[MD] The need for quality

Tue Sep 12 09:37:36 PDT 2017

Hi, all , Wes.

I took a snip of your proposal/story

"

I will build a story, that gives you an idea of Deming, and how his
philosophy enhances Pirsig, and how Pirsig's philosophy enhances Deming.
This is a simple story.

The story begins with let us say; I am a new quality /safety manager for a
company with 500 employees that work outdoors.
A senior manager comes to me and tells me the workers injury compensation
payments are too high. He tells me to do something about lowering injuries.
He also adds its costing him on around $3000 dollars per injury, because an
employee sits on average 4 days before recovering from their injury.

I have some statistical data of injuries from the previous 36 months. It
appears that ankle injuries are the most frequently occurring injuries. I
add up the ankle injuries for the 36 months, I then divide by 36 and come
up with a number of 41. So on average this organization has 41 ankle sprain
or fractures that occur every month.

I want to do something because it is a moral thing; lowering that average
will also reduce the number of people who suffer pain and injury each
month. Would someone say my moral thinking is subjective? A psychopath
might.

At this point I calculate standard deviation of 1, and come up with an
upper limit of 47 ankle injuries and a lower limit of 35, I calculate
standard deviation of 2 upper limit 53, lower limit of 29. I calculate
standard deviation of 3 upper limit of 59 and a lower limit 23.

Next month I can forecast the ankle injury rate with 99% certainty will
fall between 59 and 23. I can also say that 68% of the time it will fall
between a standard deviation of 1, from 47 to 35.

Pirsig would call this a static pattern, Deming would say it is in a state
of statistical process control. Pirsig would say it's a system that will
not change unless there is "dynamic quality" added to it. Deming would say
there has to be some "special cause" variation in order for change to
happen, the static pattern he see's is "common cause" variation, it's a
normal distribution curve, it is a normal pattern that occurs in nature.

Let's say I do some research and visit 50 employees out in the field, and
startled to find that 48 of them wear low cut running shoes, only two of
them were wearing something with good solid ankle support

I go to several work boot suppliers, ask them for advice and I am impressed
with one of them having so much knowledge on what good ankle support is in
a workboot. What's average better and best, in both comfort and support,
then he shows me the longest lasting, high quality boot with those
attributes.

At a company meeting, I explain my rational and ask upper management to
reimburse every employee for boot purchase from that one supplier. I add in
that boots are personal protective equipment, and OHS regulations require
us to reimburse our employees for this. Maybe there is a large debate,
maybe the accountant says, "the guys out in the field are all idiots, they
just have to be more careful." Maybe at the end of the meeting the CEO
steps in and says "We have not been able to lower that rate in 3 years, in
spite of threats of termination and terminations, we have lost lots of our
most productive employees." He then agrees to go with my recommendations.

I have done something to change the system, we wanted to see that average
of 41 ankle injuries per month drop, and if we make the next month
measurement and find, that it is below 23 (standard deviation of 3) , it
may mean something. It may mean that the process of how ankle injuries
occurr is no longer a stable process, something has changed in the system.
As more people purchase boots we see, it drops to 20 then the following
month it goes to 15, thats a trend, because in the past 3 years it never
went below 23. Thats improvement in the quality of the working environment
for employees out in the field, thats something that is measureable.

I measure the ankle injury rate for another 36 months, after the changes,
and see that the average is now 13 with the Upper control limit is 21 and
the lower control limit is now 0, thats real, we can see those numbers. Now
that is an improvement in the quality of the working environment of 68%,
specific to ankle injuries.

Maybe the CEO talks with me about those 0 ankle injury months, and tells me
upper management has decided that they want them all to be 0 ankle injury
months. I try to explain to him about human beings and variation. "Common
cause variation in rain, wind, heat, terrain, stress, fatigue, having a
baby, and worried about keeping your job all fix those static patterns of
quality, from 0 to 21. Even the support of an employees direct manager
affect those numbers along with cooperation and teamwork from fellow
employees. Threats of firings or lay-off's do not help, after all, who can
think clearly when they are agitated, because distractions cause those
ankle sprain injuries."

I tell him to expect the average to remain the same around 13. I tell him
the 0-21 variation from month to month is a normal distribution pattern
that is seen in nature. I state to him matter of factly, that business men
cannot really make demands on nature or science to change. Both safety and
quality will always see these normal distribution patterns, and for that
reason it will never reach 0 every month. I say to him that I will try to
come up with some other ways to improve the quality of the working
environment for our employees, but expect it not to move until I come up
with some ideas and we implement those changes......

-------------------------------

(Adrie)
This is not so very different from the story earlier on,in wich case you
proposed a mechanism swinging around a hinge of variables.

I did re-read it several times to reconsider, but i have to come back to my
first comment.It is not critisism but common sense.
I can tell the story with fewer words and lesser vocabulary pitch.But it is
an example to make something clear.Not to ridicule you.

Ok, lets say a guy comes at the banks of the Amazon, finding a statician at
the waterline collecting statistical depth table's.As he likes to go to the
other side,he asks to the statician,"can i safely pass the stream here?",
...Yeah you really can the statician says, the average depth here is around
knee depth only.So the dude starts walking to the other side,only to drown
in a part of the river that has some greater depth.Statistically very
normal of course.

What i can see in your model , Wes , is that you create story's like this to
make something clear by adding complexity to the model.If i compare my
example with yours, the case is the same, but you will introduce  say like
the speed of the stream, the position of the rocks in the riverbed,the
rotation of the earth,the lenght of the guy, can he swim or not?;;;;;etc,
but!, models like this
wil tell us nothing, at all,about philosophy.They fail to predict
reality.Or morality.

2017-09-11 5:44 GMT+02:00 WES STEWART <wesstt at shaw.ca>:

>
> Hello Dan, Andrew and X-Acto;
> I have responded to your question towards the end X-Acto.
> Thanks for the response Ardie;
>
> Yes these are old ideas, concepts that are approaching 90 years, yet they
> still work for quality.
>
> I will build a story, that gives you an idea of Deming, and how his
> philosophy enhances Pirsig, and how Pirsig's philosophy enhances Deming.
> This is a simple story.
>
> The story begins with let us say; I am a new quality /safety manager for a
> company with 500 employees that work outdoors.
> A senior manager comes to me and tells me the workers injury compensation
> payments are too high. He tells me to do something about lowering injuries.
> He also adds its costing him on around $3000 dollars per injury, because an
> employee sits on average 4 days before recovering from their injury.
>
> I have some statistical data of injuries from the previous 36 months. It
> appears that ankle injuries are the most frequently occurring injuries. I
> add up the ankle injuries for the 36 months, I then divide by 36 and come
> up with a number of 41. So on average this organization has 41 ankle sprain
> or fractures that occur every month.
>
> I want to do something because it is a moral thing; lowering that average
> will also reduce the number of people who suffer pain and injury each
> month. Would someone say my moral thinking is subjective? A psychopath
> might.
>
> At this point I calculate standard deviation of 1, and come up with an
> upper limit of 47 ankle injuries and a lower limit of 35, I calculate
> standard deviation of 2 upper limit 53, lower limit of 29. I calculate
> standard deviation of 3 upper limit of 59 and a lower limit 23.
>
> Next month I can forecast the ankle injury rate with 99% certainty will
> fall between 59 and 23. I can also say that 68% of the time it will fall
> between a standard deviation of 1, from 47 to 35.
>
> Pirsig would call this a static pattern, Deming would say it is in a state
> of statistical process control. Pirsig would say it's a system that will
> not change unless there is "dynamic quality" added to it. Deming would say
> there has to be some "special cause" variation in order for change to
> happen, the static pattern he see's is "common cause" variation, it's a
> normal distribution curve, it is a normal pattern that occurs in nature.
>
> Let's say I do some research and visit 50 employees out in the field, and
> startled to find that 48 of them wear low cut running shoes, only two of
> them were wearing something with good solid ankle support
>
> I go to several work boot suppliers, ask them for advice and I am
> impressed with one of them having so much knowledge on what good ankle
> support is in a workboot. What's average better and best, in both comfort
> and support, then he shows me the longest lasting, high quality boot with
> those attributes.
>
> At a company meeting, I explain my rational and ask upper management to
> reimburse every employee for boot purchase from that one supplier. I add in
> that boots are personal protective equipment, and OHS regulations require
> us to reimburse our employees for this. Maybe there is a large debate,
> maybe the accountant says, "the guys out in the field are all idiots, they
> just have to be more careful." Maybe at the end of the meeting the CEO
> steps in and says "We have not been able to lower that rate in 3 years, in
> spite of threats of termination and terminations, we have lost lots of our
> most productive employees." He then agrees to go with my recommendations.
>
>
> I have done something to change the system, we wanted to see that average
> of 41 ankle injuries per month drop, and if we make the next month
> measurement and find, that it is below 23 (standard deviation of 3) , it
> may mean something. It may mean that the process of how ankle injuries
> occurr is no longer a stable process, something has changed in the system.
> As more people purchase boots we see, it drops to 20 then the following
> month it goes to 15, thats a trend, because in the past 3 years it never
> went below 23. Thats improvement in the quality of the working environment
> for employees out in the field, thats something that is measureable.
>
> I measure the ankle injury rate for another 36 months, after the changes,
> and see that the average is now 13 with the Upper control limit is 21 and
> the lower control limit is now 0, thats real, we can see those numbers. Now
> that is an improvement in the quality of the working environment of 68%,
> specific to ankle injuries.
>
> Maybe the CEO talks with me about those 0 ankle injury months, and tells
> me upper management has decided that they want them all to be 0 ankle
> injury months. I try to explain to him about human beings and variation.
> "Common cause variation in rain, wind, heat, terrain, stress, fatigue,
> having a baby, and worried about keeping your job all fix those static
> patterns of quality, from 0 to 21. Even the support of an employees direct
> manager affect those numbers along with cooperation and teamwork from
> fellow employees. Threats of firings or lay-off's do not help, after all,
> who can think clearly when they are agitated, because distractions cause
> those ankle sprain injuries."
>
> I tell him to expect the average to remain the same around 13. I tell him
> the 0-21 variation from month to month is a normal distribution pattern
> that is seen in nature. I state to him matter of factly, that business men
> cannot really make demands on nature or science to change. Both safety and
> quality will always see these normal distribution patterns, and for that
> reason it will never reach 0 every month. I say to him that I will try to
> come up with some other ways to improve the quality of the working
> environment for our employees, but expect it not to move until I come up
> with some ideas and we implement those changes.
>
> Maybe the accountant meets me in the hallway moments later and says, " We
> can have a 0 ankle injury month, and if you cannot do it every month maybe
> we should hire a quality/ safety manager that can."
>
> Hello X-Acto, I will keep to Pirsigs or Demings description of a SYSTEM,
> because both of them talk about corruption, you can review Pirsigs full
> description in Chapter 8.
> Pirsig is extremely artful in his description because he has a Doctorate
> in Creative Writing; Deming a physicist, mathematician, and statistician,
> sometimes outwardly states they are corrupted by their greed. I think that
> the systems theorists description that you sent me was well thought out of
> what it should be; but naive as to what happens in real life, a SYSTEM can
> create the Iraq war and unknowingly produce an ISIS, but was it really an
> intelligent move?
>
> Here is some of what Pirsig states in Chapter 8;
>
> "But to tear down a factory or revolt against a government....because it
> is a system is to attack effects rather than causes, and as long as the
> attack is against effects, no change is possible. The true system, the real
> system is the construction of systemic thought itself, rationality of
> thought, and if a factory is torn down but the rationality of thought which
> produced it is left standing, then that rationality will simply produce
> another factory."
>
> "If a revolution destroys a systematic government, but the same systematic
> patterns of thought are left intact,
> then those same patterns will repeat themselves in succeeding
> governments." From Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert
> Pirsig
>
> In this imaginary story "the real system is the construction of systemic
> thought itself, rationality of thought" of the capitalist system
> which is based wholly on greed and self interest, which is a part of
> government just as much as it is part of business. The rationality of the
> CEO and the accountant in this made up story is the real system, "the
> construction of systemic thought itself, rationality of thought",is not
> science its disturbed and biased and will always make poor decisions
> concerning quality because of self interest, self importance and greed.
>
> From: "X Acto" <xacto at rocketmail.com>
> To: "moq discuss" <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2017 11:23:21 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD] The need for quality
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Sep 7, 2017, at 11:35 AM, Andrew Chu <andrew.chu at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: "WES STEWART" <wesstt at shaw.ca>
> > To: "moq discuss" <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 10:15:27 PM
> > Subject: Re: [MD] The need for quality
> >
> > Hell Dan and All;
> >
> > I get a lot of my philosophy of quality, not from Pirsig but from
> William Edwards Deming. It was back in the twenties when Walter Shewhart
> and Deming were searching for ways to improve the Quality of transmission
> lines at Bell Labs. They had defined Quality as a SYSTEM that is in a state
> of continuous improvement. Shewhart and Deming looked at all SYSTEMs then
> used their intellect or reason to search for ways to improve the SYSTEM.
> >
> > Martin Luther King also used his intellect for ways to improve the
> SYSTEM, in which he paid the ultimate price that was delivered from
> Biologically dominated human beings.
> >
> Ron interjects:
> Hello Wes,Dan, All,
> I've been following the thread off and on and I was curious about how Wes
> defined the term "SYSTEM".
> In system theory it is defined as
> an entity with interrelated and interdependent parts; it is defined by its
> boundaries and it is more than the sum of its parts (subsystem).
> Positive growth and adaptation of a system depend upon how well the system
> is adjusted with its environment, and systems often exist to accomplish a
> common purpose (a work function) that also aids in the maintenance of the
> system or the operations may result in system failure.
> With the goal being isotelesis.
> the intelligent direction of effort toward the achievement of an end.
>
>
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>

-- 
parser