Wednesday, March 31, 2010
In memory of Jaime Escalante: a Mathematics Teacher who cared
A teacher who cared ... and who mattered in the lives of his students.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Quality versus Quantity
They say you cannot please two Gods; you cannot work for two masters; you cannot put blind faith in two different principles.
They are right. You cannot. Quality and Quantity are two such areas. In an extreme case, one boss (“quality”) tries to get you to do what is right, no matter the cost. If something is broken, fix it. Buy the best raw material, engage in the best (and often the most expensive) tools and produce something that passes the ultimate test in quality.
The other boss (“quantity”) is all about churning. Producing numbers and meeting with production goals. Something is a problem only if it halts the assembly line and deters us from the goal.
We all understand that our reality lies not at either of these extremes, but somewhere in between. It is a compromise. It is a decision that while we might be concerned about and watchful observers of one, we are actually fixated on the other. It is an internal decision, where our bosses are the shareholders, stakeholders and their elk. And for many companies out there, it is this internal decision that makes them who they are. It defines them. It brands them with this reality.
Everything else is just a façade.
I hope, and wish, that we would all do the right thing. I hope we find a way to please both the gods, and if there’s ever a conflict, I hope we find a way to do what’s right, no matter the cost!
They are right. You cannot. Quality and Quantity are two such areas. In an extreme case, one boss (“quality”) tries to get you to do what is right, no matter the cost. If something is broken, fix it. Buy the best raw material, engage in the best (and often the most expensive) tools and produce something that passes the ultimate test in quality.
The other boss (“quantity”) is all about churning. Producing numbers and meeting with production goals. Something is a problem only if it halts the assembly line and deters us from the goal.
We all understand that our reality lies not at either of these extremes, but somewhere in between. It is a compromise. It is a decision that while we might be concerned about and watchful observers of one, we are actually fixated on the other. It is an internal decision, where our bosses are the shareholders, stakeholders and their elk. And for many companies out there, it is this internal decision that makes them who they are. It defines them. It brands them with this reality.
Everything else is just a façade.
I hope, and wish, that we would all do the right thing. I hope we find a way to please both the gods, and if there’s ever a conflict, I hope we find a way to do what’s right, no matter the cost!
What happened to Toyota?
Toyota is a standard bearer. Not just for the quality of their products but for how they have run their ship over several decades. There’s hardly any line, within Automotives, where they have entered and failed to make a mark through their distinguished products and features.
I don't think anyone would argue against TQM, or lean manufacturing, or about the "Toyota Way" as it has been over several decades. They have dominated the markets worldwide because: (a) they built quality products; (b) they were reasonably priced; (c) they remained vigilant and continued to evolve as needed; and, most importantly; (d) they remained true to their core principles.
The recent years, however, caught them with their guard down. While the financial pressures from the top (ownership, management) caused them to reduce some focus on quality, they also failed to notice the paradigm shifts in the competitive landscape. They were forced to contend with new companies that came out of nowhere; were considerably more agile in their adaptation, and were suddenly a force to reckon.
This need to change too quickly can cause the best of 'em to stumble: the fact that it happened to a company that was built on "slow and steady ..." made them fall harder, with a thundering sound.
Edward Deming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Deming) is a pioneer in the concept of Total Quality Management. His name is often evoked in the discussions about Toyota, often to suggest where they deviated from the age-old principles. There’s certainly no denying Deming’s contribution to management and quality.
That said, we we should also consider that it's not sufficient to just invoke a principle: it needs to be adapted to suit the environment and times. Deming does not inspire innovation; it is designed around age-old established principles.
Times are changing. Buyers are changing and demanding what the guy across the street is offering.
Deming also focuses on improving the product itself rather than relying upon the quality assurance feedback loop. Certainly a noble goal. But what is to tell a human how to categorize something that works but is badly designed? Juxtapose that with the lean manufacturing notion which invariably means an unwarranted adjustment to your assembly line, which can cause a $5 fix to become a $5 million headache. How do you handle that?
Many companies try to shove that under the rug, hoping that nothing happens, and they get away with it. Toyota also tried to do just that, but got caught. As often happens (politics notwithstanding), the principle grievance is generally not about what happened but about when you first found out and what you did.
People have lost their lives. Families have lost their loved ones. Many are rotting in jail for what now turns out were events outside their control. Their defense now has a new lease of life. There are responsibilities, for sure. There are culpabilities, and Toyota would be well advised to do what is right. Not just to put this mess behind them but also to safeguard their name – their reputation – that takes a lifetime to build.
I don't think anyone would argue against TQM, or lean manufacturing, or about the "Toyota Way" as it has been over several decades. They have dominated the markets worldwide because: (a) they built quality products; (b) they were reasonably priced; (c) they remained vigilant and continued to evolve as needed; and, most importantly; (d) they remained true to their core principles.
The recent years, however, caught them with their guard down. While the financial pressures from the top (ownership, management) caused them to reduce some focus on quality, they also failed to notice the paradigm shifts in the competitive landscape. They were forced to contend with new companies that came out of nowhere; were considerably more agile in their adaptation, and were suddenly a force to reckon.
This need to change too quickly can cause the best of 'em to stumble: the fact that it happened to a company that was built on "slow and steady ..." made them fall harder, with a thundering sound.
Edward Deming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Deming) is a pioneer in the concept of Total Quality Management. His name is often evoked in the discussions about Toyota, often to suggest where they deviated from the age-old principles. There’s certainly no denying Deming’s contribution to management and quality.
That said, we we should also consider that it's not sufficient to just invoke a principle: it needs to be adapted to suit the environment and times. Deming does not inspire innovation; it is designed around age-old established principles.
Times are changing. Buyers are changing and demanding what the guy across the street is offering.
Deming also focuses on improving the product itself rather than relying upon the quality assurance feedback loop. Certainly a noble goal. But what is to tell a human how to categorize something that works but is badly designed? Juxtapose that with the lean manufacturing notion which invariably means an unwarranted adjustment to your assembly line, which can cause a $5 fix to become a $5 million headache. How do you handle that?
Many companies try to shove that under the rug, hoping that nothing happens, and they get away with it. Toyota also tried to do just that, but got caught. As often happens (politics notwithstanding), the principle grievance is generally not about what happened but about when you first found out and what you did.
People have lost their lives. Families have lost their loved ones. Many are rotting in jail for what now turns out were events outside their control. Their defense now has a new lease of life. There are responsibilities, for sure. There are culpabilities, and Toyota would be well advised to do what is right. Not just to put this mess behind them but also to safeguard their name – their reputation – that takes a lifetime to build.
Back ... after an looooong silence!
I am back, with a renewed ambition to revive the concept of this dialog. What I had set out to do three years back, the need for a discourse is even stronger now.
Let's get rolling. Let's get-together, for a no-holds-barred discussion. No limits to what we can say here, as long as we say it decently, and allow others to provide their contrarian views.
Let's get rolling. Let's get-together, for a no-holds-barred discussion. No limits to what we can say here, as long as we say it decently, and allow others to provide their contrarian views.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)