🚀 go-pugleaf

John, colleagues:

Without looking back, that's the way it struck me: quantified=good;
subjective=bad.  I was abrupt though and apologize for that.

Have seen it many times before your post, often on this List.  Examples:
Leadership=good; management=bad (or vice versa)
TQM=good; other approaches preceding TQM=bad
Net Present Value=good; Internal Rate of Return=bad

In these and many more, it is not either/or.  We can have both or many.
There is no reason to be concerned about having additional information or
opinions or views, quantified or not--before deciding.  Not the quality
engineer's, not the supplier's, not anyone's.  If there is a relevant
good-bad relationship, it is information=good; lack of it =bad.

Thank you John for your thoughtful response.

Ray Martin
RMartin@texas.net


-----Original Message-----
From: John Zavacki <jzavacki@GREENAPPLE.COM>
To: Multiple recipients of list QUALITY <QUALITY@PUCC.BITNET>
Date: Monday, August 17, 1998 7:38 AM
Subject: Re: Supplier metrics


>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>
>