Program Tips
Research Index
The aim of sharing these articles and papers is to inform website users and present our thinking on the topic. We intend to help readers understand an issue, solve a problem, or make a decision by learning from our tested theories and our research. Some of them build upon other research papers, and are interrelated, others are partial selections of larger documents.
Their purpose is to offer useful, practical evidence of our thinking and our theories of improvement from practice. As Dr. W. Edwards Deming has taught, these theories have the possibilities of being wrong. We will gladly accept evidence of that possibility, we make no apology for learning from your evidence!
1977
1994
Control Charts and Process Capability
2003
Increasing Organization Capacity for Learning and Improvement
2004
Facilitating Learning and Improvement
2005
Value Stream Mapping and Facilitation
2014
Argyris, Deming and Transformation
The 20th Annual Deming Research Seminar
2015
A New System of Quality in Process Interactions
Annual International Deming Research Seminar
2016
Annual Deming Conference - BOLD PANEL
2018
Process, Outcome and System Measures for Long Term Supports and Services
2022
2023
Abandon Performance Appraisals
Decades of Learning Through CQI
2024
Manage More By Doing Less
August 15, 1977
Beginning
The purpose of this paper is to provide an early example of my management thinking and methods to a team about the work we do together to improve the service we provide in the communities we serve. This “mental model” helped us work together as a front line team in the broader Michigan Bell Telephone and AT&T Bell System which we were an essential part of. At the end is a verbatim quote from the book Raymond O. Loen, “Manage More By Doing Less”, the Foreword written by the Chairman of General Mills. I have adapted his writing to create a mental model that I share with you in my own words, to reflect how I hope to manage as we work together towards a common purpose of serving the people and communities we do business in.
A MENTAL MODEL OF HOW I THINK AND MANAGE
We will travel a road together to the future and there will be fires along the way. We’ve had bottom quartile results because of many factors, but you are not the cause of the poor results. By comparison, I think that together you and I will be the cause of improved results. If this is to become true, we will work together to make it so. A common phrase, “If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will take you there” will not apply, we’ll chart a course together.
With your knowledge and experience, we’ll develop action plans, to create our roadmap to improved results. Our business is too complex, and our customer needs too critical to drift on circumstance, guesses, hunches, and chance. Executives have a need to connect to the middle and lower levels of management, and that includes me as the connection to your work and the realities you face while you provide valued service every day.
I will never ask you to do anything unsafe, illegal, or against the company code of conduct. We have all worked together at some point and hopefully, you think I was a good doer, as I think you are. Now, I need to do more planning and managing of the work in our processes and help you succeed. My work is dependent on your work, and the facts that you face every hour of the day. I commit to use management methods that use your knowledge and value your input. You are more knowledgeable in our network systems than I will ever be. You are closer to the work and understand what you are capable of. We will succeed together if you appreciate my efforts to be a responsible steward of our shared success. I think that is my job and trust you will be direct in telling me what obstacles get in the way of that success in your daily work.
Your development is important to me, and part of my responsibility. The technical changes coming in our network are an area of learning and development that may be of concern. Even though you are very knowledgeable and experienced in the technologies we have, I am committed to your individual development in any new technologies you wish to pursue.
I hope that my commitment to you as essential members of the team matches your expectations, and trust as we engage in daily two-way feedback together, we will increase our results for our customers, for our team, our company and our AT&T shareowners.
Control Charts and Process Capability
July 17, 1994
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this paper is to provide a guide for applying quality control principles to our work of serving customers, communities, and shareholders as we continually improve our work, in our jobs and in our organization. It is intended to describe the processes which will cause us to preserve the essential features of the quality our customers rely on as they have become accustomed. Whether working in customer service at the front line, or in staff, managers must control our various work processes, in an economic system of cause and effect. In the history of the AT&T Bell System, the methods that made it possible for that organization to expand in providing service across the world, and to make the parts that made the services work, it attained the reputation of “best in the world” came from the evidence of science and service.
Ten years ago, that Bell System was broken into multiple pieces, yet that does not mean that what we learned from that history of service and science is abandoned. To a certain degree, we can look at these methods that contributed the most to making that history successful. Much of the following material is based on learning delivered over the last decades to supervisors, engineers, staff, executives, and key people in management of the Bell operating companies..
We are witness to the transformation of our industry, informed by the past and connected to it through scientific management, and the responsibilities that come with it as we have moved from the Industrial Age to the Information Age, and perhaps even to the age of “Knowledge”.
The actual science of management and related mathematics described in this paper have been used in all types of industry since they were developed decades ago at Bell Laboratories by Dr. Walter Shewhart.. What follows is on the method of the control chart, a model of economic operations for managing processes economically in any effort to determine whether the needed qualities of whatever is measured as important to a service, process or product can be sustained. Time and money spent for training and improvement will be wisely invested at the exact process where they make the greatest impact on the Ameritech and AOCs (Ameritech Operating Cos.)
Increasing Organization Capacity For Learning and Improvement
May 17, 2003
In 1991, an article by Chris Argyris "Teaching Smart People How to Learn" started me on a path of inquiry and learning over a decade by testing the philosophy, principles and practices from his book “Overcoming Organizational Defenses”. Practicing these ideas has positive impacts on organizations when we start to remove fear from our social systems and organizations to discuss what concerns us in productive reasoning practiced together with others.
What follows is primarily drawn from his 1990 work “Overcoming Organizational Defenses - Facilitating Organizational Learning”, supplemented in part by professional observations of the results of these methods when practiced in small groups, larger teams and in facilitated classroom settings. This book is a way out.
There are also numerous documented synergies between Argyris’ work and that of Peter Drucker, Warren Bennis and W. Edwards Deming, especially with respect to the presence of fear in organizational cultures. Their work is tightly integrated in Argyris’ work with a view of the systems and values that underlie organizations of all types. I will note here my first hand observations of systems where I have facilitated the use of Argyris’ work, especially in helping these organizations increase their capacity to learn and improve whatever it is they do together. Where appropriate, I will note these similarities with references to these other works.
Beginning a Discussion and Changing the Status Quo
Patterns of organizational defenses work against learning and improvement. There must be a high level of trust to mitigate the fear and the lack of trust in most organizations that gets in the way of learning how to improve. To deal with that issue, we must openly discuss the issues that create fear and mistrust.
We must not cover up these issues by making them undiscussable. Doing so only activates the downward spiral toward more fear and dysfunction. Trust, learning, and improvement requires that we discuss issues openly and productively, setting aside old habits that create fear and destroy trust.
We must begin a dialogue around the systems we’re in, so we can move from a system of control to commitment. We complete this through discussing shared goals, values and traditions by participation of team members, and this helps us move individual and team perspectives from me to we.
The shift from a control model to a commitment model takes time and work, more work for people who cling to the old control model and structures that they are accustomed to hiding behind. The commitment model exposes our human flaws and that can be uncomfortable at first. While liberating new capacities of individuals.
Facilitating Learning and Improvement
May 22, 2004
A paper by this author titled “Increasing Organizational Capacity for Learning & Improvement” focused on organizational defenses and was shared with a number of colleagues and customers. The work of Chris Argyris in his Harvard Business Review article from 1991, “Teaching Smart People How To Learn” and his 1990 work “Overcoming Organizational Defenses - Facilitating Organizational Learning” was a foundation for interventions and consulting through dialogue.
This paper is a supplement and follow up to the earlier work and focuses on how to facilitate dialogue and learning in meetings and workshops. This is useful in routine staff meeting, complex problem-solving meetings or workshops to develop new processes, products, services or technology as solutions to organizational needs. We start with dialogue to clarify our purpose with three basic questions:
What are we trying to accomplish?
How will we know that a change is an improvement?
What changes can we make that will result in improvement?
These questions come primarily from the work of the Associates of Process Improvement (API), a collection of quality experts, thinkers and practitioners of profound knowledge, as defined by W Edwards Deming. They call these three questions “the model of improvement”, when used in conjunction with the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle of learning and improvement, so described by W. Edwards Deming. In practice, there are numerous synergies between the work and philosophies of Deming, Argyris, Russell Ackoff, API and others. The work of the Achieve Global organization and the fundamentals they teach through the Zenger-Miller facilitation methods are a way to extend these ideas of learning and improvement methods by skilled philosophy, practices and methods of facilitating meetings and workshops.
The following pages help us with an overview of the work and provide us with standards for success, along with basic principles and methods. This structure will help facilitate meetings, change, improvement, and in the process, transform our organizations and us. These methods are part of a system designed for flexible implementation to build the skills of the participants and transfer these skills to their workplace. The model that follows enables implementation of high impact learning and improvement.
In the following pages are an integrated view of these concepts from Argyris, Deming, API and Zenger-Miller: facilitating learning and improvement through dialogue. Included within are first hand observations of facilitations that help teams organize meetings and workshops to improve the processes and work they do together. Where appropriate, I will note other references to the published works and will list them in an index of references at the end.
Value Stream Mapping and Facilitation
June 18, 2005
This paper is a supplement to a 2004 paper by this author, “Facilitating Learning and Improvement” with a narrower focus on the process of value stream mapping and how to facilitate it with subject matter experts (SMEs). As usual, we start a PDSA (plan-do-study-act) cycle of learning and improvement with team dialogue to clarify our purpose of a value stream mapping session with three basic questions:
1. What are we trying to accomplish? 2. How will we know that a change is an improvement? 3. What changes can we make that will result in improvement?
These three questions are “the model of improvement”, when used in conjunction with the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle of learning and improvement. They come from the work of the API (Associates of Process Improvement).
• What are we trying to accomplish? Our aim is to create a graphic, a picture to understand a process better, to see where value flows to satisfy the customer need.
• How will we know that a change is an improvement? When we document it visually, we see where value flows and see the parent and child relationships between steps in the process, we will have a baseline to measure all changes from.
• What changes can we make that will result in improvement? Documenting a value stream in a disciplined method allows us to use a common language for all further discussions about improvement by converting team member opinions into thoughts through team consensus and team decision-making. This can later be converted to knowledge through the PDSA cycle of learning and improvement.
In this paper, we document a model of value stream mapping that works for facilitator, customer and subject matter expert alike. We know that mapping processes helps subject matter experts know and understand their work and their system better. Thus, we believe it will aid their improvement efforts. What we think must change to create that improvement will be to increase the knowledge of facilitators of value stream mapping with a disciplined philosophy and method.
Quality deployment flowcharts (QDFs), process maps and value stream maps (VSMs) are a fundamental way to enhance our understanding of our organization and the value our team’s work brings to our customers. It can be the start of new learning and an infusion of new energy into any on-going continual improvement efforts. They help us document a picture of a process that all can refer to with the data to understand our system and team, suppliers, internal resources and customers. We have a fold out supplement depicting the VSM process that can be shared on request.
Argyris, Deming and Transformation
January 25, 2014
My study of transformation in organizations has brought me to understand much of W. Edwards Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge (SoPK) and the synergies between the work of Dr. Deming and many other authors.
Chris Argyris’s work resonates strongly with Dr. Deming's philosophy and themes on transformation. Like many philosophers and social scientists, Argyris has perspectives about organizational transformation through understanding systems, the people in them and the power of shared purpose.
Any leader of a learning organization can encourage a team to begin with knowledge and start the practice of productive dialogue. This requires "discussing the un-discussable" as Chris Argyris described ways to counter the common defensive routines in organizations. The key in this process is leadership's demonstrated commitment to productive reasoning and dialogue, to remove fear and embarrassment by new learning and improved productivity for their whole enterprise, starting with themselves.
In the context of his studies and writing, it seems the common purpose in each of the Argyris case studies was to transform the organization under study by transforming the leaders. In his practice and writings, Argyris provided us hard evidence of many of Deming's points and provides actionable solutions. I propose to share a number of these solutions from Argyris and evidence from others as well.
The 20th Annual International Deming Research Seminar
March 3, 2014
Pages 250 - 264:
My study of transformation in organizations has brought me to understand much of W. Edwards Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge (SoPK) and the synergies between the work of Dr. Deming and many other authors.
Chris Argyris’s work resonates strongly with Dr. Deming's philosophy and themes on transformation. Like many philosophers and social scientists, Argyris has perspectives about organizational transformation through understanding systems, the people in them and the power of shared purpose.
Any leader of a learning organization can encourage a team to begin with knowledge and start the practice of productive dialogue. This requires "discussing the un-discussable" as Chris Argyris described ways to counter the common defensive routines in organizations. The key in this process is leadership's demonstrated commitment to productive reasoning and dialogue, to remove fear and embarrassment by new learning and improved productivity for their whole enterprise, starting with themselves.
In the context of his studies and writing, it seems the common purpose in each of the Argyris case studies was to transform the organization under study by transforming the leaders. In his practice and writings, Argyris provided us hard evidence of many of Deming's points and provides actionable solutions. I propose to share a number of these solutions from Argyris and evidence from others as well.
A New System of Quality in Process Interactions
July 17, 2015
There is a model and a method to create a systemic view of any organization. We can use the scientific method and engagement with the people who know it best, the subject matter experts who work in the system. This concept has a foundation in both knowledge and experience to define and manage systems and their performance. This moves management of organizations from complexity to clarity around a system with an aim and common purpose, with shared values and action in concert with the aim and purpose of the system.
The foundational references and sources to understand the elements of this system model are integrated with process and methods to uncover what we really know about our systems. Two fundamental references are the work of Russell Ackoff in systems thinking along with the work of W. Edwards Deming in his definition of the Deming System of Profound Knowledge ® or SoPK. Deming's diagram "Production Viewed as a System" forms this model and comes from both "The New Economics" and "Out of the Crisis". Also the work of Associates in Process Improvement (API) and their "Quality As A Business Strategy" has advanced the work of Ackoff and Deming in defining and managing systems through the linkage of processes within systems.
We connect with other people, through their brains and their intellect that shape their actions. We connect people with each other and a common aim and purpose in the organizations we belong to. We make it possible to see these connections and interactions between our work and that of others with purpose and value to the system that we are all part of. Collaboration and helping others in a team is a high purpose of all human endeavors and it brings dignity and joy to all who contribute to a common aim and purpose. We engage with each other as the human beings we are, and recognize the hope we can become better each day in some way, with common aim and purpose that is bound in a shared future.
Our most profound safety as human beings comes from engaging with others in designing and implementing a better future than any present difficulty we face. As both Peter Drucker and Abraham Lincoln said, "The best way to predict your future is to create it!” and our obvious choice is to work together with others in the pursuit of improvement to our present circumstances as we can best define them. When we collaborate with others, we make our social system better and stronger than the competing system - which may be as destructive from inside complacency as from outside competition.
This model and method corrects what is fundamentally wrong with managing “parts” of systems, the chaotic way that most organizations are managed. This way of thinking provides a way to break out of the management of parts and more to management of the interactions in the system. To be successful, all organizations must provide services and products whose value to customers is greater than the cost to produce and deliver the service or product.
This method also includes the use of a common software application as a tool to connect these important ideas in a comprehensive view of the complicated systems we are responsible for. This tool connects the flow and relationships between value adding activities in the system and processes or value streams that impact the aim and purpose of the system. A template of this tool and rudimentary instructions can be obtained from the author for adaptation to any system and organization.
Annual Deming Conference
March 23, 2015
Annual International Deming Research Seminar
March 23, 2015
Annual Deming Conference - BOLD Panel
September 16, 2016
Panel Presentation by Representatives of the State of Michigan Long Term Supports and Services (LTSS), Aging and Adult Services Agency of State of Michigan, Dennis Sergent - Host
Process, Outcome and System Measures for Long Term Supports and Services
September 1, 2018
The aim of this white paper is to describe and promote the use of a system of integrated metrics to measure the improvement of the Long Term Care, Support & Services (LTSS) system in federal, state and local government organizations.
The purpose of such a system is to measure the overall quality, safety, effectiveness, timeliness and value of long-term supports and services to include the delivery and improvement of the care provided to citizens in government health and human care systems (GHHS) and to align improvement work across multiple processes, agencies and providers. This includes aging and disability populations who may need services and supports as citizens in the communities they reside in, as well as in long term care or congregate care facilities.
A balanced set of LTSS process, outcome and system measures, is necessary to provide GHHS leaders and other stakeholders with data that help them evaluate the overall performance of the core dimensions of quality, effectiveness and value, as well as equity. These measures serve as inputs to continual quality improvement planning as an LTSS and GHHS strategy.
Properly constructed, these system measures should be supplemented by existing measures that parts of the GHHS organization and stakeholder organizations use to evaluate the performance of their part of the LTSS system. Because they are intended to focus on important system level measures of quality, effectiveness, and value, they are limited to a small set of measures that are not person, disease, condition or program specific. Each of them should impact the outcome of the processes that deliver important services and supports to vulnerable people.
One aim for developing the LTSS system measures is to also provide a view of performance and improved productivity that reflects services provided in different programs, processes, services, and locations, no matter who does the work across the continuum of services. Improved productivity of the LTSS system of services and the interaction of its parts will result in better quality, safety, timeliness, effectiveness and value for the beneficiaries and stakeholders in the system. Please note, effectiveness is defined to include efficiency.
Effectiveness includes all of the other important dimensions of the LTSS system. “Doing the right things” is a systems view of effectiveness that includes the “doing it right” view of efficient use of resources, safety is included as helping people be and stay safe is an ethical imperative. Timeliness is also included within the definition of effectiveness and doing the right thing, and a focus on quality helps achieve the overall aim of the system. Over time LTSS systems may develop balanced system measures to predict whether sustainable value is delivered equitably to both citizen beneficiaries and citizen taxpayers, no matter where they live, or who they are.
Guide to Improvement
Abandon Performance Appraisals
We Can't Improve What Should Be Abandoned!
The Destruction Cannot Be Measured
There is no substitute for knowledge, especially about the mythology that performance appraisals, rating, and ranking schemes cause.
• Senior executives, board members, managers, staff, customers, and suppliers need knowledge to manage the organization and the evidence is clear - we should stop doing performance appraisals.
We can learn how the knowledge and science embodied in the work of Dr. W Edwards Deming and a number of other scientists proves the destruction caused by this practice. Working together is fundamental to solving and preventing problems; this practice creates unhealthy competition inside the organization and alienates the people we need most. It creates fear and a scarcity of talent by creating a hostile work environment.
Decades of Learning Through CQI
RESPECT FOR PEOPLE
CQI is not the typical acronym for Continual Quality Improvement, most people around the world use the word “continuous” habitually instead and other institutions use the acronym for other reasons. We use language common to the culture of each individual learner and don’t use sports clichés and catch phrases.
AN INTEGRATED PHILOSOPHY, PRINCIPLES, and METHODS
We have a challenge to help participants deal with the cognitive dissonance when they discover W. Edwards Deming’s philosophy and management methods. Through hourly exercises with a partner on each topic and frequent opportunities to “teach back” and practice the concepts of the science of improvement, We have integrated many other proofs to illustrate more productive ways to lead and manage industry, education, and government, and non-profit enterprises. We teach what is proven useful in every economic sector. The Continual Quality Improvement (CQI) Academy offered by the Sergent Results Group continues a focus on the science of improvement through Deming’s philosophy, principles, and methods. We emphasize learning selection with meaning to each member of the cohort. This leads naturally to useful improvements in their individual thinking, and action with increased knowledge about systems, variation, and the psychology of people in systems.
BRING IN A PROBLEM TO SOLVE, OR A PROCESS TO IMPROVE
This learning experience is practical, and engages participants in using the philosophy, principles, and methods on their very real work problems. We do not use sports clichés. We use the language of improvement science.
DIALOGUE AND LEARNING - Physical or Virtual (Online)
We structure all the topical learning around a study guide, study partners, and exercises every hour, before we have dialogue as a cohort. We supplement the dialogue and study with slides and videos, and each learning session is facilitated and supervised by a Deming scholar. We integrate the PDSA – Plan – Do – Study – Act cycle into the learning from the first session, and we ask participants to brief their colleagues in each cohort on what they have learned or improved from week to week. They also create control or process behavior charts. This helps ensure that the learning continues when they leave the cohort to practice what they have learned from science.
Creating Future Value and Service In Public Administration
INTRODUCTION
What Is the Aim and Purpose of This Paper?
This paper aims to provide practical guidance on applying the System of Profound Knowledge and Deming Management Methods and related concepts to public administrations and their executives. By Learning about this science of improvement, executives can better administer, manage, and lead their organizations. There is no substitute for this knowledge about the services they manage for the taxpayers they serve.
This paper provides examples of what works based on evidence from multiple public administrations. We will begin with executive engagement to help them understand the system and the complexities they must manage through teams of engaged people.
From there, we will describe the processes that create an operational value stream map created by the people closest to the customer or beneficiary. From this set of artifacts and information, we create a baseline of first priorities to address and teach people methods to improve the priorities. We will next describe the methods of forming high-performance design teams, whose job is to design future processes by innovation and continual improvement with scientific methods.
If you experience challenges in managing and leading your organization into a better future, the information in this paper will guide your thinking and actions.
We hope to deepen the knowledge and understanding of how to leverage the tremendous power of the people working in public administration and service.
Our intent is to provide a modern perspective of learning about public administration successes and how some very complex processes came together to deliver economic and human value in quality and effectiveness. Later in this paper are several examples of practical, effective methods by teams that made results significantly better in public administrations with the science of improvement and executive engagement. These are followed with some common and a few egregious examples of the status quo mindset and a lack of knowledgeable action by executives, managers and staff.