「華人戴明學院」是戴明哲學的學習共同體 ,致力於淵博型智識系統的研究、推廣和運用。 The purpose of this blog is to advance the ideas and ideals of W. Edwards Deming.

2009年3月24日 星期二

三頭六臂集 340-352


美國之可愛在以下 雙方
US lawmakers vote for bonus tax

The US House of Representatives approves a 90% tax on bonuses from bailed-out firms, in a vote hailed by President Obama.

最有意思的是做 眾人大罵的公司據法力爭

A.I.G. Sues U.S. for Return of $306 Million in Tax Payments

While the American International Group comes under fire from Congress over executive bonuses, it is quietly fighting the federal government for the return of $306 million in tax payments, some related to deals that were conducted through offshore tax havens.


David 問" 有一個名詞翻譯 knowledge-based 國立編譯館翻作 知識文本的....
讀起來有些繞口 不知道也沒有較好的說法?"
答: 知識經濟(knowledge-based Economy).
  • 知識データベースに基づく、知識{ちしき}ベースの、知識集約型{ちしき しゅうやく がた}の、知識基盤{ちしき きばん}の、知識本位{ちしき ほんい}の◆【略】K-based

" Bralla 談 DFM 時說
DFM is a Knowledge-based technique that works effectively in improving...
DFM 乃一以知識為基礎之技術... ??"


當然 資訊業談 knowledge-based的
Presentation by Dr. Peter Drucker
International Knowledge Management Summit
11 June 1998
Dr. Peter Drucker began by describing himself as a management insultant
- “You have to get their attention before you can do anything else, and the best
way to do that is to be a little bit insulting.” And so it began! A wonderful almost
two hours of listening to one of the most impactful thinkers, writers, and
philosophers on organizational behaviors, management and group performance
in the 20th century. It was a genuine pleasure and honor to hear and interact with
him in person. At age 88, he conveys his experience and wisdom by telling
stories that wonderfully illustrate the learnings of a lifetime.

Those of you who have read Drucker will no doubt recognize familiar
themes from his writings. These notes are no substitute for reading the original.
But for those of you who are intrigued but have not read his work, I urge you to
do so. He is the most profound thinker in management and business.
Drucker communicates through telling stories. He often starts with a
rhetorical question:

Q: Who were the first executives, and perhaps the greatest executives of all
A: The builders of the great pyramids. The projects were huge, even by modern
standards. They certainly were vaster than any project undertaken before the
mid-1800’s. Yet these men - and we presume they were men - organized the
collective work of thousands of other men, planned, arranged for materials, and
did all of the things big corporations do today. But the knowledge to do this was
in just a few men - the rest were organized to contribute their physical labor, and
that physical labor has changed very little over the years.
Thus, people who know how to manage have existed for centuries. Yet,
now society has a need for managers in greater numbers than it did in the past
and their skills are essential. This is the change from the past – that we need
such greater numbers.
But now we have many more people doing knowledge and service work.
And what do we know about managing knowledge workers? We know that there
are three topics: the knowledge worker, knowledge itself, and the resources and
tools for knowledge worker. All three must be heeded. However, Dr. Drucker
decided not to discuss resources and tools. First he addressed managing the
knowledge worker, whom he characterized as both “dismally unproductive” and
volunteers. Secondly, he said, we know that they are not employees, but
volunteers, even though they are paid for what they do.
Until recently, society ran on muscle power or skilled labor. In 1880
Frederick Taylor looked at manual work, and made great improvements in its
productivity. But even Taylor looked at the task being done, and asked “What is
the one best way to do this task/” He never asked if the task itself was
Previously, knowledge was an ornament. Even up to World War II,
almost all work was manual or skilled labor. What we did in WWII, out of
necessity, was through management and training we learned to enable many
people to do what in the past only a few people had been able to do - produce
high quality optics, make machine parts, build complex machines. We did this
through discipline, through study and conscientious attention to process. This
efforts had enormous success, resulting in an improvement in productivity of
about three and a half per cent, which is a 50-fold increase over a century.
However, all manual and skilled work is programmed by the task. How
should the task itself be done? But that may not be the right question. In
contrast, knowledge work is not programmed by the task. Knowledge work is
driven by the results. . The first question must be: “What is the task?”
The major cause of dismal productivity is that we have knowledge workers
doing work that we did not hire them to do, and which probably does not need to
be done at all. Productivity of the knowledge worker begins with asking: “What
is the task? What is the job?” Even today, we are too quick to ask how to do the
task better, and not consider whether it can be eliminated altogether. Only the
knowledge worker himself can answer that, but all too often his job consists of
For example:
· Salespeople today sell two-thirds of what they sold in 1929, adjusted for
· Nurses spend 70-75% of their time shuffling papers
· Engineers spend time writing and rewriting reports - no one applied to
engineering school because he wanted to write reports. No one was
admitted to engineering school because she was a good report writer.
Eliminating non-essential work is the key to the productivity of the
knowledge worker. This is the severe limitation of classical TQM, in that it made
perfect work that should never be done at all. (Drucker was particularly direct
about Deming on this point, but allowed that Juran was more flexible.)
As no two knowledge workers have the same job, each one must define
their own job: What should we in this organization hold you accountable for?
What contributions and results should you be accountable for over the next 15
This process is iterative, however. The first attempts to do this will not be
right, but they will allow us to learn. The nurse will tell you, for example, that
while arranging flowers for a patient is not a nursing task, it is something she or
he (40% of nursing students today are men) should do because nonprofessional
contact with patients is necessary to build the patient relationship
that is necessary for good nursing care. And what is the nurse being paid for?
Patient care! Not housekeeping, paperwork, or doctor care!
The second responsibility of the knowledge worker is to educate us.
Every knowledge worker must first be a teacher, creating a wider understanding
of his or her knowledge. It is their job to describe to the organization the power
and limitations of their area of expertise. The knowledge worker must be clear
about what people should know about their area, especially what they can and
cannot produce. Ultimately, becoming a learning organization requires first
becoming a teaching organization.
Unlike manual or skilled laborers, knowledge workers are paid to know
something we don’t. You have the knowledge, we don’t. In the old labor and skill
model in organizations, managers had held most of the jobs of the people they
supervised. They came up the ladder, jobs changed slowly, the people at the top
knew every job in the plant. They were in a position, through their experiences to
specify the information and knowledge needs for employees.
Today no two career paths are the same, no two experience profiles are
the same. Knowledge workers cannot assume their managers know what they
do. Thus, it is imperative that the knowledge worker educate his associates as to
what his job and knowledge are.
Lastly, the knowledge worker must define his or her information needs. In
the past this was a management task, because information was scarce. Today,
information is becoming a commodity, and the knowledge worker will have to
learn and answer the question “What information do you need to do your job?”
The question usually has not been asked - and whatever you answer, without
testing will be wrong - never right the first time.
The nature of knowledge is that it makes itself obsolete. On the other hand, skills
change very slowly. A stone cutter from the middle ages would recognize and be
able to use the tools used today. Under these conditions, it was reasonable to
believe that when an apprentice finished training at the age of 16 or 18, he had
learned most of what he needed to know about his skill for the rest of his life.
How do you manage change in knowledge work? By organized abandonment -
by getting rid of yesterday. New ideas need good people who must be pulled off
of yesterday/s tasks. There is nothing more futile than trying to keep a boat from
sinking. Managers must plan for organized abandonment, and manage change.
Get rid of yesterday; move onto the new. The new always requires able people,
who take change for granted and see it as an opportunity.
In knowledge work, the knowledge worker now owns the means of production.
They are mobile, and can work anywhere. They keep their resumes in their
bottom drawer. Consequently, they must be managed as volunteers, not as
employees. Only the unskilled need the employer more than the employer needs
Managing volunteers is an American specialty - no other country has a tradition
of volunteerism like America. What are some of the things that make people
I see results.
I know what I am doing.
I know the objectives.
I know why I am here.
I have responsibility.
I set the goals.
They expect me to help tell them what to do, to help set direction.
So, what does this teach us about managing knowledge workers? The job of
management is to make them effective. There are a number of ways to do this:
Make demands on knowledge workers, Hold them accountable.
Give them responsibility.
Put in stretch goals they can be proud of achieving.
Make sure they have training and education.
Place people so that they are productive.
Give them achievement so that they develop standards.
Ensure they have rewards and recognition.
Managers must change people’s behavior through appropriate rewards
and recognition. The most potent form is peer recognition. However, he
cautioned not to try to change everyone at once: “Don’t’ try to convert all of the
heathens at once. “
When setting stretch goals, knowledge workers must be involved in
setting their own standards for reaching those goals. Perhaps a way to start is
by accessing the requirement and then reviewing what contribution the
knowledge worker can make.
The key to productivity is to abandon work that does not need to be done.
To make Organized abandonment systematic, he suggested a policy of
reviewing all products, processes, and services every three years, asking the
questions” “If we were not already in this business, or performing this activity,
and knowing what we know, would we enter in to it now?” If the answer is “No”,
then, take action to stop it now - Do Not Study It! Near successes can hinder
innovation and are dangerous. They encourages continuing what should be
abandoned. Organized Abandonment must be built in to your business.
The ultimate test of management is succession. Great leaders are too
often followed by collapse of the business, because succession is too often
ignored. Too often, leaders pick their successors, and they tend to pick carbon
copies of themselves, and carbon copies are always weak. Two institutions - the
Church and the Military - have endured in part because they do not allow their
leaders to select their successors.
On Mentoring: A mentor should ask two questions about their charge:
· What are her strengths?
· What are her bad habits, weaknesses?
The mentor’s first job is to place the person where her strengths will produce
results. It is the mentor’s job to make them effective, while also helping them
learn to overcome bad habits.
The “Death of Hierarchy” is nonsense! Someone must be in charge, have clear
authority. The issue is not “leadership” in the abstract, but “leadership for what
purpose?” Great charismatic leaders can spread tragedy. On the other hand,
Harry Truman had the “leadership and charisma of a dead fish”- yet he was an
effective executive.
It’s not about Dash, but Do!
In a small session following his Keynote, Professor Drucker responded to more
His advice to a would-be CKO for deciding how to engage his organization:
Figure out what the objective needs are of the organization. Who is the customer
of your services, and what do they consider value? This is not the same as
asking for the job description - the “job” is meaningless.
Assess what the organization will be most receptive for, and consider that as an
entry point. You need to know what works in your organization. The Navy, for
example, would not accept what works for the Air Force. You will not change
personalities; work with them.
On managing knowledge workers as volunteers:
Three critical areas -
· Results - “Box Office” - They must be able to produce
· Manners - The lubricating oil of the organization. Moving bodies under
pressure creates friction, but you can function as long as you can interact.
Don’t allow bad manners, and don’t allow people to confuse “freedom” with
abandoning manners.
· Responsibility. Demand they take responsibility for the expectations others
have of them. Start with commitments to your boss, then your subordinates.
Then be clear about what you need from them. Remember, we do not know
what others do and need, and they do not know what we do and need.
Begin your examination of the business from outside. Get out! See how things
work, really. Know your core competencies, look at the environment, and look for
gaps that your core competencies can address. Don’t start with your products!
You will not see anything new, you will miss opportunities.



主張印度的說 他們的語文數學等都有深入的基礎 所以...


且看中國派駐的林毅夫-- 所謂首席經濟學家--的信誓旦旦 中國一定強 一定保八

這國可稱為三八之國 他們現在發起拒看央視等 --中国媒体人再次呼吁抵制官方宣传机构


exercise, spiritual(1) 靈修功夫;熱心神工;神業。(2) 退省;避靜;神操。

想起去年底 Peter 送的書

聖依納爵 神操" (The Spiritual Excercises of St. Ignatitus) 台北:光啟文化事業 1978/2003 三版

煉路 明路 合路
始修者 進修者 成全者

如此 "戴明修煉"似乎應改成"戴明煉修"

me: 剛剛寫神操 deming圈
Sent at 10:14 AM on Friday
PeterHsiung: 鍾老師, 平安,昨天剛從神州返家, 計九天,遊歷了西安洛陽開封古城, 也目睹龍門雲岡石窟白居易故居亦在其中, 崋清池上李楊愛情故事,長恨歌迴盪其間, 秦王兵馬俑就在眼前, 並留一壺黃河之水, 人已回, 神未歸, 神操或助神歸




Obamas to Plant White House Vegetable Garden


The country’s one million community gardens, she said, can also play an important role for urban dwellers who have no backyards.

But, sitting in her office in the East Wing, Mrs. Obama stressed that she doesn’t want people to feel guilty if they don’t have the time to have a garden: there are still many small changes they can make.

“You can begin in your own cupboard by eliminating processed food, trying to cook a meal a little more often, trying to incorporate more fruits and vegetables,” she said.

許烺光( Francis L. K. Hsu, 1975)『家元:日本的真髓』 (IEMOTO: The Heart of Japan) 于嘉雲譯,台北:南天,1990 いえもと いへ― 0 【家元】

武道や芸道で、その流派の正統としての権威をもち、その技芸を守り継承する家。また、その身分や、その人。室町時代におこり 江戸時代に発達した。宗家。

「有幾個理由把家元當作日本最重要與最典型的次級團體。 …….第三,這是關鍵,家元無論大小都不只是一個組織。它代表了一種生活方式,是個日本男女在其中看自己以及看周遭世界如何組織起來的一個結構,是解決問題之鑰,而且是如何對付內憂外患的藍圖 …..我們認為家元型的人類關係是 ……尤其是第二次世界大戰後成功的基礎。因此,本分析的題目叫作『家元:日本的真髓』。 …….」 (p. xviii) 「 …..其精神表現在老與少,前期生(前輩)與後期生,上司與部屬間那全包性及近乎打不破的發號司令 -服從,施助- 倚賴的關係上非常明顯。…..」( 『家元:日本的真髓』,p.136)

日本公司是由許多自主管理的小團體(如品管圈)所組織成的結構,參考渡辺 孝雄( Takao Watanabe)『和英対照 日本的経営の変貌』(Demystifying Japanese Management) 東京:学生社,1987 出版,pp.50-1

品質嚴謹 「品質嚴謹」說法之一例,參見 許烺光(Francis L. K. Hsu, 1975 )『家元:日本的真髓』(IEMOTO: The Heart of Japan) 于嘉雲譯,台北:南天,1990 ,p.vi

【嚴謹】 教育部國語辭典之解釋 : 嚴肅謹慎。宋˙歐陽修˙尚書工部郎中歐陽公墓誌銘:君諱載,字則之,性方直嚴謹。 嚴密周延。西遊記˙第十回:博奕之道,貴乎嚴謹。 嚴格。京本通俗小說˙志誠張主管:使不得。第一,家中母親嚴謹;第二,道不得瓜田不納履,李下不整冠。要來張勝家中,斷然使不得! 整齊。兒女英雄傳˙第二十四回:姑娘看了這地方,真個收拾得乾淨嚴謹,心下甚喜。


也會用"漢方"作肥皂和齒粉 來賣
我說 應該請她女兒設計禮盒

我提醒他必須參考 body shop 草創時期之許多做法

在所有文人中 我最佩服林語堂先生的 "設計中文打字機"



昨天在紐約時報的網路頭條新聞 Natasha Richardson, 45, Stage and Film Star, Dies
我們婉惜這樣的戲劇天才怪才 充滿生命之激情的才女 這樣不小心就告別人生舞台

AFP/Getty Images/Andrew H. Walker 【3月19日 AFP】カナダのスキー場で転倒し、頭部に重傷を負って入院していた英国出身の女優ナターシャ・リチャードソン(Natasha Richardson)さん(45)が死去した。夫で俳優のリーアム・ニーソン(Liam Neeson)さん(56)の広報 ...

Could a Helmet Have Saved Natasha Richardson?

Natasha Richardson
Natasha Richardson
Andrew Crowley / Telegraph UK / Zuma

There is still more speculation than information surrounding actress Natasha Richardson's fateful ski accident. Part of the confusion is the very nature of the accident — an improbable injury, little more than a head bump on a bunny slope, that has felled an otherwise healthy 45-year-old woman. It has also left onlookers wondering not just what happened to Richardson, but whether a helmet could have prevented it.

The details of Richardson's accident are sketchy, but what is known sounded benign — at first. She was taking a lesson on a beginner slope at the Mont Tremblant ski resort north of Montreal, with an instructor but without a helmet. She fell at the end of the lesson and struck her head, but was alert and conversational afterward and did not complain of any ill effects. An hour later, in her hotel room, she developed a severe headache. The next day, she was flown to Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City in critical condition, where she died on Wednesday. (See pictures of Natasha Richardson's life.)

Richardson's family and doctors had released no information regarding her condition, prior to her death. But it appears that Richardson was the victim of an unfortunate collision of biology and physics — a collision that is becoming scarily common in the worlds of athletics and organized sports. The human body is a sturdy one, but only up to a point, able to withstand collisions of about 15 m.p.h., which is about as fast as an average person can run. The skull is designed to be especially rugged — the permanent home and helmet for the brain — but even it can't take a much more serious hit. The problem is that over the centuries, we've developed all manner of ways to exceed a mere 15 m.p.h. creep. (Read a TIME cover story on the brain.)

One of the most common collision-related head injuries is a concussion, which occurs when the head moves at high speed and stops suddenly as it strikes a hard object. The brain, which is snug but not completely stationary inside the head, may continue moving, colliding with the inside of the skull. This leads to swelling or bruising or — much worse — bleeding. A brain-bleed is immediately life-threatening, but swelling is less so and may not even be evident for a little while, which is what appears to have happened in Richardson's case.

"In organized sports," says Jasper Shealy, a professor emeritus at the Rochester Institute of Technology and a sports-injury expert who has published more than 100 papers on the subject, "the practice had been for players with a head injury to sit on the bench for a little while and, once they felt better, to go back in."

That's a mistake — and not only because it takes more than a few minutes to know how serious the injury is. An initial concussion, neurologists are now learning, can make a second concussion more likely, and the second injury, in turn, increases the risk of subsequent ones over the years. That's precisely the reason some NFL players become known as more concussion-prone than others. Worse, the danger is cumulative: later concussions may become not just more likely, but also more serious. "A sequence of mild events — even just two or more — can equal one big hit," Shealy says. That may have been what happened in Richardson's case, though no one has said publicly if she had any other head injuries in her past.

The fact that Richardson was not wearing a helmet may or may not have made a difference in the gravity of her injury. If skiers are moving slowly — say 10 m.p.h. or slower — and they fall on soft snow, they're probably not going to be hurt severely, whether they're wearing a helmet or not. If they're moving faster than 15 or 20 m.p.h. and strike ice, hard-packed snow or another solid object with the head, they're likely to suffer severe injury, and again the presence of a helmet may not make much difference. It's in the middle area — at speeds that are neither very slow nor very fast — that a helmet can play the biggest role. The trick, of course, is that you never know when you're going to be in that gray zone, since even slow beginner skiers can lose control and speed up, and high-speed skiers have to slow down eventually. (See pictures of skiing.)

Physics makes things trickier still, causing different parts of the body to move at different speeds. Your skis or snowboard may be sliding along at a slow 10 m.p.h., but if you catch a tip or edge on something stationary, the rest of you plunges forward and accelerates. "The body acts as an inverted pendulum, so the upper body moves much faster than the lower body," says Shealy.

Once you do fall and hit, the brain can do much more than just bump the inside of the skull. "You can have stretching of cortical connections or stretching of blood vessels, and that can lead to bleeding," Shealy says. "You can also have linear or rotational acceleration [of the brain]. There's a lot that can go wrong in there."

Even some experts acknowledge that helmets are no panacea, and not only because they become less effective at higher speeds. Skiers argue that they reduce peripheral vision and also provide a false sense of security that encourages speeding. Those claims may well have some truth, but seat belts too may create a false sense of security, yet few people argue the wisdom of wearing them. Helmets may not provide the same level of protection as a seat belt, but in some cases, even inconsistent protection may make all the difference.

See pictures of Natasha Richardson's life.

Read "The Year in Medicine 2008: From A to Z."


一個多月前 我跟簡英哲夫婦說
Philips Taiwan 竹北廠的品管部稱為 Quality Service 部門
簡博士說 他們的品管做得遠比一般的公司確實
一般大公司 都是將品管部當顧客來訪的公關


中國經濟網 - Beijing,China
這引起了執法人員的警覺,因為QS標誌含義是“品質安全”,但磷酸二銨實際上並不在國家許可管理目錄內。 經過調查,企業管理人員承認,他們是故意使用印有QS標誌字樣的包裝袋,擴大宣傳效果,使消費者認為這是品質信得過的產品,以提高市場銷量。該企業的造假行為已經涉嫌 ..."


早上走過一家餐廳 大書"早餐暫時停止供應...." 我對這沒興趣
只是懷念十年前他們門口一棵極其漂亮挺拔的榕樹 被砍掉了
那時 在風雨中 我從窗口 望出 它搖曳生姿 跟我獻我一陣
後來 咖啡店的租客利用一年 不知怎的 決定砍伐它
而我的窗 也為十幾層樓高的真理堂所阻斷視線
真是 不見不思念

說裁掉樹身 讓它發幼枝葉 最好
我们堅持這邊的 不准這樣

他們請工人 --反正契約工 沒事做--去砍
隔年 真的長出些新綠
再一年 已成枯木
它對面 我們這棵
應該很無奈 很寂寞


現在的勵志書 又是必勝 (說不定自日本) 又是成功


穡 (讀 色)





ひっしょう ―しよう 【必勝】/ ―せふ 【必捷】

  • 必ず勝つこと。
    • 「―の信念」
    • 「―を期する」

  • ◆アクセント : ひっしょう