Ray Evans Harrel raises a series of questions surrounding my post LO4810.
I would like to answer all your questions and may do so over time. One
thing that came to mind while I read your response: Are you are familiar
with or have you read anything on Dr. Deming's management methods?
Before I go any further on this, I would like to point out that I am a
musician (unprofessional) and play several instruments. Several years
ago, I was involved in a dance and musical ensemble that traveled yearly
through cities in the US and Canada. I could empathize with your position
on many of your comments as the world of music and arts is a subjective
one, with good reason. Imagine how boring performing arts would be, if
there were measurable standards at every corner. Some things in music are
measurable, however. I don't know in professional orchestras if musicians
tune their own instruments, I know we had to. Some individuals, whom
others "judged" to have good ears for tuning were satisfied with
deviations that made me cringe. One person with a faulty ear can sour the
sweetest of music. One individual can affect the output of the entire
orchestra -- for good, or for bad.
In your line of business, I tend to think that much of what is done is,
and must be subjective (all eyes, ears and tastes are different).
However, in other areas, things should be done with less subjectivity and
more objectivity (please note, I did not say exclusively).
>What do the workers believe the purpose of "knowing the statistics" to be?
>Can they see them as a help to making their job more proficient, fulfilling
>and enjoyable?
I've worked with several design supervisors in the last 9 years. Most
lost whatever proficiency they had on the computer when they became
supervisors and stopped their practice. One supervisor used his
slack-time to complete some of the jobs himself. He was able to keep up
with system upgrades and help his people. In my organization he is the
extreme exception (observation only). Each time one works for a different
supervisor, the rules change. This makes it nearly impossible to learn.
One notices something you do and tells you to do it another way. When you
do it this other way while working for someone else, they give you their
"expert" opinion and tell you to do it yet another way. If we could map
such variation, the noise would be deafening. All of this is based on
"judgement". It is highly subjective and "opinionated".
I would like to be able to sit down with my supervisor and discuss my
progress and skill level as a CAD operator and as a designer (2 separate
proficiencies, IMHO) using an objective tool that is universally accepted
between most designers and supervisors in the organization. It is
extremely frustrating to not have something objective that the two of us
can use to visualize my progress and to help me see what it is I need to
work on. This will remove the frustration from my work and make it more
fulfilling, enjoyable and, I believe more proficient and effective.
This also means that such a tool would need to be developed,
collaboratively by designers, supervisors and managers alike, along with
someone who understands the ins and outs of stats.
>Is the measurement process for you or for the workers with the difficulties?
> i.e. to >change their behavior or yours?
In my mind the measurement process is for two things:
A) It enables management to see where we are collectively, comprehending
the upper and lower control limits. When a designer falls outside (on the
low side) of that limit, it sends a signal to the worker and/or supervisor
to seek out the cause. Many of the questions you asked, would be asked at
this point. In other words, we don't attribute anything within the
control limits to "the worker" because these are system variations, only
correctable by management. If someone falls outside *consistently*, on
the high side, then management needs to take a closer look at what this
person is doing, then try to apply it if possible to the rest of the
system. In other words, the system is learning in a controlled fashion,
gradually (continuous improvement). This would shift those within the
limits in a positive direction.
B) Objective universal tool that can be used between any designer and any
supervisor within the system -- your skill can't be judged based on "gut
feeling", "expert opinion" etc.
Just for reference, in his book, "Out of Crisis", Deming stated:
"I should estimate that in my experience most troubles and most
possibilities for improvement add up to proportions something like this:
94% belong to the system (responsibility of management)
6% special " (Chapter 11; p315)
I would like to answer more of the questions you raised and will probably
do so in a subsequent posting. You certainly ask questions that I am
likely to be hit with as I attempt to make my suggestion of developing a
measurement plan for proficiency.
-- Diane M. Korzeniewski ToCOLLABR8@aol.com