POINTS 1–6
~ 17 min reading · ~ 175 min at Neave’s pace
Point 1. Constancy of purpose
Create constancy of purpose for continual improvement of products and service, allocating resources to provide for long-range needs rather than only short-term profitability, with a plan to become competitive, to stay in business, and to provide jobs.
Notice the nice link with the Deming Chain Reaction, finishing up (as in both versions of the Chain Reaction—see the bottom of page 3) with “provide jobs”. We have already remarked (Day 1 page 23) upon Dr Deming’s hate of unemployment because of its huge waste of human potential. Deming clearly saw the “plan to … provide jobs” as an obligation on the part of those people (management, especially senior management, and government) who have the power so to do.
It is already well worth referring ahead to two of the “Deadly Diseases” which you will study tomorrow afternoon:
- As indicated on page 14, in The First Project, the first Deadly Disease can be expressed simply as the non-adoption of this first Point, i.e. lack of constancy of purpose. The fact that “constancy of purpose” thus heads both lists surely confirms how crucial Dr Deming saw it to be. Indeed, even in the 1982 book he describes lack of constancy of purpose as “the big obstacle”.
- The emphasis on “long-range” provides a close link with the second of the Deadly Diseases.
It is well worth noting that, although “innovation” is not included in the above statement of Point 1, there is in fact much specific focus on innovation in Deming’s description of Point 1 on Out of the Crisis pages 23–24[24–26]. Indeed, his discussion begins with the observation that “There are two problems: (i) problems of today; (ii) problems of tomorrow”—improvement and innovation respectively.
Obsession With Quality
This is a very obvious and strong link with which to begin our work. The use of “continual improvement” (as compared with improvement only in areas of obvious trouble) is wholly in line with Joiner’s Obsession With Quality—as compared e.g. with improvement merely in order to meet specifications or legal requirements, as discussed earlier. Improving quality can all too easily slide down the agenda in favour of “more pressing” matters whenever they arise; and, without obsession with quality, it will be very difficult to get it back up to its rightful place.
If you are used to reading material from other sources on quality, you may have become a little puzzled by Deming’s, Brian Joiner’s and my use of “continual improvement” rather than the much more common phrase “continuous improvement”. If so, take a quick look at the top half of Appendix page 23.
All One Team
Here we surely have a clear two-way connection. How can you continually improve unless you are working together as All One Team? Can you really do it on your own—or, worse still, if others are working against you? Conversely, what better motivation could there be for an All One Team culture than the purpose of continual improvement? But beware—especially management: All One Team has both horizontal and vertical implications. It is far too common for management to preach teamwork to “them down there” but subsequently to ignore or reject the results and consequences of that teamwork. If they do so then it will soon be goodbye to All One Team.
Scientific Approach
The Scientific Approach is necessary for genuine improvement, be it continual or otherwise, because of its emphasis on the system and processes both in concept and in the methods that it provides, especially the control chart. We also need well-chosen data and the knowledge of how to interpret those data in order to reflect and guide us on how successful our attempts and experiments for improvement are working (but definitely not in the sense of whether or not we’ve met some numerical target—recall the second paragraph of page 8, in the Joiner Triangle chapter).
Point 2. The new philosophy
Adopt the new philosophy. We are in a new economic age, created in Japan. We can no longer live with commonly-accepted levels of delays, mistakes, defective materials, and defective workmanship. Transformation of Western management style is necessary to halt the continued decline of industry.
This is a whole new philosophy. It’s not just optional add-ons to what we are already doing; it’s not the use of a few new tools. At the beginning of the course I interpreted the word “philosophy” as a “way of thinking”. So this is indeed a whole new way of thinking. And, as I also said at the beginning, what and how we think so greatly affects what we do and how we do it.
This Point illuminates the danger of just “making do”. The implication is that we may have become so used to lower levels of product and service that we have become resigned to them and skilled in compensating for them. But that might not be so true of your customer.
The reason for the description “created in Japan” which Deming included in the statement of this Point may be less obvious now than when he said it in the 1980s. At that time, Japan unarguably led the world in terms of quality and reliability. But even then I puzzled about the fact that the Japanese were seemingly no longer learning much from him. He occasionally delivered a speech at a Deming Prize ceremony, but there were certainly no four-day seminars there. I doubt whether many Japanese knew much about what he was teaching elsewhere during the final ten years or so of his life. I sometimes muse on the thought that perhaps, if they had, some of the difficulties subsequently experienced by their country might have been avoided. Recall my note in the middle of Day 1 page 27.
Obsession With Quality
The third sentence of the statement of this Point (“We can no longer live…”) provides a clear and strong link with the Obsession With Quality. This is improvement of quality “across the board”.
All One Team
The specific kinds of problems mentioned in that same sentence (“We can no longer live…”) are most usually caused by the non-existence of All One Team. Very often people cannot do their job as well as they would like because poor product and service from “upstream” in the system prevents them. (Think of the red beads—the Willing Workers didn’t make them.)
Scientific Approach
What causes the “delays, mistakes, defective materials, and defective workmanship”? Maybe the underlying system itself is reasonably good but is suffering from some serious special causes. On the other hand, the underlying system itself may not be capable of producing acceptable results even when it is not being affected by special causes. How would you know? These and other related questions cry out for the use of control charts, the fundamental plank of the Scientific Approach. Remember that the capability of the underlying system cannot even be assessed if its output is being disrupted by special causes. Also remember that (as was so clearly illustrated on Day 3) taking action appropriate for an unstable process when the process is in fact stable, or vice-versa, invariably makes things worse rather than better. Without the use of the Scientific Approach you are always running that serious risk.
Point 3. Cease dependence on mass inspection
Eliminate the need for mass inspection as a way to achieve quality by building quality into the product in the first place. Require statistical evidence of built-in quality in both manufacturing and purchasing functions.
In some areas at least, the world has fortunately moved on since Dr Deming came up with the third of his 14 Points. Dependence on mass inspection for quality has immediate implications about what the quality is like in the first place! It is now more generally appreciated that dependence on mass inspection is a costly and unreliable means of delivering quality. It costs just as much to make the bad as it does to make the good, and the additional costs of the mass inspection plus the scrap or rework that results from all which fails the inspection can add up to a very large bill indeed.
Except for some matters literally of life and death, mass inspection is a method for a bygone age. And sometimes, when I was relating the 14 Points, that indeed is what I was told: “Yes, we used to inspect 100%. But now we have improved our processes, resources, methods, and all else relevant so that mass inspection has become irrelevant”. I might then ask: “Do you have performance appraisal? For what is that but 100% inspection of your people?” (Remember this when you reach Deadly Disease 3 tomorrow afternoon.)
Despite Dr Deming’s particular wording here, the lessons from this Point relate just as strongly to service and other areas as to manufacturing.
Obsession With Quality
An Obsession With Quality will surely result in quality being improved way beyond that which needs mass inspection to verify it. Notice again the words “the need for”. Deming isn’t simply saying “Stop doing it”. He is telling us to improve things so that mass inspection becomes redundant.
There are more general practical lessons to learn from this observation. If you’re interested, take a quick look at the final paragraph on Appendix page 23.
All One Team
An important aspect here is that, through being a member of All One Team, we both feel and become more responsible (through desire) for the quality of what we do—we don’t want to let anybody down, and they do not want to let us down. This is a long way down the road from dependence on mass inspection to try to ensure quality.
Scientific Approach
How may we be sure about what the customer will receive from us if we do not use mass inspection techniques? Answer: By getting processes and the product/service they provide into statistical control, and taking advantage of the resulting predictability thus implied. Dr Deming’s second sentence in the statement of this Point makes it clear that the Scientific Approach is fundamental for success with Point 3.
Point 4. End lowest-tender contracts
End the practice of awarding business solely on the basis of price tag. Instead, require meaningful measures of quality along with price. Reduce the number of suppliers for the same item by eliminating those that do not qualify with statistical evidence of quality. Move toward a single supplier for any one item, on a long-term relationship of loyalty and trust. The aim is to minimise total cost, not merely initial cost. Purchasing managers have a new job, and must learn it.
As with Point 3, the awarding of business on the basis of price alone is, or rather should be, a practice for a bygone age (NB “price alone”, which of course does not imply that price is unimportant). What is the logic of lowest-tender contracting? Surely that the required quality is either obvious or can be specified, so that then the only variable quantity to consider is the price.
But doesn’t everybody know that is not the case? Simply ask yourself how, when you wish to acquire something, you reach the decision on which of the competing products/services you will buy. Do you really decide on exact specifications of what you want and then simply select the cheapest from amongst those that satisfy the criteria? Do you? Surely the answer is only “yes” if either (a) you are poverty-stricken or (b) you are buying something very elementary—perhaps a basic foodstuff like granulated sugar which may seem to be the same wherever you get it. But, even then, does not e.g. convenience enter your thoughts? Will you travel ten miles to buy sugar one penny cheaper? With other purchases, how about the reputation of the maker, the reputation and civility and helpfulness of the supplier, and all the other non-specifiable aspects of quality: “looks”, feel, trust, confidence, etc?
And if all these, and more, enter decision-making about purchasing for yourself and your loved ones, why shouldn’t they enter the purchasing decisions of your company?
Obsession With Quality
All that I have just mentioned contributes to quality. Price does not. Obsession With Quality implies purchasing best value in the broadest sense of that term, including matters both quantifiable and non-quantifiable, and not only at the time of purchase but subsequently.
All One Team
It is worth recalling that the famous 1950 flow diagram: “Organisation Viewed as a System” includes both the organisation’s suppliers and its customers—they are all part of the System.
We saw this diagram on Day 1 page 35 as the first of Dr Deming’s “Summary of Teachings to Top Management and to Engineers in Japan”. We shall revisit it at greater length on Day 9.
The arguments in favour of a single supplier become especially important regarding long-term relationships for mutual advantage, involving improvement, development, innovation—and the cooperation for mutual benefit thereby implied. This is all part of optimisation of the system.
Scientific Approach
Anyone who has been involved with the effects of awarding business on lowest price knows, through bitter experience, the huge additions to variation—and therefore effectively to cost—thereby generated through having to deal with different companies, different people, different methods, different procedures—let alone the different product/service received. Saving pennies can cost pounds (or whatever is your local currency).
Point 5. Improve every process
Improve constantly and forever the system of planning, production, and service, in order to improve every process and activity in the company, to improve quality and productivity, and thus to constantly decrease costs. It is management’s job to work continually on the system (design, incoming supplies, maintenance, improvement of equipment, supervision, training, retraining, etc).
Here we have a direct contradiction to a familiar saying—and maybe a familiar attitude: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. This is instead: “If it’s broke, fix it; if it ain’t broke, improve it”.
Obsession With Quality
We have already pointed out that Deming was talking about quality “across the board”—quality of the end-product or service, of course, but also quality of all that contributes to delivering that product or service. This link is therefore particularly strong.
An objection to Point 5 sometimes heard from those who are not yet in tune with what Deming was teaching is that we can’t afford to keep improving! It comes from those who think that improvement can only be achieved expensively by buying dearer materials, buying new machines, carrying out more inspection, hiring more consultants, etc, etc. But, to put it mildly, these were not Deming’s focus on improvement. His emphasis was instead on reducing costs, particularly through improvement of processes and reducing variation—such improvements are frequently very inexpensive yet can produce considerable rewards. For confirmation, again refer back to his Chain Reaction (DemDim page 33).
All One Team
Without All One Team, Point 5 could in fact be rather dangerous, and I have come across examples. Such danger will be multiplied if teams are encouraged or even forced to compete with each other (in total contradiction, of course, to All One Team). I am thinking of situations where lots of local “improvements” are made which look fine in their local context but whose side-effects elsewhere in the organisation are neither known about nor cared about. (Later you will find the examples of suboptimisation on Day 9 to be particularly relevant here; the same is true of both Day 8’s Major Activity and also the powerful case study on ST—my book of Statistics Tables—pages 79–82.)
Scientific Approach
The link here is obvious: the Scientific Approach is directly concerned with how to improve systems and processes—including how to avoid tampering with them.
Point 6. Institute training
Institute modern methods of training for everybody’s job, including management, to make better use of every employee. New skills are required to keep up with changes in materials, methods, product design, machinery, techniques, and service.
“Training and education” are often lumped together as if they were pretty much the same thing. Perhaps surprisingly, Dr Deming did the same in very early versions of the 14 Points. But he soon clearly divided them into the two widely-separated Points 6 and 13 respectively.
In Deming’s terminology, the purpose of “training” is the acquisition of specific skills for specific tasks. Training is thus narrowly defined and finite in scale and scope. In contrast, as we shall see in Point 13, “education” is the opposite: very non-specific, very broadly defined, and essentially infinite in scale and scope.
Training budgets in many organisations are absurdly small. So how do people learn the skills necessary for their jobs? Notice Deming’s emphasis in his second sentence above on the need to keep up-to-date. Also heed the fact that “Worker training worker” was one of his favourite examples of the toxic Rule 4 of the Funnel.
Obsession With Quality
Clearly, a prerequisite for people to do quality work is that they have received appropriate training for that work and can understand it. Notice that here Deming is at pains to emphasise the particular relevance of this to management. He quite clearly considered, and often said, that potential managers do not learn it in most MBA courses.
As a personal viewpoint regarding training, I think it may be insufficient to simply pack people off to some external consultants’ training course, however expensive. Note the above words: “to make better use of every employee”. Far better if the training can be arranged in-house, whether or not using external trainers: there is then a much better chance of everyone receiving training that is relevant to their particular needs. Further, as Deming often emphasised, “people learn in different ways”. Person A may respond better than Person B to a particular kind of training, yet the reverse may be true with another method of training: again this is likely to be far better catered for in-house than externally.
All One Team
Part of a sensible training strategy is that people are trained to carry out their tasks in ways which are consistent with the ways that others do their work. They can then contribute together to the improvement of processes, enhancing both stronger teamwork and self-fulfilment. Without appropriate training, people have no option but to “do their own thing”. This breaks up teamwork even at a micro-level, let alone at the macro-level implied by All One Team.
Scientific Approach
Here it is appropriate to recall the original expanded version of the Joiner Triangle on page 11, in the Joiner Triangle chapter in addition to my subsequent suggested modification. As we saw, Joiner Associates’ own expanded version of the Triangle included flowcharting and other “old tools” of quality under the Scientific Approach. Obviously, the control chart is in both versions!
NB My alternative list of topics for the Scientific Approach on page 12, in the Joiner Triangle chapter was not intended as a criticism of the original expanded Joiner Triangle! Regarding the difference in nature between education and training, consultants in the Deming area clearly need to work with both, and thus the version of the Scientific Approach on page 11, in the Joiner Triangle chapter was entirely appropriate for Joiner Associates. But, equally clearly, the primary nature of 12 Days to Deming is education, and so a different emphasis regarding the Scientific Approach is usually appropriate here.
As you know, this project will continue throughout Day 5. So get ready to keep up the good work tomorrow!