Part 4 Presentation of the Deming Chain Reaction

Whilst at a recent conference, where I made reference to the chain reaction, it occurred to me that a significant factor in the apparent low ‘take up’ in practice of the Deming Chain Reaction could be related to the way that it is still generally presented and described i.e. as a linear sequence in an almost explicit manufacturing context. I suspect that when it was first ‘developed’ this context & format were very appropriate/ relevant to the issues of the day e.g. post WW2 manufacturing & employment – but I wonder i this both potentially ‘undervalues’ & unintentionally limits its ‘take up’ in current practice? There appears to be a hint of this line of thinking in “Fourth Generation Management”. On page 23, describing the chain reaction, Brian Joiner writes:

“With his (Demings’) permission, we’ve added a final step to this chain: provide better return to investors.”

And potentially even more significantly goes on to say:

“And producing more with the same resources raises our standard of living”.

Reflecting particularly on this latter point, and in the light of some of today’s’ key issues e.g. quality of life, climate issues, stewardship of natural resources etc, causes me to wonder if a different form of presentation & wording might ‘open the door’ to a significantly greater application of the Chain Reaction. For instance I am wondering about:

· Presentation as a closed loop cycle – rather than an open linear sequence.

· Wording which is more readily related to a universal context – rather than a limited manufacturing organisational context. Some thoughts that are beginning to form:

o Starting point ;

§ ‘Understanding the real value needs of your ‘community of interest’.

o Costs decreased because:

§ Less pollutants ‘generated’.

§ Less wasted labour.

§ Less wasted creativity.

§ Less waste/ destruction of limited natural resources.

o Productivity improves:

§ Human.

§ Material.

§ Financial.

§ Ecological

o Outcomes including:

§ Jobs & more jobs.

§ Better quality of life.

§ Reduction in carbon emissions.

§ Conservation of natural resources.

§ Increased financial profit.

§ Better return to investors.

§ Increased ‘wealth’.

In part 5 we will briefly ‘visit’ the world of Social Entrepreneurship, hopefully to gain further useful insight

Part 3 Reflections on the Role of the Customer

In the ‘Deming Dimension’ (SPC Press Inc 1990 ISBN 0-945320-08-6) Henry Neave introduces the chain reaction (page 33) with a reference to Quality Guideline 1 in an article by Joiner Associates “A Practical Approach to Quality”:

Quality Guideline 1: Quality Begins With Delighting the Customer.

“.... Your bosses may be ecstatic, the Board of Directors blissful and your company may be considered a legend on Wall Street. But if your customers are not delighted, you have not begun to achieve quality”.

Pretty direct wording – which I suggest is symptomatic of a strong belief that is an implicit fundamental of the chain reaction.

Whilst currently there are ‘shed loads’ of words and lots of activity around the importance of customers e.g. customer care initiatives, questionnaires, surveys etc, my experience as a customer is generally that reality comes nowhere near to me ‘being delighted’. I conclude from my experiences that in practice ‘delighting customers’ is not generally regarded as either the starting point for quality nor product/ service delivery. My personal experiences and observations, affirmed in conversations with others, strongly suggest that, in general:

· The actual prime focus in action is on ‘boss’ (I use this term in a VERY wide sense).

· ‘Quality’ is what we can ‘get away with’.

· Delighting the customer means we have gone too far – and given something away for nothing.

· The prime ‘aims in action’ are actually:

o Reduce cost.

o Sell more – of whatever you can manage to sell.

Regardless of the fact that I personally find the statements made by Tom Johnson & Brian Joiner (see part 1) both consistent & compelling, we are, however, still seemingly left with the reality that current practice does not, in general, appear to follow the Deming Chain Reaction. Maybe the way that the Deming Chain Reaction is presented may be a factor? This will be our focus in part 4

The Rule of 150 | Quality Digest

The Rule of 150 | Quality Digest

Part 2 Reflections on the Deming Chain Reaction

In his ‘seminal’ book ‘Out of the Crisis’ (Cambridge 1982 ISBN 0-521-30553-5), Dr W Edwards Deming introduces the chain reaction on page 3:

“Management in some companies in Japan observed in 1948 & 1949 that improvement of quality begets naturally & inevitably improvement of productivity."

“... The chain reaction was on the blackboard of every meeting with top management in Japan from July 1950 onward...”

“... The production worker in Japan, as anywhere else in the world, always knew about this chain reaction; also that defects and faults that get into the hands of the customer loose the market and cost him his job.”

‘Flip’ back to page 2 and you will find a summary of the essence of the heart of the chain reaction:

“Improvement of quality transfers waste of man-hours and of machine time into the manufacture of good product and better service. The result is a chain reaction ....

(Authors note – Italics above are mine for emphasis, largely because they excite my current curiosity!).

When, as a manager in British Rail, I was first introduced to the chain reaction, like “the production worker in Japan, as anywhere else in the world,” it did indeed make intuitive sense – and still does. However, it did not, & in my experience generally still does not, appear to be common practice:

· Modern management thinking and practice does not generally appear to embody the belief that improvement of quality begets naturally & inevitably improvement of productivity.

· The chain reaction does not appear to be on the blackboard (aka powerpoint etc) of many if any top management meetings today.

If it really does make such intuitive sense to ‘production workers’ why does it not appear to make much/ any sense to modern management? Whilst there are undoubtedly very many contributory factors, my current reflections are ‘focussed’ around two particular issues:

1. What I regard & regularly experience as general ‘lip service’ paid to the role of customers.

2. The format, wording & context (manufacturing organisation) of the chain reaction as it is generally presented.

In part 3 we will explore some aspects of the role of the customer.

Reflections on Cost, Productivity, Value, Waste & Quality;Part 1 Value - the Prime Focus for Improvement

There would appear to be general agreement that much of the current interest in waste and ‘lean’ is traceable back, in one way or another, to the Toyota Production System (TPS). In “The Toyota Way” (McGraw Hill ISBN 0-07-139231-9), on page 7 author Jeffrey Liker, introducing the TPS, quotes Taichi Ohno (the person credited as the originator of the TPS) as follows:

“All we are doing is looking at the time line from the moment the customer gives us an order to the point when we collect the cash. And we are reducing the time line by reducing the non-value-added wastes.”

In his November 2009 Quality World article ‘The Unnatural Environment”, Tom Johnson offers some profound insight into the focus of the TPS:

“So, if Toyota’s operations yield low costs and little waste, it is not because Toyota relentlessly strives to subtract parts. Instead, it is because the company’s constant focus on improving relationships among parts produces features such as direct, short connections & simple, unambiguous pathways without workarounds.”

In other words, the focus, or starting point if you like, of Toyota’s efforts is VALUE

not waste (aka cost). Waste (cost) reduction is a CONSEQUENCE of this focus on VALUE. This is congruent with Deming’s Chain Reaction (where ‘Improve Quality of Product and Service’ is synonymous with ‘Improve the added value for the customer’) – not a surprising fact given that Toyota ascribe much of their practice & success to the teachings of Dr Deming.

This highlights a subtle but very profound issue – there is a world of difference between a focus on ‘cost reduction’ (were most current efforts generally appear to start) & a focus on ‘adding value’.

In his book “Fourth Generation Management” (Mc-Graw-Hill Inc ISBN 0-07-03715-7) Brian Joiner shines further light on this issue. On page 23 he writes:

“What if we try to enter the Deming Chain Reaction at “Decrease Costs”? Or at “Return on investment?” Many companies have taken this route ... but it is doomed to failure. By starting at “Decrease Costs” instead of “Improve Quality”, they don’t eliminate the causes of the cost. One cost cutting drive therefore leads to further problems, which leads to another cost cutting drive. The situation spirals downwards.”

By looking at our own processes & systems with a focus on VALUE (as defined by the end customer) we are in effect ‘stepping into their shoes’ – a very good place to be since it is they who use (or not) our product & service!

In part 2 we will reflect a little more on the Deming Chain Reaction

How to Sustain Front Line Process Improvement Activities - Brad Power - Harvard Business Review

How to Sustain Front Line Process Improvement Activities - Brad Power - Harvard Business Review