like, remember five years ago? Remember? You get into this rainy day friends kind of thing. It's one thing if we're mutually suffering or mutually benefiting, but anything short of that is not win... I wouldn't define it as win-win. I also want to point out the production viewed as a system, the loop, the loop model that Deming showed the Japanese in 1950. And what I've done in the past is, is I've taken a class and I said, okay, you over there, you are the beginning, the raw material comes to you and then you do your thing, hand off to the next person, off to the next person, off to the next person. Then you over there, I go around the room, and I just show the flow of work from the first person to the last person, last person is a customer. And I say, so, where's the best place to be in this situation? And everybody wants to be way upstream. And you say, why? I say, well, when people start leaving the bowling balls in doorway...   0:30:07.2 AS: What does that mean, leaving bowling balls in doorways?   0:30:10.7 BB: If they start delivering minimally, minimally meeting requirements as they hand off as they hand off as they hand off as they hand off, and that system, the last... The worst place to be is at the end. And I say, but what if what comes around goes around? What if it's actually a loop? [laughter] Now, where would you rather be? Then you begin to realize that whatever goes into the air, I have to breathe, whatever goes into the water, I have to drink. So I think what, going back to the humanist side, I think the better you understand others, and they understand you, this is not done invisibly. So when I'm in a Deming environment, leaving the bowling ball in the doorway, meeting requirements minimally without asking for your permission, you know that, others know that, and then you might call me on it.   0:31:10.3 AS: Yeah.   0:31:11.9 BB: Because instead of black and white thinking - it met requirements, we've got shades of gray thinking - you call me over and you say, "I don't know, you're kinda new here, right Bill?" And I said, "yeah." And he says, let me take you aside. You might be able to tap into the humanist in me. So one is I'd say, I think the better our understanding of what comes around goes around, the better the understanding of what a good friend, Grace used to call boomerang karma. [laughter] But let me also say that Dr. Deming came up with that model...   0:31:49.2 AS: There's a bit of redundancy in that.   0:31:49.3 BB: Say again.   0:31:49.3 AS: There's a bit of redundancy in that. Those words kind of mean the same thing. But yes.   0:31:54.5 BB: Yes. [laughter] That's right. It's like connected as a system. That's what system means. But when Dr. Deming showed the Japanese in 1950 production to view it as a system, and there's an idea of what comes around goes around. And it took me a while to figure this out. If everyone's meeting requirements minimally in that system and you end up with something where there are problems, then if your model is meeting requirements is okay, then it wouldn't dawn on you that some of the problems could be coming from how we meet requirements. And there's a story we'll look at in a future session of a transmission designed by Ford, built by Ford, also built by Mazda in the early '80s. And Ford somehow found out that the Mazda transmission had an order of magnitude fewer complaints, with the shifting of the transmission than the Ford transmission. It was the same design, but one was built with an understanding of managing the variation between the parts and how they work together.   0:33:09.8 BB: Very much as you would do if you're working in the garage, you're gonna get the pieces to come together, not just meet requirements any way. But I thought if Ford operated with a Deming model in everything, and they end up finding out that these transmissions are performing differently, well, if you go back in and check with quality and all the parts meet requirements, you couldn't explain what's going on. And you're left thinking, well, our transmission must have some bad parts. So part of the reason I throw that out is, in the world of improvement, when you shift from this black and white parts are good, what Ackoff would call managing actions, looking things in isolation, you might find that the requirements are met to one extreme or the other. And maybe if we started to mix and match how they come together, there's an opportunity for incredible improvement when you shift your thinking from the black and white...   0:34:10.1 BB: My parts are good, to how they work together. And also, how can you have continual improvement if your mental model, your mindset is things are good and bad, but if we look at things in a relative sense, then we could say our... If we look at understanding as relative, improvement as relative, then there's room for improvement. But if quality is defined as good and bad, there's no room for improvement. And relative to the title, what I want to bring out is, there's a sense among people in the Deming community, people like a few years into Deming, we can go off and improve everything.   0:34:51.4 BB: Now, what we have to be careful about is what does improvement mean? Does improvement mean having less variation? Does improvement mean having lower cost? The important thing is to look at things, right, Andrew, as a system, and then start to ask where can we spend some, where can... I look at it as a resource management model. Where might we spend an hour to save five hours, spend a dollar to save five? And that's what I refer to not as continual improvement, but rather continual investment. And so I look at in terms of managing resources is within an organization, we've got red beads, we've got things that are defective, things that are behind that are not quite good, and we can use a control chart or run chart to manage those, see those ahead of time. And so we have a fire, Dr. Deming, he said, of course we're gonna have fires.   0:35:41.9 BB: Let's put the fire out. We end up back to where we were before, which means the process is...we wanna get it from out of control to in control. But I think the better we are in responding to that, we don't end up shut down for long periods of time. That then gives us the opportunity as you would be as a homeowner... Again, as a homeowner it's the same thing. You end up with a leak, you gotta go fix it, whether it's the faucet, the toilet, but then every now and then you're thinking about, maybe I can improve how the watering system is done. Maybe I can improve how the air conditioner works. Maybe by cleaning the filter more often. And what is that to me, Andrew, paying more attention to the filter, because if I wait six months to change the filter in the air conditioner, now all of that dust is way up inside the coils and I'm gonna spend forever.   0:36:32.0 BB: But if I'm changing that filter on a more regular basis, what am I doing? I am overall reducing the amount of effort spent on this maintenance. And I just wanted to say, I don't look at that as improvement thinking. I look at that as investment thinking, and I just wanna go from, okay yes, we can go past "all the beads are white" and we know that we don't stop at a hundred percent white beads. So that means improvement is possible, it doesn't mean, I'm not suggesting let's go improve everything. What I'm next looking at in terms of, you know, how I interpret Dr. Deming's The New Economics is asking where's the stitch in time saving nine, where's an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure? And that I refer to as not improvement thinking, but investment thinking.   0:37:22.3 AS: Yep.   0:37:23.4 BB: And that's what I was trying to say last time. I think reading to your kids is investment thinking, listening to these podcasts is investment thinking, going to a concert, I think everything we do is based somehow on, "I think that's a worthwhile use of my time."   0:37:39.0 AS: Yep. Okay. Let's wrap up. I just want to go back to the title, which was, It Depends, Rethinking Improvements, and what you said is that, if you're working in a Deming organization, it's not gonna be as definitive. When we ask questions, we're gonna get answers like, well, it depends. Everything's a trade off. We need to know...   0:38:03.7 BB: That's right.   0:38:03.8 AS: How many things... We need to know many things, as you said, before deciding what to do because we want to think about the impact of the system... On the system. And also I would argue, and I think you make this point, that this is hard and I think there's a rush to simplification in KPIs and things like that to try to corner people into little areas and little boxes. And that's destroying the system and... Or the potential of the system.   0:38:37.5 AS: And then I mentioned the word coordination, the idea. We talked about Porter and his idea of building competitive advantage happens through the supply chain. His example, one of them that he uses is IKEA that makes flat, it ships everything in flat boxes.   0:38:52.5 BB: Yes.   0:38:53.2 AS: And that has built something in the supply chain that's not easy to replicate. And so, but that also requires fits that you're designing your supply chain around a new way of thinking. And then you've talked about Russell Ackoff and also I discussed his definition of a system that's saying that nothing can be independently... Can act independently. Everything has an impact. I talked about the stock market and how that is an interacting system. And then I just wanna finish up my kind of review of what we've talked about by a discussion, Bill, that I had with my father before he passed away.   0:39:35.4 AS: And my father had a PhD in organic chemistry and he created a career all of his life at DuPont in selling, he was a salesman and a technical salesman. And he raised three kids; my mom was a housewife. And I asked my dad, what was your proudest accomplishment? And he said, I built a trusting family.   0:40:01.4 BB: Cool.   0:40:03.1 AS: And I didn't really... It hit me then, but it just hits me more and more whenever I think about that. My mom and dad never betrayed my trust. I never was in a situation where I could see that they were acting for their benefit and...   0:40:14.3 BB: Yeah.   0:40:16.8 AS: Not considering mine. So now I wanna go back to Toyota. One of the things that makes Toyota successful is that it's the quintessential family business. It is a family business that built certain values in the family business that are ongoing. Because what we're trying to do, and when we talked about Dr. Deming being a humanist, we're trying to build trust.   0:40:42.5 AS: He's telling us to build trust in the system. In other words, don't beat up your suppliers, work with them. Don't beat up your employees and make them fearful. Don't rank and rate your employees. Build a system of trust. And what I realized, I want to just go back to the story of my father, if my father had done something that was selfish only for him and neglected the impact on me and my mom or the family, he would have broken our trust. And it just takes one time to cause a system, like a family system, to be permanently broken, unless there's effort made to try to resolve that. And it's no different in a business. What would you like to add to end up this episode?   0:41:33.3 BB: No. I think that's a good point. A number of things is, and I really like the way you described that, because I thought about that recently as well as, it's one thing to have trust in others, but I think what you're saying is that a Deming organization we have trust in the system. And when you, when you lack that trust, what do you do, Andrew? You look out for yourself.   0:41:57.7 AS: Yep.   0:42:00.4 BB: Because you've learned. You've learned the hard way. You fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. But I think if you have trust in the system, then there may be a new direction. But you say, "I don't know where we're going, I just got the announcement, but I have trust in the system. I'm not gonna get tossed overboard." And I think you're right. When you have trust in the system of the company or of the family, then you know that you're being looked out for. And lacking that, when people say something to you, you're like, "what's their ulterior motive?" And when you start thinking about ulterior motives behind coworkers or friends, then they're really not friends for long when you start wondering about ulterior motives.   0:42:51.6 AS: And that stifles innovation.   0:42:53.3 BB: Oh, yeah. You say to me, Andrew, or you say to me, Bill, hey, what do you say we go do this? The first thing comes to mind is, what's Andrew up to now? But that's the humanist.   0:43:04.4 AS: Yeah.   0:43:04.8 BB: And what I love about what Deming is saying, and when you put psychology in the System of Profound Knowledge, is that it's an understanding that that psychology gets me to think about me and not the system. That psychology, then we're looking at also an understanding that each of us is different, that's the variation piece. Right, the theory of knowledge piece or am I willing to share my theories or hide my theories? But if you're not tapping into the... That people... I mean, the most flexible part of the system, once you pour the concrete, so yeah, the chairs are on rollers and you put casters on some machines.   0:43:40.6 BB: But at the end of the day, the potential most flexible part of the system is the people. And when you turn people into concrete, now you've got trouble. So I just wanna... And I know you've got a favorite Deming quote, so let me share with you my favorite Russell Ackoff quote, and then you could sign us off. And so to borrow from Russell Ackoff, "a system is never the sum of its parts. It's the product of the interactions of its parts. The art of managing interactions is very different indeed than the management of actions. And history requires this transition for effective management, not efficient management, effective management." And that's my closing quote, Andrew.   0:44:25.2 AS: Bill, once again, on behalf of everyone at The Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for our discussion. For listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. And if you want to keep in touch with Bill, just find him on LinkedIn. Oh, wow, we have a lot of good discussions there and all of this stuff is posted there. Share your ideas and opinions. This is your host, Andrew Stotz. And I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming: "People are entitled to joy in work."

In this episode, Bill Bellows and host Andrew Stotz talk about resource management in a non-traditional sense. Bill explains how managing the variation and integration in your product or service is just as important as increasing consistency and removing waste.  TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.3 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with Bill Bellows, who has spent 30 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. The topic for today is episode nine, Resource Management. Bill, take it away.   0:00:28.9 Bill Bellows: Thank you, Andrew. And thanks for our audience and thanks for joining in again. So we're picking up following episode nine, which was, I called it the Paradigms of Variation. It was, I think the title on the podcast may be a little bit different, but what we've been building up to from the beginning is, parallel tracks. But one aspect that I've been trying to bring forward is this idea of variation in the white beads. We talked about the white bead experiment and the idea that the red beads are not caused by the workers, they're caused by the system.   0:01:13.5 BB: And then what if we got to the point that there were no more red beads? Yes, we can make the red beads faster, we can make the red beads cheaper, but could we make, I'm sorry, we can make the white beads faster. We can make the white beads cheaper with the elimination of the red beads, but if we're dealing with nothing but white beads that are cheaper and made faster, can we improve the quality of the beads? And what I found is, when I press on people, they'll say, "Yes, everything can be improved. Everything can be improved. When I press, press, press, they'll say faster. They'll say cheaper. I said, "Yeah, we said that." I said, "But can they be better?"   0:01:53.4 BB: Is that what Dr. Deming's trying to say with continuous improvement that we stop it a 100% white beads? Or can we go further? And I find people get stuck. And I think it's very easy to get stuck, because that's the world we live in of good parts and bad parts. We focus on the bad to make them good. And what do they do when they're good? Well, they met requirements. But what's missing is this key word called variation. And yes, there's variation in the red beads and Dr. Deming would plot that on a control chart. But Dr. Deming also discovered in, definitely in 1960, from Dr. Taguchi who he met a few years earlier, this notion of variation in the white beads and that the, so I talked earlier also about question number one and quality management.   0:02:44.0 BB: Does this quality characteristic meet requirements? There's only two answers, remember Andrew, yes or no. But then question number two is how many ways are there to meet requirements? And I'd say there's an infinite number if you take into account, how many decimal places you can go. And that, the idea that you can have anywhere from the absolute minimum to the absolute maximum of the requirements is there's all those places be in between. That's called variation. And does it matter where you are within spec? Within spec? And again, by spec I mean specification. You've met the requirements for the activity. And so what we did in episode nine, I'm sorry, episode eight is look at what I call the Two Distribution exercise. And you may have caught me saying there are four suppliers.   0:03:41.7 BB: And at the end I said, forget about the four. There's actually two. I've done it with four, I've done it with two but the important thing is when I show people a number of distributions within requirements, and one of them will be, we'll go from the minimum to the maximum with near zero and frequency at either end to then high in the middle. And I'll say, "The middle is the ideal value." And then I'll say, let's say you also have a really narrow distribution consuming, and I said, last time, 10% of the variation, what I meant to say, and I said at least once, is 10% of the tolerance that, so you're using a very small portion of the tolerance, but you're far away from the ideal value.   0:04:27.0 BB: You're shifted to the right. And so when I give people the choice of buying from one of those two suppliers under the idealized situation, you may recall, Andrew, of same price, same schedule, everything's guaranteed to meet requirements. We've got histograms, we've got control charts. The processes are in control with all those, what Ackoff would call idealized situations. Make it really, really simple. Do I go with the wide one centered on the ideal value or the narrow one over to the right? And time again, people take the really narrow one, which we said was about, why do you like the really narrow one? Because they're more consistent. Then I explained that that's precision. And that's the most popular answer. And I'm reminded of that every time I use the exercise. Within the last few days, I've used it again.   0:05:19.6 BB: And that narrow one gets people's attention. What I find really fascinating is if the goal is to meet requirements, then why is the answer not, I'll take either one of them, which was one of the choices. You could take the wide one in the middle that covers the entire, or the narrow one. Why does it matter? Why not say in the world of meeting requirements, what's the driver behind the narrow one? Why don't people say it doesn't matter anymore? And I think because there's something about variation and consistency. I was talking with somebody the other day and they said, "Being consistent is, that's everything in terms of quality." And I said, "Not quite. Not quite." What... And this will become the focus of a later episode, that you could, ideally you could put the variation where you want it to be along the ideal and end up with improved what?   0:06:18.4 BB: The answer is improved integration. Because the very simple model we use in organizations is that if the parts are good, whether it's two parts, three parts, four parts, number of parts going together, you have to have at least two. And I say if the parts are good, then they fit. That's the model. If the parts are good, then they fit, then is there anything wrong with that model? And people are like, "No, that's the model we use." If the parts are good, then they fit. Now, if you're developing an airplane or a rocket engine, you've got a wing and a fuselage, then you've got all the parts to make the wing, all the parts to make the fuselage, all the parts that do these separate components, you could say the same thing for a play. You have all the elements of the first act, all the elements of the second act, and then you put them together for the entire play. So the point is that what I'm talking about is that integration is not black and white.   [overlapping conversation]   0:07:23.2 AS: What... Just... Can you define integration just so we can make sure we understand it?   0:07:27.5 BB: Yeah. Integration is when I'm going to put the cap onto the bottle of water. That's integration. The cap is good, the bottle is good. Now I'm trying to put the cap, which is good, and the bottle, which is good, and I'm trying to put the cap onto the bottle.   0:07:46.0 AS: Okay.   0:07:46.5 BB: Yeah. That's integration. Or I'm trying to put the, I'm trying to put two parts of something together. I'm trying to put the cap on top of the pen. What I love about water bottles as a prop is wherever I'm presenting, someone in your room will have a water bottle. And I'll say, can I use this as a prop? Sure. And I say, if all the requirements for the cap are met, what do we say about the cap? It's good. And if all the requirements for the bottle are met, what do we say about the bottle? It's good. Then I'll say, see what we're doing? We're managing parts in isolation. We're saying the cap is good, the body is good. Then I say, why don't we focus on how well the cap mates with the bottle? And I had a co-worker once said, well, if the cap is good and the bottle is good, then won't it fit. Fit as in absolute fit, right?   0:08:39.7 BB: Not relative fit ‘cause remember in early episodes we talked about black and white thinking versus shades of gray thinking. Good versus bad is black and white. Fit is black and white. It fits or it doesn't. What I'm talking about Andrew, is the idea that there's variation in good and the variation in good cap, and the variation in the good bottle show up when I go to put the cap onto the bottle. Because if the, if the outer diameter of the bottle is on the high side and the cap, inner diameter is on the low side, then I'm gonna have trouble putting the cap onto the bottle, ‘cause one's too small, one's too large. Boom. And, so what I'm trying to imply, [chuckle] not what I'm trying to imply. What I'm stating is fit is not absolute.  It's relative. Integration, which is about fit, is relative. And I don't, did we talk Andrew about a hundred percent…?   0:09:41.1 AS: Wait a minute. You gotta say that again. I didn't catch that. I know many of our listeners are a little faster than me. But say that again about relative versus...   0:09:56.6 BB: Okay, so what I'm saying is the fundamental model we're using is if the cap is good of the water bottle and the bottle is good, then the cap will fit onto the bottle. It'll fit when you go to...   0:10:05.7 AS: Yep.   0:10:07.8 BB: Put the, put it on it fits just like that. What I'm talking about…   0:10:12.1 AS: And when you say fit, are you using that as a general term in a system or are you just talking specifically about the cap?   0:10:17.8 BB: No, no, I'm really, I'm glad you brought this up. What the suggestion is that fit, there's only one degree of fit. It goes together you know with a, technically what we're talking about is how much torque is required to screw it on, how much force is required. And so fit is about how much force is required to screw it on. And the implication behind them being good and fit is that they always fit the same. So the model is that parts that are good fit together the same way each time. And that's not the case. So there's a... And I, one of my first exposures to this was reading a book by David Kearns and I mentioned this, I don't know which episode. And I said that Frank Pipp, an assembly plant manager at this Ford factory had his assembly team routinely buy competitor's cars and put them together.   0:11:19.4 BB: Because at the Ford plant, most of the time when they're putting parts together, they needed rubber mallets to bang them together because they didn't quite fit. And, so they needed help. And the help was the hammers to bang them together and out. Every now and then two parts went together without a hammer. That means fit is easy as opposed to hammers, which means fit is difficult. So imagine you've got everything between I can put them together, with little effort at all to I need a hammer to bang them together. That's degrees of fit, which I'm saying Andrew is degrees of integration.   0:12:00.4 AS: Okay.   0:12:01.2 BB: And, so the point I was trying to, what got me excited about Taguchi's work and then really excited when I saw Dr. Deming realizing it, is that when I came across this a hundred percent snap fit Toyota pickup truck story account, I thought, well, holy cow. And I found in listening to these podcasts that I use a expression quite a bit.   0:12:24.1 AS: Holy cow cow, holy spicoli.   0:12:26.3 BB: Holy... Holy cow, Andrew [laughter] But what was cool is this Ford plant has discovered that Toyota, where I know Dr. Deming had some influence, but some influence, okay, what influence? that's a whole ‘nother topic, but I know Taguchi had an influence there. So I'm looking at that with my understanding of variation and thinking, that's incredible. And brought that awareness to my coworkers at Rocketdyne. And we developed, with, I provided the education, they provided the hands-on go make it work. They developed hardware that went together beautifully. And why is this important, Andrew? And this is one of the things we got to in the end of the last podcast is if you would like your customers to have products that go together easily if they're assembling it or going together means that it, this product fits well with how they use it.   0:13:22.7 BB: That the car starts each time or the stopwatch, whatever they're using, works really well, which means there's degrees of performance. That's what excites me about the idea that if we can pay attention to the variation, we can either have designs that require hammers to assemble or we can design them to go together well. And, and all of this is to say that's what prompted me to get people excited by the paradigms of variation to get them to better understand that a mindset of meeting requirements is different from a mindset of precision, which is different from a mindset of accuracy. And what I've just repeated is Paradigm A is meet requirements. Get the darts somewhere on the dartboard. Meet requirements be anywhere within the requirements. Paradigm B is this idea that we're striving for consistency, incredible uniformity, otherwise known as, as precision.   0:14:30.7 BB: And, and there may be a place for that. But what Dr. Taguchi's talking about is different than that, that's precision is Paradigm B. Paradigm C is trying to be close to target. So that's taken the distribution, which is precise, and then finding a way to adjust it to be on the bullseye. And what does that gain us, Andrew? That, well, first of all, I would say when we're working at home looking for, working on the recipe, trying to get exactly one cup of flour, exactly 350 degrees, exactly one hour in the oven.  As we pay attention to how close we are to those values, chances are we're gonna end up with an incredible product. And that's, we're trusting that the person who developed the recipe has done that.   0:15:23.2 BB: But so whether it is woodworking or working on any project, it could be making things out of cloth where you're, you're putting together some outfit out of cloth that my father used to do for my sister when he was in the textile business. That is about the idea that things come together well is about accuracy in improving integration. And that's what I find the Deming philosophy offers an understanding of what does it take to inspire an organization where, where it takes the people working on their different elements, not to meet the requirements any way they choose, but to meet requirements in a - ready Andrew - synchronous way. So you and I are on the soccer pitch, and it's not about your position, it's about my position and your position on defense that we're trying to win the World Cup.   0:16:25.2 AS: Yeah.   0:16:26.4 BB: And so all of that is about the Paradigms of Variation. Go ahead, Andrew. You were gonna say.   0:16:29.0 AS: You referenced sports and I was just thinking about how easily we work together in team activities, team sports that are just, clearly great teams are the ones that integrate each individual's doing their own personal work and they're doing training and they're improving themselves, and then they're practicing together. How do we bring this together into an integrated system that then wins?   0:16:54.9 BB: That's right. And so when you say bring together, that's what integration is. It's bring together, right? And we're looking, we we're screened a bunch of candidates on the phone, now we bring them in for face-to-face interviews. What are we looking for? Why isn't it enough that they meet the requirements that are on the website? We wanna know which of these potential employees is the best fit with our team, whether it's to play first base, or play senior researcher. Are they a fit? They may be very consistent in what they do, but is that consistency...I mean, they have to be, their consistency has to mesh what we want. So they may be consistently tardy, they may be consistently dominating the meeting, but what we want them to do is fit into the meeting.   0:17:50.0 AS: And the other thing that I always think about when I hear you talking about this stuff is, I think about when I was younger, when Lexus came out, if you remember Lexus, when they first...   0:18:01.8 BB: Absolutely.   0:18:02.5 AS: Launched...   0:18:02.5 BB: Oh yeah.   0:18:03.7 AS: Their great video or the great advertising was stacked up champagne glasses...   0:18:09.5 BB: Yes, yes.   0:18:11.6 AS: Onto the hood of this car. And then they lifted the wheels off the ground and then, or not off the ground, but like they had a roller that they were rolling it on, and then they revved that car up to as fast as it could possibly go, and those glasses did not fall. And you know the only way you can get that is by improving not only each individual part, but how those parts work together with the end result being less vibration, less friction.   0:18:39.9 BB: Yes.   0:18:41.1 AS: All of those things.   0:18:42.0 BB: Yes. Exactly.   0:18:42.5 AS: And you couldn't do it by just improving one part.   0:18:45.6 BB: That's right. And that's a great example because together you've got minimum vibration. That's not an accident. That's they have figured out how those things come together to have an incredible product, which is consistently, it works consistently. But the consistency, there's nothing wrong with consistency. Consistency is not the issue. But it, the issue is is the consistency we're talking about striving for precision or accuracy. So a car that consistently doesn't start is consistent, but that's not helpful. I want a car that consistently starts, right? I wanna be consistent around... I want you to bring your consistency in concert with others' consistency where those consistencies matter, you know? And if we don't need you to be consistent, then that's okay. Then we save money by having lack of consistency because why have consistency if you don't need it? But all of that's about...   0:19:50.6 AS: It's hard. It's hard. Consistency is hard and fit is hard.   0:19:55.4 BB: Yes. And, and, and, to build upon what you just said, consistency is about managing variation as a system. And so, another thing I wanna point out, and I got some comments from some friends about, you know, the last podcast.  The Paradigms of Variation are about the paradigms of white bead variation. So, so, Paradigm A is we've got variation within the requirements and, and is that okay? Is it enough to have variation in requirement? It doesn't matter where we are? That's Paradigm A. Paradigm B is precision. We're consistent, but we're not around the ideal. That's accuracy. And then paradigm D is....and I was searching for the word, the expression Dr. Taguchi used. He calls that Technology Development, that we're developing an advanced technology for use in... And I, the example I used last time is, let's say we're fac…we're developing a new way of making tubes for plumbers to use.   0:21:07.6 BB: And I said in the beginning let's say we just have one inch outer diameter tubes, and that's Paradigm C because everything we make is one inch outer diameter tubes. And then somebody comes along in our research labs and comes up with a novel way to make tubes of different sizes. That's variety. So they can make them down to quarter of an inch, half an inch outer diameter. And then what we're doing with what Paradigm D is about is developing the technology that allows us to be really accurate around all these different values. That's what Dr. Taguchi calls Technology Development. I called it Paradigm D, he called it Technology Development. And in the world of sports, we talk about sports. That's the ability of the soccer player to kick the ball, or I should say a football player. [laughter] To put the ball anywhere in the net during at any time. Whether it's...   0:22:03.6 AS: That's within spec.   0:22:05.4 BB: Yeah, it's so the goalkeeper goes one way and they can hit any point in there. Because if you come up and the goalkeeper knows, oh, here comes Andrew, Andrew's gonna go to the lower left 'cause that's all he knows how to do. But you don't think I know that as your opposing goalkeeper. I know Andrew, Andrew's gonna fake, but I know what Andrew's gonna do. So the Paradigm D is in sports is the ability to move the ball around. If you're the pitcher, if you're the tennis player, and that's how you become a professional athlete, is that ability to move it around. That's Paradigm D. So, years ago, and this, I was developing this and sharing this, refining it with co-workers.   0:22:44.4 BB: And I was at a Deming Institute conference. True story, in Washington DC with Tim Higgins, a co-worker, and got a call from a really good friend, Jim. So Jim calls up and Jim was in this professional development program within Boeing doing a lot of travel. Every time he called, he was somewhere different in the country doing some really cool stuff in this incredible program to develop next generation leaders. And he definitely fit the mold. So he calls me up and he says, so he says, Dr. Bellows, have you discovered Paradigm E yet?   [laughter]   0:23:17.9 BB: I said, Jim, there is no E. He said, yeah, there's letter A, there's letter B, there's letter C, there's letter D. Oh, so there's also E. I said, Jim, A meets requirements, B is consistency anywhere, C is being on target, D is being on any target. I said, there's nowhere else to go. I said that we've run out. He said, we haven't run out of letters. [laughter] So I said, so he pushed on me and I pushed back. He pushed on me. We literally pushed on each other because I kept saying, Jim, you're you... Let's find another topic. No, no, no, no. I wanna hear about Paradigm E. And then it dawned on me, and I can remember it like it happened yesterday.   0:23:58.8 BB: And every time I have lunch with him, I say, Jim, I give him a big hug because I could not explain with the Paradigms of Variation, why would I pick up a nail in the parking lot, right? Why would I pick up a piece of glass in a parking lot? '‘Cause I viewed that as minimizing loss to society, that if I pick up the nail, prevent the flat tire, pick up the piece of glass, prevent the flat tire. I am, to quote Dr. Taguchi, "minimizing loss to society." But I don't know how to put that into his loss function, which is a subject of an of a future episode. And the idea of the loss function is there's an ideal value somewhere within the requirements. And the closer we are to the ideal value, the better the integration, and therefore the easier the effort.   0:24:55.2 BB: And, so now I'm stuck trying to say, so Jim's poking me, and I'm thinking, I'm stuck trying to explain everything through Dr. Taguchi's loss function, which is looking at the impact of variation relative to meeting requirements. And it dawns on me, and what Jim is saying is, I'm stuck in the world of variation. And, so when he mentioned...as, as he pushed and pushed and pushed, and it dawned on me that there's another whole world called managing, not... There's managing resources. I'm sorry, managing variation is Paradigms A, B, C, and D. What Jim got me to do that he called Paradigm E, and later we called it Resource Management, he realizes variation is a resource. Variation is a result of how we define our processes. There's managing cost.   0:25:52.3 BB: What is the cost of what we're doing? How much time is required? So, I look at resources as all the things we have in our organization from people to equipment to software to hardware and tools and techniques. Those are all resources. And picking up a piece of glass in the parking lot is a way of managing resources to improve the system, just as being on target is a way to improve how resources are managed. I started, I just jumped back and thought, holy cow, it's bigger than variation. And I think Dr. Deming really had this in mind. It's not just about variation, it's about the system includes variation, but it also has resources. Again, people, time, ideas, money. How do we use our money? That's a resource.   0:26:39.4 BB: Are we using, 'cause the other thing that was bugging me was are we using our money to improve things that are good? No, we're using our money and our time and our resources to focus on what is bad to make it good. And so that's what started off as Paradigm E then became Resource Management. So that's the genesis for Paradigm E. Managing resources is, should I get a college education, right? Should I exercise? How often should I go to the doctor, right? How often should I go shopping for groceries? Should I go shopping every day on my way home or should I go once a week? Those are resource management questions. Should I have a garden in my backyard? Should I buy the groceries? What's a better use of my time when I'm running errands?   0:27:33.2 BB: So on Saturday morning, I'm gonna run out and I'm gonna pick up the dry cleaning, go to the drug store, go to the veterinarian, pick up something for the cats. Do I do each of those randomly, come home and I say, what do I do next? Or Andrew, do I line up the errands and figure out what time the store opens? When do the lines occur? What time does traffic start to pick up? Am I making right-hand turns or left-hand turns? And I find what I do is I'm trying to figure out how do I get all these things done as fast as possible? And that directs my route. What I'm I doing, Andrew? I'm managing resources.   0:28:11.7 AS: And you remind me of the book I'm reading right now, Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson.   0:28:16.8 BB: Yes, I listened to it, it's fantastic.   0:28:18.9 AS: Yeah, and there's just these times that Steve Jobs would just go into an absolute focus into some minute detail that all the people around were thinking that, and rightly so in some cases, that he was wasting resources, the resource of time. But there was another component that I think they couldn't see maybe was the passion that he was conveying to people around them that this matters.   0:28:48.0 BB: Yes, well, I don't know if this story shows up on that book, but that book was a fantastic read, oh I just loved it. Do you know the subject of Walter Isaacson's next biography? I don't know when it's due, but the very next auto, biography that Walter Isaacson is doing, take a guess who it is?   0:29:07.7 AS: No idea.   0:29:08.4 BB: Elon Musk.   0:29:10.9 AS: Oh, great.   0:29:12.7 BB: Yeah, yeah. So I think Fortune Magazine had an article that Jobs, well, first of all, let's go back, let's say 15, 20 years when I would go into work with others and we'd turn on our computers and then go get a cup of coffee. You know what I'm talking about, Andrew? You know where I'm coming from?   0:29:35.4 AS: I remember that very well.   0:29:37.8 BB: And why are we going to get our coffee, Andrew?   0:29:41.1 AS: Man, it takes minutes to boot up.   0:29:43.1 BB: Yes, so because we're going to go, we gotta turn on the computer and it's going to take minutes, five, 10 minutes. And for those of you that are, I mean, really, now we're so used to turning on the iPhone and it comes right up. Yeah if you shut off the iPhone, it may take 30 seconds to turn on, but you start your computer and it, from scratch and it's within 30 seconds, your computer's up and running. No, what we're talking about, Andrew, is you go into the office, turn on the computer, go get a cup of coffee, talk with some friends, you come back in 10 minutes, your computer's up.   0:30:18.9 BB: So Jobs supposedly went to people that were working on that boot-up system and told them that if we could shave a few seconds off of the boot-up time, multiplied by the million or so users around the world, we can save society big numbers. And the person that went off and did this, or the team that went off and did it, went way beyond what he was talking about, but he's the one, he Andrew, saw that as a loss. All right, so when you're banging things together at the Ford plant and I come in on day one and, Andrew, what are you doing? You're like, and you're banging things together. I said, "Andrew, why are you doing that?" And you say, "Bill, this is how we assemble cars here." I said, "Andrew, look at those calluses on your hand." You're thinking, "Bill, you'll get used to it, but this is how we put things together." In the world of automobiles, this is how you do it, Bill." And I think, "Geez, I don't think it needs to be done that way." And what's fundamental here is, and again, the whole idea of the loss function, the integration loss function, we'll look at in a future episode, but what I want to point out here, Andrew, is if I believe you that banging it together with hammers is as good as it gets, then there is no loss.   0:31:51.6 BB: Meaning that as soon as I say that's as good as it gets and I stop, then I'm saying that this is how we do things here. But if I come in and look at that with an understanding of Taguchi's work and how to manage variation as a system or manage resources as a system, I have the capacity to look at that and say, as Jobs did, and say, "I think it can be better." And the difference between what it is and what it could be is loss. But as long as I look at what we do and say, "That's it, let's stop right here." Then what I'm saying is... What I'm acknowledging is that, that's okay. And so what I was looking for within Rocketdyne and got the president of the company to agree to this is finding some people that I was mentoring for several years and their role was to go around the organization and look for loss.   0:32:54.8 BB: And, loss is the ability…Ready Andrew, to look at what is in terms of integration and wonder what could be. And then look at the components and then ask, "Can we change the variation of the components to improve integration?" And of course, the big question is, is it worth the effort? But it's having the vision that the integration and I think that's a great example. The integration is all that time we're spending waiting is not only is it lost, but that's integration time. [laughter] Bingo. So, the next thing I wanna point out before we close is... So this conversation with my friend Jim got me out of being stuck on the loss function and then stepping back and saying that's... There's... It's a global thing. It's all about managing resources, which also means it's more than quality. It's not managing quality, it's managing resources.   0:33:51.8 BB: And if we improve how we manage resources, quality goes up, integration improves, all these things improve. Well, the next thing I wanna point out is, I started thinking in terms of a model that says, how do we allocate our resources? Again, resources are time, energy, equipment, software, ideas. How are we using them? And the first model I had in mind was, are we applying... Are we allocating the resources proactively or reactively? Are we applying the resources to go to the doctor for annual checkups just to see how we're doing. We're going to the dentist for an annual checkup. Are we having somebody come by and look at our plumbing system and getting a feeling for how is it running? Are we taking the car in for routine things. Or are we reactive? We call the plumber when it breaks, we go to the doctor when we're sick. We bring the car in when it's broken. And, so what I started focusing on is what is our preference? How are the resources being allocated?   0:34:55.6 BB: And, without a doubt, what I found is the majority of the resources, time, energy, equipment are being used reactively. Focusing on things that are broken, not good. And, and I would go into big production meetings and say, "How much time are we... How much time do you ladies and gentlemen spend every day discussing parts which are good that arrive on time?" And, no matter where I went, the answer was “little to none.” And, so what I found is the resources were being used reactively, reactively. Now, let me also throw in that if the company's doing research and developing, developing next generation products, that is proactive use of resources. But what I also found is for the products that are in production, rarely did anybody ever come to me for something in production and say, "This could be better."   0:35:52.0 AS: Mm-hmm.   0:35:53.1 BB: That's rare. So the other dimension of this model. So the first dimension... I was just... In fact... It wasn't till I discovered Taguchi, Deming's work that got me to realize this is focusing on things that are broken is the norm. It wasn't just where I work. I started to see that pattern play out elsewhere. Well, the other axis of this resource management model, so the vertical axis is... Are the resources being applied proactively or reactively? So that's let's say the vertical axis going up. Top versus bottom. The horizontal axis are, is are the resources mine or are they ours? Is it my equipment, my people, my department? Or is it ours, Andrew? And so on the horizontal axis, the left hand side is the resources are mine, my department, my, my, my... And the other side of the horizontal axis is ours.   0:36:53.1 BB: And so in this two dimensional model, the vertical axis is, are the resources applied proactively, that's the top. Reactively, that's the bottom. If you think of a two by two matrix, the top row is proactive, the bottom row is reactive. And then when it comes to columns, so the left hand column is the resources are mine. The right hand column is the resources are ours. So we've got a two by two matrix. And I say to people, so given your understanding of Red Pen and Blue Pen companies, me and we organizations, last straw, all straw. I say, according to that matrix, how do you see resources managed in a Red Pen Company, a non-Deming company? And people will say the lower left quadrant, which is what, which is my resources applied reactively. Right?   0:37:43.4 AS: Yep.   0:37:44.9 BB: And then I'll say, "Okay." [laughter] And the name for that is... And it took a while to come up with a name and you're gonna love this. We started calling that at Rocketdyne, Reflexive Resource Management. Reflexive Resource Management. Because a wise man, born in Iowa in 1900, Andrew [laughter], by the name of W. Edwards Deming, once said, pulling your hand off of a hot stove requires no thought. It's all reflex action. When I saw him and that, I don't know where it was, I said, but I know he said that. And I thought, that's it. It's all reflexes. There's no thought involved. Why are we reactive? Because! I mean, why would I be proactive? I mean, why would I work? So when I started realizing is there's no thought involved in being reactive in a Red Pen Company. It's just that's what we do. So then the question is, well, how are resources managed in a Blue Pen Company? A We Organization, a Deming organization. And, what people will say is the upper right quadrant, which is proactive ours, the resources are ours.   0:38:56.1 BB: We're gonna be proactive. And wherever I go, that's people's answers. And I say, you, are you ready? And okay, what? I say, the entire right hand side is a Deming organization. What does that mean? It means I'm smart enough to know when to be proactive, and I'm smart enough to know when to be reactive. I choose, I choose to replace the light bulb when it goes out, it's a choice. Or I choose to replace the battery in the smoke alarm when it goes out. I, being reactive in a Deming organization is a choice. Being proactive is a choice. And so the right hand side, it's about choice. And it took some time to figure this out. What do we call that? What do we call this? So we call it the left hand side, the left lower left quadrant, Reflexive Resource Management. So it took a while to find out what's the adjective for the right hand side.   0:39:55.6 BB: And I come up with an adjective, find out that it's an acronym used by somebody for something else. No, can't use that. Try it again. Try it again. Try it again. Try it again. Try it again. It took about an hour to, at least an hour and finally came up with a term used by the Bureau of Land Management in the late 1800s. And it, and it's, it was known as Purposeful Resource Management. And I thought, bingo! One is nobody's got a trademark on it, [laughter] And so we started calling the deliberate use of resources to be deliberately proactive, or we choose to be proactive, or we choose to be reactive. We started calling that purposeful, thoughtful resource management.   0:40:45.5 AS: Yeah, that choice. It made me think about there's a lot of things in business that you just, your choice is to be reactive. When that breaks, we're gonna fix that because it's not so critical, whereas we cannot have a situation where we're reacting to this particular process. Like, think about my coffee business as an example. We cannot be reactive to downtime on the roasting machines. Well, we're not just waiting for that. We're doing preventive maintenance. We've got stocks.   0:41:17.7 BB: That's right.   0:41:18.5 AS: Stock of parts. We've got, so we make a deliberate effort and resource allocation to make sure we never in that situation, but there's other parts. Let's say we have a few grinders and something like that, we'll fix those when they break. [laughter]   0:41:35.0 BB: Yeah. Well, I've shared this with a woman who, the hairstylist I go to. My kids used to go there and I've been going there ever since. And she is awesome. Just awesome. So I, these are the things I discussed with her, all kinds of things. And so I have a photograph of her, Andrew, holding a hairdryer in her hair salon. And the hair salon is called Kids Cuts because a good part of her business is kids. And then people like me bring the kids in there and next thing you know, I'm a customer, too. Well, so I'm explaining this to me and she says, "Bill, every 6 months I get rid of all the hair dryers". I said, why? She says, "I cannot afford to burn somebody's hair". And so, so I've got a photo of her holding it, so she doesn't monitor how it's performing.   0:42:24.1 BB: She just knows 6 months, get rid of it now. You know, does she donate it? I don't know where it goes. And I don't wanna get into recycling, but she deliberately, she's not gonna burn somebody's hair.   0:42:35.0 AS: Right.   0:42:38.1 BB: Alright. And, what else? Oh, but you and I talked earlier in one of the episodes, this idea of choice, that instead of following the domain that says you can't have inventory, we gotta have blah, blah, blah, you realize this? No, we can choose to have inventory, or we can choose not to have inventory. And so what we're talking about in resource management is, which gets into all those things we talked about earlier, is it's about choices. And so I would say to people, I've got a slide, then I say, it's like you get to the end of the road and you turn right and turning right is being reactive.   0:43:21.3 BB: And I say, Andrew, I've been patterning you, and you get to the end of the road and you turn right, you're always reactive. Why do you turn right? And you say, "Bill, there's only a right-hand turn". And I said, "No, Andrew, there's a left-hand turn, but you can't see it. It's in your blind spot". So the right hand turn is to focus on what's bad, to make it good, what Ackoff would also call managing actions. And that's the road that's well traveled, [laughter], the road less traveled is the left-hand turn, which is to be proactive, again, when it makes sense. I'm not saying being proactive all the time, I'm saying there's a place for it. Consider being proactive, consider being reactive.   0:44:04.0 AS: So, on that note, I think we ought to leave. Why don't you leave the listeners and the viewers with a concise statement of what you want them to take away from this discussion. We went through a lot of different things, but if you wanna bring it down to something clear and concise, how would you describe that?   0:44:24.5 BB: I'd say the, um…I'd like, I'd encourage our listeners, viewers, students of the Deming philosophy, those new to it, to expand their appreciation of quality management and realize that to managing resources period. And the better we manage our resources in our organization, knowing when to collect data, when not to collect data, when to meet requirements, when to be on target with minimum variation, when having lots of variation. Should we be proactive or re…. These are all choices. And they're, and I think the better we understand those choices about how we manage variation as a system in concert, I think the better the performance of the organization and improving productivity, improving quality, improving profit. So I think all those things we're striving for come from a better understanding of how to manage resources. And so instead of just being narrowly focused on the quality dimension, I think if we step back and realize that that's one aspect of how an organization operates.   0:45:42.4 AS: 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. 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."

Calvin Goforth, PhD, is the Founder and Chief Executive Officer of VIC Technology Venture Development. Calvin has extensive experience in start-up company development in founder, investor, board member, and executive roles, and has raised tens of millions in capital, helped bring several high value products from concept to market, and helped bring multiple companies to exit.   He received a BS in Aerospace Engineering with Highest Honors from the University of Texas at Austin. Early in his career, Dr. Goforth held positions at NASA and Rocketdyne, where he worked in the space shuttle main engine performance analysis group.   He later received his PhD in Mechanical Engineering with a minor in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University, and returned to his home state of Arkansas to take a position as an Assistant Professor in Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arkansas. He left his faculty position to form Vector, Inc. with the vision to build open-architecture PC-based controllers. Dr. Goforth's experiences with Vector and other early stage technology companies led him to found VIC Technology Venture Development.   Calvin attributes his wide worldview and approach to thinking to one singular thing: his passion for reading. Find out how this has shaped the course of his life on the One Away Show.   Read the show notes on Arcbound's Podcast Page: https://arcbound.com/podcasts/    Find Arcbound here: Homepage: Arcbound.com Services/Work with Us: https://arcbound.com/work-with-us/ About: https://arcbound.com/about/ Founders Corner: https://arcbound.com/category/founders-corner/ Connect: https://arcbound.com/connect/

In this episode, Bill and Andrew discuss the shades of variation: meeting requirements, accuracy, precision, and precision around variety. Is reducing variation to zero a good thing? Plus, Bill and Andrew share stories that offer practical ways to think about these concepts. 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 30 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. The topic for the day is The Paradigms of Variation. Bill, take it away.   0:00:28.1 Bill Bellows: Ooh.   0:00:28.1 AS: Exciting, exciting.   0:00:33.1 BB: Alright. So let me start off by saying this is episode number eight, and I wanna just make a couple comments about episode number seven, where we talked about "all straw" and "last straw" organizations also otherwise known as "me" or "we" organizations, or red pen or blue pen companies. And I just wanna burst a bubble and say neither one of them, neither organization exists, whether it's all or last or me or we. I view it as a... It's really a matter of which direction your organization is moving, it's a really simple model that I've seen get people to begin to appreciate what Deming's talking about, because I think that contrast is very much like a Deming organization versus a non-Deming organization. But instead of black-and-white thinking, there's really a continuum, and so I think... I just want to say at the beginning, it's really a question of which direction is your organization moving? Another thing I wanna throw out is... I don't think people know, I think absent an understanding of the System of Profound Knowledge, if you're in a last straw organization or a me organization, or a red pen company, I don't think you know that. I think if you become aware of Deming's work, you become aware of what could be. And I liken it to Dr. Deming saying, "How could they learn? How could they learn? The answer is frightening, how could they know?" So I think absent an understanding of The New Economics - Deming's work, I think it's hard to appreciate what you're missing.   0:02:11.4 BB: That you're being blamed for the grade, you're being blamed for the red beads. You're being blamed for the weather, if you're the weatherman. And the other thing that comes in mind there with that, "how could they know" is... There's a great video with Peter Senge, which he did a case with Dr. Deming, and there's a blog I wrote about it on the Deming Institute website if you just search for Peter Senge and my name. And you can find the blog as well as the link to the video. And in there Senge is talking about the present state of education systems and very much in this contrast of industrial and post-industrial, and he says, very much what it comes down to is, he says it's the water. He says, "We don't know what fish talk about, but you can be damn sure it's not the water." And likewise, I think people in a red pen company are not getting together. You and I talking about, "Andrew, this system sucks. I'm being blamed for the red beads," and I don't think we're the wiser. Now, if you turn me on to The New Economics. And we started listening to DemingNEXT and we became aware. But absent that, I think we're both frustrated, but we wouldn't know better. Alright, it's on the topic of variation.   0:03:30.8 AS: It's...   0:03:31.5 BB: Go ahead Andrew, you wanna say something?   0:03:32.4 AS: I was just gonna say that... That's where I think Dr. Deming's making the point of the difference between training and education. Education is the idea of bringing outside ideas into your mind, into your business, as opposed to training, which is trying to upgrade skills. And I had a little story of that when I was a head of research at an investment bank in Thailand. The whole job of a head of research is managing all these analysts who are writing research reports on company A, buy company A, sell company B for our institutional clients. And the job of a head of research is to try to manage that schedule. And you know that analysts are always gonna be interrupted and clients are gonna call, the market's gonna do this. So they're very rarely on time when they say that they're gonna finish something. So you're constantly scrambling for the morning meeting, because on the morning meeting you gotta have a story.   0:04:22.0 AS: And so that was just the job of a head of research. So I did that really well, managing them and, kind of, all that. And then I went to the number one investment bank, the number one broker in Thailand as the head of research. And I asked them, "So how often do you guys miss?" And they said, "Never." I said, "That's impossible." Because I've spent my whole career managing the flow of analysts. They said, "No, we never miss." When an analyst is gonna be on, they're always on. "And how do you do that?" "Well, we do a three-week-ahead schedule, everybody knows that you are held accountable for being that person on that day. And if you find out that you can't do it, you're gonna talk to someone else and rejigger it and say, hey, could you do Friday? And I'll do Monday the next week?" But they never miss. And I just thought, like the water, I never even knew I could go to a different level.   0:05:15.0 BB: Yeah.   0:05:16.8 AS: And then I went to a different level.   0:05:19.8 BB: Yeah, it's...it's the ability to step back. Alright, so on the topic of the paradigms of variation, I wanna throw out four words. Variety, variation, accuracy, and precision. A variety is, there's red beads and white beads, that's variety. There could be, eight different colors, that's variety, sizes of pants 32 waist, 32 length, that, to me that's variety. As opposed to variation is that a 32-inch waist or a gallon of gasoline, every time you go to get the gallon, you get a gallon of gasoline, it might not be exactly a gallon, that's variation. The reason I throw those out to begin with is that Dr. Deming is known in some circles back in the '80s, he was interviewed by somebody at the, I think at the BBC in England and an interview ends with him, with the interviewer saying, "Dr. Deming, if you could condense your philosophy down to a few words, what would it be?" And I thought, he's gonna say... He is just gonna reject that, that "I can't be condensed." No instead of that, he says, "Reduce variation." And I thought, "Oh, no... "   0:06:50.4 BB: So, and there are people alive and well today in the Deming community, who will quote that to me? "You know, Bill, Dr. Deming said, we gotta shrink variation to zero." And I said, "So, is he saying we all ought to be the same size? We ought to be the same skin color? Is he saying that he doesn't like diversity? What does that mean? And same religion?" I mean, you could look at religions as variety, and then you could say within each religion there's variation. So part of what I wanna get at today is what I think is confusion as to what he meant by shrinking variation to zero. So there's variety, variation. Accuracy is that when I get a gallon of gas, is it a gallon, or is it a couple ounces high, a couple ounces low? You go to the gas station, you'll see a sticker on the pump that says that it was calibrated to some standard, when you go to buy a pound of meat, are you getting a pound? Are you getting 15 ounces? And so the National Bureau of Standards is looking at accuracy, are all these things... Is every customer in the United States getting a gallon's worth of milk?   0:08:15.3 BB: Now, so that's accuracy. Precision is the idea that you get the same value each time, so I could go to the scale and it measures exactly a pound, exactly a pound, exactly a pound. But is that pound the same pound as the National Bureau of Standards pound? So I could be. 0:08:37.3 BB: Sorry about that. I could get the same value each time, and that's precision, but that's not to be confused with accuracy, so I just wanna throw those terms out. Relative to shrinking variation to zero, shrinking variation to zero which I, for the record, do not believe in. Dr. Deming would say anyone could accomplish anything if you don't count the cost. I think if you start to look at what is the benefit of having less variation versus the cost of that, then we can get to some point that makes sense economically as in The New Economics. But this idea of driving defects to zero, driving variation to zero without looking at cost.   0:09:24.1 BB: And you can look in The New Economics, we'll come back to this in a future episode. He definitely had in mind that you have to consider the cost, in fact, Dr. Deming would say, anyone could accomplish anything if you don't count the cost. But there's a... What I wanted to reference is a book by Peter Block called 'The Answer to How Is Yes' and what Block talks about is... Could be like, how...we get focused on, we're gonna go off and reduce variation, we're gonna go off and drive variation to zero or non-value added to zero. What Block talks about that I really appreciate, that I think Dr. Deming appreciate is, why? Why did... Let's step back a minute, and so part of what I wanna get at tonight in this paradigms of variation is the 'Why' piece. Okay. So the first example I wanna look at a variation is throwing darts okay? And hopefully that makes sense, you're throwing darts in a dart board and imagine meeting requirements is being on the dart board, so imagine it could be a foot in diameter.   0:10:29.4 BB: And in terms of meeting requirements, you wanna be on the dart board. So I throw it three times, and if you get three that are really close together, they may not be on the bullseye, and that says, I'm very precise, but if the three are not on the bullseye, then that's not very accurate. So again, throwing three and getting really, really consistent is one thing, but then how do I move that to the bullseye? So that's an idea that I could first focus on precision, and then often I find that if I could just slightly adjust my release or my arm, then maybe I could then move it over, so I wanna look at that.   0:11:14.7 AS: And moving over is accuracy or?   0:11:17.5 BB: Moving it over is accuracy.   0:11:19.2 AS: Okay.   0:11:19.5 BB: I mean, so the first thing could be, I'm just looking for three...   0:11:22.5 AS: Get on the board.   0:11:23.6 BB: I wanna be consistent.   0:11:25.9 AS: Yep.   0:11:26.6 BB: And then make the adjustment, 'cause I find often it's easier to make the adjustment, I think it's a lot of work to get consistency. So I just want to separate those out as two different strategies.   0:11:39.2 AS: Yeah, just go to the bar and start throwing darts and you'll see it's a lot of work. Yep that helps, that helps, that helps us to understand it.   0:11:45.9 BB: Alright, so next. Next I wanna talk about what I refer to as the Two Distributions Exercise, and so here's the context. Imagine that you are in the procurement organization, and your job is to make a decision as to who to buy a given product from. So your company goes out and gets quotes from four different suppliers, and they provide you with the information. And for simplicity, let's say what you're buying are these metal tubes and... Short metal tubes perhaps used in plumbing, they're a given length, a given diameter. And imagine these four suppliers come back to you. And again, you're the procurement person, "Who are we gonna buy from?" They come back and they say, they quote you the price, and they quote you exactly the same price. All four of them quote you exactly a dollar each, $10 each. It's like, "Holy cow, they're the same price."   0:12:46.2 BB: Imagine also, they quote the same delivery schedule. So you've got a plumbing supply, you need lots of these, they all tell you they're gonna give you the volume that you need. So I think, "Gosh, volume-wise that's the same, cost-wise, it's the same." Now imagine what they tell you is relative to meeting the diameter, let's say it's the outer diameter is really critical to how these things fit together. And they quote you and say, "All the outer diameters will meet requirements." They're gonna take care of the scrap and they're gonna get rid of the red beads. All the tubes they will send will meet requirements, guaranteed. And you're thinking, "I want that same schedule, same costs, same quality," now what? Well, now imagine they send you the distributions from the control charts and they tell you that these distributions, you're thinking, "Holy cow, these suppliers are using Cisco process control." And they provide you with the histograms, and they say, "These distributions will never change, shape or location." Holy cow.   0:13:49.6 BB: And then added onto that is that you're gonna use them as is. So you're not gonna take them and modify them, you're just gonna bring them into the inventory and send them off to the plumbers to use. So you're saying, "Okay, the process is in control, the level amount of variation, location is predictable, stable, forever. How could I go wrong?" And then the last thing they tell you is, procurement that, "Here's the lower requirement, here's the upper requirement, and here's the ideal value." And so then you end up with two distributions. If I was confusing, I meant to say two, not four [chuckle]   0:14:24.1 BB: Alright, so imagine you've got two suppliers and the one distribution goes from the lower spec to the upper spec. And let's say it's a normal Gaussian distribution and it starts at the low end, goes up, high in the center, then off to the other, and that's supplier A and then imagine the other supplier uses 10% of the variation, but is towards the upper spec so it's far more uniform, but it's off of the ideal value. And so I've been using those two distributions with people as an ideal scenario saying, "You're never gonna have all that information, let alone that's all the same." And very deliberately, what I want people to do is say, if it's the same price, same schedule, zero defects, guaranteed, distributions never change and you're looking at the lower spec, the upper spec, and you're saying, "Okay, so one distribution, it has more variation, but the average is right in the middle, which is the ideal value. And the other one is shifted towards the high end of the tolerance, but incredibly uniform," who do you choose?   0:15:38.3 AS: So it's a tall curve?   0:15:39.4 BB: It's a very tall curve, let's say it uses 10% of the variation, 10% of the tolerance and so I've been using that going on 30 years, and I'll have 30 people in the room and I'll ask them to write down on a three by five card, "Who would you buy from?" And I'll say, "Here are the choices you can buy from the, the one that's the widest, we'll call that supplier A and supplier B is the narrow one to the right, or You could say it doesn't matter." And what I find is incredibly consistent inside and outside of Rocketdyne and literally around the world is the majority of people will take the narrow distribution, to the right will call that supplier B, what I ask them, "Why do you like supplier B?" To a person they will say, "It's more consistent, there's less variation." And I say, "Less variation from what?" "Well, less variation from each other." Well Andrew, that's precision.   0:16:40.9 BB: And then I ask the others, and my find is three quarters of the room will take that distribution, the one which is precise. And for the ones who are focusing on the wider distribution, where the average is on target, I say, "Why do you like that one?" And they say, "Because it has less variation from the ideal value." Alright? And so I wanna throw that out is part of the confusion I find inside and outside of the Deming community, in the world of Six Sigma quality distribution B, using a smaller percent of the tolerance, is, has the higher process capability index. 'Cause what that index is doing is comparing the amount of variation, the width of the variation to the overall tolerance. And the idea that you're using a smaller portion is valued. And I said, "Okay, well that's not quite the same as what Dr. Taguchi is talking about. What Dr. Taguchi is talking about," and this one we'll get into in a later episode, "is the closer you are to the ideal value, what you're doing is affecting how this is used in a greater system, so if I'm at home cutting a piece of wood to a given length and I want it to be closer and closer to the ideal value, then what I'm gaining is making it easier to put that piece of wood, or whatever I'm making, together.   0:18:00.5 BB: And I find that people who preferred distribution B are really confused 'cause in a big way what they're saying is, "I don't care about where I am within, all I care about is using a small portion of the tolerance." And then when I press on that more and more, they say, "Well, I want fewer and fewer defects." I said, "Well, zero defects is guaranteed, so if you really believe in zero defects as the goal, then you should have said it doesn't matter." And so the reason I wanna talk about the paradigms of variation is that one: variation is one of the elements of the System of Profound Knowledge and it's not just the variation in the number of red beads, right?   0:18:58.0 BB: And not to dismiss that the variation of the red beads is caused by the system. But what I've tried to bring to these episodes interviews with you is what I learned from Dr. Taguchi is the variation in the white beads and what is the impact of the variation on the white beads. And if we ignore that, then what we're saying is, "As long as you meet print, that's all that matters at the end of the day." And I'd say if that's where you're going then, then you could do the same thing with Lean or Six Sigma operational excellence. What differentiates Dr. Deming's work, I believe in terms of his appreciation of variation as an element of Profound Knowledge, is what he learned from Dr. Taguchi. That the closer we are to the ideal value, that affects how the system, which is another element of Profound Knowledge, comes together.   0:19:53.8 BB: All right, so going back to those two examples, what I started to do, one is I was detecting that less variation, less, I was detecting within Rocketdyne and elsewhere that there was a far greater regard for less variation, less variation from each other than being on target. And I was just wanting to one; find out why does it matter if all you have to do is meet spec? Why does it matter? So relative to the paradigms of variation, and this was back into the mid '90s when I was working with some people in manufacturing and was greatly confused over this, and the confusion was, "Is it enough to meet print, Bill? You're not sure? And then we've got these capability indices. We want to use a small portion of the tolerance and then we've got this, "Bill you're telling we wanna be on target, help me understand that."   0:20:49.7 BB: Was what these guys were asking for. And the paradigms of variation that I come up with. And I described it, I said, "Well, let's look at it this way." I said, "There's this thing called... Let's call it paradigm A, and Paradigm A is meet print." All that matters at the end of the day, we wanna meet spec. So.   0:21:06.4 AS: When you say meet print, print is a kind of a word that maybe not everybody understands what that means.   0:21:12.7 BB: Thank you.   0:21:12.9 AS: What, that means spec?   0:21:13.6 BB: Meet the requirements.   0:21:14.6 AS: Meet the requirements.   0:21:15.6 BB: Meet the requirements. And so we want the meeting to start anywhere between here and here. And as long as we're in between... So "meeting requirements" such that everything is good, is paradigm A. And so if you went back to those... Looking at those two distributions, if you said it didn't matter which one to take, that would be the paradigm A answer. And that's rarely the case. And so what I was poking at with people is, "You tell me you're striving for zero defects, and then when I give you that information that there's zero defects, why does that not trigger you to say it doesn't matter?" Because there's something else going on. So then the idea that we want incredible uniformity, precision, that's what I refer to as paradigm B.   0:22:07.3 BB: And as I mentioned earlier, that is the dominant choice. We want narrow distributions. We want what people refer to as "piece to piece consistency" to be differentiated by the second most popular answer is being on the ideal value what Dr. Taguchi would call the target, which is what I refer to as paradigm C. So in explaining these three paradigms to these manufacturing folks, I said each of them has a goal. So the goal of paradigm A is to meet requirements, but they not only have a goal, they also have an approach. And their approach typically tends to be, "If you're slightly out measure again, if you're slightly in you're good. Can we change the requirements?" And so I thought as... The paradigm A solutions are all about playing with those lines, moving them in, moving them out.   0:23:01.1 BB: Paradigm B, which has a lot to do with, I find within Six Sigma quality, is we wanna have a given fraction of a percent of the tolerance. And these indices, the Cpk Cpk, Cp Cpk, and others, there'll be goals of, "It needs to be 1.33 or 2.0, or 1.67, and we wanna strive for Six Sigma quality." Well, the question I ask those people is, "How much money are we gonna spend to achieve Six Sigma quality? And is there a corresponding benefit?" And I don't get an answer. But so the paradigm B approach would be to take the distribution, and try to make it narrower, but narrow to the point that we're only using, 10% of the tolerance. And again, what bothers me about that is that it's not addressing what Taguchi's talking about, which is what we're doing at home.   0:24:04.8 BB: Whether it's baking something, we want the temperature to be close to 350 or, whatever it is we're doing. We're, looking for accuracy in how we're pulling something together, is we're looking for an ideal value. And there, what we're trying to do is, as I mentioned earlier, we're striving for, "Can we get precision and then can we make the adjustment to achieve accuracy?" And instead of just saying, "We wanna achieve some given value." To me, what I tell clients I work with and students in my classes is, "What is it gonna cost to achieve precision, to then focus on accuracy? How much money are we gonna spend on that? And what is the benefit?" And the benefit will be improvements downstream, which is looking at things as a system. And what we'll talk about in a future session, looking more at this is examples of things I've been involved with, that address this idea of not reducing variation to zero, but to me it's about managing variation and having the appropriate amount of variation, knowing that it could never be zero.   0:25:18.1 BB: But, does it...am I in a situation where meeting requirements is all I need to be. In the world of baseball there's a strike zone. You've got a batter coming up who can't hit the ball no matter what, and you say, "Well, it doesn't matter where it is. Just get it into the strike zone." The next batter comes up. And that batter is very determined to make... And you're trying to get the ball around the bat. Now it depends on where you are within the strike zone.   0:25:46.6 BB: Alright. So the other paradigm I wanna get into, and then we'll call it over, is, paradigm D. So there's A, is meet requirements, that's all that matters. B is, I'm looking for precision. C is, I'm looking for precision followed by accuracy. Paradigm D when I explained this to Dr. Taguchi in the late 1990s, and he said, I need to differentiate having one ideal value so I can be working in a place where all the tubes we make are one inch in outer diameter. And, so there's one ideal value, well, maybe what the company is doing is getting into variety and having different outer diameters. One inch, half inch, three-quarters of an inch. And in each case they're looking for accuracy, but accuracy around different values. And that's what Dr. Taguchi would refer to as... Well, he and I agreed to call it paradigm D, which is precision around an ideal value. But depending on your product line, you may have ideal values for different customers. And that's called variety. And so paradigm D is about precision coupled around varieties. So I just wanted to throw that out as well in our session.   0:27:16.7 AS: And the risk that you're highlighting is that somebody who's skilled in Six Sigma or some other tools will be patting themselves on the back, that they've got a very narrow distribution in that... And it's inside of spec and therefore they've done their job.   0:27:39.4 BB: Yes. Well...   0:27:40.1 AS: And what you're highlighting is that there is, there is an additional cost to the business or additional benefit if that narrow distribution could be moved to the target value?   0:27:58.2 BB: Well, here's what I've seen. I've seen organizations go from a really wide distribution where, in the assembly process, they need all those different sizes to put the puzzle together. And then somebody comes in and shrinks the variation to a fraction of that, not taking into account how they're used, and instead of going around and having all the different sizes to put the puzzle together, they can no longer do that. So what I'd say, I've seen plenty of examples where a given amount of variation that people are used to, that they're accommodating could be quite well until somebody comes along and gets rid of those other options.   0:28:48.2 BB: So I've seen variation reduction gone sour, a few times leading to some near catastrophic failures of a rocket engine because we're just looking at something in isolation. And, so I went to a very senior executive in that timeframe and I said... 'cause there's this big push in the company and we gotta reduce variation, "We gotta reduce variation." And I went to him and I said, "If we have a choice between shrinking the variation and doing nothing, I'd say do nothing." And he is like, "Well, what do you mean?" And I went through and explained this scenario with him and he said, "Oh, I've never seen anything like that." And I thought to myself, "You must have worked for companies that make the tubes, but don't use the tubes."   [laughter]   0:29:33.4 BB: I said. And so, this is why when I hear people talk about reducing variability, reducing cost, trying to make improvements, and again, we'll look at this in a whole nother episode, is my concern is are they thinking about that part in isolation? Are they thinking about how that fits into a greater system? So whether it's reducing the variation in the outer diameter, whether it's reducing the cost, if they're focusing on that as a KPI, and not looking at how that KPI fits into a greater system, I'd say I'd be nervous about that.   0:30:17.4 AS: One of the interesting examples I remember from when I was young and in maybe business school or whatever, was when Toyota came out with Lexus and they talked about how they spent a huge amount of time reducing variation in every part so that you had a much smoother and more quiet ride, and the reliability was better and better. And they talked about the pursuit of perfection was the tagline that they did. But it made sense to me that, many people would be... Many companies are satisfied with a certain amount of variation.   0:30:54.8 AS: When if they could get it more narrow around the desired outcome, then the knock on effects, particularly for a new company, maybe for an old company, and the knock on effects basically lead people to go, "Go back we want more variation," because you're screwing up everything downstream. But if you're building an operation where you can get more and more narrow distribution around the target output, the target desired output, then you're bringing benefit all the way down the line for the business. What have I got right and what have I got wrong out of that?   0:31:33.2 BB: Well, that's fantastic. And a couple things come to mind. I really appreciate that question. Andrew, if you were to do a Google search for Dr. Taguchi and Toyota, because this idea of being on target associated with what he referred to as the quality loss function, which again, will be a focus of another episode, I'd rather one, look at it as an integration loss function, just to reinforce the idea that being close to the ideal value is about improving integration. And that's it.   0:32:12.7 AS: When you say integration, what do you mean?   0:32:15.5 BB: Who's gonna use that tube? What are they gonna do with it?   0:32:18.1 AS: Okay. So downstream, integrating the process with the downstream.   0:32:20.5 BB: And so if I'm not looking at how the doctor fits into the system, how the tube fits into the system. So what I find is in the Taguchi community, people will say, Dr. Taguchi worked with Toyota back in the '50s and '60s. Dr. Taguchi and Deming met for the first time in the mid '50s in India. Dr. Taguchi was honored with the Deming prize in literature in 1960, and they would've met then. Don Wheeler in his books on Statistical Process Control, and inside the cover it will say, "In September 1960, a new definition of quality being on target with minimum variation." So there's all that. So what I've tried numerous times over the last 30 years is searching for documentation of Taguchi's influence on Toyota. I found nothing.   0:33:10.7 BB: And, so here I'm flying back from Japan, having gone there while Rocketdyne was owned by Boeing to explain these concepts to people at the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, which is the largest aerospace company in Japan.   0:33:25.1 BB: There was a big partnership going on between Boeing, the division I worked for at Rocketdyne was part of Boeing. And, Boeing's, at that time, largest supplier in the world was MHI. So I was on a study team to go over there to... And I explained these ideas to them. They knew nothing about this. They were focusing on uniform... They were focusing on... Their quality system was precision, not accuracy.   0:33:47.6 BB: And I was explaining what we were doing with that. Well, flying home, I was sitting in business class, sitting next to me is a young engineer, flying out of Tokyo. He is Japanese. And now we started talking. Turns out he is a graduate of Cal Poly San Luis Obispo in California working for Toyota at the NUMMI plant. And I explained to him red pen and blue pen companies, he loved it. I explained to him the paradigms of variation. And he says, "Bill," he says, "I'm coming back from working with supplier to get them to focus on the ideal value." He says, "That is the thinking we use."   [laughter]   0:34:29.2 BB: He says they wanna change the tolerance. And I'm telling him, "No, you've got to hold that target value." So you can search the Internet, you won't find this. And so there's two data points I want to get before we close. So one is that the majority of the flight coming home was me explaining this stuff to him, and then afterwards maintaining a relationship with him and his boss and looking to see if I could learn more.   0:34:56.0 BB: But he was... For him to say, "That's exactly what we do." Well then I spent several years poking Dr. Taguchi about his loss function concepts and all, and he said, "No company in the United States uses the loss function." And I said, "Really?" He says, "No." He said, "The leading users in Japan are Toyota and Nippon Denso," now known as Denso, a major supplier to Toyota.   0:35:21.1 BB: And I said, "What do they do with it?" He says, well, he says, "Bill, they have a database of loss functions for how different things come together." He says, "They have a database for the impact of variation." And I said, "Really?" I said, "How do they use it?" He said, "They use it to guide their investments." That's what you're talking about, Andrew. But you won't find that on the Internet. I've not found that in any literature.   0:35:51.1 BB: So, those are two things that I hold there. I believe Toyota is using this somewhere deep in the organization as evidenced by this young guy. And my interest is to expand that appreciation within our community in The Deming Institute, that it is not about uniformity. It is not about precision. And, that improving precision could make things worse. [chuckle] If you're not focused on accuracy, then the question becomes, "Is every situation worth accuracy?" And the answer is, "No. You've got to look downstream."   0:36:29.6 AS: Okay. Now it's time for me to ask the question that was asked of Dr. Deming.   0:36:34.8 BB: Okay.   0:36:35.9 AS: Explain it in one short sentence. What do you think the key takeaway is from this excellent discussion?   0:36:44.8 BB: I think what's really important is the need to manage variation, which is the same thing as Akoff would say, the difference between managing actions and managing interactions. The idea is that how I accomplish my task depends upon how you're using it. And so for me to blindly meet a requirement from you not knowing how you use it, well, whether that's you asking me to clean the table and I don't know anything about the table, you saying, "I need you to meet these requirements."   0:37:21.2 BB: You saying, "I need this by tomorrow." And I say, "What do you mean by tomorrow, Andrew? Tomorrow at eight o'clock, tomorrow at nine o'clock?" And so I think what Deming's talking about is if I just blindly take a set of requirements and meet them in a way that I interpret without asking you for clarification, is not teamwork.   0:37:41.7 AS: Great.   0:37:44.1 BB: So I need to know how you're using this.   0:37:47.1 AS: And, that's a great lesson. And I think what it's telling us is the idea of communicating and cooperating and getting to the next level has to do with really understanding what the next process is doing with it, and how what you're delivering could be improved so that the improvement is measured by a benefit to the next and the next and the next profit process. Not as a loss to the next one, which is what you explained about if variation got reduced, all of a sudden people weren't built for handling that.   0:38:23.2 BB: Well, and let me throw one other thing out along those lines. And as a colleague of mine in Amsterdam says to people in the Lean community says, "How does Lean...how does implementation of Lean explain why we love Toyota products? How does it explain the reliability of the products? We buy nothing but Toyotas." Now, we've had bad luck with Toyotas, which people I met in business school classes told me, "You never buy anyone's first model even Toyota."   0:39:03.8 BB: So we will only buy Toyotas, but we'll never buy the first model year. And I'm buying it because I want it to start every single time. I don't want a car where I've gotta replace the water pump. And so for our listeners, if you wanna have customers revere your products for the reason, I think, many people revere Toyota products, I think what we're talking about tonight is a significant part of what makes those parts come together and those cars last so long.   0:39:41.3 AS: Bingo. 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. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'm gonna leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming, which is, "people are entitled to joy in work."

Today's guest is Chad Zdenek.   Since beginning investing in Real Estate 7 years ago, Chad has grown his General Partner portfolio to $150M. Today he invests actively and passively in multifamily and self-storage projects across the United States. He is also one of the rare investors who invests in CA and outside of CA.   Show Summary:  In this episode, Chad Zdenek, a licensed general contractor and former CEO of Mobile Illumination, shares his journey from being a rocket scientist to running a lighting business with his brother. He discusses the challenges they faced and the strategies they used to scale the business. Chad then talks about his current focus on real estate and the dedication required to scale his business properties. He shares his experiences in the real estate market, including a challenging project in Orlando where they had to renovate a property and increase occupancy. Chad emphasizes the importance of having the right team and being in the right market for success.   -------------------------------------------------------------- Intro [00:00:00] From rocket scientist to lighting business [00:00:59] Scaling a lighting business and reinventing the company [00:05:02] The dedication required to scale a real estate business [00:07:32] The challenges of scaling a business [00:09:12] Choosing real estate as a career path [00:10:24] Entering commercial real estate as a solo general partner [00:13:20] The challenges of taking over a class C property [00:17:54] Renovating and marketing a 200-unit building [00:19:44] The success of the project and the role of location [00:22:43] -------------------------------------------------------------- Connect with Chad:  Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CSQProperties  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/csqproperties/  YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@csqproperties Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/chad-zdenek-9153ab4/  TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@chad.zdenek Why Entrepreneurs Should Invest in Apartments Guide: http://bit.ly/3gU3ipW   Connect with Sam: I love helping others place money outside of traditional investments that both diversify a strategy and provide solid predictable returns.     Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HowtoscaleCRE/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/samwilsonhowtoscalecre/ Email me → sam@brickeninvestmentgroup.com   SUBSCRIBE and LEAVE A RATING. Listen to How To Scale Commercial Real Estate Investing with Sam Wilson Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-to-scale-commercial-real-estate/id1539979234 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4m0NWYzSvznEIjRBFtCgEL?si=e10d8e039b99475f -------------------------------------------------------------- Want to read the full show notes of the episode? Check it out below: Chad Zdenek (00:00:00) - And anyone who's kind of grown and scaled something they know, like there's always a time period before before you reach the goal, right? Where you just you just got to bust bust chops. And for me, it's actually one of my core values is grit. And and that's something that's always rung true to me. And right now, like, I'm in that gritty time period in real estate.   Sam Wilson (00:00:21) - Welcome to the How to scale commercial real estate show. Whether you are an active or passive investor, we'll teach you how to scale your real estate investing business into something big. Chad Zdenek is a licensed general contractor, a professional engineer, a former CEO of Mobile Illumination. He's a triple master's degree graduate. And Chad has a million other things going on as well. Chad, I'm excited to have you on the show today. Thanks for. Thanks for coming on.   Chad Zdenek (00:00:49) - You bet, Sam. Glad to be with you.   Sam Wilson (00:00:51) - Absolutely. Chad. There are three questions I ask every guest who comes to the show in 90s or less.   Sam Wilson (00:00:55) - Can you tell me where did you start? Where are you now and how did you get there?   Chad Zdenek (00:00:59) - Sure. So technically, I started out as a rocket scientist working on the space shuttle main engines. I got there by studying civil engineering and structural engineering and eventually transitioned into running a business with my brother, which we ran for 15 years, built it up to about 75 employees, three warehouses, sold it in 2018 and went into real estate full time. And that's what I've been doing ever since.   Sam Wilson (00:01:25) - That is a wild, wild journey. Just a little bit. You've told me right there. I mean, it's like every child's dream, right? Like some of them would be an astronaut someday. I'm gonna work on the space shuttle. Like, that's at least it was for me as a child of the 80s. Like, oh, my gosh. Like, you know, space. That's really cool. Why did you quit that and go into doing business with your brother?   Chad Zdenek (00:01:47) - Yeah, so that's a good question.   Chad Zdenek (00:01:48) - And it really comes down to like my passion. So I've, I've always been an entrepreneur at heart. I've founded or helped found eight different companies. And even though I worked at Rocketdyne, who was purchased by Boeing, Fortune 100 company, huge company, obviously a lot of systems and processes. It just wasn't really me. I'm really an entrepreneur and so I wound up leaving that to go work with my brother on a business he started. I was getting my MBA at UCLA at the time and using his business as my my pet project, if you will, focusing on entrepreneurial studies, and then eventually joined him to help scale that business. So. So yeah, that's kind of how it started out. But it was rocket science work is super technical, really fun, but a little too much bureaucracy for me. I'm just I'm a more agile entrepreneur at heart.   Sam Wilson (00:02:43) - Wow, That's that's wild. So you and your brother had a company for 15 years that you sold in 20 1875 employees. What industry was that in?   Chad Zdenek (00:02:53) - It was a lighting business.   Chad Zdenek (00:02:55) - So primarily we actually focused on Christmas lighting, installation, service removal for large homes, big projects like Universal Studios, the Forum. If anyone's here in LA and all the any celebrity you can think of, we did their home here in LA. Largest home was 52,000 square foot actually. So we're talking like really big houses. Average might have been 10 or 15,000 square foot places. Um, and, and yeah, so that was the business. But we also did landscape lighting and wedding lighting and things like that.   Sam Wilson (00:03:28) - That's, that's a very, very nuanced.   Chad Zdenek (00:03:32) - Yeah.   Sam Wilson (00:03:33) - I mean, so you, so you grew that and then there was an opportunity to, I mean after 15 years, you guys said, hey, we can 75 employees inside of a lighting company like you think of that. We said, oh, I do Christmas lighting or I do holiday lighting or whatever it is. It's like, you know, I think small in that, you know, it's like, Oh, okay, cool.   Sam Wilson (00:03:49) - You know, you guys probably do lights for a few weeks of the year and then you're done. But you guys grew this into a I mean, that's a pretty big company. Like, was that the dream all along?   Chad Zdenek (00:03:59) - Yeah. Yeah, it actually was. And we started out literally, it was just my brother and my sister and a couple of helpers. I was on the back end of that kind of doing the business side of it, if you will, the strategy. And then. And then I left. I left Rocketdyne to go work there full time with my brother. And here's a kind of an interesting tidbit. You know, you talk about entrepreneurs taking a leap, right? We all always at some point generally, you got to take a leap. And for me, I took a 50% pay cut to go work with my brother. And and he gave me half the business and promised to pay pay me that 50% pay cut was more than he was paying himself. Wow. So we both really had to compromise.   Chad Zdenek (00:04:44) - I mean, you know, the business is really small at the time. But yeah, we basically scaled that over 15 years and built it into the biggest lighting company in LA.   Sam Wilson (00:04:53) - That's awesome. What would you say is the number one thing you did to effectively scale that business?   Chad Zdenek (00:05:02) - So what was unique about it was and certainly in the beginning when we only focused on holiday lighting, we could really take off like half the year. We were just like working on the business, right? So half of you're working in the business when it was really busy time for us and the other half of the year was working on the business and we we literally reinvented the company every year and so much so that it kind of became a joke to the employees. We we paid them really well. We try to really take care of them. So we got a lot of people come back every year and they'd always come back say, okay, well, what what company is it going to be this year? Because it always changed so much.   Chad Zdenek (00:05:38) - And we invested a ton of time into developing systems and processes and that made a really big difference. And just knowing that, hey, each year we wanted the company to be different and how could we improve? And that's really how we ended up scaling it.   Sam Wilson (00:05:54) - It sounds like you kind of had baked in opportunity to review and work on the business versus working in the business.   Chad Zdenek (00:06:02) - Yeah, for sure. We, you know, like a lot of people, you know, we were obviously we weren't the first ones to this industry. There was a ton of players in the in the industry. And it's kind of like people you might think of that, you know, they might have a crew or maybe two crews if they're larger, they work a couple of months of the year and then the other month of the year they either took off or maybe they worked other jobs. But we really approached it like a business, a much different approach. And we were able to scale a lot more than these other companies.   Chad Zdenek (00:06:30) - And I think that really made a difference. And that really was a mindset knowing that we wanted to grow something to be big and we didn't want to be small and we we worked hard in the off season. That's what we did.   Sam Wilson (00:06:44) - Well, how do you find time in your business today? I mean, I think that's the the the one thing that anybody that's scaling a business or scaling a portfolio struggles with is finding finding that window or dedicating that window of time to work on systems, to work on processes, to work on building the back end of the business and not necessarily doing the business. How do you how do you incorporate that same idea into what you're doing today?   Chad Zdenek (00:07:10) - You know, that's really, really tough. And I don't have a magic solution for that. I'll say maybe the magic solution is maybe like Wizard of Oz. When you find out who's really behind the wizard, right? It's like and I'm happy to share with you guys like, I'm busting my butt right now on my business properties.   Chad Zdenek (00:07:32) - You know, I probably work maybe 80 hours a week right now. It's a it's a ton of time you got to put into it. And anyone who's kind of grown and scaled something, they know, like there's always a time period before before you reach the goal, right? Where you just you just got to bust bust chops. And for me, it's actually one of my core values is grit. And and that's something that's always rung true to me. And right now, like, I'm in that gritty time period in real estate. Right. And I know you know this, too, right? It's a lot harder right now than it was a year ago, a year and a half ago. Like we're in the trenches right now. Right. There's a lot of moving parts in these real estate deals right now. There's a lot of deals that can go sideways if you're not staying on top of it. And it's just a different environment with the way interest rates have gone. So I'm basically I'm working a ton right now to stay on top of things.   Chad Zdenek (00:08:24) - I'm still trying to scale my, my, my business properties. But the magic solution is not don't give up. You know, have a lot of grit. Understand? Like you got to understand anyone who's been anyone who you look up to and like be doing big things and like, wow, how do they do that? They've been in the trenches, right? I mean, look, I've started eight different companies, right? You think I know it by now, But, you know, I'm working 80 hours a week right now. It's it's crazy. And that's because I really want to get this business to to have a lot of scale. And I've got pretty ambitious plans for it. And right now I'm just in that in that trench mode where I really got to work pretty hard to get it done.   Sam Wilson (00:09:02) - You know, And I'm okay with that because I was I was talking to somebody about that recently because I'm I'm with you in a very similar spot in that we're just we're grinding it out right now.   Sam Wilson (00:09:12) - And it's it's hard work. It's hard work building the systems, building the people. It's I mean, think I told you before the call, I mean, I've been on my desk since 4:00 this morning. It's like you wake up or you crawl out of bed, you're like, I'm going to the office. I'm to put on the pot of coffee and we're walking to the office. I don't want to do that forever, but I'm okay with it for now. It's like, all right, so maybe maybe the next 6 to 12 months are really, really work hard. And I think we've I think we've kind of been sold this idea of like, oh, build your systems and then your company just takes off and then but it's like, you know what? There's I think there's a period for everyone where you just got to grind it out. And it's not ideal for a long term. I mean, you have how many kids? Five. Five kids, right? I'm not I can't quite catch you with that many.   Sam Wilson (00:09:57) - I don't want to. I got three and that's enough. But it's like, you know, you don't want to miss out on those things either, watching them grow up. So it's not a it's not a forever solution. But I think there's periods of scaling businesses where it's just like you just got to put in the time. Yeah, let's talk let's talk about your real estate business. Then we talked about the lighting company, how you grew that, which is just an amazing story in and of itself. Why did you pick real estate and then what's that journey been like for you?   Chad Zdenek (00:10:24) - Yeah. So. So real estate's been something I've always really wanted to get into. I was in construction for a few years beforehand doing construction management for large commercial properties. Like you mentioned earlier, I got my general contractor's license, so I've always I've always had an affinity for construction. I've been fairly involved in it. But that's like very transactional, if you will, right? There's not there's no real investment in that side of the business.   Chad Zdenek (00:10:50) - But if you look at a lot of people that have been successful in the real estate space, a lot of it is with real estate investments, right? And so I'd always wanted to get into that. And when I was selling the business, I really wanted to take a pause and figure out what I wanted to do before just jumping into something. My natural reaction was just jump into it, get it done and move forward, right? But I knew that this would probably be like my third and kind of final phase of my career. So I really I took some time. I had a year and a half transition out of that business to figure out what I wanted to do. And I had a really strong urge to get into real estate. Like I said, I was in construction beforehand. I had done some real estate investments on my own beforehand, and so that's when I found syndication and multifamily primarily, although I do self-storage as well. And that's where I decided to go into that because I just I knew a lot of people that had been successful in real estate and and you don't really kind of see it until you're in it.   Chad Zdenek (00:11:50) - It's kind of like maybe riding a bike, like you say, okay, that kind of looks easy. But until you actually do it, you don't really know. And the same thing happened to me in real estate, right? Like, and it really clicked when I got my first tax return back and I had all this money back from from depreciation write offs. I had the leverage from the banks and, and I saw these, these, these investments that were doing really well. And I had all the upside from the leverage. And I'm like, wow, this is how people actually do it. And it really clicked for me. Like, I kind of knew it. But like once you experience it on your tax return, it's pretty rewarding. And then and then look, we mean we unlike you, we do a lot of Class B and C properties. We fix them up. I love doing that part of things. I love construction. I like making things better for tenants and and that's kind of a rewarding part of the experience as well.   Chad Zdenek (00:12:39) - And, and we're doing good things for communities. So it kind of all fits into me as a person. And, and this will be my my third and final phase of my career. But but I love it. I don't know if I ever retire. I love what I do. But I tell you, I do not want to be working eight hours a week the rest of my life I'm with you. If having that to be a kind of a short, shorter time frame. But for now, it's a lot of work.   Sam Wilson (00:13:01) - Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. What did you do to break into commercial real estate? Because it sounds like that's where you started. You didn't take the traditional path of buy a single family home by 20 single family homes, decide that's not what you want to do, sell them off and then go into commercial real estate. It sounds like you went straight into commercial real estate. Is that a fair statement?   Chad Zdenek (00:13:20) - Yeah. Yeah, it is. And not only did I go straight into it, but I went straight into it as a solo general partner.   Chad Zdenek (00:13:26) - So my first syndication I did on my own, I did everything from A to Z, and again, it was a ton of work, but but I learned a lot because I had to do everything myself. I had ten investors on that first deal. I raised $1.2 million and and bought a ten unit apartment building here in LA. And I had a think about a 500 K CapEx budget for that. Um, so, so it was, it had a lot of moving parts, um, smaller building. But I did everything on my own and it was a great learning experience and that was my first foray into, into real estate.   Sam Wilson (00:14:07) - That's awesome. And is that where you stayed or have you taken a different path to where you are now?   Chad Zdenek (00:14:14) - Well, on the theme of scaling. I know, I know you like to talk a lot about this as well. And obviously I scaled in my last company. I wanted to scale in real estate as well, so I did several deals on my own with with limited partners and then and then began partnering with other syndicators to do larger deals and also out of state deals.   Chad Zdenek (00:14:34) - So I live in LA. My all my initial investments were in Southern California. And then when I partnered with other syndicators and began doing larger deals, I also did that out of state to try to diversify a little bit out of California and was really able to to scale that part of the business to where now I do anywhere from 200 units, 280 units somewhere around there are the property sizes that I do now with several general partners and, you know, a lot more limited partners, but just bigger deals.   Sam Wilson (00:15:13) - How how has that what you look for in a general partner changed? Maybe then when you first started partnering with people, the parameters changed it all for you.   Chad Zdenek (00:15:26) - I'd say I'd say they haven't changed a whole lot. And maybe that's the conservative side of me in terms of, you know, I'm an engineer, so I do have a little bit of paralysis by analysis, by nature. So I'm a little slower to to make these big steps or certainly like working with other people. Um, I got to be pretty comfortable with that.   Chad Zdenek (00:15:48) - So in the beginning and even to today, a lot of it is relationship based, right? So you get to know different general partners, you watch what they're doing, you interact with them, you might even invest with them as an LP initially. I've done that as well. And and you go through those steps and you can really get to know somebody and then you start to really trust them a lot more and you've got some experience watching them. You might have invested with them and then you're ready to do a deal together. I also I run background checks and all the GP's I work with just as a sanity check, even if I know them. It just kind of gives gives that extra cushion in terms of comfortability. But really I don't think it's really changed how I've done it from from the beginning till now. I still do the same kind of general process.   Sam Wilson (00:16:37) - That's cool. I love that. That's good to hear. That's good to hear. I wish I had that same story. Not that any of my partnerships have gone directions.   Sam Wilson (00:16:45) - I didn't wish for them to go, but certainly my my processes have become more refined. I'm I'm less of the engineer and more of the go get it and figure it out once, you know, build it while we're flying it, which is not a good approach necessarily that I'd recommend. Certainly that process is far more refined than it used to be. But either way, I'm always curious to see what people have to say in that regard. We we talked about this before the show kicked off, and I really want to make sure that we highlight and hear the story behind this because we're recording this. Oh, today is July 11th, 2023. So I don't know when this will come out probably in the next 60 days or so. But you guys own an asset. I think you said Orlando. Is that right? And tell me tell me the story on this, because here just to give a little preview, I'll tee it up for you then you can take it from there. But for our listeners, you've taken it from 70% occupancy to a 92% occupancy in the last six months.   Sam Wilson (00:17:39) - So if anybody's listening to this, this is in a more challenging season, I think, for multifamily properties, not the not to mention the class of multifamily property that you're doing this in. So tell us about that asset and how you guys accomplish that.   Chad Zdenek (00:17:54) - Sure. Yeah. And that's been a lot of work and it's a good case study. Certainly a challenging time to do that, that type of a lift right now. But the premise of that was that we bought a Class C property in Orlando, needed a fair amount of work, nothing too crazy, but but needed work. And we had an issue to where. When we took it over from the seller. Um, they basically, believe it or not, the seller literally closed the door on the, on the, the leasing office for like six weeks before we took over. So we did all the due diligence brought in. We even did third party due diligence, ran, walked. Every unit did what you need to do and then, you know, decided, yeah, this looks good, let's move forward with the LOI, blah blah, blah.   Chad Zdenek (00:18:43) - And, and they, they closed shortly after that period. They literally locked up the office and didn't do anything. No work orders, didn't even didn't even collect rents. I mean, it was like really, really bad. I'd never seen something like this before. And so when we finally took it over like we were, our occupancy was already way down. And from where it was, people weren't paying rent. I mean, literally we walked into a crap show and, um, and we could have gone after the seller, right? I mean, we had every right to go after the seller, but, you know, none of us are litigious type, and we just kind of buckled up and hunker down and went after it. So what we did, we brought in our own construction crew, put them up on on site. I think we had 7 or 8 guys and put them all up on site. We had a bunch of extra vacancies we weren't expecting. We had to get rid of a bunch of more people that we weren't expecting and and we went to work and we renovated.   Chad Zdenek (00:19:44) - We renovate. There's a 200 unit building, um, garden style, I think about 20, 26 buildings. And um, and we went to work and we renovated over 100 units. But what happened? So we basically, we kicked butt on construction. But what happened was our, our marketing side on the lease up side was behind for how well we were doing on the construction side. So we got so far ahead. Vacancy was way down. Like I said, we even might have been like 68%, 70% like like pretty low. And I think we took it over. It was supposed to be we bought it at like 90%. It dropped to 82% when we finally took it over. And then obviously with cleaning out some evictions, we dropped from there. And so it was a very, very difficult project. We actually had to swap out the property management company, um, part way through which anyone who's done that mid deal like that is not fun to do, especially on these larger projects.   Chad Zdenek (00:20:47) - And but the premise of the problem was we, besides what the seller left us with, we got really far ahead on construction and the marketing and lease up didn't keep up. And so we basically as a team, we took over the entire marketing department. We still at that time we still had the original property management company or our original property management company, which was new to the property, still running. But we took over the whole marketing department and we really hit the marketing pretty hard and finally we got the marketing catch up, catch up with us. We we got rid of the property management company, eventually brought someone else on and like inside of like 6 or 7 months we got it to 92% and which was a really, really heavy lift. And I'm pretty proud to say like we did that without like price concessions, right? We, um, we had four and you know, this, I mean, you do a lot of asset management. We had four asset management calls a week and, and it was all hands on deck.   Chad Zdenek (00:21:50) - There was 4 or 5 of us that were just really involved all the calls. And in the midst of all that mess, we had to swap out a property management company. I mean, it was it was so much work. So much work. But but we did it. We did it. And in this environment, I think that's pretty tough to do and it's something I'm pretty proud of.   Sam Wilson (00:22:11) - It's tough to do. I mean, one, it's tough to do. It's tough to do in this environment. Would you say would you say that the market or the or the Orlando market in and of itself helped kind of where that as it's in a more clear way because that assets in Orlando was that helpful in getting that filled just because there's better a better tenant base looking for things like would that do you think you could have pulled this off somewhere else, do it the same amount of tenacity and effort, or did the Orlando kind of tailwinds help?   Chad Zdenek (00:22:43) - Yeah, it totally helped. Right. And it kind of goes back to the basics, right? Location, location, location, right.   Chad Zdenek (00:22:50) - We're in a good location. It's actually about ten miles north of Orlando, Altamonte Springs. But yeah, it's it's a good up and coming area, a lot of population growth. So so yeah, we definitely had those tailwinds for sure. And there's no way we could have done that if we were like in a flat market or stagnant market, right? We would have had to do price concessions or something like we'd have to get creative some other way. But, but we're in a good market. We're able to do it.   Sam Wilson (00:23:17) - Yeah. And that I mean, that goes back to the three fundamentals that we always talk about, which is team first, market, second deal third, because you totally, you can't change the first two once you've closed. But the third the deal you can change. So that's you're in the right market with the right team That's really cool. Again, not to take away from the incredible amount of effort that you guys put into making that happen, but you guys got the first two things really right and so obviously you can change the deal.   Sam Wilson (00:23:45) - Post-closing And that's exactly what you guys have done. So very, very cool. Chad I've loved this. I've learned so much from you here today. There's been a blast having you come on. Just hearing your story from being a rocket scientist to then doing a lighting company, growing that, growing eight different other companies, five kids at home, grinding it out and real estate kind of carving your own path and figuring this one out as well. I'm super excited to be able to put this episode out there. Thank you again for coming on the show today. If our listeners want to get in touch with you and learn more about you, what is the best way to do that?   Chad Zdenek (00:24:16) - Yeah, best way would be properties. Com or anywhere on social media is just at Ksdk properties at Ksdk properties.   Sam Wilson (00:24:25) - We'll make sure we include that there in the show notes. Chad, thank you again. I do appreciate it.   Chad Zdenek (00:24:30) - Go, bud. Thanks, Sam.   Sam Wilson (00:24:31) - Hey, thanks for listening to the How to Scale Commercial Real Estate podcast.   Sam Wilson (00:24:35) - If you can do me a favor and subscribe and leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, whatever platform it is you use to listen. If you can do that for us, that would be a fantastic help to the show. It helps us both attract new listeners as well as rank higher on those directories. So appreciate you listening. Thanks so much and hope to catch you on the next episode.  

Learning Deming is like seeing the world through a different lens. In this episode, Bill Bellows uses various examples to show us how powerful that new vision can be.  TRANSCRIPT 0:00:03.4 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 30 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. The topic for today is Vision Therapy. Bill, take it away. 0:00:29.9 BB: Welcome back, Andrew. Yes, I wrote an article, gosh, maybe 10 years ago now for the Lean Management Journal under the title Vision Therapy: Shift from Big Problems to Great Opportunities. And in the article, I talk about vision therapy - as getting glasses is one form of vision therapy or perhaps you need surgery on your eyes. I also talked about therapy our son once went through which is hand-eye coordination. And all of that is leading up to a vision exercise I put together 1998 timeframe and was inspired by a number of things. One is I had read a book written by David Kerns, former CEO of Xerox, and it's called 'Prophets in the Dark.' And he shared a story in there of a senior executive who had come from Ford. And he said, this guy named Frank Pip, who went on to become an outstanding leader within Xerox. If there was... I get the feeling if there was a hall of fame within Xerox, David Kearns would be in it. Frank Pip would be in it. 0:02:02.0 BB: And quite likely Barry Bebb, who's a mentor of mine, would be in it. And others, and... Anyway, relative to Frank Pip: Pip started his career at Ford and he got to the point of being a plant manager for the Ford final assembly plant. And there was an account he gave to Kearns of whenever they did final assembly of automobiles, rubber mallets were used to bang the mating parts together. They didn't quite fit. And every now and then, two parts would go together without a mallet. And the Ford, at Pip's plant, they called the parts that assembled without a mallet Snap-fit - everything else required mallets and mostly it was mallets. But every now and then there'd be Snap-fit. And then he explains how they, Pip was inspired to go off and buy competitor's cars for the purpose of buying them, taking them apart, putting 'em back together. And unfortunately, Pip died a few years ago, and I... And it never dawned on me to reach out to him. I thought by the time I heard of him, it was maybe too late then, it turns out I had plenty of time to reach out to him. So I don't know what inspired him, but I get the feeling he was routinely buying competitors' cars, taking 'em apart, putting 'em together, just alike, and they assembled just like theirs, just like theirs, just like theirs. 0:03:26.7 BB: And then there was a pickup truck they took apart, put together, and never used a mallet. It was, in Ford's language, 100% Snap-fit. And Pip was so astounded by the results he had the assembly team take it apart again and put it back together again 'cause he couldn't believe it was a 100% Snap-fit. Well, when he found that it was 100% Snap-fit twice, now he thought, "Holy cow," he calls up corporate, had someone come out from Dearborn, which was Ford's corporate headquarters, and I don't know if it was his boss, whoever the person was, came out very, very senior. And he says, they met with the team. The team's answering his questions. And as I explain it to people, you can imagine what it's like when somebody from corporate comes out. That's typically in my experience, somebody coming from corporate that's either, they're there to celebrate something or it's a bad day or it's a routine, but it... Anyway, it's a big deal for him. And as Pip's account was when the plant manager, when this executive came out from Dearborn and heard this account first hand, blah, blah, blah, his comment to the team was "The customer will never notice the difference." 0:04:38.1 BB: And in the book it said Pip was so frustrated with that attitude that he quit 'cause he thought, "We have uncovered something and this guy is treating it as no big deal.” Well, then I point out to people that was the late '60s and which was at the beginning of Ford, I'm sorry, of Toyota selling cars in the States. It was a Toyota pickup truck. So I just... I shared this story in part for this term, Snap-fit. Well, then in the late '90s I was teaching a graduate class in quality management at the Kellogg School of Management, Kellogg Business School, Northwestern University, which I checked very recently. It's the number two business school in the United States. And I'm teaching a class there. Through some interesting occurrences, I was invited to teach this class there. And I wrote up this contrast between the very simple black and white model. And we've been talking black and white models and I was using a black and white model of organizations which were about continuous improvement versus black and white thinking in that kind of contrast. And I gave them pairs of words and I said... 0:06:16.5 BB: You could have "good versus bad" - is one model. What I was showing 'em is, is black and white words versus continuum words versus relative words. I said, there's, let's see the good versus bad, and then that would be a black and white. And I said, "If you take the good versus bad and put it into a continuum, what would it be? And people would joke, "Gooder." And I said, "Well, faster, it could be tall versus short - taller, cheap versus expensive - cheaper." And I was using those pairs, getting them a sense of relative thinking versus black and white thinking. And I put out the word Lean, L-E-A-N and I said, "Let's say you don't know anything about the word. In which category does this word apply? Does it fit into the black and white mold or the continuum mold?" And a first of them would say it's shades-of-gray thinking. And I said, "Well, why?" And they come up with explanations and finally one guy says, he says, "It's black and white thinking." And I said, "Why?" He says, "There's no 'er' in the end." 0:07:36.4 BB: Lean, Lean. It's right? And then there's a woman who pushed back on that. And she said, "No, I disagree." She said, "You can continuously eliminate waste." And I said, "How far are you gonna go with that?" And she said, "Until there's no waste." And I said, and I was trying to point out is, well then we're done. I said, "Where is the continuous improvement, the continuum thinking behind being done?" And I said, [laughter] what'd I tell her, saying to her, I said, "So if you're done, well then what do you do?" She said, "Well, you continuously eliminate waste until you're done." Well, then I said, "Well, describe to me what an organization looks like that has no waste. Is what does it look like?" She says, "I don't know." Well, I think those two things inspired me in a class later that year, this is 1998, to throw out as an exercise, a vision, and I call it vision therapy exercise. 0:08:38.0 BB: And I said to them, "Yeah, I want you to take a piece of paper, divide it into half, into half, left and right, and then top and bottom. So there's four quadrants." And I said, "Label on the left hand side Blue Pen for Blue Pen Company. The right hand side for Red Pen as in Red Pen Company." And I held up, I would have these transparency markers. I had eight different colors. And I pulled out one, which is blue. And I said, "Imagine each of you have recently visited a company which makes blue pens, only Blue Pens. And every week I'd buy one that costs a dollar." And, I pulled out a Red Pen. Why red? 'cause I wanted something the other end of the spectrum. So I had eight different colors to choose from. So one was blue, one was red. Later somebody said to me, "Why did you pick blue versus red?" 0:09:31.2 BB: And I said, "Well, Rocketdyne was owned by Boeing at the time." And when I looked at the colors, you know a lot of the, advertising the logos of Boeing were blue and white. And I thought, blue is the company I have in mind for one side, and then something not blue, not green, not brown, red is the other side. So I said, "So imagine you've recently visited a Blue Pen Company, that only makes blue pens. You buy one every week, it costs a dollar. When you need a Red Pen, you buy that from the Red Pen Company, and they only make red, you buy it, it cost a dollar." So I had them create this - left and right. Imagine you've recently visited both organizations for two weeks each. All right? And then I said on the, you've got a left side and a right side, one's red, one's blue, top versus bottom. 0:10:24.1 BB: I said, "So imagine for the first week as you're visiting these two companies, nobody's there. So give us some additional information. What I want you to do is describe the physical layout of both organizations." And this ties in really well with... So my idea, as I shared in a recent session from Edgar Schein who had passed away back in January. He was an organizational therapist for most of his career at MIT. And in his book, 'Organizational Culture and Leadership,' he talked about organizational culture can be analyzed at three levels. And I didn't know about these levels back in '98 and found about them later. And I found it fits really well. And he said the first level is artifacts. And he says, I just wanna read, he says, "The constructed environment of an organization, including its architecture, technology, office layout, dress code, visible or audible behavior patterns, public documents like employee orientation, handbooks." 0:11:27.8 BB: And, what Schein says is that those artifacts come from values, the reasons and/or rationalizations of why members behave the way they do. And values come from assumptions. And again, I'm quoting from Schein, "Typically an unconscious pattern that determines how group members perceive, think and feel." And again, I didn't know about those at the time, but going back to the exercise, there's a left side and a right side. One is Blue Pen Company, one is Red Pen Company. The top two cells are, what would you see physically as Schein would say: what are the artifacts of these two organizations? And all you know so far is that one makes blue, one makes red, they both cost a dollar. And I buy one from each. Well then in the bottom two cells, what I want you to imagine is, so for the first two weeks, you visit both organizations, write down what are the physical characteristics of both organizations for the bottom two cells. 0:12:25.5 BB: And I apologize for coming back to this. In the first week you visit, there's no one there but you, no one there but you. So you're walking around both organizations, you're the only person around. You've got a clipboard. All you can talk about are the artifacts. What do you see? And the bottom two cells, imagine the second week in both organizations, there are people there. So for the bottom two cells, describe the people in both organizations. So all of this is artifacts and they come from values, they come from assumptions. But all you're doing is saying...but what I specifically wanted to differentiate is, what does the place look like different from what are the people like? And so everybody's ready to go. I'm gonna give you five minutes to put something in each cell. And here's the additional information. Andrew, you're ready? 0:13:12.7 BB: When I go to use the Blue Pen. So I would take the Blue Pen out and I would say, "When I use the Blue Pen, the cap goes off, the cap goes on, it goes off and it goes on nice and easy." And at the time I'm explaining this, they don't know anything about the prior story of Toyota, the pickup truck, 100% Snap-fit, Frank Pip. I usually... I save that for later. I said, all you know is the cap goes on, goes off nice and easy. Now the Red Pen, when I go to use the Red Pen, I need pliers to get the cap off. And there were times I had a little pair of pliers and I would use the pliers to pull it off and I need a hammer to get it back on. And I would have a little hammer and I boom, boom, boom. Now however, the Blue Pen... The cap is said to be Snap-fit. Then I would say just like snap your fingers, it comes off nice and easy goes on nice and easy, it doesn't fall off. That's all the information I have. Spend the next five minutes putting something in each cell. 0:14:14.3 BB: I've done that exercise around the world over 500 times of all different audiences, as young as college students, people working in the fishing industry, all over. And what's really cool is what shows up in those four cells is nearly identical. There may be some caveats due to language and whatnot. 0:14:40.8 AS: Identical across the 500, or again, identical... 0:14:44.1 BB: Yes. 0:14:44.5 AS: Across the red and blue. 0:14:46.5 BB: Yes, I... Well... What shows up in those four cells is nearly identical. So I would give people five minutes. And the other thing for those who are listening, my advice when you're doing this, that it took me a while to figure out the additional benefit is, what I would do is go around the room in each cell, the Blue Pen physical and ask if anyone has an example. So for the Blue Pen physical, someone will say: an open environment, bright lights, windows. All right. Then I'd go to the Red Pen Company, physical, "Okay, what do you see over here?" People might say, "Closed doors." Then I'd go to the Red Pen people, what about the people? And the... There might be "rigid,” “looking over their shoulder,” “on a time clock." Blue Pen Company, people might be happy and smiling. So I would go around the room before I give 'em five minutes just to make sure most of us are on the same page 'cause now, and then there'd be some people who are lost. And... But in general, people are pretty good. So then I give 'em five minutes and then depending on the size of the room, I might go around the room, table by table, look over your shoulder, see how you're doing, onto the next one, onto the next one and I get a feeling that they're doing pretty good. So then when I have them stop and there's different things I do at this point. I've had people at this point after five minutes stand up. Okay, there's a couple hundred people in the room at a conference. 0:16:31.0 BB: And I'll say: okay what I'd like you to do is find someone you've not met today and go introduce yourself and spend five minutes comparing trip reports. What's in your trip reports? And the room will very quickly erupt in laughter, whether I do it having you stand up, go find somebody or whether you are sitting at a table of four or five and I say across the table share. And then after they're done with that I'll say, "Okay, what did you find when you share your answers with others at the table?" And again and again, they'll say, "Their answers are just like mine." And I'll say, "Did anything come up in any of those quadrants that you were lost? That you said, Andrew, I... What do you mean by this? I don't know where you're coming from." And that's never happened. Every single time, they may have... They're looking at a factory and somebody may be looking in the kitchen, someone's looking in the lobby area. So they may be looking at different places, but it always fits together well. In the very beginning, what I would do, is I would give them five minutes. I wouldn't have 'em share anything yet. And I would go around the room and I'd say, get in the front of the room and the very first person, and I'd say if it was you say, "Andrew, what's the first thing you have for Blue Pen Physical?" And you'd say, "Clean." In fact, what's really cool is "neat, clean and organized" came up in order again and again. 0:18:13.6 BB: So I would ask you, "Andrew, what do you see?" You would say, "Neat," next person "Clean," next person "Organized." And I go all the way around and just fill up one cell with the very first... One thing you have that you haven't heard yet. Then I would jump over to the Red Pen, fill it out, then I'd go to the Red Pen people. So I would fill up a given cell and in the beginning I would write these on flip charts. And again, I don't know exactly what I was... I had in mind, "It's gonna be interesting," but I didn't appreciate how powerful this has become. And in the beginning I would write these on flip charts and then at the end of the class, I would throw them away. Then as I began to see how common the patterns were, then I would write them onto transparency and save them and I would date them. And at one point of time I've a colleague who's working on a PhD thesis, University of Texas and his PhD research, Andrew, [laughter] came from 200 trip reports that I still had in my files that I hadn't thrown out. And he and his brother took the data 'cause we knew exactly who was in each class. And so he had... He and his brother had some methodology in his... So his research data for his PhD thesis, looking at the leadership styles of these two organizations. And so let me... 0:19:52.3 BB: So in the Blue Pen physical, it's: an open layout neat, clean, organized, what else? Harmonious and as needed, if you were to say harmonious, then I might say, "Andrew, what do you mean by that? What do you mean? What do you mean clean? What do you mean this? What do you mean?" And so there's nothing wrong for our listeners who are trying this out with people. It's just keep asking them: "What do you mean by, what do you mean by." What's most critical is write down exactly what people say. Don't interpret. Don't yeah I would just say don't interpret. So I go all the way around and people would be astounded. 0:20:40.9 BB: I mean, I'd say a couple of things. One is quite often what people see in the contrast is where they work [laughter] versus where they would love to work. [chuckle] Now let me also say, in the very beginning when I did it, I did not explain to them what Snap-fit meant. So I did not say Snap-fit is good. I just said Snap-fit. Now, there would be people who would say, "Well, does it mean because it's Snap-fit, that it's good." And I would just say, "I didn't say one is good, one is bad. All I'm saying is one goes together with the hammers, one doesn't," and then I would eventually explain to them the a 100% Snap-fit Toyota pickup truck, and it would come together nice for them. Well, when I found the uses of this are one, people can, but Dr. Deming talked about prevailing style of management, but talking about it and having conversations about it is, what I found is this exercise... 0:22:00.1 BB: I think helps people in their own words, explain to them. It allows them to create a sense of: what is the prevailing system of management? And it's the Red Pen Company's side in many ways, and then: what is a Deming organization? It's the opposite. Now this is a very simple black and white model. And as George Box's quoted saying "All models are right. Some models are useful." I have found it enormously useful to look at the two organizations and ask people, what are the conversations like in both organizations? And I would say, "Okay, you're walking around a Red Pen Company, you come across two people in the hallway, what are they talking about?" 0:22:48.4 BB: And what you'll get is: it's second-shift people complaining about first-shift people, or it's engineering complaining about manufacturing. And then people would say, there's a lot of "us and them" and I said, okay. What I've also heard people say, is they'll say, "Well, on second shift where they work, we're a Blue Pen Company." "Also on second shift we're a Blue Pen, but those first-shift people, those are Red Pen." And you know, I said, what's a conversation like in a Blue Pen Company? "I've got an idea. Hey, let me hear about it, blah, blah, blah. Tell me more. Tell me more." I'll ask them, what are survival skills in both organizations, survival skill in a Red Pen Company? What'd you find there? And people would say you know, being able to finger-point, not being blamed, protecting yourself, you know, the CYA mentality. Mentality. Don't ever... 0:23:52.8 AS: Surviving the occasional backstabbing. 0:23:55.9 BB: Oh yeah. Don't ever try anything new. You know, what will also come out is, you know, "stodgy, stiff, inflexible." Whereas I said, what about people in the Blue Pen Company? And they'll present this. And I'll ask them, "Which organization would you call a learning organization?" And people will always say, the Blue Pen Company. And I say, why? And they say, "Well, you know, they're always trying to figure out, you know, they're doing PDSA cycles, trying to figure out improvement, improvement." And I'll say, you don't think people in a Red Pen Company have learned how to survive [laughter]? You don't think they've learned how to finger-point, you don't think they've learned how to duck and cover? 0:24:39.9 AS: In a Red Pen. You were saying in a Red Pen Company or in a Blue Pen? 0:24:40.7 BB: Oh yeah I meant Blue Pen, I meant red I mean Red Pen. I said, what I was trying to point out is people will say a Blue Pen is a learning environment. What I'm trying to point out is, don't underestimate the ability of people in a Red Pen Company to also learn, but that learning is about self-protection. And, you know, so the survival skills in that environment are protecting oneself, hoarding information, not allowing others to know how to, you know, do things. So they have secret tools, secret analysis methods, and I say, what are survival skills in a Blue Pen Company? And people will say, "Sharing knowledge is power in a Blue Pen Company." And so I constantly wanna make sure that I'm sharing. And, but it's not that I inundate everyone with everything, but a week later after Andrew, you've asked me for something, a week later I come to you and I say, "Hey, I've been thinking about it. 0:25:34.3 BB: And something else occurred to me that I thought you might value." What I would also add to the conversation is, "What percent of organizations are Red Pen companies?" And I just say, just, you know, in your experience. And then I would say in this unscientific survey, people would say the majority, 80% to 90% of companies, they would say, are Red Pen companies. And I would say, "Well, what keeps them in business? I mean, how could, what is, if 80% of them are Red Pen companies? What keeps all of these companies in what Deming would call the prevailing style of management and business?" People are like, "I don't know." 0:26:17.0 BB: In my response, I shared with my boss who was once President of Rocketdyne. I said, "What keeps us in business?" He said, "What?" I said, "Lousy competition." [laughter] 0:26:27.1 AS: Yeah. That's what I was gonna say. What keeps us in business is the other 80, 90 percent that's in the same boat as us. 0:26:32.7 BB: Exactly. Because they blame their people. Their people become dejected, withdrawn, only do as they're told, hide mistakes, which caused others to make the same mistakes. How can you keep in business focusing on the past to get back to the present when you're in this constant firefighting mode? How do you stay in business other than: others run the same way. And Deming somewhere in The New Economics, I believe in The New Economics. He says, "Be thankful for a good competitor." So that's what I mean by the vision therapy. This Blue Pen Company, Red Pen Company. I've done variants of it. The very first one was blue and red Snap-fit versus not snap-fit. I've, in the last few years, we'll get exactly the same results with a different starting point. 0:27:30.2 BB: And the starting point I use is, I tell the story of the executive sitting next to me that I think I've shared about the last straw. The straw that, what if you're in an organization where you believe the last straw broke the camel's back, what would it be like to work there? And people would say, "Oh, I wouldn't wanna work there is a culture of blame." So I would explain, imagine you recently visited an organization where everyone believes that the last straw did it, and that's called the Last Straw organization. And then there's also this All Straw organization where you understand the systemic aspect of all the straws getting together. And so if I was to start this exercise and explain this belief in the last straw that we have in society, that the basketball game has won on that last shot, or lost in that last shot, versus an all straw, I can use that starting point, Andrew, and have people go through and compare the physical aspects of both organizations and people and get exactly the same results and if it's, 'cause what I found with people, they'll say that... 0:28:31.9 AS: When you say exactly the same, you're saying exactly the same as the Red Pen Blue Pen? 0:28:36.1 BB: Yes. If you were to look at the... If you had a group of 30 people and get a composite score in those four quadrants, you wouldn't necessarily know if it was started with Red Pen, Blue Pen, or All Straw, Last Straw. And I've also done it when I worked for the Deming Institute in that timeframe when I left Rocketdyne, I started explaining it as what if there was one organization where there's a sense of "we," look what we did, how did we do on the exam? Andrew, you're the student, I'm the professor. A collective sense of all for one and one for all versus a "me" organization. Where the question I ask you, Andrew, is "How did you do on the exam?" And inferring that your ability to learn from the exam is separate from my ability to teach. 0:29:28.6 BB: Like I could be saying, "How are you doing in sales" versus "How are we doing in sales?" So if I was to describe it as a "me" organization, everything I do, everything is accomplished by me alone breaking things into parts. My task is done. A lot of this question one stuff that we've been talking about in terms of quality versus a "we" organization, if I explain the "me" and the "we," and there's ways to do that and then get into the trip report, me, we, and the four quadrants, very, very similar. And so I found is in terms of a vision exercise, first of all, depending on who the audience is, I'll get a... I'll figure out do I wanna use Red Pen, Blue Pen, All Straw and Last Straw, me versus we. And there's a couple others that I've used, but I know that once I get them thinking about, I just have to come up with what is the differentiator. 0:30:26.7 BB: And then I get them thinking about the artifacts. And then from the artifacts, once that is done, then I can talk about the conversations in both, the survival skills in both, the what if an... What is an ethics issue in both organizations? And I'll just say a little more about that. And I've worked in large corporations and ethics training. Really, what does it come down to the end of the day is that I didn't misuse company resources, that I didn't charge Project A using the Project B charge number [laughter], right? And I didn't fill out my timecard deliberately wrong. I didn't try to cheat the company on a trip report kind of thing. Well, then what I start thinking about is what's an ethics issue in a Blue Pen Company? 0:31:23.5 BB: And I believe, I think this comes from Dr. Deming, he would say, if, I'm pretty sure it was Deming, Deming would talk about a salesperson for a copying machine. And so Andrew, I'm the salesman and I come to your company and wanna sell, you're in need of a copier. And Deming would say, if I tried to sell you a copier that was bigger than you needed, because there's a bonus for me, Andrew, or a copier that was smaller. If I sold you a copier that I knew was much less than what you needed or much more than what you needed, then Deming would say, that would be unethical. He'd say, "My job is to sell you exactly what you need." And I view that, and I thought, "Well, that's a Blue Pen phenomenon where ethics is about how am I treating others with a sense of sharing or hoarding or whatnot?" So what I found is... 0:32:21.3 AS: Well, also ethics is how am I treating the customer? 0:32:24.4 BB: All of that. Well, how am I treating my coworkers? There's a poem I use with a great quote from Robert Frost and he said "What's the secret to selling a horse?" Have I ever shared this with you? 0:32:35.0 AS: No. 0:32:36.1 BB: The secret to selling a horse. Are you ready? 0:32:36.8 AS: Yep. 0:32:39.5 BB: Just sell it before it dies. [laughter] 0:32:41.7 AS: There you go. 0:32:44.3 BB: And so, and what Frost says in the poem is that we go through life handing off our problems to others. And I've written about this and I said, well, you mean like selling a coworker a horse? And then you come back the next day and you say, "Bill, you know this horse is dead." And I say, "Andrew, it was alive when I gave it to you." What? So I look at it as whether you're a coworker or a customer, what's that all about? And so I throw that out because... 0:33:12.2 BB: I find that that simple model is an incredible mechanism. Earlier today I was in a conversation with a coworker and the word that came up in conversation was you're "driving change." Driving change. And I said, "Driving change is what happens in a Red Pen Company." And the explanation I gave, in the Red Pen Company, I come to you Andrew, and I said, "I want this by tomorrow." And driving change is: I've got a gun to your head. And I say, "Do you understand what I'm looking for?" And you're like, "Right, 'cause I can find somebody else to do this, Andrew. I need this by tomorrow." That's driving change. And so what I'll say to people is, if driving change is a Red Pen Company, then what's the word we use in a Blue Pen Company? 0:34:05.2 AS: Coaxing. 0:34:07.4 BB: And people will say, "I don't know, what's that word?" And I'll say, "Lead, lead!" [laughter] That's what leadership's all about. You want to follow. And so, what I find is this model has allowed me to get a great number of people to explain in their own way, envision the two different organizations. And there's no doubt where they wanna work. They'd much rather be in the Blue Pen, "we" organization, an All-Straw organization. And then we can talk about, how does... The next thing I look at is with an understanding of the System of Profound Knowledge. Can you understand how a Red Pen Company might become a Blue Pen Company? Or my other proposal is that all organizations start off as a Blue Pen Company. So I started off an organization in my garage. I'm the only employee, I have customers, I have suppliers, but I know where everything goes and everything is Snap-fit because it's all about me and I wanna make sure these things integrate really well. And so how does that become a Red Pen Company? 0:35:19.7 BB: Well, here's what happens Andrew is, I hire you right outta school. You're all excited and you come in, you wanna join this organization, and I need help. Andrew, I need help. And I like your attitude. But then what happens is, I go to you and I say, "Andrew, here's what I want you to do. Your job is to answer the phone. Your job is when people call in, here's an instruction sheet, here's the order sheet. I want you to take the order. Here's what we do. We offer different sizes, different colors. You're gonna sell them what they need, not more, not less. You're gonna take their credit card information, you're gonna repeat it back to them, blah, blah, blah." 0:35:54.0 BB: And what I point out is that what I'm slowly doing, once I hire you, is putting people in separate roles. And next thing I know, I've got a baseball team where everybody's covering their own base instead of being incredibly flexible. And so I use that to point out that with the best of intentions, you could go in that direction. And, but what I've seen is I can use the four elements of Profound Knowledge to explain how one becomes the other. I can also use the System of Profound Knowledge to explain why the behaviors are the way they are. Which goes back to: what are the value systems in both organizations? What are the fundamental assumptions? Now relative to what is meant by big problems? Well, Red Pen companies, again, going for those listeners who have heard the earlier podcast. Well, Red Pen companies, all straw, I'm sorry, Last Straw organizations. 0:36:57.7 BB: They're focusing on parts in isolation. They don't work on things that are good. They focus on the things that are bad. So it's always big problems. They're focusing on the past to get back to the present, kept in business by competitors who waste their resources exactly the same way. And it's not to say you never have a problem, but it's to say instead of having a full-time fire department where that's all we're doing, all the doing all the time with a significant portion of our resources, we're using control charts in places where it makes sense. Run charts when a control chart doesn't matter as much. Or we are not even collecting data 'cause intuitively we have a sense of how things are going and where we get blinded, we have problems, but we're also in that environment. We know where can we be spending time to save a lot of time. That's the great opportunity. 0:37:49.7 BB: Things are, so I'm saving time by not having things break. I am managing variation in my resources accordingly, just to allocate my resources for the greater good. A stitch in time saves time. And that's the great opportunity focus that Red Pen companies don't know anything about 'cause they're so focused on the firefighting. And to me, what allows the shift from the Blue Pen to the Red Pen. I mean, what, either if you're unaware of these dynamics, then my Blue Pen Company will gradually become this Red Pen Company nightmare. Because I'm not paying attention to what Deming's talking about. I'm unaware of the System of Profound Knowledge. And I just lapse into that unknowingly. It's not intentional. I just don't know that addition doesn't work, you know, only works when the activities are independent. I think things that are good are equally good. 0:38:47.1 BB: And so to me, I can explain with the System of Profound Knowledge how red becomes blue, how blue becomes red. I can explain the conversations. And the last thing I wanna mention is, is when people come to me with, "Hey, how can I handle an X, Y, Z situation, something we've never talked about in the class or in a seminar?" And people will bring this to my attention and say, "Here's the issue I'm dealing with. Here's that problem I'm dealing with. How can I solve that?" And what I find is, is what I tell people is, here's my advice. 0:39:24.0 BB: And you can do it on your own, or ideally if you can explain this to others and have some others understanding this contrast, then you can - with a group - do what I'm about to explain. And that is first ask yourselves, "How would a Red Pen Company address that issue?" "We're gonna do a root cause investigation. We're gonna find the person who screwed up, we're gonna replace him, blah, blah, blah. We're gonna go that way." And then I would say, "Okay, after you've exhausted that, now ask yourself, what would a Blue Pen Company do by comparison?" 0:40:51.0 BB: And I'm not saying one of those is right, one is wrong, but my belief is that as a starting point, no matter where you are in your Deming journey, I believe, again, and the more people are involved in this, the better - I think the better we can get our minds around how a Red Pen Company handles it. And then say, "Okay, what if we become aware that the ability to learn together and work together is based on the our ability to think together?" Now you go the other way and I have individually done that when someone has asked me. And so I just want to throw that out that I find the model, this vision therapy model to be immensely valuable in brand new situations as a starting point. 0:40:51.1 AS: And in wrapping up, how would you describe kind of the number one takeaway without talking about Blue Pen, Red Pen and the exercise, how would you describe the takeaway that you want our listeners and our viewers to get from this? 0:41:07.6 BB: The number one takeaway is: don't underestimate the value proposition of a shared mental model. And this is what I find is, I can within a half hour have people imagining both organizations, imagining the conversations and that for the, and this is what is so cool that I wasn't anticipating in the beginning, is how quickly people can, without reading The New Economics, just by, 'cause essentially what you're getting them to do without talking about assumptions, they are focusing on assumptions and values. So we're not talking about the artifacts, but we're taking the artifacts and without getting... This is what's so cool is without reading Edgar Schein's work, we're really doing what he's talking about is going from the artifacts down to the values, and then we can talk about the values within organizations. And I find, and another thing I would say is, I've never met anyone that thrives to work in a non-Deming organization. 0:42:15.6 BB: They wanna work in a Blue Pen Company. And so I would, that's what I also find is without mentioning Deming's work, which is also pretty cool about this, I don't have to mention Deming, Taguchi or Ackoff. I could very simply get them and they will self-identify, reveal things. And another essential aspect of this is, this is not me telling you where you wanna work. This is me not telling you what you see. This is you sharing with others. And I learned from a colleague years ago that you can't tell anybody anything. So another immense value proposition here is that people are telling you, and then all you have to do is guide them. And that's what I find is immensely valuable. 0:43:02.6 AS: It's like you're teasing out the intrinsic desires, values and all that. 0:43:08.1 BB: All of that is coming out... 0:43:10.5 AS: Without... 0:43:10.5 BB: They're sharing frustrations. They're articulating frustrations in areas that they've not thought about. And then when they share and realize... In fact, I had a guy in a class once going through this exercise and he came up to me actually, we went through...I did this with a bunch of co-workers at an offsite location where all of them knew each other. And we went through the exercise and then took a break. As we're going to a break, one of them come up to me and he saw all the things on the whiteboard and the four quadrants. 0:43:50.3 BB: And he says to me, "These people, my co-workers," this is one-on-one. He's looking, and he says, "My co-workers got all of that over the cap fits or it doesn't." [laughter] 0:44:09.6 BB: And he wasn't denying, but he's like, "I don't get it." He came up to me two hours later when the class is over and he said, "I can't believe what I couldn't see." [laughter] And that's when I realized this is a really exciting exercise that I've written about and helped others present literally around the world. And I find it works amazingly well to create a framework that people aren't realizing is helping them achieve what they really all want. I believe. I believe. 0:44:46.2 AS: Yap. Well, Bill, on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute, I wanna thank you again for this discussion. For listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. 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."

If something is "good" is that good enough? Who decides? In this episode, Bill and Andrew discuss how people define "good," what interchangeability has to do with morale, and the problem with a "merit-based" culture. Bonus: Learn how Americans became the first to use the French idea of interchangeable parts in manufacturing. Note: this episode was previously published as Part 5 in the Awaken Your Inner Deming series.  TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.3 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with Bill Bellows, who has spent 30 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. The topic for today is, Deming Distinctions: Beyond Looking Good. Bill, take it away. 0:00:30.4 Bill Bellows: Funny you mentioned that. You remind me that I've been at this for over 30 years, and coming up in July, I'll be celebrating 40 years of marriage. Like 30 years, 40, where do these numbers come from? 0:00:44.5 AS: Okay. Yeah. Who defines quality in a marriage, Bill? 0:00:47.0 BB: Alright. 0:00:50.8 AS: Okay, we won't go there. Take us, take it away. 0:00:52.2 BB: We won't go there. So we are gonna talk about who defines quality, and to get into "beyond looking good." As I shared with you, I've listened to each of the podcasts a few times. And before we get into who defines quality, I just wanna provide clarification on some of the things that came up in the first five episodes. And so, one, and I think these are kind of in order, but if they're not in order, okay, well, I made reference to black-and-white thinking versus shades-of-gray thinking. And I called black-and-white thinking - black and white data - category data, and the word I was searching for that just wasn't coming out was attribute data. So for those who are keeping score, attribute data is probably the most relevant statistician term in that regard. 0:01:44.9 BB: Attribute data versus variable data. And what I've made reference to, and we'll talk more in a future session, is looking at things in terms of categories. And categories are black and white, or it could be red, yellow, green, that's three categories, or looking at things on a continuum. So I'm still excited by the difference that comes about by understanding when we're in the black-and-white mode or the category mode or the attribute data mode versus the variable mode, and still have a belief that we can't have continuous improvement or continual improvement if we're stuck in an attribute mode. 0:02:22.9 BB: And more on that later, that's one. I talked about Thomas Jefferson meeting Honoré Blanc and getting excited about the concept of interchangeable parts. And I had the date wrong, that was 1785, if anyone's keeping score there. He was ambassador to France from 1785 to 1789, but it was in 1792 that he wrote a letter to John Jay, who was a...I think he was a Commerce Secretary. Anyway, he was in the administration of Washington and shared the idea. I was doing some research earlier and found out that even with the headstart that Blanc had in France, 'cause back in 1785, Jefferson was invited to this pretty high level meeting in Paris where Blanc took a, I guess, like the trigger mechanism of 50 different rifles. Not the entire rifle, but just the...let's just call it the trigger mechanism with springs and whatnot. And he took the 50 apart and he put all the springs in one box, all the other pieces in their respective boxes and then shook the boxes up and showed that he could just randomly pull a given spring, a given part, and put 'em all together. And that got Jefferson excited. And the...what it meant for Jefferson and the French was not just that you can repair rifles in the battlefield quickly. 0:03:56.9 BB: Now, what it meant for jobs in France was a really big deal, because what the French were liking was all the time it took to repair those guns with craftsmanship, and Blanc alienated a whole bunch of gunsmiths as a result of that. And it turns out, Blanc's effort didn't really go anywhere because there was such a pushback from the gunsmiths, the practicing craftsmanship that jobs would be taken away. But it did come to the States. And then in the early 1800s, it became known as the American System of Production. But credit goes back to Blanc. I also made reference to absolute versus relative interchangeability. And I wanna provide a little bit more clarification there, and I just wanna throw out three numbers, and ideally people can write the numbers down, I'll repeat 'em a few times. The first number is 5.001, second number is 5.999, and the third number is 6.001. So it's 5.001, 5.999, 6.001. And some of what I'm gonna explain will come up again later, but...so this will tie in pretty well. So, what I've been doing is I'll write those three words on the whiteboard or throw them on a screen, and I'll call... 0:05:28.9 AS: Those three numbers. 0:05:31.4 BB: A, B, and C. And I'll say, which two of the three are closest to being the same? And sure enough people will say the 5.999 and the 6.001, which is like B and C. And I say that's the most popular answer, but it's not the only answer. People are like, "well, what other answer are there?" Well, it could be A and C, 5.001 and 6.001, both end in 001. Or it could be the first two, A and B, 5.001 and 5.999. So what I like to point out is, if somebody answers 5.999 and 6.001, then when I say to them, "what is your definition of same?" 0:06:14.9 BB: 'Cause the question is, which two of the three are close to being the same? And it turns out there's three explanations of "same." There's same: they begin with five, there's same: they end in 001. And there's same in terms of proximity to each other. So I just wanna throw that out. Well, then a very common definition of "quality" is to say, does something meet requirements? And that's the black-and-white thinking. I've also explained in the past that requirements are not set in absolute terms. The meeting must start at exactly 1:00, or the thickness must be exactly one inch. What I've explained is that the one inch will have a plus or minus on it. And so let's say the plus and minus gives us two requirements, a minimum of five and a maximum of six. Well, then that means the 5.001 meets requirements and the 5.999 meets requirements. 0:07:15.4 BB: And so in terms of defining quality, in terms of meeting requirements, A and B are both good. And then what about the 5.999 and the 6.001? Well, those numbers are on opposite sides of the upper requirement of six. One's just a little bit to the left and one's a little bit to the right. Then I would ask people, and for some of you, this'll ring - I think you'll be smiling - and I would say to people, "what happens in manufacturing if, Andrew, if I come up with a measurement and it's 6.001?" Okay, relative to defining quality as "meeting requirements," 6.001 does not meet requirements. So what I'll ask people is, "what would a non-Deming company do with a 6.001?" And people will say, "we're gonna take a file out, we're gonna work on it, we're gonna hit it with a hammer." And I say, "no, too much work." And they say, "well, what's the answer?" "We're gonna measure it again." 0:08:25.7 AS: Until we get it right. 0:08:27.7 BB: We will measure it until we get it right. We will change the room temperature. We will take the easiest path. So then I said, get people to realize, they're like, yeah, that's what we do. We measure the 6.001 again. Well, then I say, "well Andrew, why don't we measure the 5.001 again?" And what's the answer to that, Andrew? [laughter] 0:08:51.5 AS: 4.999. [laughter] 0:08:54.7 BB: But what's interesting is, we'll measure the 6.001 again. But we won't measure the 5.001 again. We won't measure the 5.999 again. And so to me, this reinforces that when we define quality as "meeting requirements," that what we're essentially saying in terms of absolute interchangeability, what we're pretending is that there's no difference between the 5.001 and the 5.999. At opposite ends, we're saying that Blanc would find them to be interchangeable, and putting all the things together. I don't think so. 0:09:36.7 BB: I think there's a greater chance that he'd find negligible difference between the 5.999 and the 6.001. And that's what I mean by relative interchangeability, that the difference between B and C is nothing, that's relative interchangeability. The closer they are together, the more alike they are in terms of how they're integrated into the gun, into the rifle, into the downstream product. And I just throw out that what defining quality as "requirements" is saying is that the first two are...the person downstream can't tell the difference. Then I challenge, I think there's...in terms of not telling the difference, I think between 5.999 and 6.001, that difference is minuscule cause they are relatively interchangeable. The other two are implied to be absolutely interchangeable. And that I challenge, that's why I just want to throw that out. All right, another thing I want...go ahead, Andrew. 0:10:38.3 AS: One of the things I just highlight is, I remember from my political science classes at Long Beach State where I studied was The Communist Manifesto came out in 1848. And Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were talking about the alienation of the worker. And what you're talking about is the kind of, the crushing of the craftsmen through interchangeable parts that was a lot like AI coming along and destroying something. And after 50 or 60 or 70 years of interchangeable parts, along comes The Communist Manifesto with the idea that when a person is just dealing with interchangeable parts, basically they're just a cog in the wheel and they have no connection to the aim of what's going on. They don't have any connection, and all of a sudden you lose the craftsmanship or the care for work. And I think that the reason why this is interesting is because that's, I think, a huge part of what Dr. Deming was trying to bring was bring back...it may not be craftsmanship for creating a shoe if you were a shoemaker, but it would be craftsmanship for producing the best you could for the part that you're playing in an ultimate aim of the system. 0:12:02.6 BB: Yes. And yes, and we'll talk more about that. That's brilliant. What you said also reminds me, and I don't think you and I spoke about it, you'll remind me. But have I shared with you the work of a Harvard philosopher by the name of Michael Sandel? 0:12:24.3 AS: I don't recall. 0:12:27.0 BB: He may be, yeah, from a distance, one of the most famous Harvard professors alive today. He's got a course on justice, which is I think 15 two- or three-hour lectures, which were recorded by public television in Boston. Anyway, he wrote a book at the beginning of the pandemic. It came out, it's called The Tyranny of Merit. 0:12:54.0 BB: And "merit" is this belief that "I did it all by myself." That "I deserve what I have because I made it happen. I had no help from you, Andrew. I had no help from the government. I didn't need the education system, the transportation system. I didn't need NASA research. I made it happen all by myself." And he said, what that belief does is it allows those who are successful to claim that they did it by themselves. It allows them to say those who didn't have only themselves to blame. And he sees that as a major destructive force in society, that belief. And I see it tied very well to Deming. Let me give you one anecdote. Dr. Deming was interviewed by Priscilla Petty for The Deming of America documentary, which was absolutely brilliant. 0:13:49.8 BB: And she's at his home, and he's sharing with her the medal he got from the Emperor of Japan, and he's holding it carefully, and I think he gives it to her, and she's looking at it, and she says to him something like, so what did it mean to you to receive that? And he said, "I was lucky. I made a contribution." He didn't say I did it all by myself. He was acknowledging that he was in the right place at the right time to make a contribution. And that's where Sandel is also heavily on, is don't deny the role of being born at the right time in the right situation, which is a greater system in which we are. Well, for one of the college courses, I was watching an interview between Sandel and one of his former students. 0:14:48.1 BB: And the point Sandel made that I wanted to bring up based on what you just said, he says, "what we really need to do is get people dignity in work." And that's what you're talking about, is allowing them to have pride in work, dignity in work instead of as they're making interchangeable parts, having them feel like an interchangeable part. And I'm really glad you brought that up because when we talk later about letter grades, I would bring back one of the reasons I find Deming's work astounding, is that he takes into account psychology in a way that I hope our listeners will really take heart to in a deeper way. 0:15:30.2 AS: And so for the listeners out there, just to reinforce, the book is called The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good. Published in 2020 by Michael Sandel. And the ratings on Amazon is 4.5 out of five with about 2,446 ratings. So it's a pretty well-rated book I'd say. And looks interesting. Now you got me wanting to read that one. 0:15:57.0 BB: Oh what I'll do is I'll send you a... Well, what I encourage our listeners to do is find the interview... Harvard Bookstore did an interview in 2020, 2021, with Michael Sandel being interviewed by his former student by the name of Preet Bharara. [laughter] Who used to be the... 0:16:24.3 AS: SEC... 0:16:24.4 BB: Head of these...no, well, he prosecuted a number of people for SEC crimes, but he headed the Justice Department's long oldest district, which is known as SDNY or the Southern District of New York. And so he was a...in one of the first classes his freshman year at Harvard, Preet Bharara's freshman year at Havard was one of Sandel's first years. And so they had an incredible conversation. So I would encourage the listeners to... 0:16:51.8 AS: Yeah, it's titled: Michael J Sandel with Preet Bharara at Harvard. And the channel is called Harvard Bookstore. 0:16:58.6 BB: Yes, absolutely. All right. So another topic I want to get to in terms of clarification and key points, last time we talked about tools and techniques and what I'm not sure I made much about.... First of all, I just wanna really reinforce that tools and techniques are not concepts and strategies. Tools are like a garden tool I use to dig a hole. Technique is how I go about using it, cleaning it, and whatnot. Not to be confused from a concept...and what is concept? We talked about last time is a concept is an abstract idea and a strategy is how do we apply it? So tools and techniques within Six Sigma quality could be control charts, could be design of experiments. And all, by the way, you're gonna find those tools and techniques within the Deming community. So it's not to say the tools and techniques are the differentiator. 0:17:50.8 BB: I think the concepts and strategies are the differentiators, but I don't wanna downplay tools. Lean has tools in terms of value streams, and you won't find value streams per se in Dr. Deming's work. Dr. Deming looks in terms of production viewed as a system. In a later session, I want to talk about value streams versus Deming's work. But I just wanna point out that I find it...it's easy to get lost in the weeds with all we find within Lean, Six Sigma, Deming and whatnot. And this is why last time I wanted to focus on tools and techniques as separate from concepts and strategies. And what I think we did speak about last time, again, for just as a reminder, is what's unique that we both enjoy with Dr. Deming's work is that KPIs are not caused by individual departments, assigned to individual departments. 0:18:46.0 BB: KPIs are viewed as measures of the overall system. And if you assign the KPIs across the organization and give every different function their own KPI, what you're likely to find - not likely - what you WILL find is that those assigned KPIs are interfering with others' abilities to get their KPIs met. And in the Deming philosophy, you don't have that problem because you understand that things are interdependent, not independent. And so I just wanna close by saying what I find in Deming's work to be most enlightening is this sense of "what does it mean to look at something as a system?" And it means everything is connected to everything else. When you define quality in terms of saying "this is good because it meets requirements," what you've just said is, "this is good in isolation." Whether it's the pass from the quarterback to the wide receiver, saying the pass met requirements. 0:19:52.0 BB: What I think Dr. Deming would ask is, "is the ball catchable?" [laughter] And yet, what I've seen in my aerospace experience is parts being measured for airplanes in Australia that they meet requirements because the measurements are taken early in the morning before the sun has had a chance to heat the part up. And we get the 6.001 is now 5.999. You know what that means, Andrew? It's - we can now ship it. [laughter] 0:20:23.9 BB: And send it off to America for some airplane factory. 0:20:26.2 AS: When we shipped it, that's what it was. 0:20:28.9 BB: Exactly. And so, again, interdependence is everything. Go ahead, Andrew. 0:20:34.6 AS: I wanted to point on, there's a company in Thailand that really has gotten on the KPI bandwagon, and I was talking with some people that work there, and they were just talking about how they've been rolling out the KPIs for the last couple of years and down to the number of seconds that you're on the phone and everything that you do is tracked now. And then I just witnessed that company basically use that KPI as a way to basically knock out a whole group of people that they were trying to get rid of by coming in with tight KPIs and then saying, "you're not keeping up with 'em and therefore you're out." And I just thought...and the manager that was involved I was talking to, you could just see, he saw how KPI can just be weaponized for the purposes of the senior management when you're doing KPIs of individuals. And the thing that I was thinking about is, imagine the CEO of that company in a couple of years, in a couple of months, they happen to listen to this podcast, or they pick up a book of Dr. Deming and they think, "Oh my God, what did I just do over the last five years implementing KPIs down to the individual level?" [laughter] 0:21:48.5 BB: Oh, yeah. And that's what we talked about last time is...as I told you, I had a friend of a friend who's worked for Xerox, and he said there wasn't a KPI that was flowed down that they couldn't find a way to beat. And that's what happens, and you end up getting things done, but what's missing is: at whose expense? All right. So we talked about...now, let's get into beyond looking good, Deming distinctions. Who defines quality? Well, from Philip Crosby's perspective, quality's defined by the...it could be the designer. The designer puts a set of requirements on the component, whatever it is. The unit, the requirements have latitude we talked about. They're not exact. There's a minimum of six, a maximum of...or a minimum of five, maximum of six. 0:22:48.8 BB: There's a range you have to meet, is the traditional view of quality. And in my 30 years of experience, I've not seen quality defined any other way than that. It has to be in between these two values. Sometimes it has to be five or below or six or above, but there's a range. But also what we talked about last time is Dr. Deming said "a product or service possesses quality if it helps someone and enjoys a sustainable market." But what I found profound about that definition, it is not me defining quality and saying, "Andrew, the parts met requirements when I threw it. Now, it's your job to catch it." It's me saying, "I've thrown the ball and you tell me, how did I do? You tell me how did I do?" And if you said, "Bill, if you throw it just a little bit higher, a little bit further out, a little bit faster," that's about synchronicity. Now, I'm realizing that my ability to throw the ball doesn't really matter if you can't catch it. So if I practice in the off season, throwing it faster and faster, but don't clue you in, until the first game, how's that helping? So I've got a KPI to throw it really, really hard. And you're thinking, "how's that helping?" So that's... 0:24:19.9 AS: And can you just go back to that for a second? Quality is on a product or service, you were saying that how Dr. Deming defined that, it helps someone... 0:24:26.7 BB: Yeah. Dr. Deming said "a product or service possesses quality if it helps someone and enjoys a sustainable market." And so my interpretation of that is two things. One is, it's not me delivering a report and saying the report met requirements. It's saying, "I get the report to you, and I ask Andrew, how did I do?" And then you say to me, "I had some problem with this section, I had some problem...." But the important thing is that you become the judge of the quality of the report, not me. And it could be information I provide you with in a lecture. It's you letting me know as a student that you had a hard time with the examples. And I'm thinking, "well, I did a great job." So it's not what I think as the producer handing off to you. It's you giving me the feedback. So quality is not a one-way...in fact, first of all, quality's not defined by the producer. It's defined by the recipients saying, "I love this or not." And so that's one thing I wanna say, and does it enjoy a sustainable market? What I talked about in the past is my interpretation of that is, if I'm bending over backwards to provide incredible quality at an incredible price, and I'm going outta business, then it may be great for you, but it may not be great for me. So it has to be mutually beneficial. I just wanna... Go ahead, Andrew. 0:26:03.1 AS: You referenced the word synchronicity, which the meaning of that according to the dictionary is that "simultaneous occurrence of events which appear significantly related, but had no discernible causal connection." What were you meaning when you were saying synchronicity? Is it this that now you're communicating with the part of the process ahead of you, and they're communicating back to you and all of a sudden you're starting to really work together? Is that what you mean by that? 0:26:33.1 BB: Yeah. When I think of synchronicity, I'm thinking of the fluidity of watching a basketball game where I'm throwing blind passes to the left and to the right and to the observer in the stands are thinking: holy cow. That's what I'm talking about, is the ability that we're sharing information just like those passes in a basketball game where you're...I mean I cannot do that without being incredibly mindful of where you are, what information you need. That's what I meant. That's what I mean. As opposed to - I wait until the number is less than...I'm out there in the hot sun. I get the measurement, 6.001, no, no, no, wait. Now it's five. Where's the synchronicity in that? Am I concerned about how this is helping you, or am I concerned about how do I get this off my plate onto the next person? And I'd also say... 0:27:32.6 AS: Yep. And another word I was thinking about is coordination, the organization of the different elements of a complex body or activity so as to enable them to work together efficiently. You could also say that the state of flow or something like that? 0:27:48.7 BB: I'm glad you brought up the word "together." The big deal is: am I defining quality in a vacuum, or am I doing it with some sense of how this is being used? Which is also something we got into, I think in the, one of the very first podcasts, and you asked me what could our audience...give me an example of how the audience could use this. And I said you're delivering a report to the person down the street, around the corner. Go find out how they use it. I use the example of providing data for my consulting company to my CPA, and I called 'em up one day and I said, "how do you use this information? Maybe I can get it to you in an easier form." That's together. I mean relationships, we talked earlier about marriage, relationships are based on the concept of together, not separate, together. Saying something is good, without understanding how it's used is not about "together." It's about "separate." 0:28:54.1 BB: And so what I find is, in Lean, we look at: how can we get rid of the non-value-added tasks? Who defines value? Or I could say, and Lean folks will talk about the...they'll say this: "eliminate things that don't add value." My response to them is, if you tell me that this activity does not provide value in this room for the next hour, I'm okay with that. If you tell me this activity doesn't add value in this building for the next year, I'm okay with that. But if you don't define the size of the system when you tell me it doesn't add value, then you're implying that it doesn't add value, period. 0:29:43.4 BB: And I say, how do you know that? But this is the thinking, this is what baffles me on the thinking behind Lean and these concepts of non-value-added, value-added activities. I think all activities add value. The only question is where does a value show up? And likewise in Six Sigma quality, which is heavily based on conformist requirements and driving defects to zero, that's defining quality of the parts in isolation. What does that mean, Andrew? Separate. It means separate. Nothing about synchronicity. And so I'm glad you brought that point up because what I...this idea of "together" is throughout the Deming philosophy, a sense of together, defining quality in terms of a relationship. 0:30:31.1 AS: And I remember when I was young, I was working at Pepsi, and they sent me to learn with Dr. Deming. And then I came back, and what I was kind of looking for was tools, thinking that I would...and I came back of course, with something very different, with a new way of thinking. And then I realized that Dr. Deming is so far beyond tools. He's trying to think about how do we optimize this whole system? And once I started learning that about Dr. Deming, I could see the difference. Whereas, you may decide - let's say that you wanna learn about Lean and get a certification in Lean or something like that. 0:31:15.5 AS: Ultimately, you may go down a rabbit hole of a particular tool and become a master in that tool. Nothing wrong with that. But the point is, what is the objective? Who defines the quality? And Dr. Deming clearly stated in the seminars that I was in, and from readings that I've read, that the objective of quality isn't just to improve something in...you could improve something, the quality of something and go out of business. And so there's the bigger objective of it is: how does this serve the needs of our clients? So anyways, that's just some of my memories of those days. 0:31:52.4 BB: Yeah. But you're absolutely right. And the point I'm hoping to bring out in our sessions is: I'm not against tools and techniques. Tools and techniques are incredible. They're time savers, money savers, but let's use them with a sense of connections and relationships. And I agree with you, I've done plenty of seminars where people are coming in - they're all about tools and techniques. Tools and techniques is part of the reason I like to differentiate is to say....and again, I think people are hungrier for tools and techniques. Why? Because I don't think they've come to grips with what concepts and strategies are about. And I'm hoping our listeners can help us...can appreciate that they go together. Tools and techniques are about efficiency, doing things faster, doing things cheaper. Concepts and strategies are about doing the right thing. Ackoff would say "doing the right thing right." And short of that, we end up using tools to make things worse. And that's what I'm hoping people can avoid through the insights we can share from Dr. Deming. 0:33:05.4 AS: And I would say that, would it be the case that applying tools, and tools and techniques is kind of easy? You learn how they work, you practice with them, you measure, you give feedback, but actually going to figure out how we optimize this overall system is just so much harder. It's a complex situation, and I can imagine that there's some people that would retreat to tools and techniques and I saw it in the factory at Pepsi when people would basically just say, "well, I'm just doing my thing." That's it, 'cause it's too much trouble to go out and try to negotiate all of this with everybody. 0:33:50.7 BB: I think in part, I think as long as they're managing parts in isolation, which is the prevailing system of management, then, I agree with you. Becoming aware of interdependencies in the greater system, and I'll also point out is whatever system you're looking at is part of a bigger system, and then again, bigger system, then again, bigger system. What you define is the whole, is part of a bigger system. No matter how you define it, it's part of a bigger system because time goes to infinity. So your 10-year plan, well, why not a 20-year plan? Why not a 30-year plan? So no matter how big a system you look at, there is a bigger system. So let's not get overwhelmed. Let's take a system, which Ackoff would say, take a system which is not too big that you can't manage it, not too small, that you're not really giving it the good effort, but don't lose sight of whatever system you're looking at - you'll begin to realize it is actually bigger than that. Again, what Dr. Deming would say, the bigger the system, the more complicated, which is where you're coming from, but it also offers more opportunities. I think we're so used to tools and techniques. 0:35:14.3 BB: I don't think people have really given thought to the concepts and strategies of Deming's work as opposed to Lean and Six Sigma as being different, which is why I wanted to bring it up with our listeners, because I don't think people are defaulting on the tools. I just don't think they appreciate that concepts and strategies are different than tools and techniques. And I like to have them become aware of that difference and then understand where black-and-white thinking works, where continuum thinking has advantages. There's times to look at things as connected, and then there's times to just move on and make a decision, which is a lot easier because the implications aren't as important. But at least now we get back to choice, be conscious of the choice you're making, and then move on. All right, so also on the list we had, who defines quality? 0:36:09.0 BB: We talked about that. What is meant by good: the requirements are met. Who defines good? Again, if you're looking at Phil Crosby, who defines good? Someone has to set, here are the requirements for being "good." I could be giving a term paper and me saying to the students, this is what "good" means. Next thing I wanted to look at is, "why stop at good?" And, I'm pretty sure we've talked about this. A question I like to ask people is how much time they spend every day in meetings, discussing parts, components, things that are good and going well. And what I find is people don't spend a whole lot of time discussing things that are good and going well. So why do they stop? Why not? Because they're stopping at "good." 0:36:57.1 BB: And that goes back to the black-and-white thinking. They're saying things are "bad" or they're "good." We focus on the bad to make it good, and then we stop at good. Why do we stop at good? Because there's no sense of "better." All right. And what does that mean? So again, we have why stop at good? Why go beyond good? And this is...'cause I think we're talking about really smart people that stop at "good." And I think to better understand what that means, what I like to do is ask people, what's the letter grade required for a company to ship their products to the customer? What letter grade does NASA expect from all their suppliers? And I asked a very senior NASA executive this question years ago. He was the highest ranking NASA executive in the quality field. 0:37:50.5 BB: And I said, "what letter grade do you expect from your contractors?" And he said, A+. A+. And I said, actually, it's not A+. And he is like, "What do you mean?" I said, "actually the letter grade, your requirement is actually D-." And he pushed back at me and I said, what...he says, "well, what do you mean?" I said, "how do you define quality?" And he said, "We define quality as requirements are met. That's what we require." I said, "so you think A+ is the only thing that meets requirements?" He's like, "well, where are you coming from?" I said a pass-fail system, now we get back to category thinking, if it's good or bad, what is good? Good is passing. What is passing? What I explained to him: passing is anything from an A+ down to a D-. 0:38:38.9 BB: And he got a little antsy with me. I said, "well, the alternative is an F, you don't want an F, right?" I said, "well, what you're saying is that you'll take anything but an F and that means your requirements are actually D-." And then when I pushed back and I said, "is a D- the same as an A+?" And he said, "no." I said, "well, that's what I meant earlier" in the conversation with him. And I told him that they weren't interchangeable. So when you begin to realize that black and white quality, Phil Crosby-quality, allows for D minuses to be shipped to customers. Again, in this one way I define quality, I hand it off to you. 'Cause in that world, Andrew, I make the measurement, it's 5.999, it meets requirements, I ship it to you, your only response when you receive it is to say, "thank you." [laughter] 0:39:33.2 BB: For a D minus, right? Well, when you begin to understand relationship quality, then you begin to understand that to improve the relationship, what's behind improving the relationship, Andrew, is shifting from the D- to the A. And what does that mean? What that means is, when I pay attention to your ability to receive what I give you, whether it's the pass or the information, the more synchronously I can provide that, the letter grade is going up, [laughter] and it continues to go up. Now, again, what I'm hoping is that the effort I'm taking to provide you with the A is worthwhile. But that's how you can have continuous improvement, is stop...not stopping at the D minus. 0:40:17.6 BB: Again, there may be situations where D minus is all you really need, but I, that's not me delivering to you a D minus blindly. That's you saying to me, "Hey, I don't need an A+ over here. All I really need is a D minus." That's teamwork, Andrew. So on the one hand, and what I think is, our listeners may not appreciate it, is who defines the letter grade? So in your organization, I would say to people, you give everyone a set of requirements to go meet, what letter grade does each of them has to meet to hand off to a coworker, to another coworker, to a customer? Every single one of those people, all they have to do if they're feeling disenfranchised, as you mentioned earlier, they're feeling like an interchangeable part, well, under those circumstances, Andrew, I don't have to call you up, I just deliver a D minus. And you can't complain because I've met the requirements. 0:41:14.2 BB: So what I think it could be a little scary is to realize, what if everybody in the company comes to work tomorrow feeling no dignity in work and decides to hand off the minimum on every requirement, how does that help? And what I find exciting by Deming's work is that Dr. Deming understood that how people are treated affects their willingness to look up, pay attention to the person they're receiving and deliver to them the appropriate letter grade. So I'm hoping that helps our audience understand that if it's a black and white system, then we're saying that it's good or it's bad. What that misses is, keyword Andrew, variation in good. So the opportunities to improve when we realize that there's a range, that "good" has variation. Another point I wanna make is, what allows the Deming philosophy to go beyond looking good? 0:42:16.2 BB: Well, if you look at the last chapter 10, I think, yeah, chapter 10 of the New Economics is...like the last six pages of the New Economics is all about Dr. Taguchi's work, and it's what Dr. Deming learned from Dr. Taguchi about this very thought of looking at quality in terms of relationships, not just in isolation, Phil Crosby-style meeting requirements. And the last thing I wanna throw out is I was listening to a interview with Russ Ackoff earlier today, and he gave the three steps to being creative. This is a lecture he gave at Rocketdyne years ago. And he said, the first thing is you have to discover self-limiting constraints. Second, you have to remove the constraint. And third, you have to exploit that removal. And what I want to close on is what Deming is talking about is the self-limiting constraint is when we stop at good. [laughter] 0:43:20.7 BB: And I'm hoping that this episode provides more insights as to the self-imposed constraint within our organizations to stop at "good." What happens when we go beyond that? And how do you go beyond that? By looking at how others receive your work and then expand that others and expand that others and expand that others. And then what I find exciting is, and the work I do with students and with clients is, how can we exploit every day that idea of synchronicity of quality, and not looking at quality from a category perspective? Again, unless that's all that's needed in that situation. So I don't want to throw out category thinking, use category thinking where it makes sense, use continuum thinking where it makes sense. So that's what I wanted to close with. 0:44:12.1 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. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'm gonna leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming, and it's very appropriate for the discussion that we've had today. "People are entitled to joy in work."  

If something is "good" is that good enough? Who decides? In this episode, Bill and Andrew discuss how people define "good," what interchangeability has to do with morale, and the problem with a "merit-based" culture. Bonus: Bill gives us a short history lesson on how Americans became the first to manufacture using interchangeable parts even though the originator was a Frenchman. 0:00:02.3 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with Bill Bellows, who has spent 30 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. The topic for today is, Deming Distinctions: Beyond Looking Good. Bill, take it away.   0:00:30.4 Bill Bellows: Funny you mentioned that. You remind me that I've been at this for over 30 years, and coming up in July, I'll be celebrating 40 years of marriage. Like 30 years, 40, where do these numbers come from?   0:00:44.5 AS: Okay. Yeah. Who defines quality in a marriage, Bill?   0:00:47.0 BB: Alright.   0:00:50.8 AS: Okay, we won't go there. Take us, take it away.   0:00:52.2 BB: We won't go there. So we are gonna talk about who defines quality, and to get into "beyond looking good." As I shared with you, I've listened to each of the podcasts a few times. And before we get into who defines quality, I just wanna provide clarification on some of the things that came up in the first five episodes. And so, one, and I think these are kind of in order, but if they're not in order, okay, well, I made reference to black-and-white thinking versus shades-of-gray thinking. And I called black-and-white thinking - black and white data - category data, and the word I was searching for that just wasn't coming out was attribute data. So for those who are keeping score, attribute data is probably the most relevant statistician term in that regard.   0:01:44.9 BB: Attribute data versus variable data. And what I've made reference to, and we'll talk more in a future session, is looking at things in terms of categories. And categories are black and white, or it could be red, yellow, green, that's three categories, or looking at things on a continuum. So I'm still excited by the difference that comes about by understanding when we're in the black-and-white mode or the category mode or the attribute data mode versus the variable mode, and still have a belief that we can't have continuous improvement or continual improvement if we're stuck in an attribute mode.   0:02:22.9 BB: And more on that later, that's one. I talked about Thomas Jefferson meeting Honoré Blanc and getting excited about the concept of interchangeable parts. And I had the date wrong, that was 1785, if anyone's keeping score there. He was ambassador to France from 1785 to 1789, but it was in 1792 that he wrote a letter to John Jay, who was a...I think he was a Commerce Secretary. Anyway, he was in the administration of Washington and shared the idea. I was doing some research earlier and found out that even with the headstart that Blanc had in France, 'cause back in 1785, Jefferson was invited to this pretty high level meeting in Paris where Blanc took a, I guess, like the trigger mechanism of 50 different rifles. Not the entire rifle, but just the...let's just call it the trigger mechanism with springs and whatnot. And he took the 50 apart and he put all the springs in one box, all the other pieces in their respective boxes and then shook the boxes up and showed that he could just randomly pull a given spring, a given part, and put 'em all together. And that got Jefferson excited. And the...what it meant for Jefferson and the French was not just that you can repair rifles in the battlefield quickly.   0:03:56.9 BB: Now, what it meant for jobs in France was a really big deal, because what the French were liking was all the time it took to repair those guns with craftsmanship, and Blanc alienated a whole bunch of gunsmiths as a result of that. And it turns out, Blanc's effort didn't really go anywhere because there was such a pushback from the gunsmiths, the practicing craftsmanship that jobs would be taken away. But it did come to the States. And then in the early 1800s, it became known as the American System of Production. But credit goes back to Blanc. I also made reference to absolute versus relative interchangeability. And I wanna provide a little bit more clarification there, and I just wanna throw out three numbers, and ideally people can write the numbers down, I'll repeat 'em a few times. The first number is 5.001, second number is 5.999, and the third number is 6.001. So it's 5.001, 5.999, 6.001. And some of what I'm gonna explain will come up again later, but...so this will tie in pretty well. So, what I've been doing is I'll write those three words on the whiteboard or throw them on a screen, and I'll call...   0:05:28.9 AS: Those three numbers.   0:05:31.4 BB: A, B, and C. And I'll say, which two of the three are closest to being the same? And sure enough people will say the 5.999 and the 6.001, which is like B and C. And I say that's the most popular answer, but it's not the only answer. People are like, "well, what other answer are there?" Well, it could be A and C, 5.001 and 6.001, both end in 001. Or it could be the first two, A and B, 5.001 and 5.999. So what I like to point out is, if somebody answers 5.999 and 6.001, then when I say to them, "what is your definition of same?"   0:06:14.9 BB: 'Cause the question is, which two of the three are close to being the same? And it turns out there's three explanations of "same." There's same: they begin with five, there's same: they end in 001. And there's same in terms of proximity to each other. So I just wanna throw that out. Well, then a very common definition of "quality" is to say, does something meet requirements? And that's the black-and-white thinking. I've also explained in the past that requirements are not set in absolute terms. The meeting must start at exactly 1:00, or the thickness must be exactly one inch. What I've explained is that the one inch will have a plus or minus on it. And so let's say the plus and minus gives us two requirements, a minimum of five and a maximum of six. Well, then that means the 5.001 meets requirements and the 5.999 meets requirements.   0:07:15.4 BB: And so in terms of defining quality, in terms of meeting requirements, A and B are both good. And then what about the 5.999 and the 6.001? Well, those numbers are on opposite sides of the upper requirement of six. One's just a little bit to the left and one's a little bit to the right. Then I would ask people, and for some of you, this'll ring - I think you'll be smiling - and I would say to people, "What happens in manufacturing if, Andrew, if I come up with a measurement and it's 6.001?" Okay, relative to defining quality as "meeting requirements," 6.001 does not meet requirements. So what I'll ask people is, "what would a non-Deming company do with a 6.001?" And people will say, "We're gonna take a file out, we're gonna work on it, we're gonna hit it with a hammer." And I say, "No, too much work." And they say, "Well, what's the answer?" "We're gonna measure it again."   0:08:25.7 AS: Until we get it right.   0:08:27.7 BB: We will measure it until we get it right. We will change the room temperature. We will take the easiest path. So then I said, get people to realize, they're like, yeah, that's what we do. We measure the 6.001 again. Well, then I say, "Well Andrew, why don't we measure the 5.001 again?" And what's the answer to that, Andrew? [laughter]   0:08:51.5 AS: 4.999. [laughter]   0:08:54.7 BB: But what's interesting is, we'll measure the 6.001 again. But we won't measure the 5.001 again. We won't measure the 5.999 again. And so to me, this reinforces that when we define quality as "meeting requirements," that what we're essentially saying in terms of absolute interchangeability, what we're pretending is that there's no difference between the 5.001 and the 5.999. At opposite ends, we're saying that Blanc would find them to be interchangeable, and putting all the things together. I don't think so.   0:09:36.7 BB: I think there's a greater chance that he'd find negligible difference between the 5.999 and the 6.001. And that's what I mean by relative interchangeability, that the difference between B and C is nothing, that's relative interchangeability. The closer they are together, the more alike they are in terms of how they're integrated into the gun, into the rifle, into the downstream product. And I just throw out that what defining quality as "requirements" is saying is that the first two are...the person downstream can't tell the difference. Then I challenge, I think there's...in terms of not telling the difference, I think between 5.999 and 6.001, that difference is minuscule cause they are relatively interchangeable. The other two are implied to be absolutely interchangeable. And that I challenge, that's why I just want to throw that out. All right, another thing I want...go ahead, Andrew.   0:10:38.3 AS: One of the things I just highlight is, I remember from my political science classes at Long Beach State where I studied was The Communist Manifesto came out in 1848. And Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were talking about the alienation of the worker. And what you're talking about is the kind of, the crushing of the craftsmen through interchangeable parts that was a lot like AI coming along and destroying something. And after 50 or 60 or 70 years of interchangeable parts, along comes The Communist Manifesto with the idea that when a person is just dealing with interchangeable parts, basically they're just a cog in the wheel and they have no connection to the aim of what's going on. They don't have any connection, and all of a sudden you lose the craftsmanship or the care for work. And I think that the reason why this is interesting is because that's, I think, a huge part of what Dr. Deming was trying to bring was bring back...it may not be craftsmanship for creating a shoe if you were a shoemaker, but it would be craftsmanship for producing the best you could for the part that you're playing in an ultimate aim of the system.   0:12:02.6 BB: Yes. And yes, and we'll talk more about that. That's brilliant. What you said also reminds me, and I don't think you and I spoke about it, you'll remind me. But have I shared with you the work of a Harvard philosopher by the name of Michael Sandel?   0:12:24.3 AS: I don't recall.   0:12:27.0 BB: He may be, yeah, from a distance, one of the most famous Harvard professors alive today. He's got a course on justice, which is I think 15 two- or three-hour lectures, which were recorded by public television in Boston. Anyway, he wrote a book at the beginning of the pandemic. It came out, it's called The Tyranny of Merit.   0:12:54.0 BB: And "merit" is this belief that "I did it all by myself." That "I deserve what I have because I made it happen. I had no help from you, Andrew. I had no help from the government. I didn't need the education system, the transportation system. I didn't need NASA research. I made it happen all by myself." And he said, what that belief does is it allows those who are successful to claim that they did it by themselves. It allows them to say those who didn't have only themselves to blame. And he sees that as a major destructive force in society, that belief. And I see it tied very well to Deming. Let me give you one anecdote. Dr. Deming was interviewed by Priscilla Petty for The Deming of America documentary, which was absolutely brilliant.   0:13:49.8 BB: And she's at his home, and he's sharing with her the medal he got from the Emperor of Japan, and he's holding it carefully, and I think he gives it to her, and she's looking at it, and she says to him something like, so what did it mean to you to receive that? And he said, "I was lucky. I made a contribution." He didn't say I did it all by myself. He was acknowledging that he was in the right place at the right time to make a contribution. And that's where Sandel is also heavily on, is don't deny the role of being born at the right time in the right situation, which is a greater system in which we are. Well, for one of the college courses, I was watching an interview between Sandel and one of his former students.   0:14:48.1 BB: And the point Sandel made that I wanted to bring up based on what you just said, he says, "what we really need to do is get people dignity in work." And that's what you're talking about, is allowing them to have pride in work, dignity in work instead of as they're making interchangeable parts, having them feel like an interchangeable part. And I'm really glad you brought that up because when we talk later about letter grades, I would bring back one of the reasons I find Deming's work astounding, is that he takes into account psychology in a way that I hope our listeners will really take heart to in a deeper way.   0:15:30.2 AS: And so for the listeners out there, just to reinforce, the book is called The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good. Published in 2020 by Michael Sandel. And the ratings on Amazon is 4.5 out of five with about 2,446 ratings. So it's a pretty well-rated book I'd say. And looks interesting. Now you got me wanting to read that one.   0:15:57.0 BB: Oh what I'll do is I'll send you a... Well, what I encourage our listeners to do is find the interview... Harvard Bookstore did an interview in 2020, 2021, with Michael Sandel being interviewed by his former student by the name of Preet Bharara. [laughter] Who used to be the...   0:16:24.3 AS: SEC...   0:16:24.4 BB: Head of these...no, well, he prosecuted a number of people for SEC crimes, but he headed the Justice Department's long oldest district, which is known as SDNY or the Southern District of New York. And so he was a...in one of the first classes his freshman year at Harvard, Preet Bharara's freshman year at Havard was one of Sandel's first years. And so they had an incredible conversation. So I would encourage the listeners to...   0:16:51.8 AS: Yeah, it's titled: Michael J Sandel with Preet Bharara at Harvard. And the channel is called Harvard Bookstore.   0:16:58.6 BB: Yes, absolutely. All right. So another topic I want to get to in terms of clarification and key points, last time we talked about tools and techniques and what I'm not sure I made much about.... First of all, I just wanna really reinforce that tools and techniques are not concepts and strategies. Tools are like a garden tool I use to dig a hole. Technique is how I go about using it, cleaning it, and whatnot. Not to be confused from a concept...and what is concept? We talked about last time is a concept is an abstract idea and a strategy is how do we apply it? So tools and techniques within Six Sigma quality could be control charts, could be design of experiments. And all, by the way, you're gonna find those tools and techniques within the Deming community. So it's not to say the tools and techniques are the differentiator.   0:17:50.8 BB: I think the concepts and strategies are the differentiators, but I don't wanna downplay tools. Lean has tools in terms of value streams, and you won't find value streams per se in Dr. Deming's work. Dr. Deming looks in terms of production viewed as a system. In a later session, I want to talk about value streams versus Deming's work. But I just wanna point out that I find it...it's easy to get lost in the weeds with all we find within Lean, Six Sigma, Deming and whatnot. And this is why last time I wanted to focus on tools and techniques as separate from concepts and strategies. And what I think we did speak about last time, again, for just as a reminder, is what's unique that we both enjoy with Dr. Deming's work is that KPIs are not caused by individual departments, assigned to individual departments.   0:18:46.0 BB: KPIs are viewed as measures of the overall system. And if you assign the KPIs across the organization and give every different function their own KPI, what you're likely to find - not likely - what you WILL find is that those assigned KPIs are interfering with others' abilities to get their KPIs met. And in the Deming philosophy, you don't have that problem because you understand that things are interdependent, not independent. And so I just wanna close by saying what I find in Deming's work to be most enlightening is this sense of "what does it mean to look at something as a system?" And it means everything is connected to everything else. When you define quality in terms of saying "this is good because it meets requirements," what you've just said is, "this is good in isolation." Whether it's the pass from the quarterback to the wide receiver, saying the pass met requirements.   0:19:52.0 BB: What I think Dr. Deming would ask is, "is the ball catchable?" [laughter] And yet, what I've seen in my aerospace experience is parts being measured for airplanes in Australia that they meet requirements because the measurements are taken early in the morning before the sun has had a chance to heat the part up. And we get the 6.001 is now 5.999. You know what that means, Andrew? It's - we can now ship it.   [laughter]   0:20:23.9 BB: And send it off to America for some airplane factory.   0:20:26.2 AS: When we shipped it, that's what it was.   0:20:28.9 BB: Exactly. And so, again, interdependence is everything. Go ahead, Andrew.   0:20:34.6 AS: I wanted to point on, there's a company in Thailand that really has gotten on the KPI bandwagon, and I was talking with some people that work there, and they were just talking about how they've been rolling out the KPIs for the last couple of years and down to the number of seconds that you're on the phone and everything that you do is tracked now. And then I just witnessed that company basically use that KPI as a way to basically knock out a whole group of people that they were trying to get rid of by coming in with tight KPIs and then saying, "you're not keeping up with 'em and therefore you're out." And I just thought...and the manager that was involved I was talking to, you could just see, he saw how KPI can just be weaponized for the purposes of the senior management when you're doing KPIs of individuals. And the thing that I was thinking about is, imagine the CEO of that company in a couple of years, in a couple of months, they happen to listen to this podcast, or they pick up a book of Dr. Deming and they think, "Oh my God, what did I just do over the last five years implementing KPIs down to the individual level?" [laughter]   0:21:48.5 BB: Oh, yeah. And that's what we talked about last time is...as I told you, I had a friend of a friend who's worked for Xerox, and he said there wasn't a KPI that was flowed down that they couldn't find a way to beat. And that's what happens, and you end up getting things done, but what's missing is: at whose expense? All right. So we talked about...now, let's get into beyond looking good, Deming distinctions. Who defines quality? Well, from Philip Crosby's perspective, quality's defined by the...it could be the designer. The designer puts a set of requirements on the component, whatever it is. The unit, the requirements have latitude we talked about. They're not exact. There's a minimum of six, a maximum of...or a minimum of five, maximum of six.   0:22:48.8 BB: There's a range you have to meet, is the traditional view of quality. And in my 30 years of experience, I've not seen quality defined any other way than that. It has to be in between these two values. Sometimes it has to be five or below or six or above, but there's a range. But also what we talked about last time is Dr. Deming said "a product or service possesses quality if it helps someone and enjoys a sustainable market." But what I found profound about that definition, it is not me defining quality and saying, "Andrew, the parts met requirements when I threw it. Now, it's your job to catch it." It's me saying, "I've thrown the ball and you tell me, how did I do? You tell me how did I do?" And if you said, "Bill, if you throw it just a little bit higher, a little bit further out, a little bit faster," that's about synchronicity. Now, I'm realizing that my ability to throw the ball doesn't really matter if you can't catch it. So if I practice in the off season, throwing it faster and faster, but don't clue you in, until the first game, how's that helping? So I've got a KPI to throw it really, really hard. And you're thinking, "how's that helping?" So that's...   0:24:19.9 AS: And can you just go back to that for a second? Quality is on a product or service, you were saying that how Dr. Deming defined that, it helps someone...   0:24:26.7 BB: Yeah. Dr. Deming said "a product or service possesses quality if it helps someone and enjoys a sustainable market." And so my interpretation of that is two things. One is, it's not me delivering a report and saying the report met requirements. It's saying, "I get the report to you, and I ask Andrew, how did I do?" And then you say to me, "I had some problem with this section, I had some problem...." But the important thing is that you become the judge of the quality of the report, not me. And it could be information I provide you with in a lecture. It's you letting me know as a student that you had a hard time with the examples. And I'm thinking, "well, I did a great job." So it's not what I think as the producer handing off to you. It's you giving me the feedback. So quality is not a one-way...in fact, first of all, quality's not defined by the producer. It's defined by the recipients saying, "I love this or not." And so that's one thing I wanna say, and does it enjoy a sustainable market? What I talked about in the past is my interpretation of that is, if I'm bending over backwards to provide incredible quality at an incredible price, and I'm going outta business, then it may be great for you, but it may not be great for me. So it has to be mutually beneficial. I just wanna... Go ahead, Andrew.   0:26:03.1 AS: You referenced the word synchronicity, which the meaning of that according to the dictionary is that "simultaneous occurrence of events which appear significantly related, but had no discernible causal connection." What were you meaning when you were saying synchronicity? Is it this that now you're communicating with the part of the process ahead of you, and they're communicating back to you and all of a sudden you're starting to really work together? Is that what you mean by that?   0:26:33.1 BB: Yeah. When I think of synchronicity, I'm thinking of the fluidity of watching a basketball game where I'm throwing blind passes to the left and to the right and to the observer in the stands are thinking: holy cow. That's what I'm talking about, is the ability that we're sharing information just like those passes in a basketball game where you're...I mean I cannot do that without being incredibly mindful of where you are, what information you need. That's what I meant. That's what I mean. As opposed to - I wait until the number is less than...I'm out there in the hot sun. I get the measurement, 6.001, no, no, no, wait. Now it's five. Where's the synchronicity in that? Am I concerned about how this is helping you, or am I concerned about how do I get this off my plate onto the next person? And I'd also say...   0:27:32.6 AS: Yep. And another word I was thinking about is coordination, the organization of the different elements of a complex body or activity so as to enable them to work together efficiently. You could also say that the state of flow or something like that?   0:27:48.7 BB: I'm glad you brought up the word "together." The big deal is: am I defining quality in a vacuum, or am I doing it with some sense of how this is being used? Which is also something we got into, I think in the, one of the very first podcasts, and you asked me what could our audience...give me an example of how the audience could use this. And I said you're delivering a report to the person down the street, around the corner. Go find out how they use it. I use the example of providing data for my consulting company to my CPA, and I called 'em up one day and I said, "how do you use this information? Maybe I can get it to you in an easier form." That's together. I mean relationships, we talked earlier about marriage, relationships are based on the concept of together, not separate, together. Saying something is good, without understanding how it's used is not about "together." It's about "separate."   0:28:54.1 BB: And so what I find is, in Lean, we look at: how can we get rid of the non-value-added tasks? Who defines value? Or I could say, and Lean folks will talk about the...they'll say this: "eliminate things that don't add value." My response to them is, if you tell me that this activity does not provide value in this room for the next hour, I'm okay with that. If you tell me this activity doesn't add value in this building for the next year, I'm okay with that. But if you don't define the size of the system when you tell me it doesn't add value, then you're implying that it doesn't add value, period.   0:29:43.4 BB: And I say, how do you know that? But this is the thinking, this is what baffles me on the thinking behind Lean and these concepts of non-value-added, value-added activities. I think all activities add value. The only question is where does a value show up? And likewise in Six Sigma quality, which is heavily based on conformist requirements and driving defects to zero, that's defining quality of the parts in isolation. What does that mean, Andrew? Separate. It means separate. Nothing about synchronicity. And so I'm glad you brought that point up because what I...this idea of "together" is throughout the Deming philosophy, a sense of together, defining quality in terms of a relationship.   0:30:31.1 AS: And I remember when I was young, I was working at Pepsi, and they sent me to learn with Dr. Deming. And then I came back, and what I was kind of looking for was tools, thinking that I would...and I came back of course, with something very different, with a new way of thinking. And then I realized that Dr. Deming is so far beyond tools. He's trying to think about how do we optimize this whole system? And once I started learning that about Dr. Deming, I could see the difference. Whereas, you may decide - let's say that you wanna learn about Lean and get a certification in Lean or something like that.   0:31:15.5 AS: Ultimately, you may go down a rabbit hole of a particular tool and become a master in that tool. Nothing wrong with that. But the point is, what is the objective? Who defines the quality? And Dr. Deming clearly stated in the seminars that I was in, and from readings that I've read, that the objective of quality isn't just to improve something in...you could improve something, the quality of something and go out of business. And so there's the bigger objective of it is: how does this serve the needs of our clients? So anyways, that's just some of my memories of those days.   0:31:52.4 BB: Yeah. But you're absolutely right. And the point I'm hoping to bring out in our sessions is: I'm not against tools and techniques. Tools and techniques are incredible. They're time savers, money savers, but let's use them with a sense of connections and relationships. And I agree with you, I've done plenty of seminars where people are coming in - they're all about tools and techniques. Tools and techniques is part of the reason I like to differentiate is to say....and again, I think people are hungrier for tools and techniques. Why? Because I don't think they've come to grips with what concepts and strategies are about. And I'm hoping our listeners can help us...can appreciate that they go together. Tools and techniques are about efficiency, doing things faster, doing things cheaper. Concepts and strategies are about doing the right thing. Ackoff would say "doing the right thing right." And short of that, we end up using tools to make things worse. And that's what I'm hoping people can avoid through the insights we can share from Dr. Deming.   0:33:05.4 AS: And I would say that, would it be the case that applying tools, and tools and techniques is kind of easy? You learn how they work, you practice with them, you measure, you give feedback, but actually going to figure out how we optimize this overall system is just so much harder. It's a complex situation, and I can imagine that there's some people that would retreat to tools and techniques and I saw it in the factory at Pepsi when people would basically just say, "well, I'm just doing my thing." That's it, 'cause it's too much trouble to go out and try to negotiate all of this with everybody.   0:33:50.7 BB: I think in part, I think as long as they're managing parts in isolation, which is the prevailing system of management, then, I agree with you. Becoming aware of interdependencies in the greater system, and I'll also point out is whatever system you're looking at is part of a bigger system, and then again, bigger system, then again, bigger system. What you define is the whole, is part of a bigger system. No matter how you define it, it's part of a bigger system because time goes to infinity. So your 10-year plan, well, why not a 20-year plan? Why not a 30-year plan? So no matter how big a system you look at, there is a bigger system. So let's not get overwhelmed. Let's take a system, which Ackoff would say, take a system which is not too big that you can't manage it, not too small, that you're not really giving it the good effort, but don't lose sight of whatever system you're looking at - you'll begin to realize it is actually bigger than that. Again, what Dr. Deming would say, the bigger the system, the more complicated, which is where you're coming from, but it also offers more opportunities. I think we're so used to tools and techniques.   0:35:14.3 BB: I don't think people have really given thought to the concepts and strategies of Deming's work as opposed to Lean and Six Sigma as being different, which is why I wanted to bring it up with our listeners, because I don't think people are defaulting on the tools. I just don't think they appreciate that concepts and strategies are different than tools and techniques. And I like to have them become aware of that difference and then understand where black-and-white thinking works, where continuum thinking has advantages. There's times to look at things as connected, and then there's times to just move on and make a decision, which is a lot easier because the implications aren't as important. But at least now we get back to choice, be conscious of the choice you're making, and then move on. All right, so also on the list we had, who defines quality?   0:36:09.0 BB: We talked about that. What is meant by good: the requirements are met. Who defines good? Again, if you're looking at Phil Crosby, who defines good? Someone has to set, here are the requirements for being "good." I could be giving a term paper and me saying to the students, this is what "good" means. Next thing I wanted to look at is, "why stop at good?" And, I'm pretty sure we've talked about this. A question I like to ask people is how much time they spend every day in meetings, discussing parts, components, things that are good and going well. And what I find is people don't spend a whole lot of time discussing things that are good and going well. So why do they stop? Why not? Because they're stopping at "good."   0:36:57.1 BB: And that goes back to the black-and-white thinking. They're saying things are "bad" or they're "good." We focus on the bad to make it good, and then we stop at good. Why do we stop at good? Because there's no sense of "better." All right. And what does that mean? So again, we have why stop at good? Why go beyond good? And this is...'cause I think we're talking about really smart people that stop at "good." And I think to better understand what that means, what I like to do is ask people, what's the letter grade required for a company to ship their products to the customer? What letter grade does NASA expect from all their suppliers? And I asked a very senior NASA executive this question years ago. He was the highest ranking NASA executive in the quality field.   0:37:50.5 BB: And I said, "what letter grade do you expect from your contractors?" And he said, A+. A+. And I said, actually, it's not A+. And he is like, "What do you mean?" I said, "actually the letter grade, your requirement is actually D-." And he pushed back at me and I said, what...he says, "well, what do you mean?" I said, "how do you define quality?" And he said, "We define quality as requirements are met. That's what we require." I said, "so you think A+ is the only thing that meets requirements?" He's like, "well, where are you coming from?" I said a pass-fail system, now we get back to category thinking, if it's good or bad, what is good? Good is passing. What is passing? What I explained to him: passing is anything from an A+ down to a D-.   0:38:38.9 BB: And he got a little antsy with me. I said, "well, the alternative is an F, you don't want an F, right?" I said, "well, what you're saying is that you'll take anything but an F and that means your requirements are actually D-." And then when I pushed back and I said, "is a D- the same as an A+?" And he said, "no." I said, "well, that's what I meant earlier" in the conversation with him. And I told him that they weren't interchangeable. So when you begin to realize that black and white quality, Phil Crosby-quality, allows for D minuses to be shipped to customers. Again, in this one way I define quality, I hand it off to you. 'Cause in that world, Andrew, I make the measurement, it's 5.999, it meets requirements, I ship it to you, your only response when you receive it is to say, "thank you."   [laughter]   0:39:33.2 BB: For a D minus, right? Well, when you begin to understand relationship quality, then you begin to understand that to improve the relationship, what's behind improving the relationship, Andrew, is shifting from the D- to the A. And what does that mean? What that means is, when I pay attention to your ability to receive what I give you, whether it's the pass or the information, the more synchronously I can provide that, the letter grade is going up, [laughter] and it continues to go up. Now, again, what I'm hoping is that the effort I'm taking to provide you with the A is worthwhile. But that's how you can have continuous improvement, is stop...not stopping at the D minus.   0:40:17.6 BB: Again, there may be situations where D minus is all you really need, but I, that's not me delivering to you a D minus blindly. That's you saying to me, "Hey, I don't need an A+ over here. All I really need is a D minus." That's teamwork, Andrew. So on the one hand, and what I think is, our listeners may not appreciate it, is who defines the letter grade? So in your organization, I would say to people, you give everyone a set of requirements to go meet, what letter grade does each of them has to meet to hand off to a coworker, to another coworker, to a customer? Every single one of those people, all they have to do if they're feeling disenfranchised, as you mentioned earlier, they're feeling like an interchangeable part, well, under those circumstances, Andrew, I don't have to call you up, I just deliver a D minus. And you can't complain because I've met the requirements.   0:41:14.2 BB: So what I think it could be a little scary is to realize, what if everybody in the company comes to work tomorrow feeling no dignity in work and decides to hand off the minimum on every requirement, how does that help? And what I find exciting by Deming's work is that Dr. Deming understood that how people are treated affects their willingness to look up, pay attention to the person they're receiving and deliver to them the appropriate letter grade. So I'm hoping that helps our audience understand that if it's a black and white system, then we're saying that it's good or it's bad. What that misses is, keyword Andrew, variation in good. So the opportunities to improve when we realize that there's a range, that "good" has variation. Another point I wanna make is, what allows the Deming philosophy to go beyond looking good?   0:42:16.2 BB: Well, if you look at the last chapter 10, I think, yeah, chapter 10 of the New Economics is...like the last six pages of the New Economics is all about Dr. Taguchi's work, and it's what Dr. Deming learned from Dr. Taguchi about this very thought of looking at quality in terms of relationships, not just in isolation, Phil Crosby-style meeting requirements. And the last thing I wanna throw out is I was listening to a interview with Russ Ackoff earlier today, and he gave the three steps to being creative. This is a lecture he gave at Rocketdyne years ago. And he said, the first thing is you have to discover self-limiting constraints. Second, you have to remove the constraint. And third, you have to exploit that removal. And what I want to close on is what Deming is talking about is the self-limiting constraint is when we stop at good.   [laughter]   0:43:20.7 BB: And I'm hoping that this episode provides more insights as to the self-imposed constraint within our organizations to stop at "good." What happens when we go beyond that? And how do you go beyond that? By looking at how others receive your work and then expand that others and expand that others and expand that others. And then what I find exciting is, and the work I do with students and with clients is, how can we exploit every day that idea of synchronicity of quality, and not looking at quality from a category perspective? Again, unless that's all that's needed in that situation. So I don't want to throw out category thinking, use category thinking where it makes sense, use continuum thinking where it makes sense. So that's what I wanted to close with.   0:44:12.1 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. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'm gonna leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming, and it's very appropriate for the discussion that we've had today. "People are entitled to joy in work."  

Go to https://curiositystream.com/SPACENUTS and use code SPACENUTS to save 25% off today. Thanks to Curiosity Stream for sponsoring today's podcast.If you're feeling frustrated and disheartened because despite your constant efforts to understand the latest developments in quantum research and wormholes, you still feel light years away from achieving the breakthrough you crave, then you are not alone! In this episode, you will be able to: Explore the intriguing world of wormholes and recent quantum discoveries in outer space research. Understand the crucial role that powerful R25 engines play in launching rockets into space. Connect the dots between the enigmatic forces of black holes and dark energy. Marvel at the Huntsman Telescope's ability to obtain highly-sensitive images from outer space. Differentiate between theoretical and physical wormholes while appreciating their presence in imaginative science-fiction narratives. The resources mentioned in this episode are: Check out NASA's website for more information on the Space Launch System and upcoming missions. Follow Aerojet Rocketdyne on social media to stay updated on their work and advancements in rocket engine technology. Consider supporting organizations and initiatives that promote and fund research in quantum computing and physics. Explore science fiction books and media that feature wormholes and other theoretical physics concepts. Learn more about the history and development of quantum mechanics and general relativity through online courses or tutorials. Support space exploration and research by advocating for government funding and supporting private companies like SpaceX.#space #astronomy #science #news #podcast #wormholes #spacenuts

What is quality? Does it mean always meeting specifications? What if the calculus for specifications means little and tells managers almost nothing about the process or its potential for improvement? Dr. Bill Bellows discusses the negative consequences of this kind of black-and-white thinking and what to do about it. 0:00:03.0 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I am continuing my discussion with Bill Bellows, who has spent 30 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. The topic for today is: What is quality? Bill, take it away.   0:00:27.5 Bill Bellows: Thank you Andrew. That question brings me back literally 30 plus years. I was at home studying on leave from work. I got a bunch of books on quality. I bought every book on quality I could find at the Yale Bookstore. I started reading them. And I'm reading Phil Crosby, I'm reading Six Sigma Quality, I'm reading Genichi Taguchi, I'm reading Deming. And I, naively, am thinking that quality means the same to all of them. As a heat transfer engineer, in the world of engineering, heat transfer engineers have a common language, they use common terms, so I naively thought everyone in the world of quality has the same explanation of quality. And I'm looking through these books. I had met some seasoned experts in the field. I started calling them and saying... I remember talking one guy and I said, "I don't think these books are the same." And he laughed. He said, "Bill, you're onto something."   0:01:24.0 BB: Well, the traditional way of looking at quality in most organizations gets me to what I now refer to as question number one and that is, Does something meet requirements? Does the task meet requirements? Does the dimensions meet requirements? Does the product meet requirements? And, Andrew, there's only two answers to that question, yes or no. That's how most organizations look at quality. Boeing's advanced quality system... How do I know? I worked for a company that was owned by Boeing for nine years. Boeing's advanced quality system, which is no different than anyone else's quality system, is question one, Does is meet requirements? Yes or no.   0:02:08.5 AS: Is that like go/no-go?   0:02:11.4 BB: That's go/no-go. It's black and white thinking, Andrew. It meets requirements or it doesn't. Question two is, How many ways are there for this thing to meet requirements? And there when I tell people if you take into account decimal places, an infinite number of answers, I have somebody laugh and say, "Infinite?" And I say, "Okay, 463." But the idea is there's variation in how you meet requirements. And so going back to the question "What about quality?" what I began to see is that most quality thinkers are thinking question one. I had been exposed in that same timeframe to Dr. Taguchi and his thinking is more about question two. And what got me really excited by Dr. Deming's work when I saw The New Economics is that I realized that his quality focus was also question two and that's what got me really, really curious. But the big thing was, holy cow, we've got different explanations of quality.   0:03:15.0 AS: And can I ask you a question about this? When you talk about how many ways are there for this to meet the requirements, are you saying how many methods are there to get there or how many outcomes are in the range of what is quality?   0:03:31.6 BB: What I'm saying is question one is, Does your car have gas? Yes or no.   0:03:38.2 AS: Yep. Yes it does.   0:03:39.3 BB: Question two is, How much gas is in the car? Is it a quarter of a tank, an eighth of a tank, a sixteenth of a tank, a full tank? So there's a lot of different answers. And that's what I mean the infinity is, there's a lot of degradations from empty to full and that's a much different question than, "Does the car have gas?" Now, why is that important? What I began to realize when I started my first job as a quality professional after leaving engineering and joining Rocketdyne as a quality professional, people were coming to me because things were broken, which was like out of gas. And the exciting thing was I got to work and help them solve it but the pattern I started to notice is that most often when people came to me, it was because the process, the product was out of gas.   0:04:42.5 BB: And I began to realize that if we operated with a gas gauge mindset and not a black and white mindset, we could have seen these just as you would driving a car. You see you're on E. Yes, I have gas but being on E and being full. But the people in the organization weren't equipped to think that way and that's when I began to get very excited by Dr. Deming's work and after learning about Taguchi's work 'cause they both helped me realize that most organizations view quality from question one. Is this good or bad? And then what we do is we leave ourselves open to running out of gas 'cause we can't see the trouble coming.   0:05:24.7 AS: I was just thinking about when I worked at Pepsi in our factory in Torrance, California, many years ago. There was a group of maintenance engineers that worked on the production line and all that. But there was one guy, he could solve any problem and he would come in and solve every problem. And he took great pride in that and everybody saw him as the problem solver. But when you think about it, it just perpetuated the system.   0:05:49.0 BB: Yes.   0:05:50.9 AS: And so who was the hero was the guy that can come in and fix it. "I'm the fixer."   0:05:55.9 BB: Well, and to that point, I came into a new organization, very excited to move across the country with the family, a lot of excitement moving into this new career, and I could not have been happier working on problems. That's the good news. But then I began to see that the customer was getting frustrated with this pattern and that was leading us to lose business. And now I'm thinking, yeah, I'm excited being called in to be the hero but I'm thinking this is a lousy way to run the company. We ought to be preventing these problems. And I just thought, here I am using sophisticated techniques from Dr. Taguchi when all we needed was a simple gas gauge to see trouble coming. And so, yeah, I was happy being the hero for a while but the more I understood where Deming was coming from, the more I realized it would be nothing but selfish to maintain that system.   0:07:02.0 AS: Yeah, because when you say selfish it's because you're kind of the hero saving the day, fixing.   0:07:06.1 BB: I'm loving it.   0:07:07.4 AS: Yeah.   0:07:08.2 BB: I'm receiving awards. I'm going to NASA headquarters, presenting solutions. You get priority. People get out of your way. You're working on very high-visibility issues. But what I was thinking was, "Holy cow. We could prevent these problems from happening in the first place." Not all problems, Andrew, 'cause I can't know everywhere to put a gas gauge. But now you have to start to think about where is that an issue. So if the light bulb in the kitchen burns out, okay, I can deal with that. But there's other situations where I don't wanna deal. I don't want the car to run out of gas. So then you start to think about, Where does the variation in good, which is question two, cause me heartache? And when is it just go get another light bulb? And this led me to become aware, to start to think about our thinking patterns. Are we thinking black and white, good and bad? Or are we understanding, which is question one, two answers?   0:08:12.6 BB: Question two is viewing things on a continuum, shades of gray. And, holy cow, how about we start asking how much gas is in the car, not, "Do we have gas?" And so I would go in to audiences, big audiences within Rocketdyne, within Boeing and suppliers and what not. And again, I mention Boeing. Rocketdyne was owned by Boeing. Most companies around the world that I've interfaced with think the same way. It's the same pattern. A standard question I have asked at lunch time presentations, "How much time do you spend every day discussing parts that are good, that arrive on time?" I've had 110 people in the room laugh, just emerge in laughter. That's what they do. And so that's when I became aware this is not just a Boeing thing, not just a Rocketdyne thing. This is a very elementary way of operating, even in our personal lives at home.   0:09:09.6 AS: Describe that again. Describe that. You talked about talking to the people in the factory and asking them. Tell us an example of that or kind of help us understand more about what you're saying there.   0:09:21.3 BB: Well, when I would ask audiences, "How much time do you spend discussing parts that are good, that arrive on time?" And they'll say, "Very little." And I say, "Why is that?" And the standard answer is, "If it ain't broken, don't fix it." But then I say to them, "Hold that thought. What if you use that thinking to drive your car, what would happen?" "We'd run out of gas." "What if you use that thinking relative... " I said, "If you use that mode of thinking, when would you put gas in the car?" "When it runs out." "When would you call the plumber? When would you go to the doctor?" And the idea is I think we are unnecessarily in a mode, we're putting ourselves in a mode of being reactive without realizing we have a choice to be proactive. The gas gauge gives us a choice.   0:10:11.3 BB: Lacking the gas gauge, we slip back to, "Well, it's working, it's working, it's working." And then we get into the rut of spending precious time focusing on the past to find out why we had the problem and simultaneously what we're gonna do is blame the driver of the car, which creates a mess within the organization. And next thing you know, people become reticent. When I look at the System of Profound Knowledge, I look at the variation piece. Lacking this awareness, Andrew, we don't see variation in good. We wait for bad to happen. We then blame whoever is close to it because we don't understand the system. And then you tie those together, we create this rut that I think many organizations are stuck in.   0:11:01.8 AS: So it sounds like, if I was to think about what you're saying, a lot of this is about the idea of becoming proactive? But I know that that's a tiny part of the puzzle but that sounds like that's one part of it. Tell me more about that.   0:11:18.9 BB: Well, I'm not suggesting that being proactive is better than being reactive. What I'm suggesting is that being reactive is a choice and being proactive is a choice. I don't think there's anything wrong with being reactive if we've planned it that way. So the light bulb in our kitchen when it goes out, we'll replace it.   0:11:42.5 AS: It's just not worth putting an inventory together and having to deal with all of that.   0:11:46.2 BB: All of that, and in that regard...   0:11:47.2 AS: It's just down the street.   0:11:49.0 BB: Well, good point, Andrew. Depending on how far the store is, I'll carry a few bulbs, right? But the idea is that if I'm going to be reactive then I need that spare. If I'm going to be proactive, then I get out of that rut of waiting for the crisis and I get to save that time, whether it's waiting for the heart attack, being on top of my health. Paying attention to the plumbing system and hearing that it's beginning to slow down and, well, keep using it, keep using it. Next thing you know, Sunday night at midnight, your spouse says, "The toilet's backed up." You're thinking, "Well, there goes Monday." That's at home, and I see the same thing at work.   0:12:32.0 AS: Yep. What I was thinking about was some experience that I... When I teach finance and I teach people about the balance sheet, the accounts receivable and the accounts payable and, specifically, give credit terms to companies and you have inventory in your factory, what I like to tell them is that giving credit terms is a choice.   0:12:52.3 BB: That's right.   0:12:53.2 AS: And they say, "No, it's not a choice. I have to do it. The customer demands it and my competitors do it." And I always say, "That doesn't mean it's not a choice. You're now making the choice to just follow what your competitor is doing."   0:13:07.3 BB: That's right.   0:13:08.7 AS: And what Dr. Deming talked about too is the idea of focusing on your customer, not your competitor. And then I started to talk to them and then I show them some companies that have no inventory or some companies that have no accounts receivable. And then they start thinking, "How do they do that?" And then we start discussing it and I show there is some interesting ways to do this, or thinking about accounts receivable from a strategic perspective. So I have a company that I show my students that has massive inventory. This is bad in the world of finance, for sure, in the world of business. But they have a 50% gross profit margin versus 25% for their nearest competitor. What do they do? They hold the inventory of their customers on the site of their customer. The customer only receives the inventory when the guy takes it out of the bin and then puts it into the production process. So on the one hand, their inventory's super high but on the other hand, they're making a huge profit from it. And I'm telling people that you gotta think differently about these things and not just think that it has to be done this way. What are your thoughts on that?   0:14:30.9 BB: Andrew, what you're saying fits in very well. We get stuck in these ruts of thinking "always". Inventory is always bad. It's always better to be... Why would I be proactive? I think that's a brilliant example of the value proposition of choosing. Choosing. A big thing I've seen in the industry going back 30 some years is what people call a single piece flow. We don't want a batch. Batching is bad. And so I went through a couple of days of training and the big theme of this training was a single piece flow. We're gonna make one at a time. One at a time. We're gonna process one at a time. One at a time. So then I thought, well, wait a minute. So we have this cleaning tank that can handle thousands of parts in this tray that go into the solution. So now that I've taken this training, Andrew, now I'm being told, no, I'm gonna clean one bolt at a time, one bolt at a time, without understanding there's a place for lots of bolts and there's a place for one. And so what you're getting is we get stuck in these solutions that don't quite make sense when you begin to look at things as a system, which is what you're talking about.   0:15:50.6 AS: Yeah. And this is where, when I went through the intro, it's how you help people become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from the biggest opportunities and I think that this really is what we're talking about.   0:16:07.7 BB: Absolutely. And it's understanding choices; the choice to be proactive, the choice to be reactive. And I also use the analogy of I say it's like, Andrew, you got to the end of the road, you made a right hand turn. You're like, "Yeah, I made it right-hand turn." Well, the right hand turn is being reactive. You made a right-hand turn, Andrew. Why didn't you turn left? "There's no left-hand turn." I say, "No, Andrew. There is a left-hand turn but it's in your blind spot." And so we have these ruts, as you're describing, these ruts of "inventory is bad" and all these other things. And as, I forget, Deming quotes... I think it's Will Rogers who used this quote and Deming has a quote similar to it in the beginning of chapter one, "I'd rather know less than so much that ain't so."   [laughter]   0:17:03.9 AS: Yes. And that's where I would say what's interesting about this discussion is it kinda reminds me that so much of my behavior in this life was shaped from when I was a young guy learning and studying Deming's teaching. And then you start to see it come into your thinking like this idea of teaching finance in a way that helps people open up their mind to a different way of thinking about it. And then I show them a company that's massively profitable because they made a choice to hold all the inventory of all their customers.   0:17:39.3 BB: With an appreciation of a greater system.   0:17:42.0 AS: Yeah. And Bill, I'd like to tell you a funny story of my uncle, Uncle Ham. He was in the military, he was logistics, retired as a Lieutenant Colonel. He was in Germany and he ran this huge base and logistics on it. And he said the Commanding General was coming the next week so they got everything ready and they really spit shine the whole place. The Commanding General comes through the whole place and they reach, finally, the parking lot were all the trucks and tanks and everything are out there. And then they were standing there in front of this row of trucks that was really long. And he said, "Well, sir, how was it? What did you think?" And he says, "Ham, it was excellent except for one thing." And he says, "What's that?" And he looked down the front of the vehicles, as he could see all the vehicles lined up, and he said, "Next time I come, could you line them up in a row so that the front of each of them lines up." And then Ham said... He got the General, he said, "Well, can you walk with me over here." And he walked up to the back of him and he saw that they were lined up in the back but they were of different lengths. So Ham said, "Sir, would you like them lined up in the back or in the front? But you can't have both."   [laughter]   0:19:05.8 BB: No, it's a choice.   0:19:09.3 AS: Yeah. I just love that and I think I'm gonna summarize what we've just talked about because I think there's a lot to that. So let me go through a few points and then maybe you can add any final bits to it. What you were talking about was the idea that when you first got into the quality movement, you started realizing that people had different ideas of what quality was but ultimately you came down to this, the idea that most people had was, Does this meet requirements? This is kind of a yes or no answer. It's a black or white. No shades of gray. And then the second part you talked about another question, which is, How many ways are there to meet requirements?   0:19:50.3 AS: And you also talked a bit about how people kept coming to you with things that were broken and how you can be a hero putting out fires all day long but you didn't really advance the business as opposed to starting to prevent problems and see how we can fix things rather than saying if it ain't broke, don't fix it. And then finally, we've wrapped this session up by what I think is the most powerful point of the session, which is that being reactive or proactive is a choice. And you're trying to help people see that just doing it the standard way, they're making a choice and there are consequences to that choice and it may be the right choice. But once you become aware of your thinking, that you have choices on every single thing, then it starts to open up people's minds. What would you add to that summary?   0:20:43.7 BB: A couple of things. One, what I didn't mention that I think is worthwhile pointing out is what did Dr. Deming mean by quality. So I mentioned the traditional quality, Bill Crosby, most others, is quality is conformance. It meets requirements, yes or no. So what I didn't mention is how did Dr. Deming define quality. In The New Economics, Dr. Deming says, "A product or a service possesses quality if it helps someone and enjoys a sustainable market." So what I think is really neat about that is, and that's more about question two which I'll get back to, question one is I define quality. When I hand off to you, Andrew, I say, "This meets requirements." I didn't ask you for your input. I'm just saying, "This met requirements. Boom!" And then I hand it to you. If you don't like it, you say, "Bill, it's not done." But if I give it to you and it meets requirements, I have let go of it physically and mentally.   0:21:48.7 BB: You call me up later and tell me the car had a quarter of a tank of gas, I said, "Andrew, the car has gas." Because we're focusing on question one. Question two. What Dr. Deming is defining is quality, a product or service possesses quality if it helps someone, now I'm saying, "Andrew, what do you think about... How does my work affect you?" Whether I'm giving you a report or a part or something to put together, now I'm judging quality by how well were you able to catch the pass that I gave you, the information that I gave you. That makes quality a relationship issue. And question two, for reasons we'll get into in future sessions, question two is about relationship quality because the infinite number of answers to the question of number two is how well can Andrew catch the ball depends upon how well I throw it to him. And I could throw it a little bit to his right, a little bit to his left. I can still meet the requirements of throwing it within two or three feet of him but I'm not thinking about how easy it is for him to catch it if I'm more direct about that.   0:23:04.3 BB: So question one is traditional quality. Dr. Deming is more about question two. And the other thing I'd say is relative to the choices, I think in terms of organizations as unusual, unusual as adopting Deming's work or business as unusual. And I couch it with shift from big problems, which is focusing all of our time unknowingly fire fighting, to great opportunities in the subtitle. And the caveat there is opportunities for investment, where can I be spending time to save time, and we're missing that category. The more time we spend on black and white thinking, question one, the less time we have to think about how can we improve the system which, again, in our future sessions involves looking at things in context, not in isolation.   0:23:57.9 AS: Fantastic. All right. Well, that I think is a great start. And Bill, on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute, I wanna thank you again for this discussion. For listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. 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, the first in a series of episodes on Awakening Your Inner Deming, Andrew talks with Dr. Bill Bellows about his journey. He started with Taguchi, read his way through other quality "gurus", and finally found Deming in unexpected places - solving big problems in space shuttles along the way! 0:00:02.1 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz. I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm here with featured guest Bill Bellows. Bill, are you ready to share your Deming journey? 0:00:15.7 Bill Bellows: I am ready. I've got my seatbelt on, crash protection devices. I'm ready to go, Andrew. [chuckle] 0:00:23.3 AS: And I am ready indeed. So let me introduce you to the audience. Bill's a 35+ year specialist in the field of quality and engineering management. In addition to adjunct professor roles, he is president of InThinking Services, partnering with clients to facilitate the understanding and application of the Deming philosophy. So, Bill, can you tell us a bit about how you first came to even learn about the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming and what hooked you? 0:00:57.8 BB: Well, I was minding my own business. No. Actually, I finished my graduate studies in 1983 and went to work in the aerospace industry with a sense that I wasn't gonna... [chuckle] I wasn't quite sure I was gonna like it. I greatly enjoyed what I was doing in the field in graduate school, and the work I was to be doing in industry was very similar. So I felt okay, but it didn't take long before I just didn't like it. And I found myself teaching some college classes and then wondering what I wanted to do. And it took about... Two years after I was working at this company, I took a class in problem solving and decision making. A one-week class. And I loved it. I started looking at everything through this lens of a model for decision making, a model for problem solving. 0:02:13.4 BB: And shortly thereafter, I was approached by the training director of the company. We were growing leaps and bounds in terms of business and employment. And this guy came in and was really cool in terms of bringing us what he thought was some really professional development training. And he knew I was excited by this one-week course. And he said, "Bill, how'd you like to be the person in engineering trained in that and to teach this course?" And I was like, "Yeah. Yeah. Sign me up." So I went away for a two-week train the trainer, very intensive training. And what was interesting is I was the only one in the room, two dozen people that wasn't an HR and wasn't a trainer. I didn't know how to train... I was gung ho on the material, but I did not know what it was like to get in front of an audience. And in fact, the instructors used to kid me that I was almost afraid to move beyond the podium. I just wanted to hide behind it. 0:03:17.0 BB: And so I came out of that having been... I have to we prepare for the next day, five minutes, 10 minutes, 20 minutes. Next thing you know, we're preparing these one hour long teachers. And I love... I liked it. And then back at work, the plan was that, given this role as the auxiliary instructor for this material, when people in engineering, my organization, have a need for this training to be used, I'd be called upon. And that was really cool. It got me associated with people I wasn't working with, and it was a much more exciting than what I was doing. And Lo and behold, the guy in training, the director says, "Hey, you know this... " He mentioned Deming's name, and I was a sponge. And I really respected what he was doing. And he gave me... He introduced me to Deming's work. And I remember, I think it was Quality, Productivity and Competitive Position. And I looked at that and I thought, "Okay." 0:04:30.4 BB: But then going back to the problem, we'll come back to that. That was my exposure to Dr. Deming's name. But in parallel, I was working on a very big problem on the... On our number one product, which were gas turbine engines, you could think of as jet engines, for applications in the US Army's battle tank. And we were making 120 of these a month. And I mean, it was a big, big... It was the biggest business of the company. And once or so a year, there'd be a major crisis. We can't ship hardware and the Army would come in and say, "Stop production until you solve this." And I had been dragged into some of those before. And that kind of got me in the realm of, "Hey, why don't you go off and take this training?" So now I'm not sitting in the back of the room. Now I'm in the front of the room but leading the facilitation of these techniques for problem... Mostly problem solving. What is a problem? The car won't start. It used to work. 0:05:38.5 BB: And so we're working on one big problem. And it was... It had incredible relevance relative... This is the height of the Cold War, Andrew. This is '87, '88 timeframe. And there was reason to believe by the Army that the majority of the battle tanks had a problem. And those tanks were the front line of defense of the allied forces in Europe. And so, we were running tests 24/7 trying to solve this, solve this, solve this, solve this, solve this, and we weren't going anywhere. And at one of the meetings, once a month, somebody had to go explain to the army, essentially our lack of progress. At one of those meetings, somebody said General Motors makes the transmissions for the tanks, and whenever they have an issue like this, they use this thing called Taguchi methods. So we're gonna contact General Motors and ask for their help and you're gonna send somebody then in Indianapolis to find out what it is and is it relevant. 0:06:49.8 BB: And so I go to this meeting and I learn about these goings-on, and I turn to the manager of the tank engine program. And I said, "So who's gonna go to Indianapolis?" And he said, "You are." And I looked at him dumbfounded and I said, "Why me?" He says, "You're the problem-solving guy." He says, "I want you to go." And Andrew, I had no interest in going. I was looking for reasons why it made no sense. And in the back of my mind anytime I get into a situation where I'm not happy with whatever it is, I look for something positive to make it appeasing. And believe it or not, I didn't wanna go to Indianapolis, but I thought, but I can go to the Indy 500 Museum, which a neighbor did years ago, and if nothing else, I can go to the Indy museum. And that's really what I was looking forward to, is going to the Indy museum 'cause I thought this meeting was just gonna be a waste of time. 0:07:49.7 BB: And I go into the meeting and I'm... And this is what hooked me on Taguchi then we'll come back to Deming. I go into the meeting and there were these transmission division's top people in Taguchi methods. Well, their senior people, their top most person had recently left the transmission division to go work for a new part of GM called the Saturn Corporation. And I'm thinking, holy cow, your top Taguchi guy is at Saturn, which I knew about. So now I'm thinking, 'cause prior to going out, I did a literature search. We didn't have the internet and I pulled up a bunch of stuff and it was just a mishmash. But when he said, "Our top guy who wrote this book... " and he showed me the book, "went to the Saturn Corporation," I'm thinking, now my ears are perking up. 0:08:56.4 BB: And then he says the other thing that's funny here. They brought in their chief transmission designer and he looked at the drawings of the parts that were failing in the engine. And he says, "This looks like a German design." I don't know anything about design, but he looks at the drawings and he says, "This looks like a German design." And I said, "It is a German design." In fact, I said, "The people who designed this engine designed the very first German jet engine in the late '30s for Hitler." I said, "It's the same team of people." And so anyway, he looked at it and he had some ideas, but that wasn't why I was there. But then the other two guys were there, and the first question they asked me is, "How do you come up with ideas for what's wrong with this tank engine?" I said, "Everyone's got an idea." And I said, "And what if that doesn't work?" He says, "Here's what we do. Somebody comes up with an idea and every idea we come up with, we write it down and we go run a 10-hour test at a thousand bucks an hour, which I thought was expensive. 0:10:01.5 BB: And then at the end of the test, we decide to go forward or not. Are we onto something or not? And he said, "What if it's not?" And I said, "Well, then somebody's always got an idea, somebody's always got an idea. We're running test, we're running test. Well, why are we here?" Because we're running through ideas, running through ideas, and we ain't finding anything. So then he says, "What do you measure?" And it's so funny. I don't know anything about gears other than the gears have teeth. I'm a heat transfer guy. [chuckle] So I said, "After each test, somebody goes to the manager in the gear group and shows them the gears that contact each other," and he holds 'em up and he says, they look good or they look bad. He says, "How does he do that?' I says, "He just looks at 'em." He says, "He doesn't measure anything?" I said, "No, he just holds them up to the light and he says, that looks worn, or that doesn't look worn." 0:11:01.3 BB: And I said, "Based on that decision, we run the next test." Well, he says, "Here's our first piece of advice." He said, "Stop thinking of it as being it's worn or it's not." He said, "It's really shades of grey." And he says, "What I want you to do is measure each tooth on each gear before and after." He said, "You're throwing away a lot of information based on this measurement." And I thought, okay, okay. And I said, how do you do it? Blah, blah, blah. And I went back about a week later based on what he shared with me and we put together a test plan that solved that problem in about two weeks later. And so now I'm all over Taguchi's work, I am all over Taguchi's work, all over Taguchi's work, and it became my next look. 0:11:49.0 AS: What does Taguchi have to do with just measuring versus eyeballing something? 0:11:54.9 BB: Well, that's a good question. I'd say Taguchi's work in that situation was the use of fractional factorial testing, but the issue was that we were treating the data as black and white, which is, in terms of statistics, it is a poor way of doing things, but that's... It wasn't... 0:12:19.0 AS: So either you accept or reject as opposed to measuring? 0:12:22.1 BB: Yeah. And I was... I took an undergraduate class in statistics and I just... It wasn't a field I didn't know that much about. So I just bought into it and he just brought it to my attention, and I said, okay, and it kind of makes sense where he's coming from, but the... So really, the biggest thing that came out of the meeting was not so much... It was driven by you gotta look at this Taguchi guy and it was a combination of running tests using Taguchi's ideas, which would've included using variable data and not... What was it called? Category data. And so that, it was just incredible. This was a problem that was going on with incredible high visibility at the Pentagon, and it got us out of a big jam. And we just couldn't, the answer was right in front of us, but we couldn't see it based on not so much the testing method, the evaluation method. So then that got me in love with Dr. Taguchi's work, so... 0:13:40.4 AS: Let's stop there for a second and think about the listeners for a second, and the viewers. How would you describe the lesson that you learned from that experience? 0:13:56.2 BB: I say a really big lesson is that a simple shift in our thinking, kind of like putting on glasses allowed us to see what we couldn't see that was right in front of us. 0:14:11.7 AS: And it happened by you going outside of the organization also, it sounds like. 0:14:15.7 BB: Oh inside... Oh, the organization. See, I had no reason to challenge the organization. These were the gear people. I'm a heat transfer person, so I don't challenge the gear people. What is that all about? That's why I'm just going along with the guy says, "What do you measure?" I said, again, I was out of my element relative to how organizations operate, out of my element relative to... Now I just looked at that and say, they're the experts. Why would I... I mean, [chuckle] I was just gullible. And I don't think that's uncommon. Where I worked, I found that there were fields in which everyone was an expert. And then there were fields in which... Meaning that if you... Where I worked in Connecticut, if you had some skill with statistics, people would get outta your way and they would just treat you like you walked on water, even though you were full of it. They just bowed to Andrew because you... 0:15:33.2 BB: And so I think it was something like that. I just didn't... And again, I don't think that's uncommon in organizations. But to your point, in fact, back to your point, when I walked away from that very first meeting, and here's what was cool is, it was the two of them, the designer left the room and were in a small conference room. And here I am with two instructors and me, two instructors and one student. I had a ball. And I'm taking notes and I'm writing everything down. And I'm asking this one, asking this one, asking this one, asking this one. And the plan was I would come back in a week, take the ideas, go back, talk to the experts. Well, one of the things we did when we went back is we threw out everything we thought we knew about those experiments because every decision we had made was based on this premise of look and hold a part up to the light. 0:16:27.6 BB: So I said, all this testing is meaningless. So now we've gotta go back to the original list and go forward 'cause typically you'd think, like with Edison, you try this, try this, try this. You don't go backwards. We went backwards based on what you're talking about is that I lost trust in everything we thought we knew. So we went back to the original list, which was... And the original list was what a bunch of recent design changes. So we went back to that list that had been tested, and using a shifting from black and white data to continuum data, we discovered what no one else could see. And it just jumped right out. It was just so damn obvious what was going on, but we couldn't see it. And so that got me intrigued in Taguchi's work. I was then on a mission to learn everything I could. And I then began to see my role in the organization as the facilitator of training that I was doing, and then training in this and helping the organization on applications. 0:17:41.9 BB: And it didn't take long. We were solving some pretty big problems after that. And the VP of engineering liked what was going on. And I went to one day and I said, "I'd like a job," I said, "There's incredible opportunities for us to use this, and I'd like to be the person leading that effort." And he smiled, and... "Andrew, this is the height of TQM, this is 1988. TQM is huge." And he's kinda nodding to me. And sometime thereafter I told him, I said, well what is I brought the Taguchi people in from Detroit to do a big seminar, $30,000. And I'm in charge of bringing them in. I'm in charge of who's coming to this. I remember I went to the HR training guy and I said, "Who do I invite to this training? This is out of my league." And he gave me incredible advice, and I'm sure you've heard before, he said, "It's easier to ask... " He said, "It's easier to apologize than ask permission." 0:18:48.5 BB: He said, "You are in charge of the whole damn thing." He said, "You invite who you think needs to be there." And I was like, whoa, [laughter] And I said, when did he had to tell me that. And I had so many from engineering, so many from operations, so many from procurement, invited the people in, took the course, we were able to as part of the course show what we had done and we were on a roll. And eventually I went to the VP of engineering and I said, "This is what I wanna do." And I even... In a nice way, he and I got along really well and I said, "The job I want, I've shared with you," and I said, "And I really hope it comes to be." I said, "But if it doesn't come to be, it will be because I found that job elsewhere." [laughter] 0:19:44.0 BB: "So if I come to you and say I'm leaving, this is why." 0:19:50.0 AS: It's for that job. 0:19:50.6 BB: This is why. And then in the very same time frame that I'm out looking, looking, looking, looking, looking 'cause it would... Did not appear to be coming. And then I heard about Deming again and I heard that he was speaking about an hour away from where I worked. And at that point, I had taken an introduction to Taguchi's course, an advanced course where I drove to Detroit and self-funded a week's vacation. I was intense. And I hear about Deming speaking in the area and I thought, "Being a student of quality, I need to go find out what this is all about." So I... 0:20:28.0 AS: And what year is that and what city was it that that was happening in? 0:20:34.8 BB: Dr. Deming was speaking in February of 1990 in Danbury, Connecticut at Western Connecticut State University, and he spoke three times that day. I was there for all three and I have videotapes from the inviter, the professor. He shared with me two of the three videotapes, and one of them, the evening lecture about an hour and a half long I believe is on YouTube. I can get you that information to the link and... But Dr. Deming spoke for about an hour to the faculty, an hour to the students, and what was so cool is I attended with two colleagues from a graduate school who were in transition and I said, "Hey, there's this Deming guy appearing." He was about... He was appearing about midway between where these classmates were. So they drove and got there and I got there and we're driving around campus trying to find where this is. And what's so cool was we found the building, and found this auditorium which was empty, and as soon as we find the room, we turn, and there's Dr. Deming getting out of a limo. [chuckle] 0:21:49.9 BB: And it's about noon time, and he's with his host and all in there, and I guess they went off for lunch. So we're in the room before any... So when we found the room, we see this guy that looks like Dr. Deming. So, okay, this is the right place. So we just kind of made ourselves at home there, kind of sat. Found the place where we wouldn't be sitting kind of in the back, and he came in and started speaking, and he was entertaining. But so much of what he was saying, he was using a language that was nowhere near anything I had learned from Dr. Taguchi, who in my opinion, I was just in love with Taguchi's work. So I'm looking at Deming by comparison, I'm thinking that doesn't fit what I know from Taguchi. That doesn't fit, that doesn't fit, that doesn't fit. [laughter] So he gave pretty much the same presentation to the students and the faculty and then a little bit longer in the evening. And so much of what he said was interesting. 0:23:02.6 BB: And some of it is entertaining, I mean, entertaining in the sense that I could tell it was a joke. I mean, some of his jokes are in the context of his work and I wouldn't laugh at that 'cause I don't understand the context, but others were, so it was interesting. And then a few days later, the two guys who went with me, who lived in my hometown, I went to see them and a third classmate who got his MBA when we were getting Masters in Engineering, he showed up and he knew of Deming and he said, "So what'd you learn?" And the thing that stood out more than anything else, I said, "I don't quite... " [chuckle] I said, "I don't understand the majority of what he said." I said, "But what did stand out... " I told this classmate, I said, "I've never heard anyone speak ill of competition," 'cause Dr. Deming referenced Alfie Kohn's book, the case against competition. I can't remember the... "No Contest", right? 0:24:12.8 BB: And the guy says, "Well, what's wrong with competition?" And I said, "I don't know." I said, "All I know is he distinctly did not like it." And I'd never heard anyone... When I say people, until Deming, I've never heard anyone speak ill of competition. People always say, it brings out the best in people, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, but here's Deming railing against it, and that was what stuck in my mind from Tuesday through Saturday was, he doesn't like competition. 0:24:45.1 AS: And when he was talking about competition, was he talking about competition, setting up competition within your company? Or he doesn't like companies competing with each other? 0:24:54.0 BB: No, and that's a very good point. And he's... And I believe that in Deming community there's some confusion. It was hard for me to distinguish competition within the company from competition between Ford and GM. All I knew is he didn't like it. 0:25:14.4 AS: Yep. 0:25:15.0 BB: And yeah. I mean, fast-forward he's very... 0:25:17.6 AS: In America, that's just a bizarre concept. 0:25:19.9 BB: He's talking about competition... Well, he's talking about competition within the team and he would say, "Naturally, Ford and GM are gonna compete in the marketplace, so they may find opportunities to collaborate." But at that point, what just blew me away was this guy doesn't like competition. That's the only... I mean, he'd mentioned special causes and common causes. That didn't mean anything to me. I never heard those words before. So, I mean, nowadays when I go back and watch it, I can see how... What an incredible set of material he was presenting, but I didn't have anything to hold onto to be able to... I'm looking at what he's doing through a Taguchi lens, looking for the black and white and the shades of gray and some other things. But there's so much of what he was saying didn't come close. 0:26:11.9 BB: But going back to the comment of the colleague... The classmate, he said, what's wrong with the competition? I distinctly remember saying to him, I said, "I don't know." I said, "But maybe because we did okay. And graduating getting master's degree," I said, "Maybe we like competition because we won - that we did okay." And what I was also thinking about when I said that was I had a summer job in college and a factory in my hometown, and in the factory people I went to grade school with, and I was thinking of them. And so when he said,"What's wrong?" I'm thinking, I've got a PhD in mechanical engineering. I didn't drop outta high school and go work on a factory. And that's what I was doing. I'm self-reflecting on, maybe it worked for me, but maybe it didn't work for the others. And that's pretty much... And I believe in that timeframe. I mean, Dr. Deming hands out an article at that time on Profound Knowledge, two or three pages and yeah, okay. There's four elements, but I pretty much put it in the back burner. 0:27:24.0 AS: So what happened next and how did you move on in your Deming journey? 0:27:29.6 BB: Well, that was February of 1989. Later that summer, I took an advanced class in Taguchi methods, and I'm interviewing with Dr. Taguchi's company. I didn't have gray hair. I didn't have any training experience. I didn't quite fit the mold they were looking for. And so I'm trying this, and I'm just trying every opportunity, I want a job in Taguchi methods. And towards the end of the year, I met some people and they gave my resume to RocketDyne where I eventually was hired and now I'm working full-time as a Taguchi expert. You know who is an expert. If I know more than you, that makes me an expert Andrew. [laughter] 0:28:18.5 AS: One step ahead. 0:28:20.6 BB: But where Deming came back to me was 1993, The New Economics comes out, and occasionally, I go to the bookstore, that's just before Amazon. So I go to the bookstore and I was subscribing to the American Society for Quality. So I was in that community of quality practitioners learning about it. And I literally went to the bookstore... A brick and mortar bookstore, got a copy of The New Economics, and what do I do when I look at it? First thing I do, I go to the index and say, what does this guy think of Dr. Taguchi? [chuckle] And I go to the end and it's Genichi Taguchi. So I go to the page's reference, and what floored me was chapter 10, the very last chapter, the last six pages is all about Dr. Taguchi's work. And I'm thinking, I like this guy, I like this guy. 0:29:27.5 BB: So the vote of confidence in what he is talking, I'm thinking. So I think Taguchi stuff is everything and Deming's liking it too. And when I read The New Economics... So meanwhile, in Connecticut, when I was brought in to solve, help, support issues, once or twice a year, I pretty much stopped my day job, went full-time into this problem solving practitioner facilitator mode, which could take a month or two months. And then I go back to my job. Now in Connecticut, I'm the full-time problem solving guy. This is not a part-time thing. It's a full-time thing. And the exciting thing is I'm working on some very big issues, some of which were a couple months old. One in the spatial domain engine was a year and a half old. And this is exciting, but then I'm starting to realize that there's something wrong with the business model at the organization. 0:30:28.7 BB: And when I looked at Dr. Demings, when The New Economics came out, again, I had spent three years working on major problems in the special domain engine, major problems on space station hardware that RocketDyne was developing, the electric power for. I'm briefing very senior NASA people on problem solved, problem solved, problem solved. But I'm starting to hyperventilate thinking we are kept in business by being able to solve problems. The problems we don't solve, what NASA does is they call you up and they say, "Andrew, we've given you the contract to develop the engine." You're like, "Yep, yep, yep." "And we've given you the contract to produce the engine." "Yep, yep, yep, yep." "But we understand you've got a problem on this component. We're looking to have somebody else make that." 0:31:19.7 BB: And what I saw in front of me was I'm working on a problem that's a year and a half old. There's other problems on the engine. NASA's getting frustrated saying, we're gonna outsource this work to a competitor. And I'm thinking we're gonna lose the engine one component at a time. So I'm working on a big component. And before that problem was solved, a bigger dollar value component was given to a competitor. And I'm thinking one after another. So when I read The New Economics, the first thing that jumped out is, what I'm experiencing is not unique to where I work. What I read into Dr. Deming's work, my interpretation of Deming's work was kind of reinforcing that problem solving is the result of how we see the world, that we're stuck in a rut, because I'm looking and thinking... 0:32:16.7 BB: Again, the good news is I'm kept in. I'm being kept incredibly busy working on some very high visibility problems, going to very senior people at NASA headquarters to present solutions with the president of the company. I'm feeling really good. I mean, relative to having fun, but I'm thinking, but fundamentally how the company is running is not sustainable. And so, I'm looking and thinking, "I'm enjoying this. I'm keeping busy." But we shouldn't have these problems. If we understood what Deming's talking about, my interpretation was we could be preventing these problems, not solving these problems. And I'm not saying all problems, but I'm just thinking that we're behind the eight ball, and I looked at Deming's work as how to get out in front of it, not behind it. And the big part of it was we didn't understand variation. 0:33:15.9 BB: And so what I looked at it was, if you're ignoring variation, then you're... And we'll get into more detail in another session, but what I found was we didn't see the warning signs, the way it was... This goes back to the black and white, and I liken it to things are going well, which is like, your car has gas. Okay, the car has gas. Should I go get gas? No. How do I know we shouldn't get gas, Andrew? Because the car is running. 0:33:48.2 AS: The car has gas. Yeah.   0:33:50.0 BB: And so I'm thinking, "So why are people coming to me with a problem?" Because when the car is running, they don't think they need gas. [chuckle] And now I'm thinking, "If we just had gas gauges, simple devices to monitor and get away from the car has gas or it doesn't, which is the black and white thinking that I grew to, not despise, but just become aware of its limits. And now I'm realizing it, if we looked at things along a continuum, we could be preventing these problems in the first place. And then I'm thinking, "I mean, we've got an incredibly sophisticated engineers and hardware, but we're falling victim to a mindset that says the car has gas, but nobody's asking how much." But so I, from that moment on, reading Deming's book one, it was holy cow, because the riddle I was trying to solve was, why do you come to me when the car runs outta gas? 0:34:54.2 BB: And what it didn't dawn to me was why should they come see me when the car has gas? [laughter] And Deming was... Again, and I'm not saying everybody looks at Deming's ideas the same way. And we both know that's not the case, but what excited me about him at that point was that what I was dealing with was not... The solution wasn't technical. The solution was a shift in mindset. And I then very distinctly began moving from all about Taguchi to all about Deming. And what was interesting is when I started to share that influence with people, really good friends in the Taguchi community, they looked at me, some of them down their nose. Then I've...   0:35:53.3 AS: A traitor to the cause.   0:35:56.5 BB: I'm just like I had discovered a new religion, but they looked at me like, "Deming? Deming?" And I'm thinking to myself, "Well, first of all, I was, I had great... " These were really sharp people in the Taguchi community that I had greatest respect for. And I thought they'd be excited by that. And what I was sensing was kind of a weakness. And I then, from that point on, I went from the solution was Taguchi training and advanced training and blah, blah blah. And then began to think that the reason I can't get in to do these things that I wanted to do with Dr. Taguchi's work, which is focusing on things that are good and making them better. Why am I focus... I'm applying Taguchi's ideas to go from bad to good. And all the training I had is that his ideas go the other way from good to better and better and better. And I'm thinking, "I'm stuck in this rut. And Dr. Deming's giving me great insights as to how to get out of the rut." And you can tell from my excitement it was a game changer for me and a game changer for how what we did in terms of how we were deploying Taguchi's ideas and Deming's ideas where I worked.   0:37:25.0 AS: So if we go back, I mean, let's... Now that's a good breakdown of kind of your history with it. And I'm just curious, if we think about a young person right now who doesn't know much about Deming, how would you describe what they can gain from starting their Deming journey? What would you describe now? I mean, in the beginning you've described kind of simple solutions to simple problems, but there's so much more that you started discovering.   AS: Let's just talk about when I think about young people these days and I look at the management that they're learning in universities, their MBAs and all the things, and I'm looking at the KPIs and things like that, that are going on in this world, I see some strong reasons why people should pay attention to the teachings of Dr. Deming. And I'm just curious, the question I like to ask is, why Deming? Why now? BB: Yeah. I'd say my approach is to use examples with people of all ages that are new to Deming, right? So you don't have to be right out of college. But I like to look at it as how can I help you understand through questions and examples the degree to which you have the ability to see with new eyes right now, meaning that when I talked earlier about the limits of black and white thinking, versus shades of gray thinking. Shades of gray thinking is looking at a gas gauge and see the gas gauge is going from full to less to less to less. It's time to get gas while I still have gas. Black and white thinking just says I have gas. What about now? I have gas.   AS: Accept, reject. [chuckle] BB: And it's not to say that black and white thinking is bad, but it's simple versus shades of gray thinking. So what I point out to people is in our personal lives, we use both modes. Throughout the day we're in one cat... We're in one mode or the other not paying attention. And it may well be that the mode we're using is the proper mode to use in that situation. But if we became more aware of those modes, if we had the ability to flip the switch deliberately, 'cause right now what I found is I can ask you a question and get you to go into the black and white mode. You don't know that, and I'll give you another question. And to me, you're jumping between modes, you don't know it. So my strategy, is how people become aware. Why? Because what Dr. Deming's... I'll give you an incredible, a great quote that Russ Ackoff shared in a conversation with Dr. Deming, and Russ says, the... BB: And for those who don't know, Russ was a professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business and he passed away about 10 years ago, or so. And he and Dr. Deming were colleagues, very deeply, deep admirers of one another, but 19 years different. Dr. Deming was 19 years older than Russ. And Russ says, "The characteristic way of management we have taught in the western world is to take a complex system, break it in the parts, and manage each part as well as possible." And then he goes on to say, "And if that's done, the system performs well." And I ask people to complete the sentence and they'll say... And actually the sentence I pose it as, "And if that's done," so the character's way of management is to take a complex and then breaking into parts manage the parts as well as possible. And if that's done, okay, how would you answer it? And they'll say, "things go well, things go well."  BB: Well, what Russ says is, "And the system will behave badly and perform well." And then that's absolutely false. And so what I then try to show to people is that what Russ is describing is what we do at work. And then, I gradually point out to them that what he is describing we should be doing is what we do at home. [chuckle] And I try to get 'em to realize that at work they're responsible for machining a whole... Delivering, converting some data from one form to another and passing it on to the next person. But they don't know what the next person does, and I point out at home, whether they're planning a vacation, planning a wedding, buying a home, they're handing off to the next person. And they are the next person, and then they are the next person. And so I try to point out to them the differences between how you would behave if you were the next person. And by comparison, what do we do at work. BB: And I try to use examples that show the incredible shortcoming of how we treat the next person at work versus how we treat the next person at home, who is me. And so I just give them the same scenario and just say, "So why at home, do we do this and at work we do this?" And then they'll wrap their heads around it. "Because at home I'm dealing with wood and at work, I use metal." And I've had that happen, people will say, "In the garage, I have... I'm working, making a project at wood, and that's why I do that at home. And at work, it's all metal." And I try to point out, "Who designs it at home?" "I do." "Who buys the materials at home?" "I do." Or the elements of whatever it is I'm making and I try to point out, "At home, you are the ones who conceive it, bring together the elements, buying them and putting 'em all together. Then you are the user, but that's not the case at work." BB: And so what I try to do back to your point is show them how much more advanced our thinking at home is in terms of how we treat the next person, me, versus what we're allowed to do, the next person. Try to point out to them is that, "At home, you, the receiver and you are receiving from you the provider, and at home, the person upstream may not be as generous. Nor will you at work be as generous for the next person downstream. So I try to use examples like that of how... And get into the realm of what does it mean to look at things as a system versus looking at things in isolation. And I find examples like that can grab their attention. But it's not uncommon with these people. I'd be learning about what they do and try to use examples from what they do and point out. BB: And again, like we were talking earlier, the difference between a shades of gray approach and a black and white approach versus, am I looking at the thing in isolation? So I try to point out those types of things. Now, I mean depending on who it is, I may look at other aspects of Dr. Deming's System of Profound Knowledge, if I think that will get me a toe into the door. AS: Yep. So let me ask you, in wrapping up, what would you say is the most influential part of Dr. Deming's teaching for your life? BB: The concept of the System of Profound Knowledge is... That has been a... That has changed my life. That there isn't a day that goes by that I don't look at things through the lens he's describing. The other thing I'll say for people that are new, to the Deming philosophy, and you come across this thing called the System of Profound Knowledge. And Dr. Deming would say, "If you have a better name, please help me." You have to call it something. And then you go to a Deming seminar and you learn there's four elements, and then you learn the psychology piece and this piece. And it's not uncommon, we go to school and we learn things a chunk at a time, a chunk at a time, a chunk at a time. And the challenge is that for people that are new to this, study the pieces in terms of Ackoff, in terms of the system of profound knowledge, if you're looking at variation. Dr. Deming's vast experience in education is all about variation and Shewhart's work. BB: But if you wanna study psychology, you have to do what Dr. Deming did, was read books on psychology that are not written by Dr. Deming. Read books on systems such as from Russ Ackoff. And so what I find is my strategy was, I mean, the simplicity of the Deming philosophy relative to the System of Profound Knowledge, no one else put together those elements like that. But what I also point out to people is you're gonna have to go beyond Deming's writings to study systems and bring it back to that focus, study psychology and bring it back to there. Now again, depending on who you're reading in, may not fit the psychology Deming's talking about. But I think a big thing is you gotta be able to go beyond The New Economics to go into depth in those areas. And what you'll find is in the beginning, we think of psychology as separate than variation. BB: And what you'll find is over time, you can't separate, and so that's what I would say is that, I know as you're coming across it and you see it for the first time and you think, "Okay, that's over there, that's over there." But don't be surprised as you continue on your Deming journey that these things come together, and then you realize that that separation is just a teaching device. And that teaching device is in every course we take, we break it in to parts and then at the end of the semester it's a whole. And that's what I would say is, what I find just breathtakingly remarkable is how that system has enabled me to think about things in a way that I would never be able to think about before. And I'm not saying I see everything, but it has enabled me to be in situations where I can turn to colleagues and say, so where do you think we're gonna go based on this decision?   BB: And we can use Dr. Deming's work to get a sense of how that might go off the rails or whatnot. And so if you think of... Dr. Deming would describe his work as a theory of management. And what is a theory? It's a prediction, so I find it's a fascinating crystal ball to look at a situation or a decision being made and start to anticipate what could happen. And I'm thinking, how can that not be invaluable to people? Yep. Well, Bill, on behalf of everyone at The Deming Institute, I wanna thank you again for coming on the show. And I ask, do you have any parting words for the audience? BB: I'd say, if you're new to the Deming community, welcome. [laughter] It's never too late to join. And if you're part of the community, I would say don't stop learning. AS: Fantastic. That concludes another great story from the worldwide Deming community. Remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. 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."

✘ Werbung: https://Whisky.de/Shop Mein Buch Allgemeinbildung ► https://amazon.de/dp/B09RFZH4W1/ Teespring ► https://unterblog.creator-spring.com/ - Leider musste der #Startversuch am 29.8.2022 Richtung #Mond abgebrochen werden. Dies ist der bislang letzte Fehler in einer Reihe an #Fehlern, die das Projekt massiv verzögern und verteuern. Auch Boeing als Lieferant der ersten und zweiten Stufe zeigt in den vergangenen Jahren massive Verzögerungen und Rückschläge in seiner Luftfahrt- und Raumfahrttechnik. Hat sich NASA den falschen Hersteller ausgesucht? Aus meiner Sicht liegt die Problematik viel tiefer. NASASpaceflight.com ► https://youtu.be/0_vyZiVxEEo

Harry Hamlin has has a legendary career appearing in over 90 different projects. One of the most recent is Mr. Winfield from Lifetime's new original limited series, Flowers in the Attic: The Origin. Hamlin who is no stranger to hard work is proud of his character but is family focused constantly talking about the love of his family and daughters. Hamlin touched on his company which is working on creating electricity without hurting the environment, his new projects Anne Rice's Mayfair Witches and Unsinkable. While Hamlin has been seen on Bravo's reality show, The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills he remains untouchable to the unfounded rumors and said that he would pass along that famous sauce recipe over to us. One thing was clear from speaking to Hamlin he loves his work, he loves his daughters, but his one true love is that of his wife, Lisa Rinna.  Host: Monica Gleberman Editor: Miranda Currier Social Media Graphic: Jojo -- Bio: Harry Robinson Hamlin is an American actor of stage, television and films. He was born in 1951, in Pasadena, California, to Berniece (Robinson), a socialite, and Chauncey Jerome Hamlin, Jr., an aeronautical engineer. He graduated from Yale University in 1974 with degrees in Drama and Psychology and was later awarded a Master of Fine Arts in acting from The American Conservatory Theatre in San Francisco. Though awarded an ITT-Fullbright scholarship in acting in 1977 he opted instead to make his feature film debut in Stanley Donen's comedy spoof "Movie Movie" opposite George C. Scott for which he received his first Golden Globe nomination. Best known for his roles a Perseus in "Clash of the Titans" with Lawrence Olivier and Michael Kusac in the Emmy winning TV series "LA Law", he is the son of Chauncey Jerome Hamlin Jr. who helped design the Saturn V rocket with Dr.Wernher Von Braun at Rocketdyne and North American Aviation. He is the grandson of Chauncey Jerome Hamlin who founded the Buffalo Museum of Science in Buffalo, New York. Chauncey Hamlin was also a president of the American Association of Museums and created the International Council of Museums.

This Week’s SPECIAL Interview: Woolsey Fire radioactive releases revealed:  In 2018, the massive Woolsey Fire started at the Santa Susana Field Lab – a nuclear radiation- and rocket fuel-contaminated former Rocketdyne site, located in the hills of Simi Valley only 30 miles from downtown Los Angeles.  It burned through contaminated brush and debris, releasing smoke...

What do we know about the Santa Susana Field Lab? It depends who you ask. In this episode I interview Denise Duffield, Associate Director of Physicians for Social Responsibility. There are a few PDFs I was not able to attach to these notes. I did offer to have Boeing part of the show and they declined. Please find links where you can do further research. The timing of the show is critical as NASA wants to break out of the cleanup agreement they entered in 2010. Info on public hearings is: Best Western Posada Royale, Wednesday, November 20th, 2019 from 6:30–8:30 p.m., 1775 Madera Road, Simi Valley, CA 93065 Corporate Pointe at West Hill, Thursday, November 21st, 2019 from 6:30–8:30 p.m., 8411 Fallbrook Avenue, West Hills, CA 91304 The notice says that written comments due around Dec. 9, via email to msfc-ssfl-eis@mail.nasa.gov     This website from 2017 has good background on SSFL history (and history of cleanup agreements) as well as Boeing's greenwashing, (Boeing's effort to claim that cleaning up the site will do more harm to the environment) and also a map that shows the operational areas of the site for DOE, NASA, and Boeing see https://www.protectsantasusanafromboeing.com/faq/   Another good article for background on SSFL's nuclear past, and on the Woolsey Fire, is https://thebulletin.org/2019/02/a-failure-of-governmental-candor-the-fire-at-the-contaminated-santa-susana-field-laboratory/   And here is the Parents vs SSFL Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/PARENTSvsSSFL/ which will always have the most current news and actions. On Boeing's website, they write "Since acquiring its portion of the Simi Hills site from Rocketdyne in 1996, Boeing has made significant progress with cleanup and restoration. The company secured the future of nearly 2,400 acres as permanent open space habitat to benefit wildlife and the community, fulfilling a commitment made 10 years ago. The transformation of Santa Susana from field laboratory to open space is well underway, with native plants and animals reclaiming most of the previously developed areas of the property." In disagreement with this statement, a year ago, Pacific Magazine wrote, "Fifty years later, the contaminated site has yet to be cleaned up, although this month two federal agencies promised to plow ahead without the site's current owner, Boeing. And in March, the Department of Energy provided $38.3 million in funds to complete the radiologic survey of "Area IV" as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act." This isn't accurate today, as Boeing continues to dodge cleaning up the site to high standards, and the Department of Energy and NASA want out of their agreement from 2010 Administrative Orders of Consent since Boeing is fighting to live up to those standards. Boeing is proposing to clean the site to a "recreational" standard, which could leave up to 98% of the contaminants, as opposed to a "residential" standard, clean enough to build homes on. If you want to take action, you can attend the public meetings in November, contact government officials Henry Stern, Christy Smith, Brad Sherman and Julia Brownley. You can also get information from Parents vs. SSFL and Rocketdyne Clean Up Coalition.      

In part 2 of our interview with Apollo Vet, Jim French, we talk about his experience working and Rocketdyne. New technologies are being developed and things about rocketry was still being discovered! Listen in on this experience then, get a copy of "Firing A Rocket". --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/rocket-talk-radio/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/rocket-talk-radio/support

Since 1969, when an estimated six hundred million people around the world watched two astronauts walk on the surface of the moon, a significant number of people have doubted that it ever took place. A major line of conspiracy theory insists that the footage was faked (and directed by Stanley Kubrick, some have said) in an elaborate hoax engineered by NASA. In 1976, a book called “We Never Went to the Moon” was self-published by a man named Bill Kaysing, a former technical writer at Rocketdyne who claimed to have seen secret government documents. It attracted little notice, but Kaysing continued to make media appearances and fuel doubters into this century. Andrew Marantz, who has written on conspiracy theories for The New Yorker, notes that the moon landing always had skeptics, but the Internet and social media gave them platforms to advance even their most far-fetched views. Marantz sees links between the moon hoax and political conspiracy theories like QAnon. While skepticism toward government claims may be justified, conspiracy theories that dispute the most basic accounts of truth erode the functioning of a democracy, Marantz thinks; they lead to a totalitarian state where, in the words of Hannah Arendt, “everything was possible and ... nothing was true.” 

The Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL or Rocketdyne), north of Los Angeles, burned in the November 2018 Woolsey Fire, threatening toxic exposures from contaminated dust, smoke, ash, and soil. In the 1940s, SSFL with its 10 experimental nuclear reactors was developed for research and weapons testing. In 1959, it suffered an uncontained partial meltdown of at least one sodium reactor referred to by experts as the worst nuclear disaster in U.S history, and the fourth largest release of iodine-131 in the history of nuclear power. Until 1979 the incident and the toxic waste byproduct that still pollutes the ground water, air, and soil was kept secret. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) denied risk from the fire that it created by delaying the long promised cleanup. Their statement failed to assuage community concerns given DTSC’s longtime pattern of misinformation about SSFL’s contamination and its repeated broken promises to clean it up. Jessica Aldridge from SoCal 350 and Adventures in Waste discusses the issues with Denise Duffield, Associate Director of Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles, and Melissa Bumstead, Mother and local advocate, and a founder of Parents Against Santa Susana Field Lab. No More Kids With Cancer: Clean Up the Santa Susana Field Lab Petition: https://www.change.org/p/no-more-kids-with-cancer-clean-up-the-santa-susana-field-lab Interview by Jessica Aldridge from SoCal 350 and Adventures in Waste. Host and Engineer: JP Morris Executive Producer: Mark Morris Music: Javier Kadry Episode 26 Photo: Getty Images/ Sandy Huffaker

Did we land on the moon? Or was NASA able to pull of the greatest hoax in the universe? This documentary presents a large amount of evidence that we discuss in today's episode. Thanks for listening! Please rate, review and subscribe, and follow along on social media! Original Music by Buckethandles Check out our website: www.mysteriousafpodcast.com

Myron Heavin Graduated from Purdue University in 1962 with a BSAE degree in Aeronautical Engineering. He left Indiana and came to California to work on the Saturn IV rocket engine for Rocketdyne.       He later worked designing commercial and military airplanes for Douglas/McDonnell Douglas/Boeing as companies gobbled up other companies.   He retired from Boeing Airplane Company after  50 years.      Myron is married to his wife Sharyl, and they have 3 children and 4 grand-children.      Myron received his MA degree in Biblical and Theological Studies from Talbot Seminary in 2008 and is currently enrolled in a MA degree program in Christian Apologetics (lifelong learning).  While taking a full-time course load at Talbot, he also worked full-time at Boeing, while leading 7 simultaneous Bible Studies.      Myron has been interested in both Theology and Science, and regularly takes Bible Students on field trips to try to to Palomar observatory, JPL, Griffith Observatory etc. 

In our January 2017 podcast, Tim Higgins, President of the In2:InThinking Network, www.in2in.org, and Quality Engineer for NASA, based in Los Angeles, California, shares insights from his 30+ years of studying, applying, and illuminating The Deming System of Profound Knowledge®. Following a brief career as an educator in a public school system, Tim shifted careers and joined the rocket engine industry, employed by “Rocketdyne” (a division of Rockwell, then Boeing, followed by Pratt & Whitney, and now integrated with Aerojet). Along the way, Tim was introduced to Dr. Deming's theory of management and, upon reflection, realized his inclinations against grades in school, while serving as a teacher, could be explained through his appreciation of Profound Knowledge.   For a short time, Tim was a member of Rocketdyne's TQM Office, where he was introduced to the thinking of Genichi Taguchi and partnered with peers to create Rocketdyne's pioneering “InThinking Roadmap” curriculum.   The subsequent focus on thinking modes led to his contributions as a co-founder of the In2:InThinking Network, a non-profit for which he now serves as president.   In 2009, Tim crossed the employment bridge from the contractor side (“Rocketdyne”) to the customer side (NASA), inspired the proposition of assuming a role that would help Rocketdyne become a better contractor. Guided by his extraordinary experiences as a quality advisor, Tim has led study sessions for Dr. Deming's The New Economics for the past 12+ years, under the sponsorship of “Rocketdyne”.    Beginning in 2017, these sessions, comprised of six 90-minute conference calls, are being sponsored by The Deming Institute.   Led by Tim, participants share their interpretations and questions of The New Economics, chapter-by-chapter, covering 2 chapters in each 2-hour session.    A few highlights from Tim's musings with Tripp on the study sessions follow below: Why he believes Deming (management) is about learning The popularity of the question "Why doesn't everyone get “Deming management”?" Why being conscious of context is essential Why, when dealing with a difficulty in perception, using logic is no help is helping others see things differently Issues associated with extrinsic motivation – punishment and rewards Some challenges of letting go of “patting others” on the head The widespread similarity of organizations What would happen if “rating and ranking” systems were used at home? Lessons from transforming his manager Feedback from his VP's administrative assistant on rewards systems His realization that the system we have is perfectly designed to obtain the results we're getting Why asking for different results requires a different system Some implications of empowerment

FEATURED: Don Hancock, Executive Director of the Southwest Information and Research Center, brings us up to date with another insightful update on what’s happening at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) site following the February 14, 2014 plutonium leak that shut the facility down. AND – For Nuclear Hotseat’s third anniversary, Producer/Host Libbe HaLevy shares...

USS Reagan sailors on deck trying to clean up radiation during Operation Tomadachi, their humanitarian aid mission to Fukushima immediately after the March 11, 2011 earthquake and tsunami.  (Note the lack of protective gear.) INTERVIEW: Attorney Charles Bonner, representing USS Ronald Reagan sailors harmed by Fukushima radiation, with an update on their lawsuit against TEPCO. ...

INTERVIEW: Torgen Johnson is a Harvard-educated Urban Planner with a professional degree in Architecture from USC.  He brings a unique perspective to the nuclear conversation based upon three separate professional disciplines.  As a resident of southern California who lives near San Onofre, he interprets the risks to community and accumulated wealth from a single major...

Interview with Daniel Hirsch of Committee to Bridge the Gap on the 1959 Santa Susana Field Laboratory nuclear meltdown – more radiation released than Three Mile Island! – and the current status of clean-up attempts.  PLUS: The battle over San Onofre heats up, with four times the number of damaged pipes in the steam generators...