On 1/11/96 Diane M. Korzeniewski finished her string in
a most gracious manner. I have a couple of further questions.
>I now realize that what is missing is a measurement process
>of any kind. I believe there is a way to capture, in
>measurable terms, that which I have observed over the
>years with regards to proficiency. I'm also certain that
>by involving other users and systems experts we can surface
>a list of proficiencies that might be a good starting point.
>
>In my opinion, there are two different areas of proficiency
>that need to be focused on. One is the set of proficiencies
>required to run the complex computer system that generates
>the math data design. The other is a set of proficiencies
>related to design expertise itself, something that takes
>years to develop. If each of these areas are made measurable
>then we will have the ability to achieve statistical control.
>Until then, there is no basis to claim that a special cause is
>in effect.
---------------------------------
Please accept my apology if these questions are obvious
It has been my experience, however, that managers, like
scientists, often create an artificial mathematical
closed-form and then proceed to make "the norm of their
discipline" the norm of the external world. The simplicity
of the system whether mathematical, scientific, artistic or
managerial creates an illusion of completeness and what is
artificial supplants reality in the actions of the person
doing the statistics. They deny it then proceed. We
musicians do the same around the issue of musical styles.
(The only "real music" is what WE do, everything else is
"ethnic.") I suspect that the Hubbell space mirror is an
outrageous example of scientists unwilling to compromise
with the messy external world on their measurements. They
then called it a mechanical mistake but the mistake was
probably much deeper within their "artificial statistical
worldview." Although complexity demands that we be accurate
in our repetitions from person to person and thus need the
aid of symbols on paper, that same desire to symbolize
creates a picture which is an artificial stopping of a
process. That holding of the process in a picture allows
us to manipulate it in a god-like recreation of all kinds of
images. If that is used to manipulate the work force without
their agreement that god becomes a tyrant.
QUESTIONS
-Are you and your workers absolutely clear about
the content of the question and its need to be asked?
-Do the workers realize there is a problem?
-What are the circumstances in which the worker
trained by a company is to blame for deviating from the "mean?"
-Since the loss of a worker trained by the company
is a loss in productivity, what are the questions that the
teachers should ask about basic methods of teaching complex
computer and design skills?
-Do your teachers believe "I tell you therefore
you know?" (The universal number one teaching fallacy.)
-Are they able to set up a learning "readiness
point" in the student with a clearly designed experiential
"preparation period" leading to that moment of "naming?"
What educators call the synthesizing "moment of readiness"
for the information to be comprehended and used in a
new and different situation.
-What is the purpose of a statistical system in
a small shop (under 1000 workers)?
-Is your system a system or a test? i.e. Do you
believe the "system" is reality or an educational tool?
-Is it possible to do a means/deviation study in a
shop that has varying levels of skills? Are you measuring
deviation or ignorance?
-Do you believe that "statistical control" means
control of your shop? Or are you superimposing a visual
picture onto a process that is kinetic i.e. involves
the dimensions of time and order of events? (I am not
suggesting that visual tools aren't useful.)
-Is the measurement process for you or for
the workers with the difficulties? i.e. to change their
behavior or yours?
If it is to solve worker problems with craftsmanship:
Can the measurement process come from the workers who are
having the difficulty as a method of solving a set of problems
that they realize need to be solved? Maybe in small exploratory
groups. Outside help (as you suggested) on this could make it
safe for you to handle some very sticky issues without making
the workers wrong and you right or vice-versa.
Are the workers involved, doing the work that they find the
most satisfying? Some people are computer phobic.
If the testing steps decided upon in the computer program are
used to define quality of craftsmanship, is there a way for
the workers having difficulty to practice from a position of
self-criticism in the learning?
Do you have any people trying to do the design help who have
problems with Field dependence/independence? I personally
have big problems with visual fields and they can cause me
to panic if I do not have time to work with them. A clue is
a visual problem with heights. It can be solved with "will
and discipline" but the teacher must be clear about how to do
it or give the worker a different job. In reading orchestral
scores which have a flat field with tremendous complexity I
find that I have to color code the instruments and their level
of importance, otherwise I can't see it. I've also found Neuro-
linguistic Programming work and eye exercises to help. A worker
who is forced to hide this condition or lose their job or
advancement can manifest all kinds of bazaar symptoms. I once
got an ocular migraine while conducting Carmen. It put a hole
in my visual field that made me completely unable to see the
music score. I had to conduct the entire opera from memory.
Thank God I was prepared. A worker working with design elements,
with a visual field problem, will not notice it any more than a
person who has to sing hymns in church will notice the production
of their vowels and consonants, unless of course it involves their
work.
What do the workers believe the purpose of "knowing the
statistics" to be?
Can they see them as a help to making their job more
proficient, fulfilling and enjoyable?
In my discussion of the paint factory, Deming was used
as a theoretical bat to hit the workers over the head.
He was supposed to take the heat not them. The management
used Deming's formulas to validate their desires and said
"It's just normal business practice, you have to live in the
real world." I don't remember who, on the list, asked the
question but someone asked if I would say what I said to you
about "creating the company in their imagination" to the
workers in the paint factory. I did read my "post" to
that senior worker machine mechanic. He happened to realize
that he already was creating the company in his mind, it just
wasn't the company he wanted and that made him conflicted. It
is a part of his culture (and mine) that he visualizes reality
as practice and as preparation for success. He realized
immediately that he had collaborated in his problems. This
is not to say that the management wasn't immoral in their use
of Deming's theories. A ruler can be used to measure exact
measurements for intricate machines or it can be used to hit
piano students over the knuckles when they play wrong notes.
You don't get many concert pianists from such teachers.
Remember, no worker or management really knows something
unless they can apply the underlying process to a completely
new situation. This keeps people's spirits alive in their work.
Too often companies only ask for the job that is on the surface
of the underlying process and then demand they do it for years.
The balance between the pleasure of a Master craftsman and the
mind numbing dullness of repetition is one of the skills of good
management whether they know it or not. Any manager, (or Opera
Conductor) that can achieve this knows his job.
Good luck,
-- Ray Evans Harrell Artistic Director The Magic Circle Opera Repertory Ensemble, Inc. 200 West 70th Street, Suite 6-c New York City, New York 10023-4324 mcore@soho.ios.com
-- mcore@soho.ios.com (Ray Evans Harrell)