「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.

2016年6月27日 星期一

《酒神》(Bacchae)"Wisdom is not cleverness."「不要誤以為你的機智就是智慧。」


《酒神》(Bacchae)"Wisdom is not cleverness."「不要誤以為你的機智就是智慧。」

Deming 博士(1900-1993)是老式的學者,他的著作,不管是統計學的或管理學的書,在各章章前都有"題辭"(epigraphs)。這些,給讀者復習或深思的題材。不過,這對喜好追根究柢的人兩大挑戰:
一. 讀者確切知道該章"題辭"(epigraph)所對應的章旨嗎?
二. "題辭"(epigraph) 的上下文是什麼呢?
多年前,我要找下述"題辭",卻找不到;Euripides著《戴神的女信徒》(The Bacchae),胡耀恆,胡宗文譯---根據希臘文文翻譯,而Deming 博士則根據英譯本,不過我沒去查英譯本的出處:
2008/8/14 日與彭老師談 智慧 vs 機智 等。
Deming博士的"題辭"引文,無法在這版本找到。無法知道版本差異。
附錄:日本的轉型
「不要誤以為你的機智就是智慧。」──古希臘作家Euripedes作品《酒神》(Bacchae)中,Tiresius向Dionysus說。
「對愚人而言,智慧有如痴言妄語。」──同上作品,Dionysus向Cadmus說。





讀書雜記2006
挫折:
重讀自己翻譯的Out of the Crisis by W. Edwards Deming (1986)
Appendix: Transformation in
Japan 後記 日本為什麼能?
章首兩引自『酒神』之言,中文版並沒有分別說明是誰對誰說的。
希臘人名之英文化也多不同:
THE BACCHAE OF EURIPIDES
TE DIONYSUS, THE GOD; _son of Zeus and of the Theban princess Semelê_.
CADMUS, _formerly King of Thebes, father of Semelê_.
TEIRESIAS, _an aged Theban prophet_.
參考羅念生翻譯的『酒神的伴侶』Gutenberg收的英文本都找不到…….
----
2007年起,有一齣精彩戲劇---根據 Ian Ruffell 的直譯本之The Bacchae 在英美兩國上演,參考許多相關戲評和訪問記:
I came across some lines that resonated very strongly with me. In the chorus, the Bacchae sing a hymn to the good things that come of accepting Dionysus and warn of what happens to those who don't. In the middle of this song, they sing: "To sophon d'ou sophia." It's a piece of Euripidean wordplay that Ian Ruffell, in the literal translation I adapted for the National Theatre of Scotland production, rendered as: "Wisdom is not cleverness."


戴神的女信徒T he Bacchae

胡耀恆、胡宗文◎譯注 2003
The Bacchae by Euripides
2008/8/14 日與彭老師談 智慧 vs 機智 等
這版本還是與Deming引文不同
Page 30
聰明並非智慧

2016年6月24日 星期五

The Management Thinker We Should Never Have Forgotten

這可能是哈佛企管評論第一篇談戴明哲學的。
請讀去年譯的【轉危為安】、【新經濟學】 (台北:經濟新潮,2015)。
文中Dr. Deming 給 Peter Senge的信之引言,在兩人的作品中都出現過。
更不用談 紅珠實驗。
Dr. Don Berwick is “Stunned” By How Few Organizations Study ...www.leanblog.org/.../dr-don-berwick-is-stunned-by-how-few-organizations-study-de...Jan 7, 2016 - One of the first people in healthcare to be influenced by Deming's work is Dr. Don Berwick, founder of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement ...

此篇比較特殊的是將盧梭的性善哲學引進,我沒意見,不過Dr. Deming 不會這樣說。

Deming's management philosophy focused on the trust between manager and worker. His message is just as relevant today.

Revisiting W. Edwards Deming helps in an era of short-termism and mistrust.
HBR.ORG


The Management Thinker We Should Never Have Forgotten

Joshua Macht
JUNE 24, 2016

LAURA SCHNEIDER FOR HBR

Gothenberg, Sweden, is a long way to travel from Boston for a breakthrough idea in management — especially one that is more than 40 years old. I made the journey to attend a health care confab where Don Berwick, the former head of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, was delivering the opening lecture.

Berwick’s talk began by deftly comparing Frederick Winslow Taylor and W. Edwards Deming: the former an industrialist who equated machines and human beings (both to be managed for maximum output), the latter a humanist who saw the individual as internally motivated to do good, meaningful work. Berwick’s talk spanned a pantheon of management thinkers to show the audience just how far we have come from Taylor to Deming in the 20th century.

The contrast was driven home by a full-blown reenactment of Deming’s famous red bead experiment. In this test, participants play the part of factory workers who are attempting to fit red beads into 50 indentations on a paddle. The catch is that they are plunging their paddles into a box filled with both red and blue beads. The “factory workers” soon realize their performance depends entirely on random factors, well outside of their control.

The reenactment made me ask myself why we’ve lost touch with Deming. The point of his red bead experiment is that we often get a false read on workers because we judge them too narrowly. Deming believed that we can improve worker performance only when we improve the entire system they work within. And he believed that managers wrongly apply incentive pay plans, forced rankings, and all sorts of carrots and sticksto create the illusion of control without solving root performance problems.

Deming offered up 14 principles that stood in stark contrast to the sorts of practices he thought were eroding the performance of top corporations in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s. The list might seem almost quaint today, but it’s worth recounting:
Create and communicate to all employees a statement of the aims and purposes of the company
Adapt to the new philosophy of the day; industries and economics are always changing
Build quality into a product throughout production
End the practice of awarding business on the basis of price tag alone; instead, try a long-term relationship based on established loyalty and trust
Work to constantly improve quality and productivity
Institute on-the-job training
Teach and institute leadership to improve all job functions
Drive out fear; create trust
Strive to reduce intradepartmental conflicts
Eliminate exhortations for the work force; instead, focus on the system and morale
Eliminate work standard quotas for production. Substitute leadership methods for improvement
Eliminate MBO. Avoid numerical goals. Alternatively, learn the capabilities of processes and how to improve them
Remove barriers that rob people of pride of workmanship
Educate with self-improvement programs
Include everyone in the company to accomplish the transformation

Many management thinkers have built upon Deming’s philosophy, yet his core message seems lost to time. He cogently argues that businesses destroy more value than they create when they focus on short-term results, traditional incentives, and performance rankings. His main point is that leaders must build deep trust among workers and managers, which emanates from a strong purpose and shared values. It seems logical enough — and more important than ever. So how is it that more businesses don’t heed his message today?
Deming Versus Our Demons

Deming died in 1991. That same year, General Motors announced that 70,000 people would be fired. Since then, layoffs have become a common tool for public companies. The Great Recession decimated more than eight million jobs in the U.S., and wages are only now beginning to budge, even though unemployment has shrunk to below 5%. And then there’s that persistent inequality gap, growing with every passing year. Is this really a backdrop against which we can rebuild trust between managers and workers within our largest public companies?

Toward the end of his life, Deming began to theorize as to why his ideas were never fully embraced. He was 90 when he wrote the following to Peter Senge (who recounted the correspondence in his influential The Fifth Discipline):


Our prevailing system of management has destroyed our people. People are born with intrinsic motivation, self-respect, dignity, curiosity to learn, joy in learning. The forces of destruction begin with toddlers — a prize for the best Halloween costume, grades in school, gold stars — and on up through the university. On the job, people, teams, and divisions are ranked, reward for the top, punishment for the bottom. Management by objectives, quotas, incentive pay, business plans, put together separately, division by division, cause further loss, unknown and unknowable.

He wrote these words in 1990 but they’re just as relevant today. To say that there are such gaping flaws in how we educate is really to say that society is fundamentally ill. Deming believed that the individual is naturally inclined to do good and meaningful work. Unfortunately, society bends this human nature into an unnatural competition that essentially ruins us.

Deming was far from the first to have these ideas. It was Rousseau who suggested, in opposition to Hobbes’s bleak view of human nature, that humans are innocently good, but ruined by a society that pits individuals against one another — mostly in the quest to privatize property. Rousseau believed that we had been duped into a fraudulent social contract that allowed for the wealthy imperialists to subjugate and pauperize the workers.


In the 19th century, thinkers such as Nietzsche and Matthew Arnold believed our education system had lost its way due to a materialistic bent that placed useful knowledge above the search for truth, beauty, and perfection that was also defined byculture. Mathew Arnold argued, “Not a having and resting, but a growing and becoming, is the character of perfection as culture conceives it….The idea of perfection as a general expansion of the human family is at variance with our strong individualism, our hatred of all limits to the unrestrained swing of the individual’s personality, our maxim of ‘every man for himself.’”
The Trust Factor

But it is Deming who placed these historical insights into a management framework. The glue that seems to hold Deming’s framework together is the trust between manager and worker. For Deming, trust is a key ingredient in his quest for what he enigmatically referred to as “profound knowledge.” The trust between manager and worker is the bedrock upon which a healthy managerial relationship will be built. Deming’s thesis is worth recalling now, perhaps more than ever, because it’s precisely this trust that has eroded so precipitously since his passing.

It may be cliché to say that technology is changing our businesses today at a rapid pace, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true. And with this change comes a world of uncertainty and anxiety where predictable performance for any business seems more and more like Deming’s red bead experiment: random. The results can be devastating to a business. The worker no longer trusts that they won’t be a replaced by a machine. The investor no longer trusts that they will get a return on capital. The manager no longer trusts that they will have employment for life after more than a bad quarter or two.

With so much of our trust eroding, management is left with little else to hold on to, and so they grasp the false hope of blunt instruments like forced rankings and quarterly forecasting — no matter how illusory it all may be.

And this gets us back to Rousseau. We seem to have a false sense of joining something when we enter companies these days, just as Rousseau stipulated society had entered into a false social contract. This may be what’s driving newer generations to look for “purposeful work” as they launch their careers: They are looking to take control by demanding meaning from work right from day one. This can be a tall order when prior generations just cut their hair and got in line, trusting that the gold watch would await them at the end of the rainbow.

But Rousseau also had the idea that humans can remake themselves via their institutions, and Deming appears to share this belief.

This is what’s so interesting about companies like Facebook, Google, and Apple. These rare birds tend to operate outside of our norms and customers: They educate their employees differently; they collaborate differently across silos and divisions; they incentivize people in different ways. Because of their overwhelming ability to make cash (either initially through giddy investors and eventually via customers) these companies appear to start out more like communes. They are Gardens of Eden where there is little fighting for resources and oftentimes even the core customers freely partake.

Moreover, these companies almost appear to be for the common good, and the management appears to instinctively follow Deming’s philosophy. But what’s even more striking is that efficiency and performance naturally improves inside of these companies without the standard methods that more established firms pursue. Sadly, there’s often also a fall from grace that typically happens as these corporations become “normalized” and a more traditional battle for resources sets in.

Senge, too, wondered why these rare examples of Deming in action aren’t proliferating. He lamented the fact that it might take generations for Deming’s way of thinking to ever take hold. But he argued that we are on the path toward what he considered more-enlightened management practices. The contrarian perspective says that our Hobbesian greed and fear will always outweigh the philosophy of intrinsic goodness. Or maybe it’s messier than these polar approaches would suggest.

Perhaps the answer lies deeper in what Deming was trying to say about “profound knowledge.” As Deming implied, we work in complex systems with forces of good and evil always in play, and it may just be that the single most important responsibility of our top leaders is to artfully mold and shape this dynamic in a way that best suits their organizations — and produces a self-selecting ecosystem of workers, partners, customers, and shareholders who naturally align.

All of this implies a more-progressive approach to leadership. And yet we all too easily succumb to our Taylor-like impulses that assume the worst about workers — using automation to track productivity down to the nanosecond, if possible. Unfortunately, this tends to exacerbate the growing trust gap between workers that festers between our corporate silos and stymies the very productivity that we seek to enhance.

None of this is easy. And many of us will surely struggle with these issues throughout our entire lives. But in a world where the stakes appear to be getting higher by the minute, building lasting trust and cooperation across companies and communities — binding together people and long-calcified silos — may be the only way for the corporation to survive.



Josh Macht is Group Publisher of Harvard Business Review.

2016年6月22日 星期三

W. Edwards Deming 談 "檢驗"Inspection

“Inspection does not improve the quality, nor quarantee quality. Inspection is too late. The quality, good or bad, is already in the product. As Harold F. Dodge said, ‘You can not inspect quality into a product.’” – W. Edwards DemingOut of the Crisis, pg. 29.

讀者或許還該知道,20世紀上半葉的某些大工廠的品管主管,職銜為 Chief Inspector.

2016年6月19日 星期日

Circus Maximus: The Economic Gamble Behind Hosting the Olympics and the World Cup《奧運的詛咒》


Image result for Circus Maximus meaning
The Circus Maximus (Latin for greatest or largestcircus, in Italian Circo Massimo) is an ancient Roman chariot racing stadium and mass entertainment venue located in Rome, Italy. Situated in the valley between the Aventine and Palatine hills, it was the first and largest stadium in ancient Rome and its later Empire.



Circus Maximus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circus_Maximus
內容簡介

鉅額的經濟利益誘惑,
財團政客的賄賂、欺瞞、操弄,
奧運,已經變調……

從雪梨的30億、雅典的90億,
到北京的400億與索契的500億美元,
歷屆奧運花費屢破新高。

不但其中充滿了貪腐醜聞,
國際奧委會與各國政客所承諾的效益,更從未實現。

1997年後,
全球願意申辦奧運的城市越來越少,
慕尼黑、斯德哥爾摩、
漢堡也紛紛以公投撤銷申辦奧運。

本該是力與美的競技場,
已淪為財團瓜分油水的黑箱。

奧運
究竟出了什麼問題?

奧運和世界杯足球賽是如何從單純的比賽變成各國政府、財團追逐利益超級盛會的呢?著名運動經濟學者安德魯•辛巴里斯(Andrew Zimbalist)從1896首屆現代奧運會和1930首屆世界杯開始追溯了這段歷程。

辛巴里斯在書中詳述,早期由於美蘇冷戰、種族歧視等政治爭議與財政壓力,奧運的主辦權是乏人問津的。在各種機緣巧合之下,1984年的奧運為洛杉磯政府創造兩億多美元的盈餘,自此以後,奧運就被國際奧委會包裝成一個可以帶來鉅額商機、促進城市建設,有利於城市行銷的全球盛會。2000年後,中國、俄羅斯、巴西等崛起中的金磚四國也紛紛舉辦奧運,作為改善國家形象、鞏固民心的行銷手段……

然而,辛巴里斯指出,無論是短期的商業利益還是長期的國家建設,奧運、世足的價值都被過度吹捧:遊客的數量被誇大、遊客花費能創造的經濟效益被誇大、奧運對整體城市觀光造成的排擠效應被忽略、遊客的花費被跨國企業接收而無法嘉惠於在地居民、大型競技場在賽後淪為蚊子館、鉅額的花費排擠了城市發展所需的長期投資等等。舉例來說,2000年雪梨奧運原本預估每天會有十三萬名觀光客,實際上只有九萬名。2004年雅典奧運時間蓋的兩千多間選手村,現在有一半是閒置的。2008年北京觀光客的數量比前一年少,舉辦奧運的八月時的觀光客也比前一年八月少。而名噪一時的「鳥巢」每年得花費三億台幣的維護費用。

既然有存在種種不利後果,為什麼還是有人搶著辦奧運,以致於光是申辦花費經常就超過一億美元?除了主辦國希望藉此推銷形象之外,更重要的就是奧運對少數的利益團體來說是龐大的商機。儘管籌辦奧運的經費來自於各國納稅人,但相關的交通建設、場館營造、開幕閉幕儀式、遊客的餐飲住宿消費都是流入少數財團荷包的油水,再加上國際奧會的煽風點火,於是奧運主辦權變得炙手可熱。而為了打造一場華麗的競技,每屆奧運的花費也越來越高昂,2000年的雪梨奧運花費30億美元,雅典奧運翻了一倍,北京奧運膨脹到400億美元。2014年的俄羅斯索契即使只是舉辦冬季奧運,花費更高達天價的500億美元。貪污、賄賂更時有所聞。
也因此,奧運的光環逐漸蒙塵,世界上願意申辦奧運的城市數目越來越少,從1997年的12個城市下降到2013年的5個城市。原本打算爭取2022年冬季奧運的慕尼黑與斯德哥爾摩紛紛公投撤銷爭取,漢堡也放棄了2024年的奧運。

可以說,多年來過度商業利益導向的奧運已經面臨的瓶頸,如果不能斷然改革,原本促進體育與人類和平的美意將蕩然無存……

在《奧運的詛咒》中,安德魯辛巴里斯先簡述1896後歷屆奧運以及世界杯足球賽的營運概況,隨後分別從短期、長期角度考察它們的經濟效益,接著比較巴賽隆納、索契、里約熱內盧、倫敦、北京、南非、雪梨等案例,分析它們成敗的關鍵。最後,作者指出主辦國和主辦城市要如何才能成功,以及國際奧會與足總應該如何改革。

不論對運動迷、一般讀者或政治決策者來說,《奧運的詛咒》都是一部讓人眼界大開的書。



作者簡介


安德魯辛巴里斯(Andrew Zimbalist

哈佛大學博士、史密斯學院的羅伯伍茲講座教授,他是知名的運動經濟學家和產業顧問,也常在媒體發表評論。他在布魯金斯研究所出版了三本書,包括《運動、工作和稅收:運動隊伍和球場的經濟影響》、《讓最好的球隊贏:棒球經濟學和公共政策》、《國家的休閒活動:為什麼美國人玩棒球而世界各國玩足球》。


目次  CONTENTS 

目錄
推薦序  柯文哲
譯者序  台北市議員梁文傑
前言
第一章  奧運和世界杯怎麼了
第二章  奧運和世界杯的歷史
業餘主義的時代
金錢、政治和奧運品牌
商品化與業餘主義的終結
分贓
金磚五國登場
奧運的財源
國際足總與世界杯
國際足總的內部鬥爭
世界杯的財源
第三章  短期經濟效應
理論與實際
主辦國的支出
主辦國的收益
第四章  長期經濟效應
    長期效益
長期成本
第五章 巴賽隆納和索契
巴塞隆納
俄羅斯的索契
第六章 里約和倫敦
里約和巴西
倫敦
第七章  要麵包還是競技場
難以計算的經濟效益
爭辦過程會吃掉可能的收益
如何改革?
注釋
索引
   


Circus Maximus: The Economic Gamble Behind Hosting the Olympics and the World Cup
The numbers are staggering: China spent $40 billion to host the 2008 Summer Olympic Games in Beijing and Russia spent $50 billion for the 2014 Sochi Winter Games. ... Google Books


著名的「運動經濟學家」辛巴里斯(Andrew Zimbalist)在新近出版的《奧運的詛咒》(八旗翻譯出版)書中點出,奧運、世足等大型運動賽會如何危害主辦城市的觀光、情緒、經濟與發展;而不實的宣傳、政商勾結、利益分贓,使體育聖殿光芒盡失。斯德哥爾摩、慕尼黑、漢堡等已紛紛公投放棄奧運舉辦權。不但官方承諾的經濟效益幾乎從未實現,而且商機被富人金主搜括,債務卻由中下階層承擔,也排擠了長期建設的預算。......2010年台北市花了135億元辦花博,宣稱經濟效益435億元,結果呢?高雄市辦完世運後留下50億元的主場館,每年活動時間不到1/3。世大運推估經濟效益380億元,我們敢打賭絕無可能達到。所以都市發展的規劃應先於大賽事。簡言之,柯市長要壯士斷腕,懸崖勒馬,盡快宣布停辦世大運。
台北市2017年將舉辦「世界大學運動會」(世大運)。根據過去各國主辦的奧運會、世大運、世界足球大賽等國際賽事的經驗,絕大多數的賽事都以慘賠坐...
APPLEDAILY.COM.TW|作者:蘋果日報

2016年6月17日 星期五

台灣戴明圈1900-1979 台灣戴明圈紀事0815 2006




前言:
這「台灣戴明圈紀事」是一種尚存記憶之簡史。這是一些人的集體故事StoryCorps: Recording a Taiwanese Deming Circle.

不 過,在1990年之前,我們主要的注意力集中在:日本、台灣、美國三方的互動學習。1990年以後,中國大陸作為台商的製造基地的因素比重,日益增高。日 本似乎成功地將一部分的高附加價值產品根流本土,台商過去研究發展的根基比較淺,所以面臨更大的挑戰。這期的「台灣戴明圈紀事」還是暫時將大陸這一重要的 議題留給往後的「台灣戴明圈紀事」去處理。

我覺得應該特別紀一下1980年代,一來它是西方品質革命期,二來個人在台灣飛利浦公司、電子 工業研究所(ERSO, ITRI)、台灣Motorora公司 、台灣AMP公司、台灣杜邦公司等多國籍公司的事業發展順暢,體驗頗深。 ERSO的請看1981-85紀事,至於其餘美商的某些描述,我建議參考:Jerry Jasinowski & Robert Hamrin合著『美國頂尖企業成功紀實』(Making It in America ) 王詠心.王東平 譯,台北:遠流出版,1997;簡體字版『美國製造』北京:華夏,2006。第三篇 精益求精: 第九章 追求全面品質提升;朝向完美企業:摩托羅拉;員 工參與提升產品品質:AMP;成為最佳成本廠商:艾姆生電器;完全轉型:聯合電器公司;全面品質管理:哈汀兄弟公司。

J. G. Morone(1993 )著《領導優勢》(Winning in High Tech Markets ﹕the role of general management)  蔡淑黎、溫肇東合譯,台北:遠流 ,1994。本書講述奇異公司(G. E )、摩托羅拉(Motorola )、康寧( Corning )全球領先的故事。雖然講全面優勢或競爭力﹐其實摩托羅拉及康寧的故事中,除了科技研發為主外,更有許多的注重品質之敘述,外人可從中大約了解摩托羅拉在 80-90 年代的品質領導做法。

我社出版的P. Crosby著『熱愛品質』;J. M. Juran著『管理三部曲』等。
英文著作可參考Jeremy Main〝 Quality Wars(品質大戰)〞 Free Press,1994。本書為日本 80 年代給美國企業挑戰警鐘後﹐美國各行各業如何應變及學習而有成有敗的故事。


台灣戴明圈編年紀事要項(1970-2006)
( ◎ 項表示它稍比○項「重要」)


1917-22
○ J. M. Juran(1999朱蘭(J. M. Juran)的《品質手冊》(Juran Quality Handbook) )在Quality Control Process中列舉G. S. Rarford為20世紀最早撰「品質控制」的書(The Control of Quality of Manufacturing,New York:Ronald Press Company, 1922)和1917年文章的The Control of Quality, Industrial Management, Vol. 54, p.100 (p.4.29)。當時的「品質控制」已是有「革除事後補救,改為偵測、預防」的觀念(p.4.2),不過後來意義更窄…



 1924
Frank Bunker Gilbreth, Sr. (July 7, 1868 - June 14, 1924)

1925
◎ 1925年,戴明以物理學博士生身份到芝加哥西方電氣公司(Western Electric)的霍桑(Hawthorne)廠實習。「….那兒的人們已經對貝爾實驗中心(Bell Telephone Laboratories,位於紐約463西街--貝爾實驗中心是AT&T 公司的智庫、綜合研究所。)的Shewhart博士的工作有所談論。他們說他們不懂得Shewhart博士的確實工作,不過他是了不起的,在為他們解決種 種問題。
西方電氣的宗旨是產品一致性要很高(uniforminity),即,大量生產的電話機都要像日常吃的豆子般一模一樣,使得各電話公司買主們能安心。他們當時的廣告詞為『如同兩具電話機那麼相似。』
他們誠心要把事情做好,求好心切、盡全力求產品一致性,可是天不從人願,結果幾乎是越努力越糟糕。他們夠聰明,知道必須請求協助。【戴明博士以後以他著名的所謂漏斗規則來談一般人干擾穩定製程結果一致性上適得其反;他終生相信系統中的人需要外來的智慧的協助才行。】
這 問題落到Shewhart博士的身上。他發現西方電氣員工們的做法,是打把任何不想要的變異,都歸因為某一特別的原因。其實很多(如果不是大多數)情況 下,他們所觀察到的,是由諸共同原因所造成的變異。如果能從製程上加以改善就會更有效。他們的做法是在干預一個穩定的系統,結果更糟。【戴明以為這是】 Shewhart博士給予世界在科學上與管理學上有一嶄新的視野、觀點。」
戴明生動地講出當時女工陣容下班時的排山倒海式威力--當時該廠容量 48000人,雇用46000人,其中四分之一為檢驗員。當時,該廠為全美第一大廠,也有錢和眼光與哈佛大學商!學院合作有明的組織社會、效率之管理實 驗。這些數目大體是對的,不過那年頭生產量的變異極大,工廠常解雇萬人,造成某種動蕩,不過該廠待遇頗佳。
更值得注意的是西方電氣的「大規模檢驗方式」(25%人力),這種生產方式到80年代並未改善,所以戴明將其列入他著名的經營與領導的14要點。),【戴明再講一很重要的尊重理論知識的經歷,這影響他一輩子……】

1927
◎ 戴明:「我有幸在1927年認識Shewhart 博士,此後並且多次與他在紐約的貝爾實驗中心會面。我也曾在他位於Moutain Lake的家中度過許多愉快的夜晚,那兒從Hoboken搭乘Lackawanna火車大約要花一鐘頭。」

1928
○ 戴明的好友Myron Tribus在網站上和我們分享:Shewhart在Bell Labs的同事 Fryer,他在1928年出版的《概率與其工程上的應用》(Probability and Its Engineering Uses" by Thornton C. Fry)是本好書,戴明與Shewhart多受益--Shewhart的書中推薦它,戴明同意。

1929
○ 美國股市崩盤,1954才恢復。大蕭條開始。Kodak彩視….
1931年(民20年)
◎ Shewhart , Walter A., The Economic Control of Quality of Manufactured Product , Princeton , N. J.:D. Van Nostrand Company , 1931. Reprinted by American Society for Quality Control , 1980.(當時台灣有翻印) 。此書有法文本(Jean-Marie Gaogue翻譯)和日文本。
1938年(民27年)
○ Least Squares, The Graduate School, Department of Agriculture, Washington 1938. by W. Edwards Deming:
1939年(民28年)
◎ Shewhart , Walter A. Statistical Methods from the Viewpoint of Quality Control , Washington , D. C.:Department of Agriculture , 1939. W. E. Deming(主編)
1942年(民31年)
○JMA, Japan Management Association 成立

1943年(民32年)
○ Statistical Adjustment of Data, John Wiley and Sons, 1943, Dover 1964. by W. Edwards Deming:
◎ Sample Design in Business Research, John Wiley and Sons, 1960. by W. Edwards Deming:
論文清單
http://www.deming.org/resources/publications.html

1945年(民34年)
○ JSA, Japan Standards association 成立
◎ 9月2日本正式投降(Atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, and Japan's formal surrender on September 2 ended the war.)
1946年(民35年)
◎ American Society for Quality Control (ASQC)成立,後改名 American Society for Quality (ASQ)。從 1987 起 ASQ 代處理 the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, 行政。
◎JUSE 成立
○ Homer M. Sarason 到日本聯軍統率總部的民用通信部(CCS-SCAP)Civil Communication Section- Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers 任職至1950,開過 CCS管理研討會。事蹟參考:Louis E. Schultz作 Profiles in Quality: Learning from the Masters『品質群像: 向品管大師學習』劉秋枝譯,寂天文化事業有限公司,1999。

1947年(民36年)
◎ 統計品管專家W.愛德華.戴明由美國政府(為S. A. Rice領島隊的統計任務團成員)派來日本,任務是協助日本作經濟調查。認識許多統計學家和經濟學家。

 1948年(民37年)

1949年(民38年)
1949年春天,科技連盟(JUSE)的「品管研究小組(QCRG)」,已開始結合產、官、學各路人士,共同合作研究如何利用統計方法來做品質管制。


1950年(民39年)
◎戴明著作:Some Theory of Sampling, John Wiley and Sons, 1950.
◎  1950協助聯軍總部最高指揮,政府統計抽樣調查方法的講師。
日 本之講義共有234頁(86頁英文,148頁日譯),名為《戴明博士統計品管教材,1950版,初版2000本,再刷2000本,而三刷為1700本。正 名:Elementary Principles of the Statistical Control of Quality, by W. Edwards Deming:Nippon Kagaku Gijutsu Renmei, Tokyo, 1950, 1952; in English. Out of print. 此書新版之中譯和發揮,詳本書第二部的劉振譯的『品管九講』正文等。
◎ 1950年戴明博士在日本箱根為高階主管演講稿(英譯本: Dr. Deming's 1950 Lecture to Japanese Top Management)
http://deming.ces.clemson.edu/pub/den/deming_1950.htm

1951年(民40年)
◎ JUSE理事會決議設立「戴明獎」。分為本獎和應用獎:The Deming Prize and the Deming Application Prize. 戴明在第一次頒戴明獎的儀式上,表明他深深感謝日本,並預言日本會很快復興:「在製造及生產方面,我們必須將『從原物料及種種資源開始到抵達消費者市 場』,作全盤的考量。我一向都強調,這整套過程的每階段,都可應用統計技術,而我欣見已有些公司根據此概念,實際開始創造出種種統計技術系統。一旦這些卓 越的系統成形之後,日本就在國際貿易競爭力上,就不輸於其它先進國家。我深信日本在各方面縱有點落後,也會步向繁榮之路。」
○1951年7月,戴明再次訪日66天,為JUSE開了四門課:東京的八天品管課(180名學員),大阪的八天進階品管課(226名學員),東京32天的抽樣方法課程(60名學員),日光的高階主管品管課(40名學員)。此外,戴明也作了五次公開演講。
◎ 他的日本遺澤,最好以戴明獎章上的話來表示:「正確品質和一致性【均勻性】,是商業、繁榮與和平的基礎。(The right quality and uniformity are foundation of commerce , prosperity and peace .)」

1952年(民41年)
○元月,戴明從印度回美途中過境日本,這次只停了12天,不過,他卻也在熱海作了六天的「市場研究和診斷」課程(29名學員)和一場六天「品管與市場研究」課程(12名學員)。
○ HC出生於台中縣外埔,排行第一。

1953年
◎ 戴明博士在1953年的"行銷雜誌Journal of Marketing "「論必須把顧客的各種偏好表現為預測」(On the necessity of presenting consumer preferences as predictions, J. of Marketing, vol.xviii, No.1, July 1953: pp.1-5 )
開宗明義作了有關其知識論的重點說明:
「知識 必須有其時限」的原則,在科學上是為人周知的。不過我們這兒的主旨是把它轉變成行銷的語言,期能使行銷研究為經營者更有效利用。任何決策都包含對某一特定 結果的期望。因此,任何決策,如果它要稱得上理性的,就要依賴一預測。一項決策假設做甲行動會導至丁結果……
◎ 最高主管在產業內統計技術的應用所應負的責任-- Management's responsibility for the use of statistical techniques in industry, Advanced Management, vol.xviii, 1953: pp.8-12)
◎ 「統計技術作為自然資源」, 戴明網站的資料是:Statistical techniques as a natural resource, 6th Annual Award of Deming Prize(1956);和On statistical techniques in industry as a natural resource, Bulletin of International Statistical Institute, vol. xxxiii: Part v(1953?)

1955年(民國44年)
由美國經濟援助的「中國生產力中心」成立。施政楷是中心首任的也是唯一的「工業工程顧問師」。這是「工業工程」的開始。直接譯自美國的Industrial Engineering。

1956年
◎ 戴明接受Shewhart Medal ,在美國品管協會的年會上,發表受獎演說On the use of theory, ,刊登在Industrial Quality Control, vol.xiii, No.1, July 1956,
On the use of theory, Industrial Quality Control, vol.xiii, No.1, July 1956, being an address delivered upon receipt of the Shewhart Medal at the 10th annual meeting of the American Society for Quality Control, Montreal, 7 June 1956
◎ 日本戴明獎演說:「統計技術作為自然資源」,戴明網站的資料是:Statistical techniques as a natural resource, 6th Annual Award of Deming Prize(1956)
1958年(民47年)
◎ 戴明獎中小企業應用獎


1960年(民49年)
◎ Sample Design in Business Research, John Wiley and Sons, 1960. by W. Edwards Deming
◎ JUSE 出版小柳賢一先生主編的『戴明獎10周年紀念集:25家領導廠商如何落實化SQC 努力達成更佳品質又營運更有效率』  ( 'The 10th Anniversary of the Deming Prize : How Have 25 Leading manufacturers Materialized SQC for Better Quality and More Efficient Operation?' May, 1960, presided by Kenichi Koyanagi)
◎ 日本政府授戴明二等瑞寶勳章。在他的優良服務貢獻的前半段是這樣記載的:
1947為S. A. Rice領島隊的統計任務團成員
1950協助聯軍總部最高指揮,政府統計抽樣調查方法的講師
下半部貢獻,記他透過當時的種種新觀念,諸如品管和市場調查技術等,來協助民營事業、公司。
Publishes book, Sample Design in Business Research. 出版《企業研究的樣本設計》(Sample Design in Business Research, Wiley, 1960)一書
1960Awarded the Second Order Medal of the Sacred Treasure by the Emperor of Japan.
Emperor Hirohito decorates Deming with an award recognizing the philosophy and methods he provided to Japan, which allowed the nation to rise from destruction to the ranks of world economic power. Three decades later, when he asked how he felt on receiving this honor, he says he felt “unworthy.” “I was lucky,” he says, showing he considers himself no exception to his own teachings about the effects of the system upon individual performance.

日本天皇頒給他「 二等瑞寶獎」。昭和天皇授此勳章,旨在表彰戴明帶給日本的新哲學和方法,讓
日本從廢墟邁向世界經濟強國。30年之後的90歲生日慶宴中,有人問他得此勳章的感想,他謙卑地說,
實在謬承此榮譽,幸運而已。這番話,正可說明他自己的學說:對於系統之績效而言,個人的表現沒有特例,他在日本的教導,效果而言,並非顯著特例。


In 1960 Dr. Deming was awarded the Second Order Medal of the Sacred Treasure by Emperor Hirohito of Japan, recognizing the philosophy and methods he provided to Japan, which allowed the nation to rise from destruction to the ranks of world economic power.

Dr. W. Edwards Deming 的相片。



1962年(民51年)
◎ 劉振老師寫:「這本是1962年1月9日小柳賢一先生贈送」:『戴明獎10周年紀念集:25家領導廠商如何落實化SQC 努力達成更佳品質又營運更有效率』
○ J. M. Juran, L. A.Seder 和Frank Gryna  合編第二版 Quality Control Handbook

1964年(民53年)
○ 台灣成立『中華民國品質管制學會』(CSQC)。

1966年(民55年)
○戴明獎公司事業部應用獎成立

1969年(民58年)
○中國生產力中心於2月10請 戴明好友 William G. Hunter 講 EVOP(遞變作業) 。這教授Bill的動人簡介,請參考『戴明領導手冊』序文等部分。
○日本舉辦的國際品管大會(1969, 1978, 1987)。

1970年(民59年)
◎W. Edwards Deming 著『品管九講』劉振譯,台北:中華民國品質管制學會
◎ 1970年戴明博士應中國生產力中心之聘來台舉辦的研討會。11月23日至28日,Deming博士首次蒞台,先後在台北及高雄兩地演講三天。劉振老師分 別在中華民國品質管制學會出版『品管九講』和『品質管制月刊』之「戴明博士蒞華紀念」專刊。王晃三先生任翻譯者之一。11月24日在台北中泰賓館講「品質 管理的若干統計問題」。
○ 9月13日 W. Grant Ireson 教授於台中講「品質成本與責任」
○ JUSE 成立日本品質獎( Japan Quality Control Award)

1973年(民62年)
○ 日本工廠品質獎(Quality Control Award for a Factory)


1974年(民63年)
◎ 3月25日在台北中泰賓館講「統計的品管導致更佳的管理」。26日起3天假政大公企中心辦「統計的品管應用於管理系統」。
○  11月7日起5天 J. M. Juran在政大公企中心辦「品質的經營」。J. M. Juran等  合編第三版 Quality Control Handbook


1975年(民64年)
台灣QCRG創始(王晃三)。鍾漢清畢業當步兵預官。

趙民德 「從鼠牙談起──五花八門的電話研究工作」,載《科學月刊》,197511月。作者說,「這是一篇介紹有關於電話通訊的一些研究工作的文章,多半是我昔日在貝爾實驗室所學到的。」



1978年(民68年)
◎4 月15日:聯華企業經營顧問公司舉辦「第三屆全面品管大會」戴明博士以主講人的身份發表演說,題目為:〝經營者對產品品質與成本的責任〞 (Responsibility of Management for Uniformity and Economic in Manufacture)。4月11日戴明博士參觀台灣松下電器公司,12日參觀泰豐輪胎公司,13日參觀東洋培林公司,並分別做短時間演講。4月16日 及17日,在台北與高雄(華王飯店)兩地舉行一天的講座,主題為:〝高階層經營者的品質經營使命與突破〞講座 (The Mission and the Break-through of Modern Quality Management in Top Executives);月18~20日在台北舉辦三天的講座,主題為:〝經營幹部的品質改善技術〞講座,內容為:26個原則、好主意引起的一些問題、系 統錯誤探索實例。
○ 1978年10月鍾漢清任職中央標準局,看到ISO原始英國標準。我知道這是一種系統音樂。20年後,我則能體會戴明哲學更深邃、更美的意義。讀美英標準單位相關科技報告,我國則是一文書單位。決定到工業界發展。
○ 日本舉辦的國際品管大會(1969, 1978, 1987)。


1979年(民68年)
○2月,鍾漢清加入台灣飛利浦公司竹北廠區(Plant),負責工業工程。眼界、能力、智慧大開。

◎ 戴明博士從菲律賓赴日途中,應鍾清章老師邀請來台,在聯合報大樓公開演講,題目為:〝品質與效率的新原則〞。鍾清章老師任翻譯,。

2016年6月15日 星期三

Takata Selling Shares in Auto Makers to Raise Cash

Takata Selling Shares in Auto Makers to Raise Cash B1

Takata Corp. is selling shares it owns in auto makers to raise cash as the embattled Japanese company faces mounting costs stemming from recalls of defective air bags linked to at least 11 deaths and more than 100 injuries world-wide, said a person familiar with the matter.


2016年6月9日 星期四

Royal Navy's destroyers break down in Gulf because the water is WARM

顯人,軍艦沒寫mission profile...
What a fiasco...
Complicated Rolls Royce gas turbine engines work in the cold water around…
DAILYM.AI

網誌存檔