I need some help understanding "special causes" as W. Edwards Deming would
define them. I can't quite find what I'm looking for in the books I have
at home. I am in the process of defining something I believe to be an
opportunity for improvement. However, I struggle with the question of
whether my idea would be considered "tampering". Also, it was suggested
to me that the issue I raise is a "special cause". Is it desireable to
eliminate special causes before we work on common causes? I would much
rather be tossing my thoughts around with my peers and my management.
However, the issue I discuss here is an undiscussable, at least among my
co-workers.
Though my peers remind me that it is not my job to be concerned with such
things, I feel that anything affecting my organizatons ability to be as
effective as possible is my business. As an ordinary, non-management
worker, I CLAIM a stake in my organization and am always communicating
opportunities for improvement. In this particular case, I am affected
directly and indirectly by the issue at hand. I will try to illustrate
the issue in somewhat of a generic form. Bear with me it's quite complex.
About 1 in 12 designers on a particular CAD system has chronic
difficulties with the system. Being a proficient user of the system, I
have helped many individuals enhance their skills after they requested my
help. Over the several years I have found that there is a certain group
of people, that for some reason, do not progress and in some cases,
actually cause more work for themselves and others. In this time, I have
contemplated the issue at length. I think this group of people can be
broken up into three categories (currently, most of my peers feel there is
only one category; one that has been dubbed, "unteachable.") The first
category consists of individuals who struggle because they were placed
into groups that used only one or two of the three skill areas required
for proficiency after training. After not having opportunities to
"temper" all three areas after leaving class, some were transferred (after
many months or years) into groups that required these skills. The second
category, consists of those who were trained and placed into groups that
made use of all three skill areas, but through regular training and
interaction with other designers, something did not quite click for them.
The third category, if there is one, consists of those who may in fact be,
"unteachable" for whatever reason. The latter, in my opinion, makes up a
very small percentage meaning I believe that the vast majority can learn,
but we must try something we haven't yet.
There are several reasons I want to improve this situation. These
struggling individuals must be quite miserable. Many are the subject of
cruel jokes and comments. All of the ones I know are people with a good
strong work ethic and well worth investing time into developing. This
enables them to be, and feel, as productive as possible. Secondly, they
usually require 2-3 times more hours to complete a job often requiring
extensive help from other designers. An average designer may look for CAD
assistance 1-2 hours per month while these individuals may need several
hours per week. For beginners this is o.k., but what about someone who
has been out of training for three years? There is also a higher level of
rework done by designers who have to work in files these individuals
worked in.
Supervisors themselves are not proficient in the system. The software is
progressing so rapidly that it really takes daily use to be proficient.
Therefore, they don't always recognize the difficulties. Often enough,
designers will "cover-up" the problem by fixing the file without the
responsible individual having an opportunity to learn. The real reason
for the delay is hidden from the supervisor to "protect" the struggling
designer. Many engineers will also begin to restrict them from working on
their jobs because of bad experiences with their work.
One on one help has been ineffective. I believe the reason is that when
help is summoned, the intent is "to get the job out." Continually walking
these people through their work with the tremendous number of variables
per job does not teach them what they need to know for the next job. With
this type of "help", the individuals are not required to think because
many of the answers are given to them so the job can get processed.
I feel this situation can be improved by allowing the supervisors to use
feedback from other designers and engineers (customer) to approach the
designer and get him/her to buy-in to specialized training. This training
would be tailored specifically to their needs. This can be achieved by
having an experienced designer or CAD support person analyze the file for
patterns that would quickly identify where this person is having
difficulties. Some may need one day of training, others may require up to
two weeks. In other words, we don't bomb an entire city by sending them
back to basic training, we hit the target with precision. When a machine
is struggling, we shut it down and call maintenance -- should we treat a
human with anything less?
Well, I've rattled on enough. I would appreciate some input on this along
with the "Deming" questions I presented in the beginning. If there are
some other principles that would be of value to me, I welcome the
opportunity to learn. Despite the length of this posting, I realize some
things may still seem unclear, please ask me to clarify. I think the
first step in almost any solution is to acknowledge the existence of the
problem or opportunity for improvement.
Thanks,
-- Diane M. Korzeniewski ToCOLLABR8@aol.com