Impact on a System

A friend of mine sent me this link (http://www.bornagainamerican.org/ ). Here's what I wrote to her about it:

I saw this guy on a show some time ago. I couldn't agree more. The one line that really sticks with me is, "...I thought I knew the rules of the game..."

None of us know the rules of the game any longer. I have a stock portfolio with which I have no idea what to do. The rules are not settled. You used to be able to make an informed decision about how to invest and be right 60% to 80% of the time. Now, the rules are changing, our social fabric is tearing and no one knows what to do. I worked my butt off as an independent only to be taxed to death. I'm not in to hiding my money from taxation. But really, the middle class now is bearing the brunt of everything and the incentives to do well are getting chipped away, piece by piece. I don't resent change. I do resent bureaucrats changing things without thinking through the market and psychological implications. If they cannot understand those issues, then maybe they should keep their asses out of the kitchen and quit messing with the fundamental architecture of our society. In this song they make the point that jobs go overseas. Well, gee, I wonder why? Tax a corporation to death, impose impossible union restrictions, and hold it up for ridicule for making a profit, and you're surprised that jobs go overseas????? There's a fundamental concept in Six Sigma that comes from Systems Theory. You cannot improve a process by pushing the burden upstream or downstream to another process. It only makes the problem invisible- for a time - and does nothing for the overall system. In fact, it will likely make the entire system worse. Edwards Deming said (yes, I'm paraphrasing - he was a physicist so I'm less precise than the language he used) that those uniformed, uneducated, untrained, hacks can do more damage than good in trying to improve a system. I use a simpler example in my training. Take a gel insert, push your finger in the middle. Does the gel get displaced? Well, maybe you should think about what is being moved "upstream and downstream"!

Quality is Still Valid

How about all this quality stuff? I am regularly asked how, or worse, "if" the essential components of quality are applicable to service. In fact, I amazed at how often clients challenge the underlying elements of quality. The usual objections falls into one of these three categories of myth:

Myth Number 1: Quality principles were born in manufacturing; they have no relevance to service.
Myth Number 2: We are different.
Myth Number 3: We tried that "quality stuff." It didn't work for us.

To this I have the following responses:

Quality is based in manufacturing; it has no relevance to service. Naturally I beg to differ. In fact, I insist on differing. I can show that the essential elements of quality are applicable to all customer-centric issues.

We are different. No you are NOT! You are no more unique, different, complex, or have any special conditions that exempt you from the benefits that can be found in the fundamental concepts of quality than anyone else, regardless of the industry or customer niche you are serving. If it makes you feel better to say you are different, great. Go ahead and say it. Just don't believe it.

We tried that quality stuff and it didn't work. You didn't do it right!

I won't go into the second two issues, but bear with me while I discuss the first point.
-The basic model of any product or service is based on understanding DEMAND which allows us to DESIGN to meet that demand, and then we put that design into PRODUCTION
-The Value Chain model of manufacturing parallels this same model.
-The IT service model, not surprisingly, follows the exact same model with slightly different terminology.
Everything comes down to customer demand, design of service or product, and production (followed by support / maintenance, etc.). By definition, quality is defined by the customer. The principles of quality are then applicable to any and all products or services that meet a customer need.

Now again, what was the objection to quality?