: ) It's a Persig term and he was really on to some ways to define quality. I was thinking the same thing.

I should have guessed you're an engineer. There's nothing wrong with that--but now I see where you are coming from. I see these processes that started with Deming and were modified by many through the years just a bit, to be a thin way to disguise incompetant behavior through statistics. The emphisis on quality is wonderful if the proper definition of quality is established by a "John Galt" type--someone like a real life BIll Gates, or Steve Forbes. If there is a visionary in place who can see well down the road then the back of the bus TQM systems work as useful tools. But--without such a person, the Deming approach only hides the need for visionary types and gives companies the impression that they can thrive as a company if they hire a bunch of Blackbelts to manage their systems. In otherwords, the emphisis on systems hides the need for people of vision to actually lead. Of course most companies have bad managers and they hide nicely in such systems where quality becomes some worshipped god instead of a factor of business that should be a forgone conclusion. The people within the company then behave in the same way as a religious cult instead of productive contributers.

There are some useful tools, done get me wrong. But the general philosophy allows the lackluster management types, and employees to feel they are equal to the innovator--and this just isn't the case. The introduction of a system put in place to remove the need for top down visionary leadership is a false one.

Very good point.

Interesting observation. I wrote that sentence and have been in manufacturing for over thirty years, at every level, from the ground up to the top management. My thoughts on Deming come from those experiences. And the application to common core is that politicians are trying the same statistical comparisons to produce children with zero defects. But to whose sence of quality? The customer, who in this case is the government.

Seriously can you see Howard Roark going through an MPR roster? Or John Galt working with a Value Stream Manger to mass produce his engine?

I think you are very wrong. Are you a blackbelt and this subject clashes with a system you believe in? I've been through all of that and don't buy it. I posed a question and wanted feedback. I'm interested in your support of Deming, but if you want to beat on your chest to defend your position then it tells me you're insecure about some aspect of it. My observation is that it ties up companies from needed innovations. If you can prove otherwise, please do. If you want to talk about ignorance, and failures and turn this into a negative, then we can do that to.

Quality was defined in a CI class I was forced to take as a 'meeting specifications'. Not by fixing whats wrong. This always irritated me, since I wasn't allowed to fix things even if the specifications were wrong or the situation.

Deming came along long after Rand. That being said, Ayn wouldn't have anything to say about Deming. We need to just use Ayn Rand principles as a lens to view what Deming did.

Current GM management is throwing the blame on old GM management and is getting lots of credit in the public view. It appears they are being rewarded by the public by additional sales.

When GM and Chrysler weren't allowed to die a natural death is where Ayn Rand would disagree with what the USGov did.

I agree with Ayn, but the nanny state says they 'saved' jobs by stealing the ownership of GM & Chry from the legal owners, and not letting those guys go bust by their own devices.

Because I get tired of doing business with people handcuffed by him. "Uninformed"? I don't think so. Deming was anti management based of his behavior, in spite of what he stated as a consultant.

Examples, GE, Lockheed Martin, Pratt and Whitney, Bell Helicopter---oh and the Boeing plant in Wichita that is no longer there--because of their need to downsize. What do they all have in common? You might want to check into it before saying that I'm "uninformed."

Personally I think Demming to a lot right, but the wrong thing is to do it relentlessly and get significant improvement ALL the time. That is how managers where I worked were being bonused. The standard wound up being layoffs round after round rather than fixing what needs to be done. The standard became CYOA rather than getting the work done. Such is what was wrong with the uncontrolled rounds of 'continuous improvement' without thinking.