On Sat, 10 Feb 1996 OrgPsych@aol.com wrote:
> This quote
> infers that Deming and the Japanese foresaw the Baby Boomers becoming the
> dominant economic force during these past few decades and worked to cater
> to their desires and needs. I don't think that anyone involved was this
Yeah, I agree. My statements were sort of vague. How about this;
Deming did his research in relative obscurity (similar to Warfield)...
then the Japanese found out about it and incorporated it into their
industries... Deming's research was well suited to improving the
productivity of their industries.... American's found out about Deming's
work from the Japanese... Deming get's famous.... American industry
integrates benefits from Deming's work...
I read this somewhere... can't recall exactly where... maybe it's
> I can't think of any person I know (at about age 40-45 or so) whose life
> has developed just as they predicted when they were 20 or so. Things have
> a way of developing as they *should* in spite of our best laid plans.
Well, I'm 22 and I reached a lot of the goals I set 2 years ago and I'm
pretty well on my way on the other ones that I set during that 2 years....
Goal is sort of a vague word however.... Predictions are different from
goals... Sometimes plan failures are an opportunity for synchronicity and
> quote from Andrew suggests that Deming and his Japanese clients foresaw
> the Boomer trend and made specific plans to cater to that market.
I agree that no foresight on the Japanese end was involved other than to
recognize that Deming's work would be useful.
> The idea of countries leapfrogging from agricultural to information-based
> economies doesn't set well with me as it is presented here. Perhaps I
> just don't have enough information to understand what Andrew is
Well, information based economy is sort of a vague term. Some
clarification questions; Inform who? Inform how? What Information? Who
sells? What is being sold? How is it being sold? Sold to who? Deliver
what? Deliver how? Deliver to who? Who delivers?
If we can agree on the answers to those questions, then I can begin to
clarify some of the points I wanted to make...
> The information age resulted from the manufacturing activities of the past
> several decades. To simply skip over that stage of development can be
> somewhat akin to taking primitive tribes who use crossbows to hunt and
> fish and giving them M-16's. They may tend to use this advanced
> technologically to club their food to death. They may also discover the
> potential lethality of their new-found *tools* and learn how to this
> technology to subduew their neighbors. These subservient neighbors then
> have to do all of the hunting and fishing for these now-superior
> tribespeople. This sounds great to many who would like to be in the
> superior role. However, history has shown that those who arrive at this
> position in this manner eventually fall and are forgotten because they
> have no foundation for the continued prosperity of their culture other
> than force.
> My point is that skipping over the industrial/manufacturing stage
> completely potentially prevents a solid foundation from forming upon which
> to base the ultimate destination. Once this destination has been reached,
> any turbulence can result in the destruction of that culture.
> In other words, the technology is procured and the people trained in its
> use so that they can function in an information-based economy. They
> become fairly successful and prosperous. Then the technology changes.
> The emerging equipment is so radically different that the old equipment is
> immediately several years obsolete. The problem for this successful and
> prosperous country is that th8is new technology is very expensive.
> Because they haven't built any other economic base except agriculture,
> they don't have the means to acquire this new technology.
> Because this new technology is so much of an advancement over what was
> before, they MUST have it in order to survive. What do they do? Do they
> settle for being a second rate (or worse) economic power because they
> can't compete? Do they form a partnership with companies or countries
> that can provide them with this new technology which can (and too often
> do) result in their becoming enslaved to that company or country as their
> dependence upon this source of supply grows and deepens?
I can see how it would be sort of tricky for Deming in the period that
the Japanese began to use his research.
I'm not going to comment further on this other than to say that the stated
purpose of leapfrogging initiatives to an information based economy is to
increase the living standards of the people in those countries.
Hopefully, the living standards of all people in all countries can be
improved through their participation in information based economies,
whether or not those countries "leapfrogged" or not.
Thank you for the feedback,
-- Andrew Moreno <email@example.com>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <firstname.lastname@example.org> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>