11 September, 2024
Do they have mentoring programs? Mentoring from bastards?^^
So what makes sense in TQM?
You didn’t answer in this context – what do you think about TQM? Does it make any sense or is it just a pipe dream?
TQM and all the other three-letter acronyms I’ve studied (and I wrote my thesis on this) boil down to a manager forcing the team to write “procedures” and then declaring to everyone “it works here.” The fact that it works is not based on instructions for the correlator but on the correlator’s ability to handle such instructions.
However, corporate suits think in terms of objects (I’ve already explained using Boltzmann machines how and why this works), so they infer that by giving the object (team) a new set of instructions, they will get a different machine than what is already there. It’s like trying to turn a watch into a refrigerator.
The fundamental requirement of any management method is the team’s correlating power, which developed the procedures. Transferring this set of instructions (without transferring the correlator) will only result in executing unsupported procedures. So, either it will throw errors or do nothing because certain issues will fall into nobody’s competencies. After all, competencies are defined in the execution agreement (UoP can be a comprehensible reference), and just because a corporate suit wants someone to handle something doesn’t mean that person has the capabilities.
The demand “because ten are waiting at the gate” is equivalent to claiming that there are 10 functioning teams outside the gate that have already driven us out of the market, and we’ve already sold the gate. If corporate acronyms like lean, agile, TQM, 5S, and the like were realities, they wouldn’t need to be codified, named, and no corporate suits would trouble the technical folks with presentations in front of the board. Meanwhile, the installation of each of these inventions involves a corporate suit wandering around the shop floor and nitpicking at people who have already achieved some results, and those results are accepted (did it work? is the company standing? does it support the corporate suits?). And if it’s not accepted, you need to add a correlator, which usually turns out to be a bureaucratic expansion of non-productive positions, reducing productivity more than the potential increase resulting from implementing the acronym.
What happens when the steam flow is cut off from the shop floor and directed to the office (or anywhere else into a whistle) has already been described – a portion of specialists generating half the productivity go looking for steam elsewhere.
The most interesting aspect of this phenomenon is that it is discussed in courses on Taylorism (a rather archaic model, about which we know enough to understand that its implementation prevented anything else from being adopted in large areas – there was resistance to cutting off steam). This boils down in Boltzmann machines to adding interoperations <|> of bureaucratic control, which causes a rapid expansion of this sector without affecting productivity.
And after removing steam from the flow and redirecting it to these positions, we still have a loss of productivity as described above. This phenomenon was understood back in the 1960s, and the concept “everyone is the quality controller of their work at I/O as if they were buying from the previous position and selling to the next – the next position is your customer” was included in textbooks. Of course, this logic leads to financial claims: “my work is important, since I am in thechain as a customer of the previous position and a supplier to the next, so pay me for this productivity by evaluating it individually.” As a result, employees began to lower productivity to the rates they receive, and these are flat due to the reasons of unified distribution, so they reduce work results to the lowest level for which someone receives the same rate. Why overwork?
The response in the 1980s was the concept of “assembling the team.” This is something you’re painfully familiar with in IT. An important issue in hiring is whether someone fits into the team that already exists. Not whether they fit into the team that is to be, but into the past state (preparing for the last war). It was a valid conclusion as if the ability to achieve the acronym depended on the intellectual consistency of the correlator. Because the reality shows that themanagement method (encapsulated by corporate suits into an acronym) depends on the relationships between the <|> graph. It was a sign of awareness, but as it turned out, allowing managers of such groups to pretend to be Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) means allocating them a budget, and after all, a large company relies on bureaucrats, not some managers of effective <|> enterprises, to control expenses. And to allocate more to the inefficient, they need to take it from somewhere.
Since there are no measurable productivity results (no steam because it needs to be given to the unproductive, and R&D will always be unproductive compared to production except during peaks when they break the ceiling with a multiplier), “there is no budget for the team the manager wants,” and a cleaning loop is included “fire 10% every year,” which resulted in the devastation of teams that were approaching optimum.
It even got to the point where someone remembered that this all has something to do with some work ethos. Yes, it does – but if this ethos is actively fought by bureaucracy, no corporate suit with a PowerPoint can change that. The goal is steam, and sending it into a whistle is counterproductive.
So the problem with the implementation of various acronyms does not lie in the concepts of the acronym itself (each of them boils down not to the nodes in the graph but to the connection matrices) because they are cool, valid, logical, and all superlatives from my side. The issue boils down to what connections can be linked to the existing nodes, how many they can handle, and where the power supply goes. An employee – no matter how clueless – can estimate this even without thinking about it. This is an evolutionary adaptation that determines survival, whether the gross expenditure will be lower than the net impact to keep the autonomous in motion and fulfill all its functions (home, family, hobbies, etc.).
Each acronym thus stems from the simple fact that a set of nodes achieved results (TQM is a good example), documented them into procedures, and published them (for sale/to make the economy more efficient). But their ability to handle a given connection matrix stemmed from the fact that the nodes in the set had a correlating surplus to handle their number so they could implement various solutions on the fly (while the enterprise was operating). This means it’s that part of the population that deviates from the average. Often, they deviate by several standard deviations. To simulate this property for the average, each node with fewer connections needs to be linked to enough nodes (in the right configuration) to match the number of connections. But we calculate the net result per node. Therefore, bureaucratic loops of QC, management, kanbans, etc., arise. However, due to the number of nodes, this becomes inefficient, and the connection matrix has a transmission frequency. Thus, bureaucratic procedures are inert. Meanwhile, each node conducts estimates in real-time (even if it doesn’t consciously think about it), not at the cycle frequency of the entire structure. This has its exploits because corporate suits can grab an annual bonus from a structure that is just falling apart – an epic bonus because once the flows are closed, the accounting result is immediately higher, and the effects will be felt after receiving the material results with the delay of the entire cycle of the given structure. This is why bureaucracy and corporate suits love quarterly, annual, or even better, five-year plans (with an expected four-year tenure^^). So everything looks great on the board with PowerPoint about how it should be, but please also detail how we will share the result. Meaning, what’s in it for me? Because if there’s more work to handle, and I’ll buy the same or less with it, then please implement this on someone unable to raise the discussed issue.
I have my own experiences, and because the corporate suits with PowerPoint know me, they pay me to keep my mouth shut or to ensure I’m not present during the presentation. For the sole reason that their employees will be looking intently at me during the presentation, expecting that any issue I raise will be in the interest of their employees, not necessarily in the interest of the corporate suit. For example, when there’s a plan to increase productivity by 30%, I raise the issue of whether wages will increase by 30%. Because if not, what’s the point of such work for us? Or once we automate our work, we obviously won’t have jobs, but will the robots doing the work pay us?