🚀 go-pugleaf

Ray's response took a different turn than my own, he said:
> John, Dan, Quality colleagues:
>
> Metrics, a.k.a., everything can be quantified.  Wrong!  How
> many times must this be relearned?
>
I agree, Ray, and nowhere in my post did I claim that all can be quantified.
Dan's computer program for subjective measures, however, is own of those
things that often worries me.  Here we have a database that looks for dummy
variables to rate suppliers.  In my own experience, I know how rapidly
subjective opinions can build into wild goose chases and false accusations.
For example, a quality spill occurs and the supplier engineer responds
immediately with something to the effect that 'those people are out of
control' when it is the first occurrence of such.  On a hot, humid day in
the factor, that can translate into a subjective measure that will create
some great problems.

SNIP

> After (or before) we quantify something, we have to make subjective
> judgments about what it will (or did) mean.  Those that make
> good judgments succeed, ceteris paribus.  The others fail.  All with the
> same numbers. Quantification, metrics if you favor a decaying buzz word,
> can be a powerful tool.  But we are a long way from putting the world on
autopilot.

Once again, I am in full agreement. Regardless of the numerical data and the
technical treatment of it, we are still subject to the variation inherent in
the psychological patterns of our humanity.  Deming, Juran, Covey would all
agree that the measurements are a starting point for understanding the
variation within the system, but principles are the focal point for their
interpretation.

John F. Zavacki
jzavacki@greenapple.com <mailto:jzavacki@greenapple.com>