NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/software/5163

Text File | 1992-12-28 | 4.1 KB | 88 lines

Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Path: sparky!uunet!psinntp!sugar!claird
From: [e-mail] (Cameron Laird)
Subject: How does TQM set priorities? (was: When do we inspect [long ago])
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- [phone]
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 16:55:39 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Keywords: Inspections
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Lines: 76

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mark Shanks) writes:
>> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Cameron Laird) writes:
            ...
>> >    ...  It would make me feel as though I'm in a trailer factory, say,
>> >    welding away on my assigned joints, and I notice that I need more
>> >    light on my worktable to jig up the pieces carefully.  I get the
>> >    feeling that, in the factory where you work, I'd have to call a
>> >    meeting of the union first.  Is there no cheaper way for me to
>> >    improve my process?
>
>Your proposed improvement is needlessly selfish: if you are short of
>light it is possible that others are also.
>
>The proper procedure is to get the light put in, get your shop steward
>to put in a claim to get you paid for the light, then raise the issue of
>adequate lighting at the next regularly scheduled union meeting ...
>
>It's not a question of the cheapest possible benefit, but of the most
>benefit for the money.
            .
            .
            .
I don't have much doubt that your tongue is somewhere
near your cheek, but the point you make is one I take
seriously.  In fact, my Gedankenexperiment is even
worse than you say; if I unilaterally put in the light,
without first chatting with my fellow-worker at the next
station, I run the risk of--well, of upsetting something
that might be in place for a reason.

This is one of the foggy areas of Total Quality Management
and Continuous Process Improvement for me; at what level
are decisions made?  Maybe "[t]he proper procedure" you
describe is itself too parochial; maybe there should be an
organization-wide initiative to address all kinds of lighting
questions.

My own understanding of the answer to my question is:
1.  push decisions down, as far as possible, to the
    point that it makes everyone a bit uncomfortable.
    At the same time, establish good mechanisms to
    ensure that all decisions are communicated, in a
    personality-free manner, up to higher levels;
2.  there's no right answer.  Like the discussants in
    sci.bio who are forever worrying about where
    evolution acts ("the individual?  the gene?  the
    breeding population? ..."), the best we can do is
    to turn on the selection principles--in this case,
    act like a leader--and take whatever steps seem
    plausible, whether they're big or little.  We're
    just supposed to have faith that collections of
    local peak-climbing moves will get us adequately
    close to our global optimum.

Tom Peters and some business journalists give the impression
that CPI is in the little things:  one lone operative in the
Rockies hiring a helicopter to get the parcel through, one
production team voting to rationalize its break schedule.  I
suspect there's some rugged-individualist Americana in this.
At the same time, I know how easy it is to abstract my work-table
illumination problem to the point where we'd have a fantastic ROI,
but we're unable to accomplish anything definite ("no, we really
need to provide adequate lighting for all the welders--no, we
have to make sure that light *and* heat are within acceptable
range ...--no, we'll solve light and heat and noise, not only on
the shop floor but also in the office environments--no, ...").

When a Total Quality Manager starts off on Monday morning, and
finds two initiatives he wants to pursue, on which one does he or
she start first?
--

Cameron Laird
[e-mail] ([e-mail])    [phone]
[e-mail] ([e-mail])      [phone]