Rushing over to get an iPad? Please slow down!

Think about what it will do for you.

What is innovation?

This is an age-old question, but we're discovering nwe answers!

In memory of Jaime Escalante: a Mathematics Teacher who cared

A teacher who cared ... and who mattered in the lives of his students.

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!

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.

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.

Best and worst places for children. Failing grades to US, UK

This is a landmark report. Check out the attached links, and scroll down to read the coverage from Associated Press.

Why is it landmark? Because it flies in the face of conventional wisdom, that wealth equates to well-being. It also confirms that countries' priorities need to be well-placed, along with the commitment to better the lives of its citizens and denizens. Availability of resources is no guarantee of success, nor is the administration of bombastic plans.

It also sheds positive light on welfare programs administered by some of the European countries. While many in the Socialist world are moving away from government-controlled subsistence programs, and are opting for corporate-sponsored schemes, this report appears to dispel the oft-believed theses.

In the news clipping reproduced below, read carefully why the British government is criticizing the report. Not for a lack of substance, or for unfounded allegations, but for using data from 2000, 2001. This way, "the study did not take note of recent improvements in education, health and general living standards."

I guess we should give them an F+ grade instead of F.

I would call it very interesting - anything that forces a paradigm shift to one's thinking could rightly be labelled so - were it not for the millions who are suffering as a result of these policies (or lack thereof).

A thought also for the citizens of other countries: those not labelled as "industrialized nations" were not included in this report. I'm wondering if those countries would even fit on the same graph?

Read on ...

Link to UNICEF report:

http://www.unicef.org/media/files/ChildPovertyReport.pdf

UNICEF's Press Release:http://www.unicef.org/media/media_38299.html

Boston Herald's coverage:

http://news.bostonherald.com/international/europe/view.bg?articleid=182956

Reuter's Coverage:

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-02-14T161428Z_01_L13263581_RTRUKOC_0_UK-BRITAIN-CHILDREN1.xml

UNICEF: U.S., British Children Worst Off
Wednesday February 14, 2007 8:16 PM
By JOSH WARD
Associated Press Writer
BERLIN (AP) - The United States and Britain ranked at the bottom of a U.N. survey released Wednesday evaluating the well-being of children in wealthy countries.
The Netherlands topped the report issued by UNICEF, followed by other European countries with strong social welfare systems - Sweden, Denmark and Finland.
Among the report's overall findings was that wealth alone did not guarantee a child's well-being, with some poorer countries scoring ahead of richer ones. The U.S. and Britain finished 20th and 21st overall, respectively, behind Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary.
The British government immediately criticized the report, saying it used old data that did not measure recent improvements in things like teen pregnancies.
UNICEF ranked 21 industrialized countries in six categories: material well-being, health and safety, education, peer and family relationships, behaviors and risks, and young people's own subjective sense of well-being.
The U.S. was last for health and safety, measured by rates of infant mortality, low birth weight, immunization, and deaths from accidents and injuries.
Britain was last in the family and peer relationships ranking, which measured such things as the rate of single-parent families and whether families ate the main meal of the day together more than once a week.
Britain also finished at the bottom in behaviors and risks, which considered factors such as the percentage of children who ate breakfast, consumed fruit regularly, were overweight, used drugs or alcohol or were sexually active.
The U.S. was second from the bottom in both of those categories.
The British government said information used in the study did not take note of recent improvements in education, health and general living standards. Some of the statistics went back as far as 2000 or 2001, it said.
``In many cases the data used is several years old and does not reflect more recent improvements such as the continuing fall in the teenage pregnancy rate or in the proportion of children living in workless households,'' said a spokeswoman for British Department for Education and Skills, on customary condition of anonymity.
She said reforms introduced to tackle ``teenage smoking, drinking, and risky sexual behavior ... are delivering improvements that are making real differences to children's lives.''
Opposition Liberal Democrat lawmaker Annette Brooke said the report reflected a ``shameful level of child poverty'' in Britain.
``It is shocking that we are doing so badly at bringing up our children,'' Brooke said. ``Every child should be entitled to live in a stable, loving family environment.''
Marta Santos Pais, the study's director, said future reports would devote even more energy to assessing how children perceive their own well-being and needs.
``Very often we base our assessment and governments shape their policies on the basis of what adults feel the policy measures are achieving,'' she said. ``It's always important to see how the beneficiaries of those policies are assessing the impact of the policies.''