「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.

2018年7月30日 星期一

The Management Thinker We Should Never Have Forgotten

Don't Miss Out! We are so excited that Joshua Macht, Chief Product & Innovation Officer at Harvard Business Publishing, will be speaking at our Annual Conference this October. Macht has written about Dr. Deming’s management principles for Harvard Business Review and The Boston Globe.
Register for the #Deming2018 Annual Conference now!http://ow.ly/bRNo30l7qYM

DEMING.ORG

The W. Edwards Deming Institute
The W. Edwards Deming Institute


2016
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.

機場的塔台與跑道管理;「花牛」蘋果香"四海"


值得觀察的"蘋果"品牌之經營。

天水花牛苹果,中国的“蛇果”? | 中国国家地理网

www.dili360.com/cng/article/p56ce6059a0a6726.htm
甘肃天水市的麦积区不仅拥有世界文化遗产麦积山石窟,也是“花牛苹果”的故乡。由于外形与产自美国的红蛇果类似,花牛苹果一度被人认为可以与红蛇果画上等号。而近年来,地产界名人潘石屹为自己的家乡天水代言的“潘苹果”品牌,又再次把花牛 ...

「花牛」蘋果香四海--天水蘋果產業發展紀實- 壹讀

https://read01.com/7G688a.html
2016/01/07 - 花牛」蘋果香四海. ——天水蘋果產業發展紀實. 本報通訊員吳全輝. 「花牛」蘋果天水人的驕傲。「花牛」蘋果品牌發源於麥積區,這裡也是世界文化遺產、國家5A級旅遊景區、「東方藝術雕塑館」和中國四大石窟之一的麥積山石窟所在地 ...






*****
機場的塔台與跑道管理,"難免"有溝通與認知差錯之問題。

#Narita #airport east of #Tokyo closes one of its two runways after #AirCanada plane enters wrong taxiway upon arrival

系統與變異: 淵博知識與理想設計法 (2010): Why Variation Matters to Everybody


Why Variation Matters to Everybody
WEdwards Deming's Red Bead experiment was an innovative, hands-on exercise that demonstrated conclusively the drawbacks of blaming or ...












系統與變異: 淵博知識與理想設計法 (2010)

ISBN 978-957-28176-7-4

序言(William Scherkenbach)Bill Scherkenbach 序《系統與變異:淵博知識與理想設計法》
詳後

導 言(鍾漢清)

第一部 2010戴明博士紀念演講

第一講:談戴明博士的系統與變 異--紀 念他誕辰110周年(鍾漢清)

第二講:組織績效與系統優化. (鍾 漢清)



第 二部 複雜,管理與理想系統設計

第 三講 系統時代中的經營管理:產官學的新創;紀念 Russell Ackoff和 C. W. Churchman(鍾漢清)

複 雜之管理 (David & Sarah Kerridge)

美 國通信系統被摧毀了!(Russell Ackoff)

通 用汽車公司的學習-- Russell Ackoff 教授80歲 祝壽晚會主題演講(Vincent P. Barabba)

教育的目標是學,而不是教! (Russell Ackoff等)

理 想商學院的設計(Russell Ackoff)

The X of X(C. W. Churchman)



第三部 扣件應用 (郭展銓)
引言
扣件理想設計法
扣件系統與變異

第四部 師友情義

追思硬漢校長尹士豪 (王晃三)
懷念顧華老師 (彭文林 )
東海之友 (鍾漢清)




附錄 (鍾漢清)

致謝
作者簡介
華人戴明學院的精神與堅持(含本書封面「鼓動」說明)


*****Contents 細目




目錄

Foreword by William W. Scherkenbach. vii 序言... ix
導言... vii
第一部 2010戴明博士紀念演講...

1 第一講:戴明博士談系統與變異 (110周年紀念) 1
戴明博士:20世紀典型的人物.... 1
紅珠實驗故事.... 8
日本長、日本短:戴明獎、日本和美國的相互學習.... 11
A公司與B公司的故事-銲錫製程為例.... 19
檢討2000-2010年汽車業的重大品質問題案例.... 24
淺談2010年豐田汽車召修事件 (recalls) 的代價.... 28
溫故知新.... 30
導論 34
核心價值 35
淵博知識系統的大鋼:... 37


第二講:組織績效與系統優化... 39
組織為一系統;團隊一體與領導.... 40
系統與其目的.... 43
戴明的系統觀.... 46
戴明談產官學目的.... 52
生產系統與SIPOC.. 54
統計管制狀態與Juran原理互通.... 55
限制理論(TOC) 56
目的說明書.... 57
目標管理制與考績制的澄清.... 62
顧客:生產系統最重要的一環.... 66
消費者研究與調查.... 73
PDCA循環.... 77
Peter Drucker the legendary management guru once commented that the only thing that boards have in common is that they don't function. .

PDCA.. 91 七步方法 93 董事會;目的、功能、組織、酬勞、審查... 94
協調與綜合.... 100
會議技能 (meeting technology) 108
案例一(此處只引用前幾頁當參考)... 111
小集團改善活動.... 114

第二部 複雜之管理與理想系統設計:... 118
第三講:系統時代中的經營管理:產官學的新創... 118
紀念Russell Ackoff、C. W. Churchman和Peter Scholtes. 118 Russell Ackoff、C. W. Churchman簡介.... 122
台灣的系統推廣、Ackoff的嘉言集、「觀測的誤差」.... 130
Russell L. Ackoff 80歲生日自敘.... 138
Russell Ackoff 的著作和思想簡介.... 142
使用理想化設計法來界定未來... 146
一則應用評論:... 153

複雜之管理... 156
什麼是複雜度?.... 156 機械複雜 158 知識上複雜... 160 管理上複雜... 162 控制上的複雜... 163 為什麼會複雜呢?... 164 降低複雜之策略... 165 某些基本的理論... 166 理論應用範例... 167 衝突:諸多問題的根源... 169

美國通信系統被摧毀了!... 170
通用汽車公司的學習 -- Ackoff教授80祝壽會主題演講... 179
教育的目標是學,而不是教...
206 學習的方式.... 208 通過解釋學習.... 210 平民 (群眾) 式教育的弊病.... 213
一所商學院的設計.... 215

C. W. Churchman The X of X.. 231

第三部 扣件應用... 243
扣件理想設計法... 243
前 言.... 243
扣件系統.... 244 第一章 螺紋與扣件選用... 244 第二章 材料... 250 第三章 產品分類... 253 第四章 製造流程... 256 自攻螺絲篇... 258 第一章 產品分類.... 258 第二章 製造流程.... 265 第三章 機械性質.... 265 3.1 螺紋型式... 299 3.2 頭型... 303 3.3 驅動系統 (Drive System) 307 3.4 螺絲長度... 314 3.5 材料,熱處理,最終處理及機械性能要求... 315 3.6 材料... 315 3.7 熱處理... 316 3.8 表面處理... 319 3.9 SAE J81. 326 3.10 螺絲選擇及適用... 327 第四章 表面缺陷.... 328 螺帽篇... 329 第一章 產品分類.... 329 第二章 工藝流程.... 333 第三章 機械性質.... 334 第四章 表面缺陷.... 339 線材與成型篇... 343 第一章 退火.... 343 第二章 酸洗.... 344 第三章 抽線.... 345 第四章 成型.... 347 第五章 輾牙 (攻牙) 350 第六章 熱處理.... 352 第七章 表面處理.... 354

扣件變異篇... 358 扣件系統與設計篇... 376 扣件理想設計法-QFD應用篇.... 377 設計流程 381


第四部 師友情義... 403
追思硬漢校長尹士豪 (王晃三) 403
懷念顧華老師 (彭文林 ) 410
東海之友 --- 孟祥森 (鍾漢清) 417

附錄... 420 致謝... 420 作者簡介... 425 台灣戴明圈的堅持、傳統... 426 本書封面的精神:「鼓舞」之說明.... 433


導言 (鍾漢清)

「大家何時才能學會這套新經濟學並開始教它。我們還要等多久呢?十年嗎?二十年嗎?」 (“How many years will pass before economists learn the new economics, and teach it? A decade? Two?”) [1]
……今天專為求授比丘戒者,講些律宗歷史。他人旁聽,雖不能解,亦是一種植善根之事。」[2]
「那些光憑興之所至、偶爾在口頭上做點自我分析的人,不可能從本質上深入考察自己,只有為此進行研究,並以此作為工作、作為手藝者才會洞察入微,因為他滿腔熱情,長時間堅持盡力作詳細的紀錄。」[3]
我們每年能出書和舉辦研討會,必須心存感激。「表示感激,最簡單的莫過於滿心歡喜。」(Joy is the simplest form of gratitude by Karl Barth) 出書的質與量的控制是很艱難的,所以先向許多朋友們說聲謝謝 (詳本書附錄的「致謝」)。本書的書名中的「系統」與「變異」兩字眼都包含很廣泛的論述,我們談的是以戴明博士和R. Ackoff的說法為主。
1980年代起,全世界在品質、科技、社會等領域上的革新,盛況類似「拔地雷聲驚筍夢,彌天雨色養花神。」[4] 我輩有幸參與,體會「文字以外的微妙,卻往往非當境不能徹底領會。」從1995年起,我們「台灣戴明圈」與「世界戴明圈」密切的互動,引進戴明博士 (W. Edwards Deming1900-93) 相關之著作,出版戴明叢書 (書目請參考網站www.deming,com.tw);我們每年出新書 (書目請參考台灣戴明圈blog網站) 並辦紀研討會,讓朋友們互相觀摩。
2008年起,我們決定每年出書來探討戴明博士的「淵博知識:《台灣戴明圈》[5];《轉型:新經濟學》[6]、《戴明博士文選》[7]。今年用《系統與變異:淵知識與理想設計法》來紀念戴明博士、Russell Ackoff (1919-2009) 教授和Peter Scholtes (1938-2009) 先生。本書簡介他們的思想,並作些發揮。[8]
本書的形式沿襲《轉型:新經濟學》,採用三篇演講方式,來探討「系統與變異」這主。當然議題只限於一些「關鍵的」,不過希望這些考量對讀者是「有用的知識」。今年編法稍微不同處是有一豐富的「附錄」部分:包括「致謝」、「作者簡介」、「華人戴明學院的精神與堅持」(含封面「鼓動」說明)、「雜記2008/2009的研討會」。
今年恢復書中的「人物-情義」部分,來表達我們對於一些師友的懷念:王晃三教授寫中原大學的鐵漢尹校長 (此文對於一些所謂傑出校友的選拔之問題值得我們思考)、彭文林教授懷念他的顧華先師 (此文提出一些我們不常聽聞的、多樣語言學習之問題[9]) 、我寫了名譯家孟東籬先生對於東海校園和草山某小學的情懷。他們或是「我們時代的縮影和簡史」;他們也許「不惹眼,卻是有光彩」。他們的人生經歷,或如「一本極好的戲劇,場面調配得非常恰當,寫得又樸實又巧妙。」[10]
戴明博士的畢生之學「淵博知識系統」,包含「系統、變異、知識與心理」四大部分。它們要整體來了解和講述才好。為了方便,本書的書名以前兩者為主,然而,這只是稍微著重系統思考與變異思考,如古人説的「有偏斯有至」而已,我們還是會全盤照應的「淵博知識系統」。本書第一部是戴明學說之發揮,第二部基本上是Ackoff的「系統思考」和發揮。
我在《轉型:新經濟學》引用過許達然教授的論文「相反論述」(Counter Discourses)[11],在此特別致謝。簡單地說,「相反論述」是對抗主流論述、權威論述、統治論述、或掌權者論述,駁斥他們的觀點,顛覆主導的意識形態的另類論述。我曾舉戴明博士當例子。這種精神,在紀念Russell Ackoff教授以及Peter Scholtes先生的演講和選文中,都處處可見,參考本書第二部。
第三部收郭展銓先生的兩篇論文。郭展銓先生的螺絲業的應用論述,舉凡利用品質機能展開法 (QFD) 來談設計,到其系統和變異的探討,都展示其功力。螺絲是產業關鍵元件,有意思的是,昔日林語堂先生還發表過四篇「從螺絲釘談起」[12]
由以上的說明,或許本書也稱得上是「系統與變異四講」。人類自古以來,即用「地、水、火、風」四要素來說明我們的環境。採用四次演講方來探討問題的名著很多,譬如說,近年來的J. F. Billeter的《莊子四講》[13]E. Levinas著《塔木德四講》[14] 等等。後者的倫理思想,或與我們的主題相關,如「捨棄崇高的責,任何英勇的行為無價值。」[15]、「欲望的欲望就是知的欲望。」、「所有的人都在世界上尋找自己的位置。」
「吾對戴明,豈獨好其文也哉;知其為人,實有感焉。」[16]我們每年重溫戴明博士的著作都可以發現它們「昭示著一種深刻的統一性和連續性 (they reveal a deep unity and continuity.)」。換句話說,我們每次溫習,都可能了解些新意、新的實在 (we begin to envisage a new reality)。一句話,戴明博士的《轉危為安》和《新經濟學》是我們這系列作品的根,讀者應該設法去研讀它們,再與我們這些屬於「發揮評論」的作品相「對照」,這樣才算作「兩全」。
今年主題選為「系統與變異」,主要是因為它們是很重要的。「系統與變異思考」,乃是「主題曲 (theme) 與變奏曲 (variation)的文字遊戲:因variations在統計學稱為「變異」,戴明博士曾說,他畢生的努力,在於降低或縮小 (系統的) 變異。」然而,這只是方便的說法。戴明博士的「新經濟學」或稱為「淵博知識系統」學說,其「系統 變異 知識 心理」是「不可分」的、圓融的。一句話,善於應用其中的某一學門,或單獨追求某一機能的完善,或可以有效果,然而為長遠計,應該注意它們之間的相互作用或整體的綜合。
前三場的講稿是探討兩門大學問。第一講稿綜述「戴明博士的淵博知識系統」,除了頌揚戴明博士的成就和遺澤,我介紹他的紅珠實驗這一寓言、日本JUSE的戴明獎、日美間品質相互激盪、學習的故事 (「松下vs摩托羅拉」;「HP vs YHP)、評論這10年來汽車業 (FordToyota兩公司) 的一些重大產品召修事件,最後重溫戴明博士的一些「日常應用」的智慧遺產。
第二講[17]探討「組織績效與系統優化」,包括許多相當獨特的內容,譬如說談公司 (組織) 治理:董事會的目的和運作、組織作為一系統、顧客是生產系統中最重要的、消費者研究與調查、統計管制狀態Juran原理互通、限制理論 (TOC);如何在組織內追求長遠的效能,譬如說寫出各種目的 (說明) (purpose statementstatement of purpose 並溝通之)、開會的技術 (meeting technology)、學習循環PDCA、目標管理制與考績制的澄清、協調與綜合等等根本原理。

本書的第二部探討複雜系統、系統時代中的R. Ackoff教授等人的貢獻:「系統思考」、「理想設計法」等。第三講內還包含Russell Ackoff教授在80歲的慶祝會的幽默自敘。此外,還選擇David & Sarah Kerridge 父女的「複雜之管理」,作為進一步發揮之作;他們父女這20多年來對於戴明哲學的發揮,成績斐然,我們計畫出版其專集。其他還有數篇相關的論文選。每篇譯文的出處,都寫在該篇起頭處。
Russell Ackoff教授是管理學發展上的重量級要人。本書收入不少他的系統觀和其發展過程的文章。他主張現代已邁入「系統時代」。Ackoff教授是著名的「互動管理(interactive management) 的創始者,曾被譽為「問題解決學的大師」。他的《解決問題的藝術》80年代引進台灣,產生一定的影響;有趣的是,他對於問題學中的發揮和實際應用,與趙元任先生學生時代的說法類似[18],這說明哲學上一直在思考它,譬如說,尼采說過:「我們聽力的侷限性──人們只能聽到那些能夠找到答案的問題」(《快樂的科學》)。大家都知道,解決問題是一門藝術,而「功夫在詩外」,或是「要做哲學家,須唸不是哲學的書。」(趙元任)
Ackoff所主張的「教育的目標是學,而不是教!」其實,這是很平常的經驗和智慧:我們聽說過,彰化某位知名老師的教學很成功,因為他懂得讓「先進的」學生去教「後知後覺」者。大家在幼稚園學習到的這點,後來都忘掉了。再舉一例,某位得博士學位之後再去巴黎學習的德國人這樣說:「不言而喻,嚮導的角色歸我所有。因此,我加倍高興,因為我不僅可以去觀看,還可以為他們指路。我的經驗是,學習的最好方法是教別人。[19]
West C. Churchman (1913-2004) 教授與Ackoff的關係,可說是「亦師亦友」。他們都是上世紀中葉賓州大學科學哲學的第二代重要人士。有意思的是,約同一時期,DemingShewhart等人在這領域受到運作論等的影響。本書選用Churchman一篇有趣的「系統哲學」論文,充滿智慧,題目 “The X of X不予譯出,請讀者自己去體會。Ackoff的一篇「美國通信系統被摧毀了!,選自賓州大學Wharton商學院出版的的書 (它的主題為探討「理想設計法」的各種應用)Wharton商學院是美國最早創設的商學院 (1881)。我們本書中提到的Peter Drucker的「無聊的董事會(The Bored Board ) 一文即出自The Wharton Magazine, 1976。接下來的「理想商學院的設計」、「教育的目標是學,而是教!」等的出處,都請見各篇開始之說明;「商學院的設計」是一重要的主題,因為它們多少與能促進世界的繁榮相關,而教育學的探討更是哲學之最。「Ackoff教授80歲自敘」 一文,很能表現他的幽默;「通用汽車公司的學習 ── Russell Ackoff 教授80歲祝壽晚會主題講」是名家Vincent P. Barabba 的力作[20]。這些文章,主辦單位慷慨地公布在網路上,謹向他們致謝。
我想我們可以溫習亞里斯多德的《政治學》的第一段引,試把「城邦」看成是「組織」如何?柳宗元 (778-819) 在「師有箴」說得好:「不師如之何,吾何以成!」基本上,司馬賀 (Herbert A. Simon1916-2001)《管理行為》及彼得杜拉克 (Peter Drucker1909-2005) 認為:組織處於「大社會」中,它與「市場」同樣重要。現代組織的領導者,是有其責任的。領導權的來源在「憲法」(其本之大法)。杜拉克認為,《聯邦論》(或譯為《聯邦黨人文集》) 是領導者要讀的經典。
我十幾年前讀了R. L. Ackoff的《民主型公司的開創》[21],覺得這些想法或與五四運動所追求的「理性」或「民主與科學」相關,所以就主張:經營管理或品質運動的方向,應往這方面去思考,即,基本上,經營管理是政治、經濟和社會中的活動,所以要特別重視戴明思想中的人本哲學和倫理學。本書舉的許多故事,都說明我們在經營上,需要理論,甚至淵博知識系統。
戴明晚年的作品中常有「系統與變異」這主。我舉《轉危為安》[22] 的二段為例 (其中文字都重新處理過)
『我們的問題全出在工人( “Our troubles lie entirely in the work force.” ) 這種「想當然爾」的想法,盛行於全世界。大家均認為,只要生產作業人員按照當初教的方式工作的話,生產線或服務上就不會有任何問題。這些都是令人自我感覺良好的美夢。殊不知作業人員被系統綁死了,而系統該由管理者負責 (The workers are handicapped by the system, and the system belongs to management)
朱蘭 (Joseph M. Juran,1904-2008) 博士早就說過,改善的可能性,大部份在於對系統的改善措施,而作業人員大半受制於系統 (most of the possibilities for improvement lie in action on the system)所以他們的貢獻是相當有限的。「這兒 (捷克) 也盛行著一種沒根據的想法,以為不良項目中的大部分是可以由作業員所控制的,如果作業員全都努力,工廠的品質問題就會大大減少。[23], [24]
就在最近某家大製造商的管理層所作的宣言中,有這樣的假設:如果全廠2700個作業站的工作都能做到無缺點的話,那麼全廠就不會再有問題了。他們興奮地向我說,他們如何在生產線上運用統計方法而成就傲人,我花了三小時去聆聽。然而,我卻發現,他們的工程師竟然將所有的問題都視為由「特殊因」所造成的,即,他們採用「找出問題並移除之」方式來處理,卻未能在該系統本身下功夫[25]。同時,售後服務、保固成本等大幅上揚,致使生意走下坡。管理者似乎沒有全盤了解:必須去改良主要產品之設計,以及對進貨材料的品質要更注意。為何他們在現場上這樣用心於統計方法之運用等表面功夫呢?答案是:他們還會知道有那些地方可去應用呢?對他們而言,品質的要求,乃是針對他人,而不是針對自己的。
芝加哥有一家大型銀行,他們也因為這樣子,「見樹不見林」,從而業務不佳,危機重重。其實,即使每個行員的計算都不再出錯,或是不再填錯資料、表格,這種經營上的問題仍會層出不窮的。
有一家零售店幾乎倒閉,因為管理者沒能即時去調整貨品,未能順應社區的需求,從而營業收入大為下挫。這樣縱使他們的櫃台不曾發生計帳錯誤,或是每項貨品都供應充足,業務上還是無力回天。
所以說,單是改善流程的做法並不足夠。而是必須隨著新產品和服務、科技的引進,持續地去改善產品與服務的設計。這些,都是管理者的責任。
戴明博士1950年在日本所提出的「生產系統」,或許就是發揮W. A. Shewhart博士 (1935) 的「全公司控制計畫」(“The control program”pp. 418-22) 的圖示。[26]」。1980年代後期起企管界所談的SIPOC[27],是它的一種便宜說法;即消費者團體所說的「生活者生產者服務者」[28]。此處向讀者推薦戴明博士的傑作:「改善的共同因與特殊因。穩定系統。」[29] 他在1986年的版本中這樣說:
「什麼是 (經營) 系統?(What is the system?) 管理人員而言,其系統包含…..管理階層有很大的權力及指使力 (discretion),但卻沒有辦法操縱全球所有的事情。對生產線的員工而言,該系統就是除了他以外的全部事情。[30]
有意思的是,戴明博士著《新經濟學》中,對於「系統」的說法,基本上推薦West C. ChurchmanRussell Ackoff等三人在1950年代的《作業研究導論》。本書第二部探討系統思考的出發點和應用。在這方面,戴明博士生前與Ackoff有過幾次交流。
20105月底,我去造訪Peter Scholtes先生的網站,才知道先生已過世近年。由於十二年前曾出版他的名作戴明領導手冊(The Leader Handbook),跟他有些因緣,所以我臨時在台北為他辦場紀念會,本書所選的他的文章 (在第2講和第3講中),都只能算是「小菜」,我們計畫在2011年的出版品中再闢他的紀念專輯。
推廣 這「系統與變異」主題,與我們日常生活息息相關。所以這是本來面貌,只是我們要重新認識它們。譬如說,我們平常的說話,其實學問不小。僅就「快慢」而言,「如果每分鐘吐出一百八十個字,並不是非常平均的每秒三個字,而是可能前一秒吐出四個字,後一秒吐出兩個字。」[31] 這時,我們稱這種每秒所吐字數之間有變異 (variations)
自古以來,燒製陶瓷的過程中有許多隨機的變異,已早為我們所熟知,或者縱然無法得知,但其變異之範圍為匠人所可接受的。又譬如,許多人喜歡日本的設計公司PLUSMINUSZERO (正負零, 請以此查該公司之網站)即公差為零(此種解釋是工程上的說法,與該公司從藝術的角度出發的說法不同) ,即,產品的特性沒變異,然而這正如真圓,是世間不可能有的。
從樂曲中、文藝作品中,最容易了解它是環環相扣的。譬如說,你可說,就《聊齋》全書來看,它是一部組織嚴密的文學作品。又,「一篇小說要寫得成功,必須是一個整體。……最重要的部分是如何和其他部分交織在一起」。[32]「就小說或詩歌自身而言,我們首先關注的是真實的連貫性 ── 各部分如何連貫而構有意義的整體。」[33]我們也可以從法國年鑑學派的歷史觀中,了解這種想法……
201034日早上8點多,台灣南部甲仙鄉為6.4級地震之震央。它讓台南水上鄉的宏遠紡織工廠發生大火災──奇怪的是,晚上電視報導失一億多元,不過,卻傳言公司只投保火險數十憶元而沒包括地震險,所以無法獲得理賠,這些報導頗富爭議。這不是本文要討論的,我記下這,作為我對該公司朋友的關心。
關於火災,戴明博士曾以管制圖方式,來闡釋美國某公司的火災次數是一穩定的系統。 「保險公司內的人,如果也繪點圖34 () 或類似的圖,他將觀察到該火災系統是穩定的,這個例子是保險公司有良好的根據,可用來設定保險費率,並能獲得一些利潤。」[34] 所以,除非從經驗 (包括他廠等等) 去學習,或重新設計並管理防災等安全系統,否則類似的火災事件仍會時有所聞,譬如說20107月間16日之內,麥寮的台塑六輕廠區即發生過兩次大火災,可能演變成公司與政府的一場危機之開場。我們從八月中旬的居民的種種抗議行動中,可以了解到這事件是種種環環相扣的累積民怨之引爆,因此我們可以知道經營企業必須戒慎恐懼。最初許多人誤認為這些事故之發生乃是王永慶先生過世之後,管理過於鬆散,即員工的螺絲沒被鎖緊的緣故……其實,這可能是一典型的漏斗實驗中管理層反應過度,員工的螺絲被鎖得太緊……
同樣的,八月中HP公司的醜聞案也充分說明戴明博士強調的「信任、操守」的重要性。一家年營業額近五千億台幣的HP公司之董事長兼執行長,因二千美金的報帳欺騙必須辭職,這其實充分反映出這位最高經營者過分重視自己的分紅而斲傷HP的公司文化,搞得全公司因其「恐怖的、令人畏懼的」管理方式而怨聲載道,一半以上的員工決定有機會的話就換到他公司去工作。離職的這位CEO的經營風格就是戴明博士一再告誡的美國之病。我希望大家有機會重溫戴明哲學。
自古東西方都將我們的身體看為一整體,所以有人說中醫醫學是「全體的、關連的」。戴明博士引聖保羅「身體一系統」之觀念[35]。即使如此,我們看公共電視台播放的影集《怪醫豪斯》(House) 影集,可以知道人體諸器官的互動和關係,真是複雜無比的。生物學和生態學的許多重要的控制論相關觀念,都是我們上一世紀的重要收穫。
系統或整體的觀念,在文藝中很常,譬如說,哥德說:「一個人如果善於單獨應用某一機能,可以收獲許多效果;由幾種機能聯合作用可以得到非常的效果。但是那獨一無二的,那出人意表的,只有當他的全部精力和諧地團結為一的時候才能達到。」[36] 又譬如說,關於繪畫中系統與部分的關係:「190812月。構圖完美的畫以其全然的和諧感動我們。但是外行人相信此種整體的和諧是使每一部分和諧所獲致的效果,這是錯誤的結論。這效果再脆弱不過了,因為一旦第一部分與第二部分相調和之時,便不再需要第三部分了。僅當『』與『』彼此粗澀不和,才輪得到『』去把此種粗澀轉變成和諧。如此,這三部分的和諧方具有更強的說服力。
最先引發我們興趣的是形式。它是我們努力的對象,在我們工作行列中占首要地位;但絕不可論斷形式所蘊涵的內容是次要的。」[37] 雪萊有首「無常」的詩中說:「我們...又似被忘卻的琴,參差不齊的弦索,給多變的振動以及多變的響應,在這脆弱的樂器上,你們兩次彈撥,都奏不出同一種情致和聲韻。」「我們細讀《歐根‧奧涅金》的每一節詩,都會感到它自成一種情緒、情調、或意境的整體。每一節詩都能提供我們一個不同的優美感覺,一種特殊的渾圓味道,歸根結底,這引導我們贊羨人生,熱愛人生。[38]
任何大藝家對其作品的要求都是全盤要綱掌握之。「拍攝你的影片要像你閉目所見的那樣。(你得能夠隨時看見並聽見你整套影片。)[39]。又如“在沉悶且令人動容痛!痛!痛痛痛!」皮鼓節奏中……鑼鼓「痛愴!痛愴!」……情!痛!狂!情!痛!狂![40]。「形使我喜歡,所以我要造形……造形只不過是表達思想的手段而已……在製作一個女子的頭部的同時,就應該體現出少女的整體感……[41]
我們也可以考慮在一般人的傳宗接代上所產生的變異。「多子多孫」只是數量上的,「數大就是美」或「人多好辦事」,而從質量上的考慮,我們可以參考古希臘荷馬的話:「很少孩子能同他們父親一樣,多數差一些,只有少數比他們父親更好。」[42] 仔細想想,如果不是代代之間沒有這樣廣泛而微小的差異,人類文明演變至今,一定已是另外一種面貌,可能完全與現在的不同。
「斯賓諾莎遙視宇宙的時候,他宣告,這就是神。他把宇宙視為一個統一體,同時發現神就在那裡。以同樣的方式觀察宇宙的物理學家則把宇宙視為一事件系統。……[43]




[1] 參考戴明博士著《轉危為安》(Out of the Crisis, 1986, p.152;中文本第165) 和《新經濟學:產官學界一體適用》19932
[2] 弘一法師《律學要略》,192512月。
[3] 《蒙田散文》,選自梁宗岱、黃建華選譯集《我不想樹立雕像》,北京:光明日報出版社,1996
[4] 王船山,轉引自熊十力《新唯識論,卷中,第6章》,台北:廣文出版社,頁75。下一行的「當境」說,參考梁宗岱的文章「談詩」。
[5] 2008年。參考台灣戴明圈blog網站。
[6] 2009年。參考台灣戴明圈blog網站。
[7] 2009年。參考台灣戴明圈blog網站。
[8] 這本書,呼籲諸位大師全集的出版:「在國外,這些事可能不怪,我們見過梵樂希手稿的全部刊行……讓這個開始成為不是一個奢求吧……-- 唐文標先生編《張愛玲卷》(1982),頁348
[9] 讓我想起海然熱 (Claude Hagege) 的《語言人》書末的訪談錄北京:三聯,1999,頁402-12
[10] 卞之琳譯的莎士比亞著《丹麥王子哈姆雷特悲劇》
[11] 載《新地文學》,20089月號,頁12
[12] 《語堂文集一》,台北:台灣開明,頁87-117
[13] 2009中譯。見解多表現在翻譯成法文的文本。
[14] Quatre Lectures Tamudiques2002中譯。
[15] 比較:英國中古期作家喬叟在《坎特伯雷故事集》中說:「因為聖保羅說過,一切寫作,都是為教義寫作的,應該取其精華,去其糟粕。」
[16] 改蘇東坡的信。
[17] 從我20106月在昆山的四講次摘取出的。
[18] 詳本書第3講,頁161
[19] Nicolaus Sombart《巴黎的學習歲月》,南京:南京大學出版社,2010,頁37
[20] 都取自PROCEEDINGS: RUSSELL L. ACKOFF and THE ADVENT OF SYSTEMS THINKING :A Conference to Celebrate the Work of Russell L. Ackoff on his 80th Birthday and Developments in Systems Theory and Practice, March 4-6, 1999
[21] The Democratic Corporation: A Radical Prescription for Recreating Corporate America and Rediscovering Success, New York: Oxford University Press,1994.
[22] Out of the Crisis, 1986, pp.134-35;中文本《轉危為安》第146-47頁。
[23] Joseph .M. Juran著,載《工業品質管制月刊》(Industrial Quality Control),第225月號,1966:頁624
[24] …the same wide-spread unsupported assumption that the bulk of defects are operator-controllable, and that if the operators would only put their backs into it, the plant’s quality-problems would shrink materially.
[25] 參考戴明著《轉危為安》第11章。
[26] 參考《製品的經濟性控制》(The Economic Control of Manufactured Product) 25章,其中的「研究階段之控制、設計階段之控、開發階段之控制、商業階段之控制、原物料採購之控制」部分。
[27] 參考本書第二講,或Joiner顧問公司的《第四代管理‧錄影帶教學,1988》、Peter Scholtes著《戴明領導手冊》
[28] 參考「從我們的合作社-探討三位一體的共同關係」,《綠主張》,20102月號,pp. 8-9
[29] 《轉危為安》第11章:「改善的共同因與特殊因。穩定系統。」
[30] 由參加作者1983年在Cape Town舉行的研討會人員所提供。(按;取自Out of the Crisis, pp.317-18;《轉危為安》第369-70頁。全部引文參考本書第二講。)
[31] 王鼎鈞《文學種籽》台北;爾雅,2003,第110頁。
[32] C. Brooks and R. P. Warren《小說鑒賞》(Understanding Fiction),北京:世界圖書,p.9
[33] 前揭書,p.143
[34] 參考《轉危為安》第11章:「改善的共同因與特殊因。穩定系統。」等處。
[35] 《新約‧哥林多前書》,轉引自戴明《新經濟學》,頁74-5
[36] 《梁宗岱文集II‧詩與真第二集》北京;中央編譯出版社,2003p. 153
[37] Paul Klee《克利日記選》,雨云譯,台北:藝術家出版社,1980,頁128
[38] 查良錚「漫談《歐根‧奧涅金》」,收入《穆旦 (查良錚) 詩文集‧2》,頁105
[39] 法國導演Robert Bresson《電影書寫札記》(譚家雄等譯,北京:三聯,2001,頁34)
[40] 王拓《吊人樹》載台北:《純文學》(19705月號)
[41] 法國藝術家 馬約耳 (Maillol)
[42] 楊憲益譯《奧德修紀‧卷二》北京:中國工人出版社,1995,頁15
[43] S. Alexander藝術價值與自然韓東輝等北京:華夏出版社,2000,頁155







-->
Preface by William W. Scjerkenbach
In 2008, when I was living in Taiwan, HC asked me to deliver the Deming Memorial Lectures in Taipei and Tai Chung. The topic was Profound Knowledge. The audience was primarily eager college students and old quality professionals.
I came to understand why Dr. Deming went to and was excited by what he saw in Japan – people willing to learn and apply what they learned. I also was very impressed by what I saw in ROC and PRC; specifically, eager willing workers. Management was a different story, however. Most of the companies in PRC were managed by Taiwanese or Japanese executives brought over because of their supposed understanding of modern business practices. When there was a Quality problem, they put more inspection and repair in the line because labor was cheap.
They were very willing to try anything to keep the business: lean, six-sigma, Hoshin, SPC, hire SQE, Sales, etc. from the OEMs. I thought that there was a chance they might be receptive to philosophies that had taken root in Japan decades ago. I was wrong. Well, mostly wrong. Dr. Deming’s philosophy still resonates strongly with the billion or so willing workers, but the management is indoctrinated with a mixture of Western Business School pablum and global CYA. More cost center control is not the answer. More pervasive IT is not the answer. More focusing on defects is not the answer. More internal competition and eliminating people below average is not the answer. More fear and intimidation in the chain-of-command is not the answer. What is the answer? Profound Knowledge is the foundation of the answer.
In this 110th birthday, you have a chance to learn something that should change your life for the better. If you understand how to manage variation, your life will change for the better. If you understand that cause and effect are not immediately linked, your life will change for the better. On the down-side, knowledge is a burden. To paraphrase Fu Tse, you must act on knowledge so it will not be useless. You must have the courage to act on it even though your management does not understand it. Dr. Deming said that it is easier to take Courage in the UK. Many pubs serve it on tap! Only a few serve it in Taiwan, though.
Dr. Deming began every seminar with the question “Why are we here?” His answer was to “learn, have fun, and make a difference”. That is why you should be here as well.

*****
Feedback from David Hsu

Thanks David Hsu

讀到您書中的所謂資訊視覺化 這裡有個很棒的例子

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVimVzgtD6w

*****

2013.7.16 今天收到國家圖書館掛號信催繳系統與變異: 淵博知識與理想設計法 (2010)一書

網誌存檔