The “EX” Factors: Ford’s Quality Journey

Posted on June 28, 2011 by complexified

Last month I attended the annual World Conference on Quality and Improvement in Pittsburgh.  It was an exciting time for me, as I supported the publication of my Primer on Complexity and Quality, and gave a very well-attended session on viewing quality “Through the New Lens” of complex systems.

One of the great pleasures of attending the WCQI, is the range of excellent keynote speakers presenting wonderful narratives of organizational improvement.  This year was no exception.  ASQ Chief Executive Paul Borawski has provided a rich set of video interviews with Bennie Fowler of Ford.  As Paul points out in his “View From the Q” post at http://asq.org/blog/2011/06/four-questions-talking-quality-with-ford-motor-company/  most of us know that Ford famously adopted “Quality is Job One” as its corporate slogan in the 1980s.  As we see in Bennie’s comments, much has changed in the pursuit of “quality” since most of America first heard of W. Edwards Deming in 1980.

What struck me in Bennie Fowler’s comments were a series of what I call the “EX Factors.”  I’ve written and talked about some of these in other posts here and on Twitter.  So let me provide a brief description of what I see emerging at Ford:

EXpanding the Definition of Quality: Paul and Bennie talked about how the “old definition of quality” was no longer enough.  In other words, reliability is no longer the sole criteria of what we now mean by “quality.”  As Bennie Fowler states, Ford understands the EXpanded (and expanding) definition of quality.  What does this mean?  As Paul and Bennie discuss, the “old” quality was about conformance to specification and reliability.  Today’s EXpanded definition is about the dynamics of the relationship between the customer and the product.  The true quality of the Ford car comes to life only when the customer looks at the car, sits in the car, drives the car, or owns the car.  At the same time, what that car IS, reflects the design thinking, intention, and commitment of the Ford company that made it.

EXpectation versus EXperience: since the time of Henry Ford, the company has understood that it is in business to sell cars.  But where Henry was determined to “have it his way,” Bennie Fowler clearly expresses the company’s current understanding of its relationship with every customer.  Deming, Feigenbaum, and other quality pioneers wrote that the mind of customer is often changing.  But Bennie Fowler and Ford are now very much aware of the need for the customer EXperience, to meet or EXceed their EXpectations.  As Bennie said, cars that do not break is simply the minimum standard.  He noted the need to act with design thinking and intention, building great-looking cars, with appealing interiors, down to the tactile feel of interior materials. With critically-acclaimed new cars including the Fiesta, Focus, Fusion, and forthcoming Escape, Ford “gets the EX” in customer experience.

EXecution:  one thing that Bennie and Paul discuss, that hasn’t changed over the last 30 years, is the need for EXecution.  The best intentions won’t matter to your customers if you do not execute well.  Are you doing what you intended, the way you meant it to be?  How are you measuring your results and impact in your market?

EXamine what happened: More than ever, Ford is paying attention to what their customers and their global market have to tell them.  They are EXamining both quantitative and qualitative data from multiple sources and multiple perspectives.  This drives the continuous learning that fuels continuous improvement.

EXcite with the nEXt: Bennie spoke about innovation, and particularly the application of new technologies to improve Ford’s customers’ experiences.  Clearly, this is not Henry Ford’s “give them Model T’s, make them black.” This is another example of a Ford company that now understands the vital dynamics of its relationship with its customers.  The EXcitement  of the nEXt comes only when the customer can and does perceive the value of the new, to them.  If Ford wants to EXcite with technologies like Sync, they know they have to inform and educate their customers with the value proposition of the new.

My first car was a Ford.  It was a 1970 1/2 (yes they made mid-year model changes back then) Torino.  It was an attractive mid-size two-door hardtop.  The only option on the car was a manual remote driver’s side mirror.  Total cost: $2,350.  No power steering, no radio, no air conditioning, no power windows, no rear defogger.  How was the “quality of the car?”  To me, not very good.  In the first instance, I had what might have been the world’s only “Torino-Falcon.”  On one rear fender my car had the Torino nameplate.  But on the other side, it said “Falcon.”  Oops.  This car also suffered from an engineering design problem in its front suspension.  Ball joints and front tires wore out regularly.  This design apparently afflicted other Fords of the era, including Mustangs.

I might not have bought another Ford after that experience.  But in the late 1980s, as I became a quality improvement leader in government, Ford had made “Quality Job One” and built the Taurus.  I bought one, then another Ford car.  Then another.  And another.  And yet another (a 2002 Escape now running strong with over 115,000 miles).  A commitment to “quality” in all its evolving meanings, can do that for a car company.

NOTE: I am one of ASQ’s Voices of Influence bloggers.  I do receive a very small bit of compensation from ASQ, but the views expressed in my blog posts are entirely my own.

Posted in ASQ, Continuous Process Improvement, Creativity, Innovation, Quality | Leave a comment

Resonance, Coupling, Complexity, and Community

Posted on June 13, 2011 by complexified

From time to time I work as a guest leecturer to classes of doctoral students in psychology. These are primarily students in the field of community school psychology. More recently, I’ve worked with classes in the broader field of community psychology.

Preparing for a guest stint, I borrowed the textbook being used by the instructor. It was a current release, with references to Hurricane Katrina and 9/11. The book is very well-written, and I spent a couple of hours going through it. Several things struck me about this textbook. One was the fact that the authors chose not to define “community” right away. Instead, they chose to first present a list of seven foundation principles that underlie the field and practice of community psychology. These principles were generated by attendees at a pivotal conference some years ago.

While most fields of endeavor have standardized bodies of knowledge, I thought about the process by which this one and others are generated. How did people get invited to that conference? Were any non-psychologists included in the dialogue? Stakeholders such as community activists, or just “ordinary citizens?” Among the seven principles are things like “social justice” and “advocacy.” Clearly citizens are encouraged to take a direct role in shaping their communities. But how does it happen that a list of defining principles for the profession emerges?

Ralph Stacey, a thought-leader in applying complexity concepts to both management and psychology, talks about “complex responsive processes of human relating” (CRPR usually). To Ralph, iterated patterning of the “gesture and response” of human communication gives rise to our norms, values, and ideologies.

But what IS a community? Do I have to be physically proximate? With the internet, can’t I just have my social network “friended” on Facebook? If I am aware of all of you, but none of you are aware of me and my interests, am I a part of the “community?” What if I have read your work, and am thinking or even blogging about it – but none of you have seen it? If a blog falls in the forest, does anyone care?

In the amazing world of sub-atomic and quantum physics, scientists have made discoveries that seem to defy our understanding. Two particles may co-exist in an atom, and share similar properties, such as rotation or spin. When these are physically separated, I believe scientists have found that changing the spin on one produces an immediate and identical change in the other. can we say that these particles have some kind of unique bond of “community?” Clearly they are coupled and resonant, one with the other.

Is it sufficient for us to say “I am here, and I am a part of you. . .” without anyone else knowing? Can we really say we are a part of the community in that case? If “I feel your pain. . .” in terms of some social issue, are we “coupled” like the particles?

Posted in Change, Community, Complexity, Networks | Leave a comment

Searching for Q’s: ASQ and the Future of Quality

Posted on May 20, 2011 by complexified

The American Society for Quality (Now officially just “ASQ”) has a long and rich history of advocacy and teaching in the field of quality improvement. The origins of the quality movement are reflected in the Society’s original name- ASQC, or the American Society for Quality Control. The pioneers of the quality movement, W. Edwards Deming, Joseph Juran, Phil Crosby, and others, got their starts in manufacturing. They learned how to apply the tools of statistical analysis, to the capabilities and behaviors of manufacturing processes. Wonderful progress was achieved in business and later in government.

But even as the world became familiar with flow charts, root cause analysis, and upper control limits, we – and ASQ – experienced a different kind of limit in our improvement work. The human factor in all processes generates patterns of variation in sense-making, belief, and behavior. Our desire for stable, predictable, and controllable processes- often achievable on the factory floor – is typically hard to achieve in our human interactions. Among the pioneers of the quality improvement movement, Deming was especially astute in addressing this. He taught us to drive fear out of the workplace, to change a process rather than blame the people in it, and that the needs and wants of a customer may not even be clear to the customer.

In his recent “View From the Q” blog post, ASQ’s Paul Borawski presents a summary of the Society’s most recent “Future Study.” As Paul mentions, ASQ convenes a group of people every few years to talk about the “future of quality.” Their report is at http://asq.org/public/view-from-the-q/asq-2011-forces-summary.pdf The report focuses on trends such as globalization and social responsibility. It offers predictions about the consequences of the accelerating pace of change, and the aging of our population. The report takes encouragement from a prediction made by quality improvement guru Joe Juran. Juran predicted that the 21st century would be the “century of quality.”

My own view, however, is that the future of the quality movement lies in the prediction of Stephen Hawking. Hawking famously predicted that “the 21st century will be the century of complexity.” What does this mean? Are the two predictions mutually exclusive?

The intended outcome of most business processes is product or service that is consistent, meets specification, and meets the needs and wants of the customer. Significant deviation from the intended norm is not only unwanted, we seek to eliminate it. In this sort of process, if we possess the knowledge and have the means, we can follow the steps and get the intended product or service. But what about other kinds of processes? We can’t control or manage the stock market’s fluctuations, or assure that kids in school will learn what we teach.

Unlike the linear and deterministic flow of technical processes, complex processes are typically non-linear and unpredictable. We humans each see the world in our own way, and working together to solve a problem can be messy and difficult. We “don’t know what we don’t know,” and sometimes “stuff happens” – emergent behaviors in the system we could not have predicted, no matter how much we study its parts. Prediction and control are difficult, or impossible.

So what does this mean for the “future of quality?” Our processes of work, as Deming taught us, “are perfect. they are perfectly designed to give us the results we are getting.” So we humans sit around the table together, mapping value streams, envisioning future states, and trying to implement changes that will yield desired results. In my experience, human dynamics and processes always exhibit some complex characteristics. When we are far from agreement and far from certainty about what’s happening, we need a different sort of method than we have in traditional quality improvement.

The good news is that the pioneers of applying complex systems science to human dynamics, have built frameworks and methods to help us respond to the complexity in our organizations. It is my belief that the real “future of quality” lies in understanding the “both…and…” nature of our process improvement challenges. It is my hope that those in the ASQ global community will explore the teaching of thought-leaders like Ron Heifetz, Dave Snowden, Dick Knowles, and Meg Wheatley. From this new perspective, we can make both Dr. Juran and Dr. Hawking right.

Bruce Waltuck, M.A., Complexity, Chaos, and Creativity

NOTE: For more on the ideas in this post, please see my Complexity and Chaos Primer, recently published by the Human Development and Leadership Division of ASQ. See also, my archived presentation from the recent ASQ WCQI in Pittsburgh, and my new video interviews for I-OPEN, the Institute for Open Economic Networks.

Posted in ASQ, Change, Complexity, Continuous Process Improvement | 2 Comments

Questions for students & all: Complexity and the History of Psychology

Posted on May 5, 2011 by complexified

Most years over the past decade, I have delivered a three-hour interactive workshop to doctoral students in school psychology. At times, I have worked with students in a class on community school psychology. At other times, I come in with a class on the history of psychology.

Next week, I will be working once again with students in the history of psychology class. Just as the field of psychology has experienced the evolution of ideas through Freud, Jung, Rogers, and beyond, so too has the field of complex adaptive systems evolved. When I began working with psychology graduate students over ten years ago, I was primarily influenced by the ideas and work of Margaret Wheatley, Ralph Stacey, James Gleick, and others. My conversation with the students was loosely structured around several core themes: the dominant paradigm about human system dynamics over the past centuries; how relatively recent discoveries in the natural and social sciences provided a “new lens” through which we can understand and view human systems dynamics; and how an understanding of complexity could serve practitioners in school psychology.

When I began these workshops, there was more theory than practical tools and methods, from the field of complexity. Today, we are fortunate to have several well-tested and mature models to learn and use. More are on the way. I am personally engaged in thinking about development of new complex capacity-building methods.

So in preparation for this semester’s workshop, I fully re-thought my outline, and my resources. There is now a greatly expanded bibliography, including many books and articles from the past couple of years. There are discussions of specific methods and tools that practitioners can, and I believe will, find valuable in theor own work.

For the first time, I wanted to utilize online media to initiate my discussion with the students. To that end, I am posting below a series of five questions. My hope is that my students-to-be will read, reflect, and respond. So too can anyone else. If you DO post a response, please note which Question or Questions you are addressing (use “Q1” or “Q3” references for example).

THANKS

Q1: what are the fundamental questions psychology seeks to answer?

Q2: What are the fundamental assumptions that drive K-12 school and teaching design?

Q3: Are there “limiting beliefs” in the domain of “known knowns” and “known unknowns” that we should seek to change in ourselves and others?

Q4: what is the biggest challenge you face in your work?

Q5: What is the one thing you wish you knew, or could do, to improve outcomes in your work?

Posted in Change, Complexity, Dialogue, Education, Innovation, Networks | 8 Comments

Q U: The Quest for Quality in Education

Posted on April 22, 2011 by complexified

In his monthly blog, “View from the Q,” ASQ Executive Paul Borawski dreams of a day when the methods of quality improvement will be the norm in improving education outcomes. Paul points to 2010 Baldrige winners, Montgomery County Schools (Maryland), and others. He mentions the Pewauke, Wisconsin, district, where specific strategic plans, objectives, and metrics are used to drive improvement.

As I thought about Paul’s dream, I could not help but think about the current public debate over America’s schools, and the debate about how to “make them better.” Literally down the road from Montgomery County (where I lived in 2008-09), is the District of Columbia. Former Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee, got nationwide attention for her seemingly “all business” approach to improved outcomes. She famously fired teachers alleged to be “poor performers,” and imposed tough performance measures, based predominantly on student scores from standardized achievement tests. Ms. Rhee declared success, when reported scores went up. But recent investigations now suggest that scores were artificially inflated. Teachers, under threat of losing their jobs if scores did not improve, allegedly erased wrong answers and substituted correct ones on student answer sheets. The morale among teachers, already greatly damaged by the former Chancellor’s “my way or the highway” culture, has taken yet another blow in this apparent scandal.

What can we learn from the masters of BOTH quality improvement, and true, sustained school improvement? Once again, let’s turn to the pioneering teaching of W. Edwards Deming. Deming famously taught leaders to do away with production quotas, slogans, and placing blame on workers rather than on the systems they were handed. By any definition I know, the process of teaching kids in K-12 education, is both technically challenging, and socially complex. Teacher training, not unlike the training of Baldrige examiners, seeks to align, or “calibrate” each new teacher, to the recognized standards of the day. But unlike the award examiners, where we aim for a narrow range of variation in point of view and sense-making, we encourage teachers to innovate and be creative. Moreover, teachers are not responsible for the innate intelligence, or learning styles, of the many students who pass through their classrooms. Add in the factors of home and community, and you have a very complex environment indeed.

So what can we learn from Dr. Deming and others, that can improve educational outcomes in our schools? Deming would certainly advise us to focus on the processes- the systems that comprise our schools, and the entire student experience. When we think about the quality of educational outcomes, are we asking about, and seeking to “constantly and forever” improve the many inter-related systems and processes that impact each student every day?

– books: What is a “high-quality” textbook today? By whose definition, and under what assumptions or givens?

-classrooms: there is much data now on effective classroom design, to optimize student learning. But most schools are not able to spend now on these possible improvements. How can we discover process improvements at the local level, that we can implement with the resources we have?

– teachers: Here, we must learn one of Deming’s most important lessons about sustained improvement. He assured us that at least 80% of the problems we perceive with process outcomes, are caused not by the workers, but by the poor design of the process itself. In most cases, Deming was referring to stable and statistically controllable processes, such as in manufacturing. How much more inappropriate then, to ascribe responsibility for poor results, in the deeply complex process of K-12 classroom education?

-families: In his typically dry humor, Dr. Deming often told leaders “in God we trust, all others bring data.” In schools, there was a study last year that concluded the principal predictive indicator of a young student’s success was neither school nor teacher, but a supportive parental figure in the home environment. Another study last year that got some, but not a lot of publicity, found a significant decline in student motivation. Yet we continue to read about policy-makers, pundits, and others, placing the responsibility for improved student learning outcomes, almost exclusively on the shoulders of teachers.

-technology: Many have noted the seemingly obvious fact that our predominant classroom technologies, the printed textbook, the chalkboard, and the pencil, date back to at least the 19th, if not the 18th century. Yes, computers and the internet have been deployed in many schools. But – again taking a note from the pioneers of the quality movement – what would some of the basic quality tools tell us about the levels of such deployment, or the causal links between available technologies and student outcomes? In the famous improvement cycles of Plan-Do-Check-Act, have we identified and standardized superior process designs?

We could go on, and inquire about other processes affecting student outcomes, such as community, nutrition, exercise, entertainment, and so on. There is much to be done at all levels of the edu-eco-system, and we are significantly constrained by budget and staffing cuts. Still, the most fundamental message I know about quality and process improvement, is the most hopeful for education improvement: IF we focus our attention on the problem and process, IF we invite everyone in the process/system into the discussion of how to make it better, we CAN and we WILL create a better process, even in the most complex of situations. Through fearless exploration of the possible, through deep learning that brings what Deming called “Profound Knowledge,” we can build a culture of sustained process improvement, and better results. The way to do it is easy to learn, and hard to master. But we can, and I believe we must.

For more on successful approaches to sustained improvement in schools, I highly recommend the work of the late Seymour Sarason (on change/improvement in schools); the work of Michael Fullan (proven results in the UK and Canada. See his book “The Six Secrets of Change” for example); and the application of the Positive Deviance method in various school districts, now being done by folks from the Plexus Institute.

Good luck, and thank a teacher today!

Bruce

Bruce Waltuck, M.A., Complexity, Chaos, and Creativity

and, lest we forget… I must tell you I am one of ASQ’s designated “Voices of Influence” bloggers. I get a small compensation for these ASQ-related blog posts. But the ideas expressed here are completely my own.

Posted in ASQ, Change, Complexity, Continuous Process Improvement, Creativity, Education, Innovation, Social Responsibility | 1 Comment

The marriage of “quality” & “complexity” – a global call.

Posted on March 25, 2011 by complexified

A while back, I received an email from a person in India. He is a Six Sigma Black belt, and works for a financial services firm. While I was intrigued with the application of Six Sigma methods to the delivery of financial services, this person wanted to ask me about the quality-complexity connection.

In part, this person’s email read:

that this subject has greater promise in enhancing the quality management in the coming future as more and more companies are now looking out at developing Innovation Capability…. 1. Quality talks about reduced variability & greater discipline whereas complexity talks about managing in uncertain and variable times through variations or so called fluctuations at the border of chaos and order (Managing Order and Chaos at the same time to give rise to newer forms of Creativity / Innovation) which is very challenging. If there is a fusion possible with respect to Six Sigma (or) Lean and Complexity theory, we would have put forth the right rules for the Future Corporations. Maybe integration of DMAIC six sigma / Lean with the Complexity Principles could make it more robust and could provide the right approach to managing quality in future corporations.

What interests me in this corespondence is the recognition that variation – differences in our perception of a process’s outputs – is at the heart of both the TQM/Quality Improvement mindset, and the insights into complexity. In the complicated but fundamentally linear world of manufacturing or service delivery, we seek to define spcial causes of variation that make outputs deviate from our specification. In the non-linear complex world, we understand that we can not “bring a process into control.” Neither can we predict the future response to our inputs or changes with any high degree of certainty. But we can and we should look for those individual agents in the system who have found some unique way to do things, and who are getting superior results. Instead of seeking process control, and eliminating causes of variation, we need to define the “positive deviants” who have successfully innovated. Then we can work on replicating their superior results.

One key challenge for us, is to develop what Dee Hock, the founder of VISA cards, calls a “chaordic” mindset. We need to see that living systems simultaneously act in processes that are both linear and predictable, and non-linear and complex. Keeping that “both. . .and. . .” concept in our minds is not easy.

In the domain of the generally predictable, we can establish standard procedures and best practices.  We can measure outputs and variance from specification.  But in the domain of the complex, we can only understand causality in retrospect.  We can inquire and learn about what is happening, and explore promising options to achieve our objectives.  We can establish core values or operating principles, and assess our fidelity to these guides.  We can look back and see if the results we got, were helped or hindered by the principles that guided us then.  We look deeply, learn deeply, and modify our approach as our ever-changing environment suggests.

Will we see a day when improvement practitioners deploy methods that address the underlying “both complicated…and complex…” natures of our organizations?  Look deep, and you’ll find that some are doing it now.

Bruce Waltuck, M.A., Complexity, Chaos, and Creativity

Posted in ASQ, Change, Complexity, Continuous Process Improvement, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Practical Radicality: Bill Taylor inspires change

Posted on March 10, 2011 by complexified

Through the wondrous connections of the Twitterverse, I got a free pass for the g5Leadership webinar with William Taylor. Bill is the author of “Practically Radical,” which I have not yet read. This webinar was one of the rare ones that totally exceeded my expectations, and provided great stories, quotes, and ideas that I am already sharing with others.

A few of the points that stood out in my notes:

1) Bill Taylor commented on the familiar focus of “what keeps the CEO up at night?” Instead, Bill suggests that we ask ourselves “what gets you up in the morning?” The focus clearly shifting to our passion, and commitment.

2) We’ve all heard about “elevator speeches” – what you would say to the boss or significant leader, if you only had a couple of minutes with them on a short elevator ride. Again, Taylor twists this for improvement. He suggests we ask “what is our team’s sentence?” Our “company’s sentence?” Finally, “what is YOUR sentence?”

3) I am already looking up info on the wonderful story Bill tells, about the Umpqua Bank in the Northwest. Their breakthrough insights about “how can we appeal to all five senses of our customers” is a great story about being different – and better – than the rest. I’ve seen tellers trained as baristas before (ING bankcafe in Philly), but the notions of a bank with a record label for local bands, and each branch as gallery for local artists, were great innovative ideas.

4) Bill had a great twist on another familiar phrase: instead of “deja vu” (the feeling we have been there or seen it before), he offers the clever “vuja de” – by which he means “look at the familiar as if you’ve never seen it before.” Maybe the great Yogi Berra will come up for a wordplay on this one.

5) My local hospital, Robert Wood Johnson at Hamilton, is itself a Baldrige Award-winner, that breaks the mold on traditional hospital experience. Bill Taylor told the story of what I’d call “beyond RWJ.” The Henry Ford Health System also used innovation and “new eyes” when they hired a former executive of the Ritz-Carlton chain, to re-imagine their hospital customer experience. From “tea sommeliers” to hosting a wedding, this is another great story of “practical, radical, change.”

Two of Bill’s slides resonated personally with me, as I work to define my own “brand” –

DO NOT let what you KNOW, limit what you can IMAGINE.

ARE YOU LEARNING as fast as the world is CHANGING?

(emphasis mine)

In all, a very good message, delivered in a very enthusiastic style. Thanks g5, and thanks Bill. A freebie with great value!

Bruce Waltuck

Posted in Change, Creativity, Innovation, Networks | Tagged | Leave a comment

The Emergence of Social Responsibility

Posted on February 16, 2011 by complexified

In 1993, I did a lecture tour of Brazil, for the US Information Agency (USIA). My lectures were about quality and process improvement, through union-management collaboration. At one of my lectures, I was presented with a copy of the book that the recent UN Earth Summit attendees had received in Rio de Janeiro. This was the conference where Al Gore really learned about global ecological issues, and the challenges of sustainability. The following year, I worked with the group “NJ Future,” to help define measures of sustainability for the citizens of New Jersey.

The common element in these experiences was the basic three-part model of sustainability. The UN Summit model talked about ecological concerns, economic opportunity, and a form of “social justice.” Some models advocated overtly for “equitable income distribution.” For those in the field of “quality improvement,” there has been a growing interest in defining “social responsibility,” particularly as it relates to the work of quality, and process improvement.

ASQ Executive Director Paul Borawski writes that it is “natural” for organizations focusing on social responsibility, to turn to ASQ and the quality improvement profession. For me, the answer to this issue is more of a “yes, if…” than a “yes, for sure” sort of response.

Let’s think about what we mean by “quality,” and what we mean by “social responsibility.” Some of the quality improvement pioneers defined quality in what I call “static” terms. We can assert and even verify that a product conforms completely to specification, 100% of the time. We can even say that in the mind of the customer, the product meets or exceeds their expectations. That inter-relational dynamic is more of a “dynamic” definition of quality, as a few of the quality pioneers have described it.

Does that kind of quality assurance and improvement necessarily relate to “social responsibility?” Again, what do we mean by “social responsibility?” I grew up in Syracuse, New York. Nearby Onondaga Lake was literally killed, by years of toxic waste poured in by the adjacent Solvay Processing chemical plant. Was that responsible? It created jobs and wealth for the local economy, but it destroyed the lake’s living ecosystem, and made it unsafe to swim in the lake. Before modern attempts to clean up and revitalize the lake, you could smell the acrid fumes rising from the water at the park nearby.

In the past, we humans have engaged in “as if…” thinking and behavior with regard to our environment and natural resources. We have acted “as if” these were unlimited, and as if we could exploit them in any way we chose, without regard for the consequences of our actions. Today, we are passing the peak in global oil production. Most of the rivers in China are no longer safe, because of industrial waste. Glaciers are receding even as deserts are growing.

So what of the links between quality and social responsibility? McDonald’s assures that every Big Mac meets its specifications, virtually all of the time. Is it a “socially responsible” firm? What about Wal-Mart, who will build in a smaller suburban or rural market, driving small community stores out of business? Is that “responsible?”

The notion of “social responsibility” is complex, and highly varied. Its meaning is typically dependent on localized community norms, values, and culture. What I think of as irresponsible, you may find essential to sustain your business. First Lady Michelle Obama, and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, are both advocating healthier foods for children in schools. Yet this alleged “socially responsible” idea is critiqued by some, largely on political ideological grounds.

Personally, I recommend as a starting point in defining “social responsibility,” the wording of the Golden Rule taught by the Biblical scholar, Hillel. He taught “do not do unto your neighbor, that which you would not want done to you.” In the turn of words from the “do unto…” to the “do not do unto…” I find a sense of of real social responsibility. We are urged to consider the consequences of our actions on those around us. This to me, is the foundation of social responsibility.

With regard to Paul Borawski’s point, I would respectfully then disagree. Many organizations which achieve proven quality and process improvement, have done so without considering the consequences of their actions on others around them. Where I believe there is common ground between the quality improvement and social responsibility fields, is in the dynamics and processes of crafting change. W. Edwards Deming, the great pioneer of the quality improvement movement, was a fantastic student of the psychology of the workplace. Deming urged appreciation of the workers, and the restoration of their pride in accomplishment. Deming demanded that managers “drive out fear” from the workplace. Deming’s student Peter Scholtes, carried these ideas forward, writing the best-selling TEAM handbook, with Brian Joiner. In quality and process improvement, as in the work of defining an agenda of social responsibility, we depend on respectful dialogue and collaboration to create the way forward.

When we gather to address our concerns and problems, and when we do so in a respectful collaborative way, we open the space where both better quality, and more responsibility, can emerge.

Bruce Waltuck

Paul Borawski’s blog on quality and social responsibility: http://asq.org/blog/2011/02/social-responsibility-and-quality/

oh yeah… I must tell you I am one of ASQ’s designated “Voice of Influence” bloggers. I get a small compensation for these ASQ-related blog posts. But the ideas expressed here are completely my own.

Posted in ASQ, Change, Continuous Process Improvement, Dialogue, Social Responsibility | Leave a comment

I Like Safe Food: the case for third-party inspection

Posted on January 27, 2011 by complexified

Recently, ASQ Exec Paul Borawski wrote a blog post about third-party inspectors to assure food safety. Paul noted that ASQ supports this sort of process, and asked about the experience of others with third-party inspection.

On the general issue of food safety, I am certainly not a technical expert (although longtime ASQ colleague Steve Wilson sets up overseas seafood inspection systems for a living). But the basic concept of inspection, and the need for this to be in the hands of a third-party, are pretty clear. We all want the food we eat to be safe and healthy for us. We presume that modern science can tell us the appropriate ways to handle food as it gets processed and shipped. Our modern global economy makes more clear than ever, the fact of varying standards around the world. I can remember my first visit to London’s famous food halls at Harrod’s department store, in 1980. Whole sides of beef and pork lay in the open air on marble tables. Not the way we’d see raw fresh meat displayed in American markets.

So nations set standards. Sounds reasonable. But why do we need a third-party to handle inspection? This gets a bit messier. The short answer is that “the road to hell (and food poisoning) is paved with good intentions.” Put another way, people and businesses do not always do exactly what they are supposed to do. Even though a poultry giant like Perdue has their own extensive inspection processes, there are still outside inspectors (USDA) on-site to check the chickens (make up your own joke there).

Although the presence of third-party inspectors clearly adds to the time and cost of production, we make a societal public health decision that this is necessary. From a quality/process improvement perspective, we aim for a process that “does it right the first time.” But from the perspective of the public interest, the checkers will keep on checking for now.

Bruce Waltuck, M.A., Complexity, Chaos, and Creativity
@complexified on Twitter

Oh yeah… I’m part of the ASQ Influential Voices program. While I receive an honorarium from ASQ for my commitment, the thoughts and opinions expressed on my blog are my own.

Posted in ASQ, Continuous Process Improvement, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The end of “AS IF…” – A Wish for the New Year

Posted on January 11, 2011 by complexified

I’m not sure where the tradition of “new year’s resolutions” came from. There is nothing especially compelling about the passage of January 1st, and we know that in other cultures, this is not the beginning of the “new year.” But just as our planet and moon do move annually around the sun, perhaps we take our inspiration from these celestial patterns.

In a video message on his blog, Paul Borawski of ASQ recently asked what those of us involved with process and organization improvement might wish for this new year. For me personally, a new job would be most helpful. If someone is out there and granting my occasional wish, please do respond to that one. On a more global scale, I do have one wish for everyone involved in organizational life, and perhaps anyone in any sort of community or group.

Those who have historically pronounced themselves members of the “quality improvement” profession, have their roots in the pioneering work of people such as Joseph Juran and W. Edwards Deming. Both of them got justifiably famous for their work in applying statistical methods to the analysis of business processes, particularly in manufacturing. Such processes, however length and complicated they might be, were essentially linear and deterministic. If you followed the flow chart, step by step, you’d get the widget when you came to the end of the assembly line.

Such processes can be managed and changed, to bring them into statistical “control.” That is, to eliminate most variation in the quality of the finished product, so it conforms to specification. Since the discoveries of Isaac Newton, humans have looked at the universe as being rather like a machine. We tend to prefer things in our lives that are stable, predictable, and controllable. The newspaper shows up on the step each morning; the check IS in the mail. On the shop floor, managers can get the right people with the right technical knowledge, and the right equipment, to assure that the process stays “in control.”

But as Deming knew, and as discoveries in the natural sciences have clearly shown in the recent decades, we humans do not interact the way things do on the shop floor. Frequently, we exercise discretion and judgment, and behave in ways that are non-linear, and complex. This means that the localized interactions of individuals produce emergent patterns of behavior- patterns that could not be predicted by analyzing either the individual parts, or the past performance of the system. We see the real complexity of this behavior all the time in our lives, from the relationship of parent to child, all the way to our workplace dynamics.

Complicated problems in organizations can be handled with the right people, knowledge, and resources. But complex problems – those that challenge our beliefs – are different. Any change in a complex human system typically creates a move towards the ideas of some, and away from the ideas of others. The methods of traditional process improvement are great at addressing technical, or complicated problems. But they are not suitable for responding to complex, or adaptive problems.

My wish for the new year then, is to see the end of what I call “As if. . .” behavior. It is sadly common for people throughout organizations to treat what are in fact complex or adaptive problems, AS IF they were just technical or complicated. The challenges of leadership; the consequences of change; the failure of long-term strategic visions, are all examples of truly complex problems. Whenever people enter into dialogue about a common issue or problem, the dynamics will be complex.

The tools and methods of traditional process improvement won’t work on these kinds of problems. Thankfully, there is another way. The perspective of complexity- what scientists call complex adaptive systems – offers a new perspective on complex human dynamics. The tools and methods built with a complexity perspective, help us see and make sense of emerging patterns in our organizations. From that new understanding and developing coherence, we can work together to design and implement effective responses.

There is almost always at least some complex human element, in any process change. The next time you are inquiring about a problematic process, don’t act “as if” it was purely technical or complicated. Look through the new lens, and see in a new way.

Bruce

So, the disclaimer. The American Society for Quality, has asked me to participate in their new social media initiative. I am one of a number of people identified as “Voices of Influence.” For those who follow such things, I have been a leading voice on the evolving work of quality, process, and organization improvement for over a decade. My work has been published in the Journal for Quality and Participation, Quality Digest, and more. It has been my privilege and pleasure to have taught and presented throughout the U.S., Canada, Brazil, and Southeast Asia, on the work of quality and process improvement.

So, ASQ has asked me to occasionally post here, in response to posts made by Paul Borawski, ASQ’s Executive Director. We do not agree on all of the issues confronting ASQ and the global quality movement, and I think that is a good thing. It is through the diversity of our thinking, that new ideas and opportunities emerge.

To get the legal bit out of the way, here is the disclaimer that I am supposed to share with you about my participation in this ASQ effort:

I’m part of the ASQ Influential Voices program. While I receive a variety of quality resources as honorarium from ASQ in exchange for my commitment, the thoughts and opinions expressed on my blog are my own.

Posted in ASQ, Change, Complexity, Continuous Process Improvement | Leave a comment