>>>Sure. We can talk about compulsory education negating the customer
angle, but we can also--and should also--call that a moot point for the
sake of continuous improvement now<<<
An interest of mine has been the differences between manufacturing
organizations that act on inert matter and people processing organizations
where the raw material talks back to you.
It seems to me that quality and outcome have something to do with the
cooperation, if not assent and initiative, of the raw material in people
processing organizations
I further make a distinction between custodial vs. therapeutic
organizations. In custodial institutions cooperation of the raw material
is not as important as in theraputic organizations.
Compulsory implies coercion and an unwillingness to engage unless forced.
I make a distinction between schooling and education. Schooling can be
made compulsory and yet education cannot.
IMHO this is not a moot point, but in the last analysis the crux of the
problem. I suppose we could further burden the "therapists"/
educators/attendants/corrections officers etc. with the task of motivating
the uninterested or unwilling client/student/inmate, but the desire of the
raw material for change is crucial to the process in the long run.
In learning organizations this adds an interesting element to our more
mechanistic models in that the raw material being transformed by the
"manufacturing processes" has free will and can sabotage vs. enhance the
process. In TQM jargon I suppose we should be working with our suppliers
on the quality of the raw materials they are supplying us, because the
outcome will depend to some extent not only on our quality systems but
also on the quality of the fodder for the cannon.
Reminds me of Lester Maddox saying when he was Governor of Georgia that
the reason there had been so many riots in the State Prisons in the State
of Georgia was because they had a bad class of prisoner.
-- David Markham DavidM1225@aol.com