Couverture de The Knowledge System Podcast

The Knowledge System Podcast

The Knowledge System Podcast

De : Michael Carr
Écouter gratuitement

The Knowledge System Podcast explores how leaders can use systems thinking to create lasting organizational improvement. It translates the ideas of W. Edwards Deming and other thought-leaders into practical strategies for building smarter, more effective systems.

posts.knowledgesystem.comMichael Carr Economie Management Management et direction
Épisodes
  • Five-minute Deming: Tampering

    Five-minute Deming: Tampering
    May 20 2026
    A leader can make a process worse while trying very hard to improve it. That is the danger of tampering. When every disappointing result triggers a new rule, a new explanation, or a new adjustment, management may be reacting to routine variation as if something unusual happened.The result is more noise, more frustration, and less learning. The better question is not, What changed yesterday? The better question is, Do we know what kind of variation we are seeing?The temptation to chase the last numberW. Edwards Deming used a simple funnel experiment to make this problem visible. Imagine dropping a marble through a funnel toward a target. Even if the funnel stays in the same position, the marble will not land in exactly the same place each time.The natural impulse is to move the funnel after each miss, trying to compensate for the last result. That feels sensible. It feels active. It feels like control. But if the process is already stable, repeated adjustment can spread the results farther from the target.The act that feels like control becomes a source of instability. Management can fall into the same pattern whenever it treats the latest result as a command.A dashboard turns red. A customer complains. A weekly number dips. Someone asks for an explanation, and the organization rushes to change the work. Sometimes that response is necessary. A real special cause deserves attention. But when the process is stable, the better work is to improve the system, not chase each point.That is the problem ClearStep, a mid-sized B2B software company, faced when its support leaders tried to improve response time by changing the process after every bad day.The support dashboard that would not settle downClearStep sold project management software to manufacturers. Its support team handled setup questions, bug reports, billing issues, and urgent support calls. The team was capable, but its work arrived unevenly.Rina, ClearStep’s head of customer support, watched one number more than any other: median first response time. When it rose, customers complained. When it fell, the executive team relaxed.Monday morning, the dashboard looked bad. Response time had jumped from twenty-three minutes to thirty-seven. Rina opened the team meeting with a decision already forming.“We need a new rule. For the rest of the week, no one works on follow-up tickets until the new queue is under control.”Marcus, the operations analyst who helped the support team study workflow data, hesitated. He had been plotting daily response time for the past six months.“I know thirty-seven minutes looks bad,” Marcus said. “But it is still inside the range we have seen before.”“Customers do not care about ranges,” Rina said. “They care that we were slow.”“Agreed,” Marcus said. “But if we change the rule every time the number moves, we may be adding variation ourselves.”That was not what Rina wanted to hear. She was trying to be responsive, not careless. The team had already changed the escalation rule twice that month. One week, senior agents took every urgent ticket first. The next week, new tickets came first.By Thursday, response time improved, but reopenings were up. Customers got quick replies that did not resolve the issue. The team was moving faster and learning less.Deming named the trap plainly: “Mistake 1. To react to an outcome as if it came from a special cause, when actually it came from common causes of variation.”Mistake 1. To react to an outcome as if it came from a special cause, when actually it came from common causes of variation.— W. Edwards DemingRina asked Marcus to show the chart again. The bad Monday was unpleasant, but it was not outside the usual pattern. The system had been predictable for months. Response time bounced within a wide band because of uneven ticket routing, inconsistent urgency definitions, and too few agents trained on integration issues.“So doing nothing is the answer?” Rina asked.“No,” Marcus said. “Studying the system before we change the rules is the answer.”“Then what do we change?”“Not the queue every morning. We change the conditions that keep creating these wide swings.”That distinction changed the conversation. ClearStep still investigated real signals: outages, product releases, unusual customer spikes. But it stopped rewriting queue rules after ordinary variation. Rina’s team clarified urgency definitions, cross-trained agents on integration questions, and reviewed blocked tickets each day to remove causes of delay.The solution was not inaction. It was action aimed at the system.Why we keep treating noise like a signalWe drift into tampering because the pressure to respond is real. A leader sees a bad number and feels responsible for it. A customer is waiting. A team is anxious. An executive wants an explanation. In that moment, studying variation can sound like delay.But the demand for an explanation can create its own distortion. If every up ...
    Afficher plus Afficher moins
    8 min
  • Five-minute Deming: Intrinsic motivation

    Five-minute Deming: Intrinsic motivation
    May 13 2026
    Most people do not begin meaningful work hoping to do the minimum. They want to contribute, solve problems, serve people well, and take pride in what they do. Yet many organizations manage as if motivation must be manufactured from the outside through rankings, bonuses, contests, pressure, or fear.W. Edwards Deming saw a deeper problem: management can either protect the human desire to learn and contribute, or quietly damage it. Quality depends on judgment, cooperation, and learning. Those cannot be forced into existence.The harder question behind performanceIt is easy to assume that poor performance means people need more pressure. When results disappoint, leaders often reach for sharper targets, clearer rankings, stronger incentives, or more visible accountability. These methods feel practical because they create attention quickly.But attention is not the same as improvement. People can pay attention to a score while the work gets worse. They can learn how to look good on a dashboard while customers experience delay, confusion, or uneven service.Deming placed motivation inside the psychology element of his System of Profound Knowledge. His warning was not that pay, goals, or recognition have no effect. It was that leaders must understand what these devices do to people, especially when they replace purpose, learning, and cooperation.He stated the danger plainly: “Extrinsic motivation in the extreme crushes intrinsic motivation.”Extrinsic motivation in the extreme crushes intrinsic motivation.— W. Edwards DemingNorthstar Clinics shows how easily a reasonable performance idea can become a barrier to better work.The score was not the same as the workNorthstar Clinics operated nine outpatient clinics. Wait times were uneven. Access was slipping. Turnover was rising. Elena, the operations leader, wanted a plan with force to change behavior.She came to a leadership meeting with a dashboard proposal. Each clinic would receive a monthly productivity score. The top clinic would be recognized; the bottom clinic would submit a plan.Elena explained the idea directly.“We need people to know this matters. If we recognize the top performers, the others will have a reason to catch up.”Marcus studied the draft dashboard. He understood why Elena wanted accountability, but something about the design bothered him.“Maybe. But what if the score changes what people pay attention to?”Elena pushed back. “They should pay attention to access, callbacks, and visit flow. That is the point.”“Or they may pay attention to looking good on the dashboard,” Marcus said. “A clinic can lift the score and still make the work worse.”That was the uncomfortable turn. Elena wanted focus. Marcus was asking whether the proposed system would improve the work or merely change behavior around the measurement.“Then what are you suggesting? We cannot just ask everyone to care more.”Marcus answered quietly.“I do not think caring is the problem. I think the system is wearing people down.”The room went still. The issue was no longer whether the dashboard was clear enough. The issue was whether management understood the conditions under which people were working.The team began studying the clinics instead of ranking them. One served more complex patients. Another had lost two exam rooms to equipment problems. A third had nurses covering refills, triage, and insurance paperwork. These differences were not excuses. They were part of the system producing the results.Elena visited one clinic the following week. She watched a medical assistant search for a working blood pressure cuff while a physician waited for misrouted lab results. No one looked indifferent. They looked worn down by repeated obstacles.Later, Elena asked a nurse what would help.“If you could change one thing about the system, what would it be?”Marcus added, “Take your time. This is not a performance review.”That sentence mattered. People were used to explaining bad numbers, not naming barriers without fear.Deming connected this directly to performance: “No one can put in his best performance unless he feels secure.”No one can put in his best performance unless he feels secure.— W. Edwards DemingSecurity did not mean comfort or low standards. It meant people could tell the truth about obstacles, broken methods, confusing handoffs, and unreliable tools.The nurse said the team did not need another campaign. They needed clearer refill rules, working equipment, and time to fix handoff problems. In other words, they needed management to improve the conditions of work.Elena changed the plan. Northstar still measured access, callbacks, and patient experience, but the monthly meeting no longer ranked clinics. Managers studied variation, common barriers, and where the system made good work harder than it needed to be.Each clinic selected one problem to study: a refill workflow, a daily equipment check, or message routing. The tone changed slowly. ...
    Afficher plus Afficher moins
    8 min
  • Five-minute Deming: Zero defects

    Five-minute Deming: Zero defects
    May 6 2026
    Zero defects sounds like seriousness. It sounds like standards. It sounds like the kind of phrase a responsible executive should say when quality slips.That is exactly why it is dangerous.The problem is not the desire for fewer defects. The problem is what happens when we turn that desire into a slogan, a target, or a public demand on people who do not control the system that produces the work. What feels like leadership can quietly become a substitute for leadership.What the slogan hides from usW. Edwards Deming’s criticism of zero defects is often misunderstood. He was not arguing for tolerance of poor quality. He was arguing against the managerial habit of demanding an outcome without changing the conditions that make the outcome possible.That distinction matters in every industry. In manufacturing, it shows up in defect goals that do not address process capability. In software, it shows up in release pressure that ignores unstable requirements and weak handoffs. In safety, it shows up in signs that celebrate days since last injury while the underlying hazards remain in place.We are drawn to slogans because they simplify reality. They give us something visible to say and something visible to measure. But the ease is deceptive. When the system stays the same, the number becomes the object of management, and the work of improvement gets pushed aside.That is where the trouble starts.What happened at Northstar FlowNorthstar Flow sold workflow software to mid-sized manufacturers. The company had hit a rough stretch. Three releases in a row had produced customer-facing bugs that should have been caught earlier. Support tickets were climbing. Sales was uneasy. The executive team wanted to show control, and fast.At the Monday leadership meeting, the COO wrote four words on the whiteboard: Zero Defects Next Release.The line had force. It was clean, memorable, and easy to repeat.Within days, dashboards appeared. Teams were compared by escaped defects. Release reviews got tighter. People spoke more sharply. Product managers defended requirement changes. Engineers argued over classifications. Testers spent more time debating the count than learning from it.Maya, who led product, felt the pressure immediately.“We cannot do another release like the last one. Customers are tired of hearing that we are fixing it in the next patch.”Daniel, the engineering leader, agreed with the urgency but not with the response.“I agree. But the board on the wall is changing behavior. People are protecting the number.”That was the turning point. The company had not become more capable. Requirements were still changing late. Test environments were still inconsistent. Handoffs between product, engineering, and support were still rushed. But now fear had entered the system in a more organized way.At the next review, one team delayed logging a defect until after a release decision because no one wanted another mark against the group. Another team resisted a customer-reported issue by calling it a configuration problem until support escalated it twice. The visible count improved a little. The customer experience did not.Deming warned directly against this kind of move: “Eliminate slogans, exhortations, and targets for the work force asking for zero defects and new levels of productivity.”Eliminate slogans, exhortations, and targets for the work force asking for zero defects and new levels of productivity.— W. Edwards DemingOnce Maya and Daniel saw the pattern, the conversation changed. They stopped asking who had let the company down and started asking which conditions made escape likely. Late requirement changes were entering sprint work without a reliable review path. Regression coverage was uneven across older modules. Support was learning about release risk after key decisions had already been made.They started with three changes. No release would be judged by a single defect number. Every release candidate would get a cross-functional review of requirement changes, test coverage risk, and support exposure. And escaped defects would be reviewed jointly, not to assign blame, but to separate recurring patterns from one-off events.The next release was not perfect. But it was calmer. Fewer issues escaped. The ones that did appear were easier to trace. Support was prepared. Customers heard a clearer explanation. Trust began to recover because the company looked less frantic and more competent.Maya said it plainly: “We finally look more serious now that we stopped promising perfection.”And Daniel answered with the real shift in thinking: “Because now we are improving the work, not just demanding a result.”Where managers get trappedMost of us do not fall into the zero-defects trap because we do not care about quality. We fall into it because pressure makes visible promises feel like responsible action.When numbers get worse, we want to show resolve. We want a message everyone can understand. We want the organization...
    Afficher plus Afficher moins
    8 min
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
Aucun commentaire pour le moment