W. Edwards Deming did a great disservice. He left a prescription for what the United States should do to improve government, manufacturing, and service. The prescription is composed of his 14 Points and Seven Deadly Diseases (which later became his System of Profound Knowledge), and he learned from personal knowledge that these were the issues holding the country back.

The elimination of reward systems, making the worker relevant, breaking down barriers, etc., are all very relevant and are correct actions to take. However, Deming learned this by working with U.S. companies. The key point here is he learned… other executives did not come to the same conclusion (or at least very few did).

Deming could not coerce executives into believing him, so he tried a rational approach. But red-bead experiments and four-day seminars were not enough for management to make the connection between what they were being told and how they operated. A rational argument rarely convinces anyone to change their thinking.

This is why there is a need for systems thinking. How can we create the learning that Deming achieved that led him to his prescription? Using coercion or rationalization? No. The learning must be emergent—executives and workers must learn for themselves.

Often when I write articles or have a speaking engagement, I like to polarize things into black and white. Almost every time I do this, I’m challenged about the audacity of the approach. Nothing seems to irritate people more than the statement “A focus on costs always increases them.” Just to stir the pot once again, I’m making that the subject of this offering.

One typical response I get is from those who claim “never” or “always” are absolutes, and should be vanquished from our communications. To these folks I say, “Can’t we always improve?” For the rest, let’s walk through this theory together and discern for ourselves what makes sense.

Let’s begin by challenging existing assumptions linked to economies of scale, which is the bedrock for assumptions about reducing costs. Then we’ll explore and debunk two popular strategies that attempt to exploit this assumption around reducing costs: outsourcing and shared services.

I challenge myself each day to hear something different. Sometimes this is about education, liberals, conservatives, tree-huggers, or many other opinions and topics that counter my perspective. For me, this develops new perspectives on problems and issues that service organizations face, even if the topic is distasteful and challenges my core values.

Scientific management theory has long driven our education, management thinking, and design of work. The plight of Call Center Cindy in a government agency still haunts me. Too many service organizations have killed innovation and destroyed hope for change (that is, improvement) because of the systems we have built.

Students are trained to do well on tests, and workers are trained to comply with scripts, audits, monitoring, entrapping technology, and procedures. Then the question is asked, “Why can’t we get workers to change?” Because the system has built droids that learn to comply and not think.

Springtime. Birds, sun, warmer weather, and a chance to get the “Z” out for a spin. I drove it at every opportunity during this winter, of which there weren't many (rough winter). As I sat in the cockpit of my machine and turned the key in the ignition, I heard an unfamiliar click and dying of sound and light. 

The next moment I found myself strapping the jumper cables to the Infiniti and charging up my mid-life crisis. Having no problem with instant gratification, I took her out for a drive.

The next day, the same (and now familiar) click of the engine, and a no go. The next logical move was to call my local BMW dealership for a battery replacement. I told them of my problem and was put through to the parts department to see if they had my battery model. I was asked if I wanted to install the battery myself, but knowing my mechanical capability and not being sure whether the battery was the only problem, I replied “no.”