Re: 31 DEAD?!?

On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 00:32:04 -0700, Turby <turbosurfer@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 21:27:34 -0600, Bob Mann <Bobo@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 18:25:18 -0500, "Stephen!" <NO@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Bob Mann <Bobo@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:b7rh23tus27d31psinmbfovlpbbvd77l1l@xxxxxxx:

Much of the problem with Demmings stems not from the man and his
theories themselves but the bastardized way they get put into
practice.

The *biggest* problem with Demming's ideas and implementing them was that
most folks forget his "success story" was a country that was a the bottom
of the barrel, had *nothing* to lose, and was receiving millions
(billions?) of dollars in foreign aid... They could afford to try
something "new"...

There have been plenty of success stories where his ideas have been
used, just read Peters' books, but it can never work in any place that
sticks to a rigid command structure. The whole theory requires giving
the guy at the bottom the power to affect change in some way.
Most places where it doesn't work are more than happy to delegate the
responsibilty but never the authority.

My company has gone through incredible changes in management over the
last 20 years. We have become far more productive and efficient,
staying on top of the market the whole time. I'm sure a lot of that
has to do with management's commitment to change, no matter what the
current buzzwords are, and we've gone through all of them. Deming,
continuous improvement, town meetings, Quality, 6 Sigma, you name it,
we've done it. They all work, because everyone knows their bonus
depends on it.

It works when everyone is on the same page and "buys in".
Frankly, no matter what the buzzword used, they are all basically the
same.
It never worked for us because the more we were expected to change,
the more suspiscious the (micro)management got.
--
Bob Mann

It may be that your sole purpose in life
is to serve as a warning to others.
.

Loading