「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.

2010年1月4日 星期一

台灣戴明圈 170 -79


Vanguard News – January 2010

Lean is mean in the car industry

Going back to the debacle that is ‘lean’, during the Christmas break I read a book all about how ‘lean’ has gone down (badly) with the workers in car manufacturing. It shows how ‘lean’ has been just another tool of management, used to control and exploit the workers. A complete tragedy, Ohno (the man who developed the Toyota Production System) would be shocked and appalled. In the 1950s Ohno secured a major transformation in industrial relations by committing to workers sharing the first fruits of success, putting them above customers and shareholders.

This blundering wrong-headed lean tools stuff has not only created antipathy among workers it has, more importantly, meant that manufacturers have failed to realise the benefits Ohno achieved.

The big mistakes in both the car industry and HMRC are to have kept control with management and the failure to see the organisation as a system. ‘Lean’, as applied, amounts to no more than a bit of process improvement in badly designed systems. The tool heads have a lot to answer for.

The book on the car industry is titled: ‘We sell our time no more, workers’ struggles against lean production in the British car industry’, Stewart et al, Pluto Press. I shall be recommending it to my students.

John Seddon


Author: "Systems Thinking in the Public Sector”, available from Triarchy Press: www.triarchypress.com and “Freedom from command and control: a better way to make the work work" available from Vanguard (www.systemsthinking.co.uk).. “Freedom from command and control” is also available in the US from: http://www.productivitypress.com/productdetails.cfm?SKU=3276

Dear Friends,
Enjoy this beautifully written story, whether true or fiction, but its very moving and inspirational.


Peter 來訪 談些"法令遵守"等方面的事 用這篇當紀念

Group Gives Up Death Penalty Work

Published: January 4, 2010


Skip to next paragraph


Adam Liptak’s column about the legal world appears weekly. Columnist Page »

Related Times Topics: Capital Punishment

Last fall, the American Law Institute, which created the intellectual framework for the modern capital justice system almost 50 years ago, pronounced its project a failure and walked away from it.

There were other important death penalty developments last year: the number of death sentences continued to fall, Ohio switched to a single chemical for lethal injections and New Mexico repealed its death penalty entirely. But not one of them was as significant as the institute’s move, which represents a tectonic shift in legal theory.

“The A.L.I. is important on a lot of topics,” said Franklin E. Zimring, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley. “They were absolutely singular on this topic” — capital punishment — “because they were the only intellectually respectable support for the death penalty system in the United States.”

The institute is made up of about 4,000 judges, lawyers and law professors. It synthesizes and shapes the law in restatements and model codes that provide structure and coherence in a federal legal system that might otherwise consist of 50 different approaches to everything.

In 1962, as part of the Model Penal Code, the institute created the modern framework for the death penalty, one the Supreme Court largely adopted when it reinstituted capital punishment in Gregg v. Georgia in 1976. Several justices cited the standards the institute had developed as a model to be emulated by the states.

The institute’s recent decision to abandon the field was a compromise. Some members had asked the institute to take a stand against the death penalty as such. That effort failed.

Instead, the institute voted in October to disavow the structure it had created “in light of the current intractable institutional and structural obstacles to ensuring a minimally adequate system for administering capital punishment.”

That last sentence contains some pretty dense lawyer talk, but it can be untangled. What the institute was saying is that the capital justice system in the United States is irretrievably broken.

A study commissioned by the institute said that decades of experience had proved that the system could not reconcile the twin goals of individualized decisions about who should be executed and systemic fairness. It added that capital punishment was plagued by racial disparities; was enormously expensive even as many defense lawyers were underpaid and some were incompetent; risked executing innocent people; and was undermined by the politics that come with judicial elections.

Roger S. Clark, who teaches at the Rutgers School of Law in Camden, N.J., and was one of the leaders of the movement to have the institute condemn the death penalty outright, said he was satisfied with the compromise. “Capital punishment is going to be around for a while,” Professor Clark said. “What this does is pull the plug on the whole intellectual underpinnings for it.”

The framework the institute developed in 1962 was an effort to make the death penalty less arbitrary. It proposed limiting capital crimes to murder and narrowing the categories of people eligible for the punishment. Most important, it gave juries a framework to decide whom to put to death, asking them to balance aggravating factors against mitigating ones.

The move to combat arbitrariness without giving up sensitivity to individual circumstances is known as “guided discretion,” which sounds good until you notice that it is a phrase at war with itself.

The Supreme Court’s capital justice jurisprudence since 1976 has only complicated things. Justice Harry A. Blackmun conceded in 1987 that “there perhaps is an inherent tension between the discretion accorded capital sentencing juries and the guidance for use of that discretion that is constitutionally required.”

That was an understatement, Justice Antonin Scalia said in 1990. “To acknowledge that ‘there perhaps is an inherent tension,’ ” he wrote, “is rather like saying that there was perhaps an inherent tension between the Allies and the Axis powers in World War II.”

Justice Scalia solved the problem by vowing never to throw out a death sentence on the ground that the sentencer’s discretion had been unconstitutionally restricted.

In 1994, Justice Blackmun came around to the view that “guided discretion” amounted to “irreconcilable constitutional commands.” But he drew a different conclusion than Justice Scalia had from the same premise, saying that “the death penalty cannot be administered in accord with our Constitution.” He said he would no longer “tinker with the machinery of death.” The institute came to essentially the same conclusion.

Some supporters of the death penalty said they welcomed the institute’s move. Capital sentencing “is so micromanaged by Supreme Court precedents that a model statute really serves very little function,” Kent Scheidegger of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation wrote in a blog posting. “We are perfectly O.K. with dumping it.”

Mr. Scheidegger expressed satisfaction that an effort to have the institute come out against the death penalty as such was defeated.

But opponents of the death penalty said the institute’s move represented a turning point.

“It’s very bad news for the continued legitimacy of the death penalty,” Professor Zimring said. “But it’s the kind of bad news that has many more implications for the long term than for next week or the next term of the Supreme Court.”

Samuel Gross, a law professor at the University of Michigan, said he recalled reading Model Penal Code as a first-year law student in 1970. “The death penalty was an abstract issue of little interest to me or my fellow students,” Professor Gross said. But he remembered being impressed by the institute’s work, saying, “I thought in passing that smarter people than I had done a sensible job of figuring out this tricky problem.”

Things will look different come September, Professor Gross said.

“Law students who take first-year criminal law from 2010 on,” he said, “will learn that this same group of smart lawyers and judges — the ones whose work they read every day — has said that the death penalty in the United States is a moral and practical failure.”


2010年 01月 06日 08:21

國衛生部門上週在2009年最後幾個小時里宣佈上海熊貓乳品有限公司(Shanghai Panda Dairy Co.)所產部分乳製品受到了致命三聚氰胺的污染。但有越來越多的跡象顯示﹐早在八個月之前﹐衛生部門就已經懷疑該公司乳製品受到三聚氰胺污染。

Bai Lin






事實證明﹐甚至想從有關部門瞭解上海熊貓乳品有限公司案的更多情況都很難。據報導﹐上海質量技術監督局主 持對該公司的調查。不過﹐到目前為止﹐該部門尚未發表任何公開聲明。該部門發言人請《華爾街日報》到上海市衛生局尋求答案。在上海市衛生局﹐一位官員又指 向上海市食品藥品監督管理局﹐那裡的發言人建議《華爾街日報》給質量技術監督局或市政府打電話。在市政府新聞辦公室﹐一位發言人說﹐質量技術監督局才是負 責此事的部門。



報導為上海三聚氰胺問題早在上週之前就已浮出水面提供了新的證據。舉例來講﹐該報稱由於衛生部部長陳竺的發言﹐12月初溫州浙江熊貓乳品有限公司(Zhejiang Panda Dairy Products Co.)發表聲明﹐以便與上海熊貓乳品有限公司撇清關係。該公司的聲明和公司網站上的其他文章宣稱﹐儘管兩家乳製品企業有相同的名稱﹐它們並沒有關係。

另 外﹐據一位瞭解該行業的人士說﹐至少早在去年9月份﹐上海熊貓乳品有限公司就接受了有關三聚氰胺的調查。此人說﹐當時該公司倉庫里存有約1,000噸奶粉 ﹐價值約人民幣2,000萬元(合290萬美元)。此人說﹐該公司引入了三聚氰胺﹐部分是通過再加工受污染的煉乳﹐部分是通過從寧夏的一個關聯企業獲得的 原奶。


James T. Areddy


しょうねん-ば しやう― 0 【正念場/性念場】

    • (1)歌舞伎・浄瑠璃などで、主人公がその役の本質的性格(性根)を発揮させる最も重要な場面。性根場(しようねば)
    • (2)その人の真価を問われる大事な場面。重要な局面。

  • ◆アクセント : しょうねん-ば 0


官方連夜應對黃河油污染事件要求確保下游水質安全--新聞中心_中華網2010年1月5日 ... 中新網1月5日電據水利部黃河水利委員會主辦的網站黃河網消息,黃委4日就陜西渭河油污染事件再次緊急會商,提出強化三道防線,確保黃河下游水質不受 ...

這真的是有錢能使鬼推磨 文化的虛妄

"美國有線電視新聞CNN報導時,還跟各地駐外記者連線,請他們拿(杜拜塔)和當地最高建築比較,以彰顯(杜拜塔)高度。 CNN駐紐約記者說,(杜拜塔)比紐約帝國大廈高出一倍,帝國大廈只有443公尺,還不到(杜拜塔)的一半。CNN駐倫敦記者說,倫敦大笨鐘只有96公尺高,(杜 ..."





周一周二有"奉麥茶" 有點人情味


宗旨 (mission)
願景 (vision)
核心價值 (value)

有意思的是 我以前服務過的DuPont 公司是採取:|

核心價值 (value)
願景 (vision)
宗旨 (mission)

現在熱衷於中國的人 都應該讀讀 一個人的聖經 (高行健) 中共產黨的本質