How do you design a team off-site that actually improves your organization? In this episode, Travis Timmons breaks down the mechanics of a Deming-styled off-site team meeting—from starting months early and setting a clear aim to using pre-work, fishbone diagrams, and PDSAs to drive real change. If you want a real-world example of how Deming leaders create focus, collaboration, and joy in work, this conversation is a practical place to start.

TRANSCRIPT

0:00:02.3 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz and I'll be your host as we dive deeper into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today I'm continuing my discussions with Travis Timmons, who is the founder and owner of Fitness Matters, an Ohio-based practice specializing in the integration of physical therapy and personalized wellness. For 13 years, he's built his business on Dr. Deming's teachings. His hope is simple; the more companies that bring joy to work through Deming's principles, the more likely his kids will one day work at one of those darn companies. Travis, how are you doing?

0:00:35.2 Travis Timmons: Hey, Andrew. Doing well, how are you?

0:00:37.1 Andrew Stotz: I'm really excited. We were just talking about the structure of today's discussion, and the topic for today is the mechanics of a Deming-styled offsite, which I... In today's session, we're going to be talking about the importance of starting early, setting an aim, figuring out and developing an agenda. Also homework, huh?

0:01:05.1 Travis Timmons: Right.

0:01:05.4 Andrew Stotz: Pre-work for attendees. I thought that's interesting as we were going through it. And then you talk about your activities, your outcomes and all of that. So why don't you get into it and walk us through the mechanics of a Deming-styled offsite. And by the way, one last thing. When we say Deming-styled, well, you're certainly getting a lot of support from a true Deming advocate, Kelly Allen, and your understanding of the teachings of Dr. Deming. And so you're doing your best to apply those things in this. Is it a perfect Deming offsite? Well, that's why we say Deming-styled offsite. Maybe the listener or the viewer would add in or subtract some things, but at least we've got the general structures. So why don't you take it away, Travis?

0:01:47.3 Travis Timmons: Yeah, no, happy to, Andrew. So yeah, we have our team offsite. It'll actually be 10 days from now. So from a big picture standpoint, one of the things I've learned is systems, process, organization, and none of that happens quickly. So every time we do an annual team offsite, it's about a three-month work-ahead process for myself and the leadership team. So we start a good three months before the meeting date just to start percolating on what do we need to talk about at this meeting? What's the aim? What do we want the outcome to be? And that doesn't happen with a week of preparation. So we've had to spend some time looking at our KPIs, where do we have an opportunity to have a positive impact on our system? So we have to study our current system, see where there might be opportunities for improvement, understand how do we want the team to engage with that. And for this year's offsite, our big aim... We have two aims for the offsite. One is to make the system visible. Everybody on the team. I've had some learnings through some newer leaders on our team that have been through the DemingNEXT and they've been on our team for a few years.

0:03:04.1 Travis Timmons: But they until going through the DemingNEXT, they didn't fully understand what system view meant. And that kind of hit me over the head like a ton of bricks. It's like, well, maybe that would be a good thing to spend part of our offsite making sure the entire team can visualize and see our organization as a system. And then the second aim from a mechanics, from a KPI standpoint, if you will, is we want to improve arrival rate for our visits. So basically, how many scheduled appointments show up is what we call arrival rate. To have a better impact on patient outcomes, joy in work for our team members, joy in the referral sources that send to us. So yeah, it was about a three-month process.

0:03:49.3 Andrew Stotz: And if I... Just curious, sometimes when I've done offsites or I've attended offsites, it's more general. Here you have a very specific thing, improve arrival rates. Why is it so specific and how do you come to that decision that this isn't going to be just an open discussion about things in our company?

0:04:14.4 Travis Timmons: Yeah. That's a great question. Some years they are a little more general. Like last year we spent quite a bit of time setting a new round of BHAGs, Big Hairy Audacious Goals. This year, looking at KPIs, looking at where the opportunities were to improve, where there were the most breakdowns and frustrations happening in our system that we were hearing consistently across our team. It's like, what's the one thing we can have an impact on that will, if we improve that, everything else will get better. And that was arrival rate. So then we started looking at, all right, how do we dissect that? How do we make it visible to the team so the entire team can work on it together? So that's how we came to that. And it's like, all right, this is a consistent issue. So if you do the control chart, it's like I can almost set my watch to what's arrival rate going to be every week. And until we change something in our system, that's going to be what's going to continue to happen and we need to have an impact on that this year. So that's how we came down to it. It's the one thing we can do that'll have the most impact positively across the entire organization.

0:05:23.1 Andrew Stotz: I often talk about a big company in Thailand that was a Deming-focused company for many, many years, and then a new CEO came in and he made it a different focus company. And the company struggled for years. Whether it's from that or not is a secondary item. But two weeks ago I was giving a lecture and a guy from that company, who is an older guy, was at the lecture. And afterwards we were talking and I said, "What's the difference between the prior guy and the new guy?" He said, "The prior guy set the direction and we all knew it. The new guy kind of has us set it or we go in a lot of different directions. It's not as clear." And so what I was thinking when you were talking about improve arrival rates, I was thinking, yeah, that's leadership. You've identified what you believe is the most critical element at this stage of the business right now, and there's a lot of knock-on effects of fixing that. Whereas if you went into that room and you say, "What's the biggest problem we have right now?"

0:06:35.6 Travis Timmons: Right.

0:06:36.3 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, you're going to get a long list, but as a leader you have to set the direction.

0:06:41.1 Travis Timmons: Yeah. Yeah, and with the leadership team as well. And yeah, where do we... The KPIs and the system, if you study it and look at the outputs through the Deming lenses, it becomes... It's not easy. You got to spend the work and have the tools in place and the discipline to track it all consistently so that you know what your true arrival rate is. I can get in... It's a whole probably different conversation, but tampering and all that kind of stuff. So we know what our data is because of how we've made very clear definitions on our arrival rate and how we don't tamper to get better numbers. But yeah, it's exciting. The team, as crazy as this might sound, we've done these for many years now, over a decade, and the team looks forward to them. And part of that is because we spend the time. I take this very seriously. If I'm going to ask people to come to a meeting for five hours, it better be good. And we better bring... We better have something we can work on as a team to come out of it. And if we don't, that's nobody's fault but mine. So that ownership of the system I take very seriously.

0:07:58.1 Andrew Stotz: A great song, by the way, by Led Zeppelin, Nobody's Fault But Mine. But I would also say that's why I think it's fascinating to continue to go through the structure that you've got, because I think it can guide all of us. So we've learned about starting three months early. I was also thinking about my Crock-Pot. I like to cook slow-cooking food and I put all these different tastes of an onion and a piece of meat, which doesn't really have taste in some ways. And I put them all in a pot and it's eight hours. And if I interrupt it at one hour, there's just, there's not much value there. It needs time to extract the tastes and also bring those tastes into each other until you end up at the end of eight hours. Like, whoa, that's amazing. So...

0:08:51.4 Travis Timmons: Right. Right. Yeah, as you're pointing to, that's kind of how the agenda evolves. So we have an aim of system visibility and arrival rate. Well, how do we put an agenda around that together? So myself, the leadership team, Kelly, we've been working back and forth quite a bit, several iterations of that. So that's part of why you need that three months. You work on it. That sounds great in your head. You put it on some PowerPoint slides and then you share it with folks and they're like, "I don't know really what you're trying to say there, Travis." So there's...

0:09:25.0 Andrew Stotz: It seems like an onion and a carrot.

0:09:27.0 Travis Timmons: Right. Right.

0:09:27.3 Andrew Stotz: But I don't get the taste of it.

0:09:29.6 Travis Timmons: Yeah, so it's just working through those iterations. So miniature, little PDSAs, if you will, of the agenda. But yeah, once we get it to a point where we feel like, okay, we know what we want to work on, then the next big thing becomes how do we get the team involved ahead of the meeting? Because if you... I found very clearly over the years, if the team's not understanding what they're going to be working on coming into the meeting, that you've lost so much opportunity to learn from the entire organization. Because that's where the real learning happens when we do these is stuff that's happening that I don't have visibility of or little workarounds or somebody has a great idea, but maybe didn't feel like it was the right place to bring it up. So just have another opportunity for people to feel very comfortable sharing what breakdowns are happening. But we have homework, right? So that's one of the other big pieces of, if we're going to work on the system, we better know what we're working on that day. And if I don't tell anybody what we're working on until the day of the meeting, we could spend two hours just defining a fishbone chart, which we can talk about later perhaps.

0:11:15.7 Travis Timmons: But the point of the homework is we spend a lot of time, hours preparing the homework booklet that we give to the team about two-and-a-half weeks before the meeting. And it informs them, here's where we're going to be diving deep. We need you to come with the ideas and questions and thoughts already in your head so that we can all just dive in aggressively. Because it's so powerful when they're just bringing the ideas, referencing their homework. You can get so much more done in five hours than if we weren't doing that. So that homework becomes critical and has to match the agenda. If it's disjointed, then you've already lost some trust with your team because they're like, "You had me do all that homework and then we just didn't talk about any of it at the offsite. Like, what are we doing here." So it all has to tie together from a system view, as Dr. Deming would want, hopefully.

0:11:43.5 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. And I don't know, for the listeners and the viewers out there, you probably feel the same way I do, which is kind of like, "Oh, gosh, I should have done more preparing for that last offsite." And also feeling that excitement like, "Oh my gosh, I can unleash a lot from my leadership team, from the company employees through this pre-work and all of a sudden all the mess I have sometimes in offsites of, I don't understand what you're saying by this and what do you mean by that? It could be this." And all of that's gone. And so it makes me... I'm literally thinking about my next offsite and thinking, okay, how am I going to incorporate what you're teaching? So keep going. [laughter]

0:12:26.5 Travis Timmons: Yeah. Yeah, no, it's... And I've learned from some of the best over the years, so it's... I've been very fortunate to learn some of these tools. But yeah, from the homework perspective, it'll accomplish one of our other aims, which is always an aim, but more pointed in this meeting is they start to see the entire system and the complexity that's within it and just start appreciating. "All right, here's everything that has to happen." And, man, we're doing a lot of things really well. And they understand at a deeper level, every piece on our team is critical. There's no silos, no one piece of the equation is more important than the other. If any piece of the equation doesn't happen well, then we're not successful. So that's what with the homework, it just starts making sure from a cultural standpoint and an understanding from the Deming lens, we're all on this together. We have to work on the work together. And the system visibility helps with that, with the homework. And the engagement is so high.

0:13:32.3 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, I'm sure. And that's part of what makes it exciting when I was listening you talk. And I think we're going to need to do a little pre-work on the concept of fishbone, because there are some people that are listening or viewing that may have never even heard of fishbone and fishbone analysis and all that. So maybe as we move into this next part, make sure that you do that pre-work so that we all can figure out exactly what it means, fishbone. And I think you may even have some diagram of that you can share.

0:14:03.4 Travis Timmons: Yeah, I could pull up. If you'd like, I could pull one up to share here. So did that come through for you there?

0:14:12.9 Andrew Stotz: We see it now.

0:14:14.8 Travis Timmons: So this will be... This is part of the homework booklet that we created. So we filled in what we call the main bones. And this is just the patient journey from first contact with Fitness Matters all the way through to a successful discharge. So we have the main bones, I'll call it. If you envision this being, there'd be a fish head at the far right, and then the tail would be at the left. But we just want people to start working on, okay, how does somebody first hear about us at initial contact? Well, they'll write in underneath initial contact, could be website, Google search, could be physician referral, could be my neighbor. So we start penciling in what's all of the ways people first come in contact with Fitness Matters? So we have an understanding of what that looks like. And is it a good first impression? Do we knock that out of the park? And then it just goes through all the major... We look at it as five major bones from first contact to discharge. Second is that initial contact with us to them, scheduling the evaluation. So how many times have they had to call us and leave a voicemail, or can they schedule online, or can they stop in the clinic and schedule, or how did the script come to us, do we capture their insurance data correctly? It just goes how quickly a lot of researching...

0:15:37.0 Andrew Stotz: So many ways to drop the ball?

0:15:39.6 Travis Timmons: Yeah, a lot of research to show if you don't schedule that patient within the first 48 hours of initial contact, the likelihood of them scheduling just plummets.

0:15:49.3 Andrew Stotz: Yeah.

0:15:50.0 Travis Timmons: So a lot of things we have to consider in technology and systems, process, tracking. We have a whole system of how we track how many times we've reached out. We have templates created on how we text message versus voicemail, because some people don't listen to voicemails anymore. Anyway, I could spend an hour just on this fishbone. And then it goes to evaluation day. So when they show up in the clinic, do we have their benefits ready to explain to them? Is the therapist ready for them? Have they looked at their medical history? Do they understand how much they're going to pay? How do they pay? Is it easy to pay? And then the next bone is the plan of care. So all the visits they do, how good are we at scheduling them? How good is the therapist at predicting how many visits they'll need? Is it clear? Do they understand what they owe every visit? So there's not a great experience and then they get this big surprise bill at the end and just ruins everything, right? So we work very hard to be transparent. And then a successful discharge into home exercise and our wellness services.

0:16:52.5 Travis Timmons: So that's what we want everybody to spend some time on with homework. And then at the offsite, this isn't easy to make a patient happy and have a successful outcome. And I think a lot of times in organizations, people don't fully appreciate or see the entire system and understand why this part up here. So if we don't fill out their insurance demographic correctly at the front desk and we rush them back to the evaluation because the therapist is in a hurry, well, now all of those claims aren't going to get paid.

0:17:27.9 Andrew Stotz: Yeah.

0:17:29.1 Travis Timmons: And now we've had a bad outcome for the company. So anyway, that's the fishbone chart. It really helps you diagram at a big level. And then you can dive deep on each one of these bones and turn each of the bone into its own miniature fish, we'll call it, and really dive deeper and deeper, which we'll be doing at our offsite.

0:17:46.8 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. And for the listener out there, think of your own business, what's the chronology of from first contact to delivering this successful experience? Delivering that experience that you're trying to deliver in your business or your school, wherever you are. And this breaks it down into kind of the stages or the phases of that on kind of a chronological order. And that helps you to visualize. And that's part of what you've talked about is the idea of trying to, one of the big goals is visualizing. So that's a great visual of it. Maybe, I think you can probably stop sharing that now. And then also that's, I believe, activity, what I would call activity part one is working on that. Maybe talk a little bit about the mechanics of, now that we understand the fishbone and all of that, what are you asking them to do and then how are they using that?

0:18:51.2 Travis Timmons: Yeah, so the first breakout, we're going to have six tables where they'll use their homework to start filling that in. It's conversation, it's collaboration. It's like, "Oh, this person over here had that on their homework. I didn't even think about that." So that's the goal is that 10,000-foot view, here's the entire system.

0:19:09.6 Andrew Stotz: And are they doing that on a wall together or something like that? Or how is it happening?

0:19:13.4 Travis Timmons: Yeah, we're going to have big newsprint, so it'll be up and big newsprint so everybody can see what's going on. And at the end of the day, we have a very large fish that we're going to have posted and we're going to fill it in with the final product, if you will. That's the entire fishbone. So that's the aim of the first one, is the big picture. Some collaboration, some understanding of the entire system of Fitness Matters and what the complexity looks like. It also allows, one of the things we try to do with this offsite and really in culture in general, Dr. Deming talks about is driving out fear. So newer team members, especially when they start seeing, hey, let's just start talking about stuff, they really start to have a deeper understanding of our culture. And yeah, we do want to talk about stuff. We do want to talk about ways to improve. And then a follow on to that, we're going to do another breakout later in the day. And by table, each table is going to be assigned one of the main bones we just reviewed there.

0:20:20.4 Andrew Stotz: Right.

0:20:21.2 Travis Timmons: And they're going to turn that into a fish itself and do a really deep dive. And what are all the pieces and parts of initial contact? What are all the pieces and parts of eval? So on and so forth. And the aim of that piece is then with that deeper dive into the complexity, the aim is to come away with probably three PDSAs of where do we need to improve our system? Based on that work, we'll have three, maybe four really clear ideas on, okay, we're seeing this as a sticking point. The team's talked a lot about it. How do we improve that? So that's where the PDSAs come from.

[overlapping conversation]

0:20:58.5 Andrew Stotz: So how do you end up figuring out? I mean, everybody's going to talk about, "We need to fix this area, we need to fix this area," or something like that. How do you then... Is it a collaboration, a discussion, is it a voting to say these are the three PDSAs we're going to work on?

0:21:16.7 Travis Timmons: Yeah, so we want it to be collaborative. There's little... Everybody will have little sticker dots. And on one of the breaks, once all these fish charts are filled out, we're going to ask team members to go around and put a sticker by the one that they think would be the highest and best use of our time and resources. So that's kind of an internal, quick, on-the-fly voting just to see where the team's heads at. And they can also have an understanding of how this is hard to... It's hard to choose. We can't work on 20 things. So where do you guys think we need to put the effort? And then at the end of the day, at the very end of the day, I have to decide based on all the feedback from the team and what our resources and capabilities are, then we have to pick three or four. But it's super powerful to have the team involved in that.

0:22:08.4 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, and one of the things about that type of voting is that sometimes people are voting on things that they think they understand what they're voting on and then you find out, actually, maybe not. So one of the fun ones to do in that case is say, okay, if you have one of your ideas up there that wasn't voted for, it could be, and you think it should be, it could be, maybe they didn't understand how you described it or how it's up there. And anybody that wants to make a pitch for that, go ahead.

0:22:37.0 Travis Timmons: Right. I like that.

0:22:37.4 Andrew Stotz: And you'll get a couple zealots saying, "I really think that this one should be up there in a higher priority." And then after that and say, "Okay, anybody want to move one of their dots?" And then that's a fun way.

0:22:52.5 Travis Timmons: I might steal that one. I like that.

0:22:55.6 Andrew Stotz: That's a fun way to say, there's always a second chance, but you got to make your pitch and it's got to convince people to move their dots. So, yep.

0:23:03.4 Travis Timmons: Yeah. I like that. Yeah, so that's how we work on the PDSAs. And it just really at the end of our meeting, I feel like the work we will have done with the homework and the how the agenda is laid out, because we spend a lot of time on the agenda and making some... So we have a timetable on each part of the agenda because my experience has been if you don't plan then things are going to go sideways. Like if you don't have a time commitment to it. And it also gives you a hard break on like, "Okay, guys, there's a couple other things we have to tackle today. This is extremely helpful, but we got to move on to the next thing." But at the end of the meeting, I have the agenda structured in a way that I feel like, I hope I'm not wrong, we'll find out next Friday. I feel like we'll have enough data, enough of the voting, enough of the conversation where I'll be able to report back to the team on like, "Hey this kind of aligns with where I think we need to put our energy and resources. Here's the top three PDSAs we're going to do." And if there was something that had a ton of votes, but we're not going to do that. I also want to be able to share with them why. "Hey, I understand that's big, but we don't have the money to do that one this year," or something like that. Because you don't want to do all this work and then just pick totally something different. And then because then you've lost total trust in your team and that's not good.

0:24:35.6 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. And also, one of the things that I learned after working at investment banks over the years and teaching ethics in finance is that there's firewalls between different parts of an investment bank because they don't want the employees communicating because they're kind of doing conflicting businesses. And so a person working in one area, as I was working in research, is different from a person that's working in investment banking. I may be doing research on a company and saying, "This company is a sell." And that that guy may be doing investment banking and say, "I'm going to help this company raise capital." And we have different objectives. And and they're both legitimate activities that are happening. And we're serving different clients. I'm serving the fund manager who's considering investing. And that person's serving in the investment banking, the CEO of the company and the ownerships and the shareholders of the company. We're serving different clients, but the important thing is that we're not really supposed to know, and we generally didn't, throughout my career, know what the other was doing. But as you go up to the next level of management, they are on both sides of that wall.

0:25:49.0 Andrew Stotz: They must be able to understand what's happening on both sides for various reasons, but most importantly, they have to make decisions about the overall organization based upon a level of knowledge that maybe the people at the lower parts of the organization may be extremely excited and confident and happy about what they're doing, but they can't necessarily connect all those dots. So that's the reason why I would explain in your case that you may have to override something and say, "Look, I've listened, but I do think this is a higher priority because what you guys aren't seeing is how this connects to the implementation of the software."

0:26:25.8 Travis Timmons: Right.

0:26:26.1 Andrew Stotz: "And you're not seeing it because you haven't been doing all of this stuff that I've been doing. And so I'm going to override that one and raise that one. But the other two, let's do those," type of thing.

0:26:36.2 Travis Timmons: Yeah. And that's kind of from a... Totally agree. And that's from a Deming, make the system visible. You also have to explain from a transparency standpoint, in my opinion, anyway, if you're going to go through all this work to your point, everybody doesn't fully understand what our budget is to spend on software next year, for example, and don't expect them to, but I need to know that. So just explaining to them why we're choosing the ones we're choosing, explaining that we can't boil the ocean, and then create the PDSA and we'll give them a promise that we'll report back within... Usually, I report back within a month at the end of the meeting, of the PDSAs build out, you know, what's the aim?

[overlapping conversation]

0:27:22.5 Andrew Stotz: That was my next question. How do you make sure that those PDSAs get done? Because I've left a lot of offsites. I've left them and thought, "Yep, that was interesting. Nothing's going to happen."

0:27:35.8 Travis Timmons: Yeah, no, that's where you start to lose trust from your team as well. It's like if, you know... So we revisit our meetings from last year. Like that'll be part of our recap. Okay, here's what we set out to do last year. So the beginning of the meeting is like, here's the things we talked about we wanted to do and here's what we did. Here's what we still have left to do. But yeah, with a deliverable like this, man, it would be a huge miss on my part if we didn't follow through with PDSAs.

0:28:05.5 Andrew Stotz: And are you managing those or you have one person in-charge of each one of those and then you work with them or what are the mechanics of that?

0:28:15.4 Travis Timmons: Yeah, I think the two larger ones, one of ours is going to include a software change. So that one will be in my wheelhouse for sure.

0:28:22.9 Andrew Stotz: Yeah.

0:28:24.0 Travis Timmons: But yeah, I could envision assigning a champion for two or three of the smaller ones and they won't really be small, they'll be company-wide. The software is a pretty heavy lift.

0:28:36.8 Andrew Stotz: It's interesting because now I can see you've talked about this driving out fear and sharing all information and all of that. And I think that now that I understand your process, I can see that when you get into the hard work of the PDSA, that's going to challenge assumptions, it's going to push the limits, it's going to be testing things that when you get there, everybody knows exactly why that's happening and where that came from. Maybe you can talk a little bit about this concept of one of your goals being driving out fear and using this event as one of the ways to do that.

0:29:17.0 Travis Timmons: Yeah, no, yeah, that's a big piece that I learned from Deming years ago is, people have a lot of fear. What's going on? We don't know. The transparency of this event in and of itself, my experience has been, like, "Oh, I guess we're just talking about everything here, huh?" Putting it out there just makes people comfortable knowing what's going on, what we're working on, what we're not doing as well as we could be and we're aware of it and where it's at in the priority stack. And then also, for five hours they're going to be seeing people speak up. And we call it, "Celebrate the Breakdowns." So from a Dr. Deming perspective, 96, some percent of issues within an organization are due to system issues, not people issues. So they'll start to see, like, hey, when you talk about systems and processes, you can really talk pretty intensely. Very hard to do if you're complaining about how people do things. Right? Because you're... So that system breakdown, we call it Celebrate the Breakdowns, just allows people to be more free and also understand, hey, everybody does show up wanting to do a good job.

0:30:30.7 Travis Timmons: And Travis probably assumes I show up wanting to do a good job. Let's talk about how to make this place better. So that drives out the fear just by making the system visible. And then with the PDSAs, I think it drives out fear from a standpoint of they know when we're going to make a change. This isn't just us shooting from the hip. It's a very organized, methodical, visible way that we know we need to change something. Here's how we're going to do it, and if we're wrong, we'll change it. So that's another way that the PDSA process, my experience has been it also drives out fears because they have a deep understanding of just seeing this entire process. They have confidence, like, "Okay, this isn't just flavor of the month. I'm just going to throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks. This is a big deal. We're going to work on it together. We're going to try it and if it's not going well, we'll try something different collaboratively."

0:31:29.5 Andrew Stotz: I want to wrap it up there and I think... Do you have anything final that you want to add to the process that we've talked about? Is there anything else that people need to know about as they're planning their offsite?

0:31:40.5 Travis Timmons: No, I think we covered quite a bit. I think the big takeaway is it's more work than I think I realized until I had exposure to Deming and some mentors in my life. And it's been a game changer on how much we can accomplish. So the time investment is worth it.

0:31:57.2 Andrew Stotz: And I think we're going to meet again later and talk, and I think we can get an update from you what went well, what do you need to improve, and guide us also as we think about our next offsite, which is pretty exciting.

0:32:11.5 Travis Timmons: Yeah, I look forward to sharing how it went. My hope is I'll report back on at least three PDSAs that we have ready to engage for 2026.

0:32:21.2 Andrew Stotz: I can't wait. Well, Travis, on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this discussion. And for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming, "People are entitled to joy in work."

In this episode, Bill Scherkenbach, one of W. Edwards Deming's closest protégés, and host Andrew Stotz discuss why leadership decisions shape outcomes far more than frontline effort. Bill draws on decades of firsthand experience with Deming and with businesses across industries. Through vivid stories and practical insights, the conversation challenges leaders and learners alike to rethink responsibility, decision-making, and what it truly takes to build lasting quality. Bill's powerpoint is available here.

TRANSCRIPT

0:00:02.2 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we dive deeper into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussions with Bill Scherkenbach, a dedicated protégé of Dr. Deming since 1972. Bill met with Dr. Deming more than a thousand times and later led statistical methods and process improvement at Ford and GM at Dr. Deming's recommendation. He authored the Deming Route to Quality and Productivity at Deming's behest and at 79, still champions his mentor's message: Learn, have fun, and make a difference. The discussion for today is, I think we're going to get an answer to this question. And the question is: Where is quality made? Bill, take it away.

0:00:44.9 Bill Scherkenbach: Where is quality made? I can hear the mellifluous doctor saying that. And the answer is: In the boardroom, not on the factory floor. And over and over again, he would say that it's the quality of the decisions that the management make that can far outweigh anything that happens on the shop floor. And when he would speak about that, he would first of all, because he was talking to the auto industry, he would talk about who's making carburetors anymore. "Nobody's making carburetors because it's all fuel injectors," he would say. And anyone who has been following this, another classic one is: Do you ever hear of a bank that failed? Do you think that failed because of mistakes in tellers' windows or calculations of interest? Heck no. But there are a whole bunch of other examples that are even more current, if you will. I mean, although this isn't that current, but Blockbuster had fantastic movies, a whole array of them, the highest quality resolutions, and they completely missed the transition to streaming. And Netflix and others took it completely away from them because of mistakes made in the boardroom. You got more recently Bed Bath & Beyond having a great product, a great inventory.

0:02:51.4 Bill Scherkenbach: But management took their eyes off of it and looked at, they were concerned about stock buybacks and completely lost the picture of what was happening. It was perfect. It was a great product, but it was a management decision. WeWork, another company supplying office places. It was great in COVID and in other areas, but through financial mismanagement, they also ended up going bust. And so there are, I mean, these are examples of failures, but as Dr. Deming also said, don't confuse success with success. If you think you're making good decisions, you got to ask yourself how much better could it have been if you tried something else. So, quality is made in the boardroom, not on the factory floor.

0:04:07.9 Andrew Stotz: I had an interesting encounter this week and I was teaching a class, and there was a guy that came up and talked to me about his company. His company was a Deming Prize from Japan winner. And that was maybe 20, 25 years ago. They won their first Deming Prize, and then subsidiaries within the company won it. So the actual overall company had won something like nine or 10 Deming Prizes over a couple decades. And the president became...

0:04:43.5 Bill Scherkenbach: What business are they in?

0:04:45.5 Andrew Stotz: Well, they're in...

0:04:47.0 Bill Scherkenbach: Of winning prizes?

0:04:48.7 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, I mean, they definitely, the CEO got the distinguished individual prize because he was so dedicated to the teachings of Dr. Deming. And he really, really expanded the business well, the business did well. A new CEO took over 15 years ago, 10 years ago, and took it in another direction. And right now the company is suffering losses and many other problems that they're facing. And I asked the guy without talking about Deming, I just asked him what was the difference between the prior CEO and the current one or the current regimes that have come in. And he said that the prior CEO, it was so clear what the direction was. Like, he set the direction and we all knew what we were doing. And I just thought now as you talk about, the quality is made at the boardroom, it just made me really think back to that conversation and that was what he noticed more than anything. Yeah well, we were really serious about keeping the factory clean or we used statistics or run charts, that was just what he said, I thought that was pretty interesting.

0:06:06.7 Bill Scherkenbach: Absolutely. And that reminds me of another comment that Dr. Deming was vehement about, and that was was the management turnover. Turnovers in boardrooms every 18 months or so, except maybe in family businesses. But that's based on the quality of decisions made in the boardroom. How fast do you want to turn over the CEOs and that C-suite? So it's going to go back to the quality is made in the boardroom.

0:06:50.0 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, and I think maybe it's a good chance for me to share the slide that you have. And let's maybe look at that graphic. Does that makes sense now?

0:07:00.9 Bill Scherkenbach: Sure, for sure.

0:07:02.2 Andrew Stotz: Let's do that. Let's do that. Hold on. All right.

0:07:15.8 Bill Scherkenbach: Okay, okay, okay. You can see on the top left, we'll start the story. I've got to give you a background. This was generated based on my series of inputs and prompts, but this was generated by Notebook LM and based on the information I put in, this is what they came up with.

0:07:48.6 Andrew Stotz: Interesting.

0:07:50.1 Bill Scherkenbach: Based on various information, which I think did a fairly decent job. In any event, we're going to talk about all of these areas, except maybe the one where it says principles for active leadership, because that was the subject of a couple of our vlogs a while ago, and that is the three foundational obligations. And so the thing is that quality, even though Dr. Deming said it was made in the boardroom, one of the problems is that management did not know what questions to ask, and they would go, and Dr. Deming railed against MBWA, management by walking around, primarily because management hadn't made the transition to really take on board what Dr. Deming was talking about in profound knowledge. And that is, as you've mentioned, setting that vision, continually improving around it, and pretty much absolutely essential was to reduce fear within the organization.

0:09:25.9 Bill Scherkenbach: And so management by walking around without profound knowledge, which we've covered in previous talks, only gets you dog and pony shows. And with the fear in the organization, you're going to be carefully guided throughout a wonderful story. I mentioned I was in Disney with some of my granddaughters over the holidays, and they tell a wonderful story, but you don't ever see what's behind the scenery. And management never gets the chance because they really haven't had the opportunity to attain profound knowledge. So that's one of the things. I want to back up a little bit because Dr. Deming would... When Dr. Deming said quality is made at the top, he only agreed to help companies where the top management invited him, he wasn't out there marketing. If they invited him to come in, he would first meet with them and they had to convince him they were serious about participating, if not leading their improvement. And given that, that litmus test, he then agreed to work with them. Very few companies did he agree to on that. And again as we said, the quality of the decisions and questions and passion that determine the successfulness of the company. And so.

0:11:40.0 Andrew Stotz: It made me think about that letter you shared that he was saying about that there was, I think it was within the government and government department that just wasn't ready for change and so he wasn't going to work with it. I'm just curious, like what do you think was his... How did he make that judgment?

0:12:00.0 Bill Scherkenbach: Well, it wasn't high enough. And again, I don't know how high you'd have to go in there. But quite honestly, what we spoke about privately was in politics and in the federal government, at least in the US, things change every four years. And so you have management turnover. And so what one manager, as you described, one CEO is in there and another one comes in and wants to do it their way, they're singing Frank Sinatra's My Way. But that's life….

0:12:49.3 Andrew Stotz: Another great song.

0:12:50.7 Bill Scherkenbach: Another, yes.

0:12:52.1 Andrew Stotz: And it's not like he was an amateur with the government.

0:12:57.5 Bill Scherkenbach: No.

0:13:00.3 Andrew Stotz: He had a lot of experience from a young age, really working closely with the government. Do you think that he saw there was some areas that were worth working or did he just kind of say it's just not worth the effort there or what was his conclusions as he got older?

0:13:16.9 Bill Scherkenbach: Well, as he got older, it might, it was the turnover in management. When he worked for Agriculture, although agriculture is political, and he worked for Census Bureau back when he worked there, it wasn't that political, it's very political now. But there was more a chance for constancy and more of a, their aim was to do the best survey or census that they could do. And so the focus was on setting up systems that would deliver that. But that's what his work with the government was prior to when things really broke loose when he started with Ford and GM and got all the people wanting him in.

0:14:27.0 Andrew Stotz: I've always had questions about this at the top concept and the concept of constancy of purpose. And I'm just pulling out your Deming Route to Quality and Productivity, which, it's a lot of dog ears, but let's just go to chapter one just to remind ourselves. And that you started out with point number one, which was create constancy of purpose towards improvement of product and service with the aim to become competitive, stay in business and provide jobs. One of my questions I always kind of thought about that one was that at first I just thought he was saying just have a constancy of purpose. But the constancy of purpose is improvement of product and service.

0:15:13.6 Bill Scherkenbach: Well, yes and no. I mean, that's what he said. I believe I was quoting what his point number one was. And as it developed, it was very important to add, I believe, point number five on continual improvement. But constancy of purpose is setting the stage, setting the vision if you will, of where you want to take the company. And in Western management, and this is an area where there really is and was a dichotomy between Western and Eastern management. But in Western management, our concept of time was short-term. Boom, boom, boom, boom. And he had a definite problem with that. And that's how you could come up with, well, we're going to go with this fad and that fad or this CEO and that CEO. There was no thinking through the longer term of, as some folks ask, "what is your aim? Who do you think your customer base is now?" don't get suckered into thinking that carburetors are always going to be marketable to that market base. And so that's where he was going with that constancy of purpose. And in the beginning, I think that was my first book you're quoting, but also, in some of his earlier works, he also spoke of consistency of purpose, that is reducing the variation around that aim, that long-term vision, that aim.

0:17:19.2 Bill Scherkenbach: Now, in my second book, I got at least my learning said that you've got to go beyond the logical understanding and your constancy of purpose needs to be a mission, a values and questions. And those people who have who have listened to the the previous vlogs that we've had, those are the physiological and emotional. And I had mentioned, I think, that when when I went to GM, one of the things I did was looked up all the policy letters and the ones that Alfred Sloan wrote had pretty much consistency of three main points. One, make no mistake about it, this is what we're going to do. Two, this is why we're going to do it, logical folks who need to understand that. And to give a little bit of insight on on how he was feeling about it. Sometimes it was value, but those weren't spoken about too much back then. But it gave you an insider view, if you will. And so I looked at that, maybe I was overlooking. But I saw a physiological and emotional in his policy letters.

0:19:00.7 Bill Scherkenbach: And so that's got to be key when you are establishing your vision, but that's only the beginning of it. You have to operationalize it, and this is where management has to get out of the boardroom to see what's going on. Now, that's going to be the predictable, and some of your clients, and certainly the ones over in Asia, are speaking about Lean and Toyota Production System and going to the Gemba and all of those terms. But I see a need to do a reverse Gemba and we'll talk about that.

0:19:49.6 Andrew Stotz: So, I just want to dig deeper into this a little bit just for my own selfish understanding, which I think will help the audience also. Let's go back in time and say that the, Toyota, let's take Toyota as an example because we can say maybe in the 60s or so, they started to really understand that the improvement of product quality, products and service quality and all that was a key thing that was important to them. But they also had a goal of expanding worldwide. And their first step with that maybe was, let's just say, the big step was expanding to the US. Now, in order to expand to the US successfully, it's going to take 10, maybe 20 years. In the beginning, the cars aren't going to fit the market, you're going to have to adapt and all that. So I can understand first, let's imagine that somebody says our constancy of purpose is to continuously improve or let's say, not continuously, but let's just go back to that statement just to keep it clear. Let's say, create constancy of purpose towards improvement of product and service with the aim to become competitive, stay in business and provide jobs.

0:21:07.2 Andrew Stotz: So the core constancy in that statement to me sounds like the improvement. And then if we say, okay, also our vision of where we want to be with this company is we want to capture, let's say, 5% of the US market share within the next 15 years or five or 10 years. So you've got to have constancy of that vision, repeating it, not backing down from it, knowing that you're going to have to modify it. But what's the difference between a management or a leadership team in the boardroom setting a commitment to improvement versus a commitment to a goal of let's say, expanding the market into the US. How do we think about those two.

0:21:53.6 Bill Scherkenbach: Well as you reread what I wrote there, which is Dr. Deming's words and they led into the, I forget what he called it, but he led into the progression of as you improve quality, you improve productivity, you reduce costs.

0:22:33.6 Andrew Stotz: Chain reaction.

0:22:34.5 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah, the chain reaction. That's a mini version of the chain reaction there. And at the time, that's what people should be signing up for. Now the thing is that doesn't, or at least the interpretations haven't really gone to the improvement of the board's decision-making process. I mean, where he was going for was you want to be able to do your market research because his sampling and doing the market research was able to close the loop to make that production view a system, a closed-loop system. And so you wanted to make sure that you're looking far enough out to be able to have a viable product or service and not get caught up in short-term thinking. Now, but again, short-term is relative. In the US, you had mentioned 10 or 20 years, Toyota, I would imagine they still are looking 100 years out. They didn't get suckered into the over-committing anyway to the electric vehicles. Plug-in hybrids, yes, hybrids yes, very efficient gas motors, yes. But their constancy of purpose is a longer time frame than the Western time frame.

0:24:27.1 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, that was a real attack on the structure that they had built to say when they were being told by the market and by everybody, investors, you've got to shift now, you've got to make a commitment to 100% EVs. I remember watching one of the boardroom, sorry, one of the shareholder meetings, and it's just exhausting, the pressure that they were under.

0:24:55.2 Bill Scherkenbach: Yep, yep. But there... Yeah.

0:25:00.0 Andrew Stotz: If we take a kid, a young kid growing up and we just say, look, your main objective, and my main objective with you is to every day improve. Whatever that is, let's say we're learning science.

0:25:17.3 Bill Scherkenbach: You're improving around your aim. What is your vision? What are you trying to accomplish? And that obviously, if you're you're saying a kid that could change otherwise there'd be an oversupply of firemen.

0:25:38.5 Andrew Stotz: So let's say that the aim was related to science. Let's say that the kid shows a really great interest in science and you're kind of coaching them along and they're like, "Help me, I want to learn everything I can in science." The aim may be a bit vague for the kid, but let's say that we narrow down that aim to say, we want to get through the main topics of science from physics to chemistry and set a foundation of science, which we think's going to take us a year to do that, let's just say. Or whatever. Whatever time frame we come up with, then every day the idea is, how do we number one improve around that aim? Are we teaching the right topics? Also, is there better ways of teaching? Like, this kid maybe learns better in the afternoon and in the morning, whereas another kid I may work with works better in another... And this kid likes five-minute modules and then some practical discussion, this kid likes, an hour of going deep into something and then having an experiment is when we're talking about improvement, is the idea that we're just always trying to improve around that aim until we reach a really optimized system? Is that what we're talking about when we're talking about constancy of purpose when it comes to improving product and service?

0:27:14.4 Bill Scherkenbach: Well there's a whole process that I take my clients through in coming up with their constancy of purpose statement. And the board should be looking at what the community is doing in the next five years, 10 years, where the market is going, where politics is going, all sorts of things. And some of it. I mean, specifically in the science area, it's fairly well recognized that the time of going generation to generation to generation has gone from years to maybe weeks where you have different iterations of technology. And so that's going to complicate stuff quite honestly, because what was good today can be, as Dr. Deming said, the world could change. And that's what you've got to deal with or you're out of business. Or you're out of relevance in what you're studying. And so you have to... If you if you have certain interests, and the interests are driven... It's all going to be internal. Some interests are driven because that's where I hear you can make the most money or that's where I hear you can make the most impact to society or whatever your internal interests are saying that those are key to establishing what your aim is.

0:29:25.7 Andrew Stotz: Okay. You've got some PowerPoints and we've been talking about some of it. But I just want to pull it up and make sure we don't miss anything. I think this is the first text page, maybe just see if there's anything you want to highlight from that. Otherwise we'll move to the next.

0:29:43.0 Bill Scherkenbach: No I think we've we've covered that. Yeah, yeah. And the second page. Yeah, I wanted to talk and I only mentioned it when the Lean folks and the Agile folks talk about Gemba, they're pretty much talking about getting the board out. It's the traditional management by walking around, seeing what happens. Hugely, hugely important. But one of the things, I had one of my clients. Okay, okay. No, that's in the the next one.

0:30:29.4 Andrew Stotz: There you go.

0:30:30.7 Bill Scherkenbach: Okay, yeah. I had one of one of my clients do a reverse Gemba. And that is, that the strategy committee would be coming up with strategies and then handing it off to the operators to execute. And that's pretty much the way stuff was done in this industry and perhaps in many of them. But what we did was we had the operators, the operating committee, the operations committee, sit in as a peanut gallery or a, oh good grief. Well, you couldn't say a thing, you could only observe what they were doing. But it helped the operators better understand and see and feel what the arguments were, what the discussions were in the strategy, so that they as operators were better able to execute the strategy. And so not the board going out and down, but the folks that are below going up if it helps them better execute what's going on. But vice versa, management can't manage the 94%, and Dr. Deming was purposely giving people marbles, sometimes he'd say 93.4%. You know the marble story?

0:32:37.5 Andrew Stotz: I remember that [laughter]. Maybe you should tell that again just because that was a fun one when he was saying to, give them marbles, and they gave me marbles back.

0:32:45.7 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, he said there was this professor in oral surgery that said there was a an Asian mouse or cricket, whatever, that would... You put in your mouth and they would eat all of the... Be able to clean the gums of all the bacteria better than anything. And described it in detail. And that question was on the test. Okay, please describe this mouse procedure. And he said all of the people, or a whole bunch of people except one, gave him back exactly step by step that he had taught. And one said, Professor, I've talked to other professors, I've looked around, I think you're loading us, that's what Deming said. And so he made the point that teaching should not be teachers handing out marbles and collecting the same marbles they they handed out. And so to some extent, he was testing, being overly precise.

0:34:12.8 Bill Scherkenbach: He wanted people to look into it, to see, go beyond as you were speaking of earlier, going beyond this shocking statement that there perhaps is some way that that really makes sense. So he wants you to study. Very Socratic in his approach to teaching in my opinion. And any event, management can't understand or make inputs on changing what the various levels of willing workers, and you don't have to be on the shop floor, you can be in the C-suite and be willing workers depending on how your company is operating. Go ahead.

0:35:12.0 Andrew Stotz: So let me... Maybe I can, just for people that don't know, Gemba is a Japanese word that means "the actual place," right? The place where the value is created.

0:35:23.8 Bill Scherkenbach: Sure.

0:35:26.2 Andrew Stotz: And the whole concept of this was that it's kind of almost nonsense to think that you could sit up in an office and run something and never see the location of where the problem's happening or what's going on. And all of a sudden many things become clear when you go to the location and try to dig down into it. However, from Dr. Deming context, I think what you're telling us is that if the leader doesn't have profound knowledge, all they're going to do is go to the location and chase symptoms and disrupt work, ultimately...

0:36:02.0 Bill Scherkenbach: Get the dog and pony shows and all of that stuff. And they still won't have a clue. The thing is...

0:36:08.6 Andrew Stotz: So the objective at the board level, if they were to actually go to the place, the objective is observation of the system, of how management decisions have affected this. What is the system able to produce? And that gives them a deeper understanding to think about what's their next decision that they've got to make in relation to this. Am I capturing it right or?

0:36:40.2 Bill Scherkenbach: Well there's a lot more to it, I think, because top management, the board level, are the ones that set the vision, the mission, the values, the guiding principle, and the questions. And I think it's incumbent on the board to be able to go through the ranks and see how their constancy of purpose, the intended, where they want to take the place is being interpreted throughout the organization because, and I know it's an oversimplification and maybe a broad generalization, but middle management... Well, there are layers of management everywhere based on their aim to get ahead, will effectively stop communication upstream and downstream in order to fill their particular aim of what they want to get out of it. And so this is a chance for the top management to see, because they're doing their work, establishing the vision of the company, which is the mission, values and questions, they really should be able to go layer by layer as they're walking around seeing how those, their constancy, their intended constancy is being interpreted and executed. And so that's where beyond understanding how someone is operating a lathe or an accountant is doing a particular calculation, return on invested capital, whatever.

0:38:47.5 Bill Scherkenbach: Beyond that, I think it's important for management to be able to absolutely see what is happening. But the Gemba that I originally spoke about is just the other way. You've got the strategy people that are higher up, and you have the operations people that are typically, well, they might be the same level, but typically lower. You want the lower people to sit in on some higher meetings so they have a better idea of the intent, management's intent in this constancy of purpose. And that will help them execute, operationalize what management has put on paper or however they've got it and are communicating it. It just helps. So when I talk about Gemba, I'm talking the place where the quality is made or the action is. As the boardroom, you need to be able to have people understand and be able to see what's going on there, and all the way up the chain and all the way down the chain.

0:40:14.4 Andrew Stotz: That's great one. I'm just visualizing people in the operations side thinking, we've got some real problems here and we don't really understand it. We've got to go to the actual place, and that's the boardroom[laughter]. It's not the factory line.

0:40:31.7 Bill Scherkenbach: Yes. Absolutely. And if the boardroom says you're not qualified, then shame on you, the boardroom, are those the people you're hiring? So no, it goes both ways, both ways.

0:40:46.8 Andrew Stotz: Now, you had a final slide here. Maybe you want to talk a little bit about some of the things you've identified here.

0:40:53.4 Bill Scherkenbach: Okay, that's getting back to, in the logical area of this TDQA is my cycle: Theory, question, data, action. And it's based on Dr. Deming and Shewhart and Lewis saying, where do questions come from? They're based on theory. What do you do with questions? Well, the answers to questions are your data. And you're just not going to do nothing with data, you're supposed to take action. What are you going to do with it? And so the theory I'm going to address, the various questions I've found helpful in order to, to some extent, make the decisions better, the ability to operationalize them better and perhaps even be more creative, if you will. And so one of the questions I ask any team is, have you asked outside experts their opinion? Have you included them? Have you included someone to consistently, not consistently, but to take a contrarian viewpoint that their job in this meeting is to play the devil's advocate? And the theory is you're looking for a different perspective as Pete Jessup at Ford came up with that brilliant view of Escher's.

0:42:47.1 Bill Scherkenbach: Different perspectives are going to help you make a better decision. And so you want to get out of the echo chamber and you want to be challenged. Every team should be able to have some of these on there. What's going to get delayed? The underlying theory or mental model is, okay, you don't have people sitting around waiting for this executive committee to come up with new things, time is a zero-sum game. What's going to get delayed and what are they willing to get delayed if this is so darn important to get done? Decision criteria. I've seen many teams where they thought that the decision would be a majority rule. They discuss and when it came down to submit it, they said, "no, no, this VP is going to make the decision." And so that completely sours the next team to do that. And so you have to be, if you're saying trust, what's your definition of trust? If the people know that someone is going to make the decision with your advice or the executive's going to get two votes and everyone else gets one, or it's just simple voting.

0:44:35.3 Bill Scherkenbach: The point is that making the decision and taking it to the next level, the theory is you've got to be specific and relied on. Team turnover, fairly simple. We spoke about executive turnover, which was a huge concern that Dr. Deming had about Western management. But at one major auto company, we would have product teams and someone might be in charge of, be a product manager for a particular model car. Well, if that person was a hard charger and it took product development at the time was three and a half years, you're going to get promoted from a director level to a VP halfway through and you're going to screw up the team, other team members will be leaving as well because they have careers. You need to change the policy just to be able to say, if you agree that you're going to lead this team, you're going to lead it from start to finish and to minimize the hassle and the problems and the cost of turnover, team turnover. And this is a short list of stuff, but it's very useful to have a specific "no-fault policy."

0:46:20.6 Bill Scherkenbach: And this is where Dr. Deming speaks about reducing fear. I've seen teams who know they can really, once management turns on the spigot and says, let's really do this, this is important, the team is still hesitant to really let it go because that management might interpret that as saying, "well, what are you doing, slacking off the past year?" As Deming said, "why couldn't you do that if you could do it with no method, why didn't you do it last year?" but the fear in the organization, well, we're going to milk it. And so all of these things, it helps to be visible to everyone.

0:47:23.0 Andrew Stotz: So, I guess we should probably wrap up and I want to go back to where we started. And first, we talked about, where is quality made? And we talked about the boardroom. Why is this such an important topic from your perspective? Why did you want to talk about it? And what would you say is the key message you want to get across from it?

0:47:47.1 Bill Scherkenbach: The key message is that management thinks quality's made in operations. And it's the quality of the... I wanted to put a little bit more meat, although there's a lot more meat, we do put on it. But the quality of the organization, I wanted to make the point depends on the quality of the decisions, that's their output that top leaders make, whether it's the board or the C-suite or any place making decisions. The quality of your decisions.

0:48:28.9 Andrew Stotz: Excellent. And I remember, this reminds me of when I went to my first Deming seminar back in 1990, roughly '89, maybe '90. And I was a young guy just starting as a supervisor at a warehouse in our Torrance plant at Pepsi, and Pepsi sent me there. And I sat in the front row, so I didn't pay attention to all the people behind me, but there was many people behind me and there was a lot of older guys. Everybody technically was pretty much older than me because when I was just starting my career. And it was almost like these javelins were being thrown from the stage to the older men in the back who were trying to deal with this, and figure out what's coming at them, and that's where I kind of really started to understand that this was a man, Dr. Deming, who wasn't afraid to direct blame at senior management to say, you've got to take responsibility for this. And as a young guy seeing all kinds of mess-ups in the factory every day that I could see, that we couldn't really solve. We didn't have the tools and we couldn't get the resources to get those tools.

0:49:47.9 Andrew Stotz: It just really made sense to me. And I think the reiteration of that today is the idea, as I'm older now and I look at what my obligation is in the organizations I'm working at, it's to set that constancy of purpose, to set the quality at the highest level that I can. And the discussion today just reinforced it, so I really enjoyed it.

0:50:11.2 Bill Scherkenbach: Well, that's great. I mean, based on that observation, Dr. Deming many times said that the master chef is the person who knows no fear, and he was a master chef putting stuff together. And we would talk about fairly common knowledge that the great artists, the great thinkers, the great producers were doing it for themselves, it just happened that they had an audience. The music caught on, the poetry caught on, the painting caught on, the management system caught on. But we're doing it for ourselves with no fear. And that's the lesson.

0:51:11.8 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. Well, I hope that there's a 24-year-old out there right now listening to this just like I was, or think about back in 1972 when you were sitting there listening to his message. And they've caught that message from you today. So I appreciate it, and I want to say on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute, of course, thank you so much for this discussion and for people who are listening and interested, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. And of course, you can reach Bill on LinkedIn, very simple. He's out there posting and he's responding. So feel free if you've got a question or comment or something, reach out to him on LinkedIn and have a discussion. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'm going to leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming, and it doesn't change. It is, "people are entitled to joy in work."

What happens when an entire company learns to see its work as a system? In this episode, Travis Timmons reveals how his team uses Deming-inspired pre-work, collaboration, and the Red Bead Experiment to make their offsite energizing and impactful. It's a practical, engaging look at how clarity and shared purpose can transform improvement efforts and build a happy workplace.

TRANSCRIPT

0:00:02.2 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz and I'll be your host as we dive deeper into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today I'm continuing my discussion with Travis Timmons, who is the founder and owner of Fitness Matters, an Ohio-based practice specializing in the integration of physical therapy and personalized wellness. For 13 years he's built his business on Dr. Deming's teachings. His hope is simple. The more companies that bring joy to work through Deming's principles, the more likely his kids will one day work at one. The topic for today is bringing systems thinking to your next team off-site. Travis, take it away.

0:00:41.5 Travis Timmons: Hey Andrew, great to be with you again. And, yeah, looking forward to sharing a little bit about how we're preparing for our next annual team meeting. And focus for this meeting is going to be, well, a little back story, we had three of our newer leadership members attend some Deming learning, some Deming education. And the biggest comeback, the biggest aha moment they had was they now better understood what I meant by the system view and systems thinking, which got me thinking, boy, it would be great if more of our team fully understood what the system meant, how to visualize it, and then how that further dives into the Deming System of Profound Knowledge. So that's what we've been working on. Our offsite is January 30th, so about a month away. We're about six weeks into preparation for that, kind of going back and forth on what needs to be in there. And the biggest thing, the first exercise, they're going to have homework to do coming into the meeting. We're going to have them kind of diagram what they think the system is. What is the Fitness Matters system? And we're going to prime them a little bit.

0:01:51.7 Travis Timmons: We're going to be doing it via a fishbone chart is the method we've decided to do that with. So, yeah, very excited about that. And it's a great way to get the team working on the work together and making sure they have an appreciation, as Dr. Deming would say, an appreciation for the system. And if you don't know what the system means, it's hard to appreciate it. So, trying to make more team members understand that.

0:02:14.7 Andrew Stotz: And what you're describing, I think is like pre-work that you're asking them to do?

0:02:21.1 Travis Timmons: Yes, yeah. So we'll have we've been spending the last few weeks on making sure we get the right questions in there because we want them to come in prepared but not feel like it's overwhelming or not feel like it's too heavy, if you will. But we want them to do the work so that they can come in and we can dive deeper once we get into some of the teachings and making the visible system of what everything looks like for them. So, that's kind of what we're working on.

0:02:49.1 Andrew Stotz: Did you guide them on, "Here's a fishbone chart, here's how to use it," and then, "Here's the system"? Or do you want them to just understand the fishbone chart and how to use it, and then, "Okay, don't talk to anybody else, you come up with what your vision of the system is"?

0:03:05.0 Travis Timmons: Yeah, so we have a total of seven locations. So what we are going to put in the homework is a one-page definition on what a fishbone is, how to use it and maybe pre-fill in a few of the primary bones, if you will.

0:03:20.3 Andrew Stotz: Yep.

0:03:20.8 Travis Timmons: Just to give them a primer. But we do hope they work together around the lunch tables and the break rooms, and the local leadership will be there to kind of guide them. Because that's where a lot of the collaboration and culture starts to happen and continues to build. So yeah, there'll be some learning about what is a fishbone, how to use it, because several have probably not used one before. And then we'll prime it a little bit, but then we want them to work on it, kind of kind of work, struggle a little bit to see, like, "All right, what's been invisible to me that happens behind the scenes, and it just happens." And make sure that then we can kind of dive deeper into when we say somebody has a good visit at Fitness Matters, how does that happen? And it's everything from first contact to insurance, to in the clinics, to how they pay their bill. So, just making sure that somebody understands what piece of the puzzle they play and then how it all works together. So we don't have silos, is one of the things we try to avoid, having silos within the organization.

0:04:25.8 Andrew Stotz: So, just so that the listener and viewer can implement what they're learning from you just to be clear. So, you're giving them the fishbone chart, teaching them about it, maybe filling in some of the main bones, as you said. And then just to be clear, you talked about them discussing things. Are you saying when you're working on your fishbone, talk to others about it and try to figure that out together?

0:04:51.7 Travis Timmons: Yeah.

0:04:52.5 Andrew Stotz: Okay.

0:04:52.6 Travis Timmons: Yeah, we want them collaborating and there's going to be people who wear different hats in our company. Some are physical therapists, some are Pilates instructors, some are client care coordinators, some are billing managers. So it'll be interesting to see what they bring to the table. And part of it is we don't want them to struggle. We want to kind of prime the pump, but we also want them to see the big picture. So that's why we're doing the fishbone methodology is so we can see it when we get to the actual team meeting. And then we're going to work with them on, then you can do fishbones of individual processes or individual pieces of the system.

0:05:33.1 Andrew Stotz: And, I mean, the reason why I'm asking this is because something like a system, for some people, they understand it, but for other people, they'll just get lost. And then what they bring to the meeting is not really some deep thinking on the topic, but, "Here's my best idea of what you meant."

0:05:50.1 Travis Timmons: Right. Right. Yeah, and we assume like some people may not have the opportunity based on how their schedule works to do much interaction and collaboration, others will have more. It'll be interesting to see what each location comes up with. Our hope is it's similar because we do spend time with the onboarding process talking about Dr. Deming, but we don't currently have a full fishbone diagram in our onboarding manual, for example. And that might change after this offsite. We might add that. You might find that that's a very good idea.

0:06:23.8 Andrew Stotz: Okay, so you got them working on their pre-work, which is the systems thinking, lay out your system in a fishbone chart. What's next?

0:06:35.0 Travis Timmons: So they'll have about two and a half weeks to work on that, heading up to the team offsite. And then we have a four and a half hour agenda for the team offsite. And first part of the phase is we're going to have them break out into groups, six groups. We have a total of 50 people there. So, six tables, and we're going to have each of them with posty notes. We're going to have the fishbone, like the bones there, and they're going to use posty notes to kind of fill in the system. That'll kind of be activity one. We're going to talk about what their learnings were from the homework, what were their aha moments or things they hadn't considered or complexities they didn't realize existed. Talk about that for about a half hour, 45 minutes. And then we're going to take a little break and come back and Kelly Allen's going to be there. He's going to walk our entire team through the red bead experiment, which is one of my favorite in-person Deming exercises. So we're going to go through the Red Bead experiment. And if people don't, that's probably too long of a conversation to explain what that is on this conversation, but opportunity there then to show where there are kind of defects in the system, if you will. So the big thing we're working on for this team offsite beyond system view is how do we improve arrival rate? So what arrival rate is in our industry is how many of our scheduled visits, whether it be for personal training, Pilates, physical therapy, how many of the scheduled visits show up? So a lot that goes into why do they show up? Are they scheduled appropriately? Do they understand their billing? Do they have a good experience? Is it easy to do the scheduling? So that's what's going to be our example of a red bead in the Red Bead experiment. So yeah, going to spend about an hour on the Red Bead experiment. And then myself and our director of operations are then going to, at the end of the red bead, when Kelly debriefs what we just saw happen and people feel the angst of people that, you know, put the paddle in and keep pulling out red beads, even though they were offered bonuses and they just can't quite do it. Talk about how that correlates to our system.

0:08:55.9 Travis Timmons: What are our red beads and what can we impact within the system to have a positive impact on less red beads in the system?

0:09:05.5 Andrew Stotz: And just to go back to one thing, you mentioned a total of 50 people. Is this a total, this is a total company offsite or a leadership team offsite?

0:09:13.5 Travis Timmons: It's going to be the entire company. So what we've found is, I think there's just so much value in everybody on the team understanding what's happening. They don't have to be an expert in all of it, but they need to, using Dr. Deming's term appreciate the system.

0:09:30.9 Andrew Stotz: Yep.

0:09:31.4 Travis Timmons: And appreciate the complexities and appreciate their role in it and everybody else's role. And it also allows some opportunities for sure. There's going to be team members that could be brand new to us six months in. When we make everything visible, they're going to have some fresh eyes and point something out to us that we've always done it that way. So we're going to, let's keep doing it that way and they're going to point it out to us and say that's not a good idea.

0:10:02.7 Andrew Stotz: And you've chosen four and a half hours. Sometimes you could look at that and think, that's a long time. And other times you look at and think, that is such a short amount of time. How did you come upon the time?

0:10:15.2 Travis Timmons: So, a lot of feedback from the team, to be honest with you. So there were, early on there were years where we would do an all day. And I got feedback that, hey Travis, we know you love all this stuff. We don't love working on systems quite as much as you do. So how about a half a day? So a half a day seemed to be about right as long as we did the pre-work. So what we found is if we didn't do the pre-work, then there's just so much wasted time getting everybody kind of up to speed on what we want to work on that day. So the team is all kind of, we come to a mutual agreement of like, hey, if you guys will spend extra time on putting the pre-work together, you'll agree to do it. And then we'll agree to have a four and a half hour all-in meeting, gas pedal down and then we're going to, you'll have a celebration dinner at the end of the meeting. So that's what we do.

0:11:08.6 Andrew Stotz: Sounds like you're still getting eight hours out of them. I mean, when you think about it, it's hard to go into something without putting some time aside. And what I'm hearing here is that this is also a very narrowly focused event and that I could imagine the mistake that many people make is, oh, we want to talk about that and we want to talk about that. And don't forget about that. We got everybody together, we might as well talk about that.

0:11:37.0 Travis Timmons: Yeah. Yeah, it's hard to narrow it down to, okay, what are the two or three things that we need to make sure we accomplish in this meeting? So one of the things we have in our meeting, I learned this from Kelly and Ray Kroc, another mentor of mine. We have a big whiteboard that we call the parking lot. And if somebody brings up an idea that's a good one, but we don't have the time to tackle that day, we just go right on the parking lot and tackle it later in the year. But yeah, that's part of leadership's responsibility and feedback from the team is, all right, we got four and a half hours. What are the top one or two things we need to work on as a team? And then that pre-work from a culture standpoint, people tuning in if they're listening to this, one of the things I'm sure everybody hears, you have to have a culture where people have a voice. That's probably one of the things people get most frustrated about when we hire from other organizations. They don't have a voice. They just got to show up and whatever happens, happens.

0:12:42.5 Travis Timmons: And that can suck the life out of you pretty quick. So I've never had anybody do anything other than be excited about the homework. You'll see them in the break room talking about it. It just brings a lot of energy. And folks that have never done an offsite with us before, I always get the question, what are we going to talk about for four and a half hours? What could we possibly talk about for four and a half hours? And then at the end of that they're like, that was amazing. We didn't have enough time. So, kind of a delicate balance there, but we've landed on four and a half for our current size and what we try to accomplish.

0:13:20.9 Andrew Stotz: And the next question is I've sat through a lot of offsites over the years and you end it by going, that was awesome, now let's get back to work.

0:13:32.4 Travis Timmons: Yes. So we always do a wrap up on what are the deliverables. We let them know up front kind of the expectation of we may, we'll probably not have everything fully decided at the end of the day. The purpose of the day is to get feedback from the entire team. And then my goal, and we'll tell them this up front, or I should say aim, not goal. We'll get in trouble with Dr. Deming there, but is to have two to three PDSAs to walk away with. So we wrap it up, kind of report back on what we've all been working on for the day. And then we let them know we're going to report back in the coming one to two weeks on big picture items and then kind of continue to give the team feedback on here's what we did, here's what we worked on, here's what we're now going to implement. Because you're right, you go to a lot of these meetings, a lot of good ideas are tossed around and then absolutely nothing happens. And then when team members see that happen a few times in a row, then they just stop working on the work. So, yeah.

0:14:41.0 Andrew Stotz: I have a client of mine that he does offsites. I think it's every six months. And he does it only with his management team that's to be clear. And that's about roughly 15 people for his business. And he picks a pretty unique location each time. So it's... And it's usually a couple of days, which I would say with a management team, you maybe make more sense than with the whole company. But he has something interesting that kind of ties in with your work. He has me come occasionally and give a presentation and talk about either Deming or some other principles. But in the mornings at 7:00 A.M. they all meet at the gym. And he has trainers and then they go outside usually, if they're at the beach, they go to the beach. And then they have activities that they do together where they sweat and exercise all of them together. And I just felt like that was so unique. And I felt like, I don't know, if I was an employee, I would be like, oh, I don't want to, why do I have to?

0:16:03.4 Andrew Stotz: I could imagine that feeling, but I just felt like he really left the whole event every time as people really connected. And I just thought that was an interesting activity, it just made me think about.

0:16:17.8 Travis Timmons: Yeah. Yeah, no, I think one of the things I've learned over the years is the less I'm up speaking to the team and the more the team is working on breakout. So I plan on out of the four and a half hours, I hope to not be speaking to the team for more than 20 minutes. And just let the work happen because if I'm up there talking for three hours and they're just listening that's another great way to probably kill morale if they're not working on the work together.

0:16:49.6 Andrew Stotz: And so just to rehash what you're talking about, about a four and a half hour meeting, you got pre-work. It's focused on one thing, which is understanding the system. Then you're going to have people talk to each other with this pre-work and then come to it with their own ideas. You're going to put them in groups and do post-it note types of things to try to figure it out, you're going to do it in groups, I'm assuming, for the post-it notes? Is that what you said or is it everybody?

0:17:18.3 Travis Timmons: Yeah, we're going to have them stay with the same group of six because as we work through the process of the larger fishbone, then there's six key elements or six key pieces that I want to make sure we identify. And then I want to have, later in the day, we're going to do a fishbone specifically of each part of that and see if we can identify two to three PDSAs out of those six that we really can have a big impact on whether it's through technology optimization, better training opportunities, better defining operational definitions. Those are the three key areas that I'm assuming based on where I'm seeing things from my seat. That's, I hope, the direction I think we're going to go. But we'll see what the team comes up with.

0:18:09.3 Andrew Stotz: And one of the things that inevitably comes up with the concept of systems thinking is what's a system? You know, come on, for me, it's this and that and for another, it could be the whole world and we could, you know, how do you help them understand system, but also how do you guide what is the system?

0:18:33.9 Travis Timmons: Yeah, I mean, it's tough, right? Because there are things that are fully under our control within our system, like the software we use, the people on our team. So we talk about things in and out of our control. Things out of our control are health insurance companies. Right? But they're part of our, they are part of our system. We interact with them every day, but we have zero real control over decisions they make. Referral sources are another example of... So we talk about the inputs that are coming into our system but not part of Fitness Matters. So it's internal and external conversations, we get into that quite a bit. And then individual...

0:19:13.5 Andrew Stotz: What about people that are trying to narrow it to say, my system is a much smaller thing. How do I think about system?

0:19:24.0 Travis Timmons: Yeah, yeah, we get into that a little bit because you get a lot of that, right? People just want to optimize what they do and everything else will be fine. That's one of the hopes of making the system visible. We get into tampering, system capability and tampering is one of the ways we address that.

0:19:42.7 Andrew Stotz: Right.

0:19:42.8 Travis Timmons: So if somebody says, hey, I just want my little world to work this way and if the front desk could put patients on my schedule this way and I could make my schedule work this way, and I want a 15-minute break here and like, it's like, no, no, this has to work well for everybody. And when they understand an appreciation for how it all works together, then we found they're much more on board with working on being a part of a team, getting their head up a little bit and looking around and understanding patients don't come in just because you're a great therapist or you're a great Pilates instructor or just because the front desk process goes really well. They come in because everything works. And patients and clients can feel that. So we really try to educate them on just kind of that feeling of, is everybody here getting along? Does it feel professional in here? Does it feel like they care about me when I walk in? And it can't just be one person out of 15 in a building caring about them and paying attention to them as the client.

0:20:50.3 Travis Timmons: So I don't know if that answers your question, but we get into kind of why that system visibility is so important. And for them to be successful, the entire system has to be successful. And if you optimize it for one person, that just doesn't happen.

0:21:05.5 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, I like the system visibility that just brings that awareness. One other question is, you talked about a target, how do we improve the arrival rate and how many scheduled visits show up? You've already decided this as a core metric for the business before you've gone into this offsite. It's not something that's up for discussion in this offsite. Correct?

0:21:30.0 Travis Timmons: Right.

0:21:30.4 Andrew Stotz: Okay.

0:21:30.6 Travis Timmons: Yeah, it's the, kind of we... You know, there's a book out there, the One Thing, I think it's called. It's sort of like, what's the one kind of aim or target that we think we need to, from a system view, have a positive impact on in 2026? And that arrival rate is something we study weekly, monthly, daily, really. So we know what historical trends are. And if you look at a control chart view from Deming, the same thing happens every month. And it's like, okay, we have to do something different with our system if we're going to move that. And what are those two or three things we need to do? But yeah, to answer your question, myself and the leadership team came up with like, that's the one thing we got to tackle this year. We have to move that one because it's really been the same basic number, that arrival rate percentage since COVID hit. We really haven't had that fully recover since COVID. And it's like, okay, we've got to get that. We're already ahead of national average by a long shot but we can do better, I feel confident of that. So that's what our metric is.

0:22:47.0 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, that's interesting because you start, I'm sure with, how do we improve ourselves internally so that the experience internally and all of that. How do we have best practices in what we do? But then this one is, okay, how do we accelerate this pipeline feeding into our business? How do we make sure it's as smooth and as efficient as possible from the moment that somebody starts working with us? The easy stuff for us, meaning you, is doing the work at our location.

0:23:22.1 Travis Timmons: Right. And one of the things, just to make sure our team understands again from a system standpoint and Dr. Deming talks a lot about psychology, but we could have a great onboarding experience for a patient. First two or three sessions could be amazing. Greatest physical therapist, greatest personal training experience they've ever had. And then they get their first invoice and they're shocked or don't understand it, and then they stop coming in. So just making sure everybody understands all that goes into, again, our operational definition of a good visit means the entire system has to go well. And most people have a hard time wrapping their head around until they are shown it. I didn't fully appreciate it till I was shown, so, when you see it all come together I think they'll have a better appreciation for why we spend so much time making sure their benefits are understood by the patient. Because patients don't understand health insurance. They just don't. Everybody says, well, it's their responsibility. I'm like, well, that's nice, but they don't understand it. So, that's part of our system too, to your point earlier. Like, that's part of our system, patients don't understand their health insurance.

0:24:43.0 Andrew Stotz: One of the great questions to think about on this is, what if we never lost a customer? You know, what would our business look like today if we never lost a customer? You know, it may be that they're in the physical therapy business, the process is run, the person is improved. They don't need to come back. Great. You haven't lost them, you've achieved the goal. But we... And in the case of my coffee business, we lose a lot of our customers to competitors, and we're constantly back and forth, taking them from competitors, they're taking them from us. Whoever's gaining market share is getting a little bit more than the competitors because of what they've done. But what if we never lost a customer?

0:25:38.4 Travis Timmons: Yeah, that's a great way to look at it. And that's one of the other metrics that we really measure. And that's why arrival rate is the thing we're going after because there's a strong correlation between arrival rate. So they might cancel a visit but then come for all the rest, or they might cancel two, but then come for all the rest. Strong correlation to arrival rate and a high outcome and they go home and they're better, to your point.

0:26:04.3 Andrew Stotz: Yeah.

0:26:05.7 Travis Timmons: But the industry data right now is pretty poor in physical therapy, for example. Current data shows that 80% of patients that start don't finish their plan of care. That's horrible. [laughter]

0:26:19.8 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, it's not just that industry. I mean, I do a lot of courses that I moved online and if you do just a standalone on demand course, the average in the industry is 90% of people do not complete that course.

0:26:36.0 Travis Timmons: Wow. Yeah.

0:26:36.8 Andrew Stotz: And so I asked the question, how do we improve that? And I was able to get to about 50%, but it was basically designing a cohort-based course, guiding them, dripping content, holding their hands, holding them accountable, having all of those different things, but then my goal in my teaching is to deliver the transformation. It's not just to deliver the information. And this way I was able to get closer to my objective, which is the transformation, not the information. So, yeah. Well, if you want to wrap up, any last things you want to say about it and then we'll wrap up this great discussion.

0:27:20.4 Travis Timmons: Yeah. No, I mean, it's been fun working on this offsite. I think one of the things I've learned through the Deming journey, and preparing for these offsites as a leader, a lot of the work... Most of the work happens before the offsite. And I've been to offsites, I'm sure you have too, where there's a very little preparation put in by leadership. And just some slide decks put together. So that's one of the things I've found through the Deming journey, is appreciation and who's responsible for the system, at the end of the day, it's me, something I take very seriously. So the pre-work and having a process by which to, by what method, something I've heard many, many times, by what method are you going to have this offsite? But the pre-work, if somebody's out there looking at kind of starting offsite or they have had offsites and they haven't gone well kind of to your point earlier for your online learning modules or consulting that you do, it's like, but what's the outcome? So if these meetings don't produce meaningful outcomes, then it's a waste of time and resources.

0:28:42.8 Travis Timmons: So we take this very seriously leading up to the meeting. It's hours and hours and hours of prep time. And then the offsite day is kind of almost relaxing for me. I'm just capturing data as the team comes in, so it's fun. It's a lot of fun. Then we leave with a PDSA or two.

0:28:59.4 Andrew Stotz: This is great. Well, I really appreciate this discussion and getting down into the weeds is I think very valuable for all of us as we all try to continue to implement the teachings of Dr. Deming. So, Travis, on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this discussion. And for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming, which is, "People are entitled to joy in work."

Travis Timmons shares with host Andrew Stotz how a decade of frustration running his physical therapy practice turned into joy once he discovered Deming's philosophy and embraced systems thinking. Through PDSA cycles, clearer processes, and genuine team involvement, he transformed Fitness Matters from chaotic growth to a scalable organization getting stellar outcomes. His story shows how small businesses can create stability, joy in work, and remarkable results by improving the system rather than pushing harder. TRANSCRIPT

0:00:02.1 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today I'm here with featured guest Travis Timmons. Travis, are you ready to tell us about your Deming journey?

0:00:19.7 Travis Timmons: Hey Andrew, thanks for having me. And yeah, very excited to share our journey and how impactful it's been on both our company, but also me personally and my family. So, super excited to kind of share where we started before Deming and where we're at today. So I'll just dive right in if that sounds like a good...

0:00:39.9 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. And I think just for the audience here, I'll just mention that Travis is physical therapist, founder and president of Fitness Matters in Columbus, Ohio, going on his 27th year of business. And you know, you and I have had some discussions. You've had a lot of great things that you've written and we've gone through and I think it's really an exciting story, particularly for a small mid sized business owner who's just frustrated as hell that things aren't going the way that they want. And I think your frustration a long time ago was a driving force. So I'm excited for you to share your story. So yeah, take it away.

0:01:22.6 Travis Timmons: Yeah, very excited. Yeah, 2000 is when we started, January 2000. So coming up on 27 years, as you mentioned, do physical therapy and wellness. And the first 10 years I was in business, pretty good at being a physical therapist. Started my own business and had no idea how to run a business. I knew a lot about physical therapy, but just kind of shooting from the hip in regard to business. Spent about a decade struggling, frustrated. We were growing, but growing slowly, growing chaotically. No process, it was just a, it was a heavy burden, to be honest with you. We were growing, but it was kind of Herculean effort on my part.

0:02:10.1 Andrew Stotz: I'm just curious how you were feeling at that time. Like there's gotta be a better way or this is the way business is and I just gotta muscle through this or how were you feeling at the time?

0:02:21.0 Travis Timmons: I was feeling frustrated and isolated. Didn't quite know where to turn. Yeah, I guess that's how, and just a burden. Didn't want to let the team down, I did not want the business to fail. I knew we had something different to offer. Just really had no idea how to scale that in a professional way. And along the journey was very fortunate to have a client who had a very successful business, took me under his wing. Ray Crook is his name. Started mentoring me and as luck would have it, he was familiar with Dr. Deming and a very long story short, after several meetings with him over time, some mentoring, I'd read the book along the way, the E-Myth Revisited and had some learnings from that book that really jumped out at me and came to the conclusion, both with reading that book and some feedback from Ray of basically, hey, it's time to grow up and turn this into a real business. If you're going to do this, let's do it right. And at that, around that time he introduced me to Kelly Allen with the Deming Institute. And you know, so we were 10 years into some chaos, had really no process, just would try stuff, see if it stuck or didn't.

0:03:43.5 Travis Timmons: If that didn't work, didn't really have any way to measure if stuff was working well. So really just a lot of chaos. And became introduced to Deming through Kelly Allen about 10 to 11 years into our journey and man, was that a breath of fresh air in terms of like having a direction to go in. After a few meetings with Kelly, him getting a better understanding of what was important to me, I think him just really understanding that I was serious about wanting to turn our organization into a large, professionally run and well run organization that would have a positive impact on people's lives, both team members and clients. I think he kind of, I think that we were so bad off he took pity on me to begin with, just to be honest with you, and he was like, man, this guy needs a lot of help. He could do some good in the world with what the services they have to offer. But if he doesn't figure out how to run a business professionally, they're never going to scale.

0:04:44.0 Andrew Stotz: And it's interesting that you reached out. I mean, there's a lot of people that are stuck in that situation and they really don't, either they don't reach out or they're afraid to reach out or you know, maybe they think there's no solution or nobody's going to help me. And you know, certainly when you're small, you also don't have huge budgets to hire people to come in and fix your business. You know, I'm just curious, like what drove you to even reach out?

0:05:09.8 Travis Timmons: I think I was fortunate enough to, A, have the mentor with Ray. And then secondly, have always been a believer in you got to check your ego at the door and know that you don't know everything. I think I've seen Business owners that are afraid to admit they don't know everything and so they keep things insulated and that just doesn't get you anywhere.

0:05:35.7 Andrew Stotz: Yeah.

0:05:36.3 Travis Timmons: So I just was fortunate kind of how I was raised as arrogance isn't a good thing, so check your ego at the door and learn from, learn from people smarter than you. And so I kind of took that fully at heart and like, all right, I have no idea how to run a business. I need to learn how to do that from really smart people. Read a lot of business books over the years, but the Deming philosophy, when I was introduced to that at the two and a half day seminar, went to that. I got to the Deming two and a half day in, I think that was 2013. So I was 13 years into the entire journey by the time I had met with Kelly, done some learning. And then at a time where the Deming two and a half day was offered in Ohio to where I could get to it, to your point earlier, budget plays into things for small businesses. So I was able to drive to that one and that two and a half day seminar just opened my eyes up to things that I knew in my heart but had no idea how to make that happen.

0:06:46.2 Travis Timmons: And what I mean by that, Andrew, is one of the key things I took away from that first two and a half day is Deming's belief that roughly 96% of issues within an organization are not people issues, but they're process and system issues. And that aligned with my worldview of if you hire good people, which we did, they show up every day wanting to do a good job as long as they have a good system and process to work within something that's professionally put together. So that was takeaway number one that really resonated with me. And the person responsible for said system is me. There's no passing the buck as the owner. And that resonated with me. It's a big responsibility to own a business in terms of the people and clients you're responsible for. And there's no passing the buck. You're responsible for the system at the end of the day.

0:07:42.3 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. I remember when I was 24 attending Deming seminar, when I was working for Pepsi, and it was a little bit different situation than yours. I could see, though, the same thing resonated with me. I could see that people were hemmed in by the system. And even though many people in the factory had really good intentions and they wanted to do a better job, they literally couldn't because they didn't have the tools or the budget or the this or the that. And a lot of times it's easy for senior management, particularly in a big company, to say figure it out, your job is to figure it out. But that only goes so far and there's eventually a point of exasperation for people working in a company that, like, I just, there's a limit here and I'm not going to kill myself trying to do something that I can't change. And so it just, I was coming from a very different perspective as an employee in a huge company versus you at a perspective of, this is my company, I set the rules.

0:08:46.5 Travis Timmons: Yeah, can do whatever we want. And you mentioned something there. It reminds me of a quote from that first two and a half day, and it still sticks with me a decade and a half later. Almost a lot of businesses complain about the term. We have a lot of dead wood in terms of employees. And the quote, I remember Kelly sharing this, it's like, well, did you hire dead wood? Because if you did, that's on you. Or did you hire live wood and kill it and that's on you from your standpoint of, from a system. And I'm like, man, 100% true. And I hired, I had good people on our team, but we didn't have good processes to keep from killing that live wood I would say. So, yeah. And to your point on budget, yeah, I had and still do have quite a bit different budget than Pepsi. Right. So one of the other things that jumped out at me early on that made Deming very approachable and something I could engage with very easily as a small business owner was the concept of PDSAs, the Plan-Do-Study-Act.

0:09:58.5 Travis Timmons: That was a game changer for us because I was like, all right, I don't have to hire a big business consultant. We don't have to hire or pay for a bunch of software. There's very simple things we can do via the Plan, Do Study Act PDSA method that we can create systems or improve upon systems and those little experimental ways and not have to bet the farm. You know, you see a lot of businesses that try to go through these huge transformative activities, bring in a new software to fix all their problems. Things that are very expensive with no real way of understanding what their aim is, what their theory is, or even if it'll work. So, yeah, your comment on budget there, I think, is what makes Deming so approachable for any size organization, but the budget's really not a limit from the PDSA standpoint. So those were some of my key takeaways very early on on my first two and a half day Deming, it was an eye opener and just really resonated with how, how I saw the world in terms of from a human level. Just had zero idea as a physical therapist with no business training on how to implement and run a professional organization.

0:11:13.8 Travis Timmons: So as things evolved, kind of went from the kind of the term chaos to process. So after that two and a half day, I went back to our team, which was small at the time. I think we had, we were a very small company at the time. I think we had 10 employees, nine or 10 team members at the time and just presented to them like, hey, this is going to be how we run our organization. There's this thing I heard about this guy called Dr. Deming. Some of it's going to seem a little odd, but this is how we're going to do things. And just started out early on, like just with PDSA, educated them on what that meant and we're all going to work on things together. So immediately it started enforcing a culture of improvement and collaboration and voice. Rather than Travis just coming up with random ideas, we worked on them together, made the system visible and then put some experiments in place. I talked to them about operational definition. That was a new term to me and gave them some examples. We wanted every client to have a good visit with us.

0:12:29.2 Travis Timmons: What in the heck does a good visit mean? Right. We didn't have an operational definition of that, so we created an operational definition of this is a good visit at Fitness Matters. So those were some fun things early on.

0:12:42.3 Andrew Stotz: I'm curious. There's two things, the first one is for someone that really doesn't know anything about PDSA, the Plan, Do, Study, Act process or cycle. Could you give an example either of one that you did early on or one that you think is the best illustration of the application of PDSA so people can understand what you're saying, because I know it's a big part of what one of the, let's say, tools that you've used in your process.

0:13:10.1 Travis Timmons: Yeah, one of the early on ones we did that was fun to do with the team because it changed our pricing model for our private pay team. Quick example, like we do personal training and Pilates muscle activation technique. Traditionally in that world, people buy those visits one at a time or you'll buy a package of 10 or 20 at a time at a discounted rate, volume, volume pricing, right. So we had that, we had 10 pack and 20 pack of personal training. We had a 10 pack and 20 pack of Pilates, same for muscle activation technique. And we had clients that would do sometimes all three of those services, but for them to be able to optimize their discount, they had to buy a 20 pack of Pilates, a 20 pack of personal training, and then the same with muscle activation technique. So after learning some things with Dr. Deming at the two and a half day that Kelly presented at, it's like we got to be easier to do business with. Be easy to do business with and how can we do that? So our PDSA was how can we change our pricing model on the private pay services to be easier to do business with and optimize how clients can move in our system freely.

0:14:25.9 Travis Timmons: So part of the concept of PDSA is you trial it, you put your whole theory together of what you think will be true. How are you going to study it? How long are you going to try it? So we had four clients that we knew well, that we told them, we're trying this new pricing model. Would you be willing to experiment on this with us? So we didn't roll it out company wide. We just tried it with a small segment, and we called it Fitness Matters Dollars and the do the Fitness Matters Dollars package. Then the client could use that discounted bundle of money for any of our services. So the discount applied to any of the services they did rather than having to buy a bunch of different packages. So the beauty of it is you can try it small. Had we gotten it wrong, we could have thrown it out and only five clients would have experienced the error. And they knew they were part of an experiment and they were happy to help us improve. It was a big win. That was 12 years ago. That's still how we do our pricing today.

0:15:29.1 Travis Timmons: It makes it very easy for clients to optimize their health within our system and not have to spend a bunch of money with us and have a lot of monetary resistance moving about our system. So that's one example that comes to mind.

0:15:41.4 Andrew Stotz: That's a good one. And I think if you think about, let's say an accountant may say, well, but wait a minute, the cost of three different services is different and that's the idea of how do we simplify this for the client, and that's interesting. Now, did you write it down, did you go to a Whiteboard. How did you actually go through that process?

0:16:02.9 Travis Timmons: Oh, that's 13 years ago. You're testing my...

0:16:06.5 Andrew Stotz: Oh, well, you can think about a current one, too.

0:16:09.6 Travis Timmons: 12 years ago. Yeah. When we're doing a current one, we'll get together as a team. Like, we're having our annual team off-site the end of January. And we'll come up, we try to come away with three, maybe four PDSAs as a team, and we'll write it up on the whiteboard. What's the problem we're trying to solve? Another key quote I've learned from Kelly Allen over the years is "the problem named, is the problem solved." So we want to make sure we're naming the right problem first. What really is the problem? So we talk about that through our entire company so that I'm getting feedback from all pieces of the system and then we'll map it out. Sometimes we'll do fishbone charts to look where in the process are we trying to do an experiment? And then there's the PDSA kind of chart that we'll use for bigger ones so we can study it. What's our aim? What's our theory? What do we think is going to happen with this experiment? How long are we going to study it, and what's our expected outcome? So part of the PDSA magic, as you know, is what are you trying to accomplish by what method, in what time frame, and what do you think is going to happen so you can go back and test your theory after you've studied it? So, yeah, sometimes we, if it's something bigger system-wide, we put it down on paper. We have a PDF that's fillable for each new PDSA.

0:17:35.5 Andrew Stotz: And for some people listening, they may think, well, I mean, isn't that what business does? I mean like owner comes up with an idea and says, yeah, I think we could try this and see what happens. Right. And ultimately everybody's kind of poking in the dark in business. We're not given a manual nobody really knows what we're doing. What's the difference between the way that you are poking in the dark, trying to hey, let's try this, let's try that compared to the PDSA.

0:18:08.5 Travis Timmons: I don't think I learned that till my second Deming two and a half day. So the second time I went, I took some senior team members with me so we could get more eyes around what in the world is this Deming person, who is Dr. Deming? What's this System of Profound Knowledge? To answer your question, I think the realization I had that I didn't have before, kind of going down the Deming journey is I didn't view our business as an entire system. I lacked that awareness of system view versus pieces and parts view. Pre-Deming, there's a problem over here and you go chase that fire and then another problem pop up over here, and to your point like there's lots of books out there on how to solve problems or you know, you hear like there's books out there on ownership thinking. And you know, it's like, well, do you have a culture and a system and by what method do you give people the ability to have that ownership thinking? Yeah, I think that's was the big aha of looking at the entire system. Whereas previously I was looking at it in silos and only trying to solve problems when a fire arose rather than system operationally efficient, trying to get efficient and optimizing the entire system. So that was probably one of the big aha's for me. Didn't happen day one. But as I got to understand Deming more, the system view of how it all has to be working together for optimization just changes your lens totally.

0:19:51.5 Andrew Stotz: So you've talked about PDSA, you've talked about operational definitions, you've talked about systems thinking, three core principles. One last thing on PDSA is like, I wonder what percent of the total value of doing PDSA comes from doing PDSA. In other words, the actual part of forcing yourself to get people in a room to discuss what's the problem, the Fishbone diagram, think about what's our aim, what's our theory, what's our hypothesis? Let's write that down. How are we going to study that? How we know if our hypothesis was true and you know, that type of thing. And sometimes I, after listening to you, I was thinking it, I suspect that a large amount of the final benefit you get from a PDSA is really front end loaded in all the work that you do to set it up.

0:20:48.3 Travis Timmons: Yeah, yeah. Going back to your comment earlier Andrew, on when you were at Pepsi, if I heard you correctly, you didn't really have the ability to share voice or to have an impact on the system. I think you're spot on, the PDSA itself, a couple things, number one as a small business owner, you got to check your ego at the door. Your team sees stuff happening that you don't have visibility on and they're probably going to have better ideas on how to fix it than you might if you're removed from it a step or two. And then the culture of like, oh, Travis is going to listen to my ideas. I find value in that. And then when we implement a change, like nobody likes change. Right? But when you've worked on it collectively as a team and you're ready to move forward with it, that's a game changer. You're not pushing a string at that point. Everybody's leaning in because they understand they're part of the solution and you're allowing that. Where a lot of businesses are top down, command and control, that doesn't usually work very well. So yeah, I think you're spot on, Andrew.

0:22:02.5 Travis Timmons: I think that so much happens with the PDSA process from a culture and team involvement. And if you don't have that, you're going to have a hard time retaining team members, in my opinion.

0:22:16.9 Andrew Stotz: So you look like a pretty relaxed guy compared to probably what you were like many years ago when this all was going on. Maybe take us through. Okay, so you're implementing these things and what's happening, what changes are happening, what transformation is going on with you and with your organization?

0:22:36.9 Travis Timmons: Yeah, so it's a multi-year process that we went through. Still a lot of work, you know, it's not like, hey, this just solves every problem. It just changes all the lenses you look through and you have a by what method path. Here's how we are going to think about our business. So that got rid of a lot of confusion for me. I knew how we were going to go from this size business to my, we had a BHAG, Big Hairy Audacious Goal from Good to Great. We wanted to have four facilities. At the time I went through Deming, we had one. We wanted to have four facilities or more to see if we could replicate our high level of care, team member engagement, all those things. So we were working, I was working just as many hours then. It just was not frustrating, it was exciting. It was a lot of collaboration that was energizing and everything as we scaled got easier. I was not going to be able to scale our business with what I was doing because had I scaled it, the headaches would have just been out of control. The loss of revenue, like there would have just been so much inefficiency on our organization.

0:24:00.4 Travis Timmons: So I would say for that next from 2013 through 2018, we got really locked in. So we spent about, I was a little conservative at the time. I was also in Army National Guard, so had a trip across the pond and just wasn't quite at a point where I could financially roll the dice and start multiplying locations and stuff like that. But around 2018, 2019, we got to the point where the team knew Deming well. I felt like we put a lot of systems, processes in place that were replicatable and I'm like, all right, here comes a real big PDSA. We're going to go get another clinic, we're going to go do another location, and we're going to test it. So that was a big PDSA. A lot of the ones we had done up to that were small. At some point you got to go a little bigger. And we were very confident in our model. So we acquired a practice in our town and like, hey, 80% of what they do is what we do, 20% is not Deming and service lines and stuff like that. So our theory, our PDSA, was can we acquire and put Fitness Matters, culture and process in place and grow?

0:25:26.3 Travis Timmons: And we did. We were very successful with that. I had team member retention with that. You know, a lot of times when you buy out another business kind of, people head for the doors, including the owner. That owner is still working with us six years later, then we started growing. It's like, all right, here we go. We can do another one. We can do another one. Put leadership in place at each location that understand Deming. We have our processes written down. We have operational definitions written down. People know what PDSA is. If they're new to our team, it takes them about six months to figure out what all these acronyms mean. So now we're going quicker since, you know, since in the last four years, as an example, we've tripled our physical therapy volume and doubled our private pay wellness volume. And in the service line, that's fairly fast growth. Probably not fast in the IT world, but in the service line growth in a very competitive market with how physical therapy and referrals work. There aren't many private practices left out there because it's so competitive where we're thriving.

0:26:41.4 Andrew Stotz: It seems like a hard business. It seems like a hard business to scale because there's this personal aspect, there's this interaction. You know, think about the exact opposite. I don't know, let's say Instagram or whatever. There's zero personal interaction. It can scale to billions. What are the constraints to growth that you feel in your business.

0:27:03.3 Travis Timmons: So constraints are reimbursement from health insurance, referrals from physicians, because health care is consolidating. So a health care system buys up smaller organizations, physicians, and then they have physical therapy within those systems and then they're highly encouraged to refer their physical therapy in-house. So that's a big challenge for us. So we don't, we're not owned by physicians. So we have to, we have to be the best at what we do for physicians and clients to want to choose us. So one of the things Dr. Deming really big on at quality, right. You have to continually have a system that has improving quality as you grow. And the way we grow is we have our outcomes. So how well a patient does at the end of a plan of care is roughly 35% higher than national average. We're 35% above the competition because of our processes, our system, our clients, how we look at integrating our clients from the first visit, the first phone call, follow-on visits, the entire, again, thinking back to that system conversation. And I think a lot of businesses, if they haven't been exposed to Deming, they miss that very critical piece of, if your sales isn't aligned with your implementation, isn't aligned with your billing process, anywhere along that service line, going through that fishbone, if it's all not good, like we could give excellent physical therapy care, but if we have a horrible billing system, we lose clients, end of story. If we have a horrible process of answering the phone to schedule evaluations, we're out of business.

0:29:00.0 Travis Timmons: Could have the best physical therapists in the world. So, yeah, that's what it's allowed us to do from a scaling and fun standpoint. And kind of now almost 27 years in we're at a point where, one of the litmus tests I had, like, if we do this well, if we really are all-in on Deming and it's system process definitions and we have it mapped out, this should run without Travis. And I see a lot of business owners are the choke point. Like they want to be the problem solver for everything. Everything has to flow through them, slow stuff down. You're not getting all of the information from your team that could solve problems so much quicker. So one of my litmus tests early on was like, if this really works well, the business should run without me present certainly for weeks and weeks at a time. And we're there. So that's why I look Relaxed now. I didn't look this relaxed a decade ago. So, it's fun, it's fun.

0:30:11.5 Andrew Stotz: I was looking for my Out of the Crisis book, but I went online and I wanted to highlight two of the 14 points because it's something that you mentioned about improving your process and all of that. And the first one is the first point and you know, it's the first point for a reason. And number one is "create constancy of purpose towards improvement of product and service with the aim to become competitive and stay in business and provide jobs." And number five is "improve constantly and forever, the system of production and service to improve quality and productivity and thus constantly decrease costs." So how do you embody that in your business, this, because when I first read the "constancy of purpose," I originally thought it meant pick your direction and stay constant with that. But then I started to realize, no, no, it's about how are we improving our product and service.

0:31:18.9 Travis Timmons: Yeah. So if you're not evolving with, technology is everywhere. Right. So if you're not paying attention to that within how it impacts your business and constantly trying to optimize how technology interfaces with your business, you're in trouble. So, like, we're right now getting ready to, I'd say once a year we do something fairly large within technology. Next year we're going to probably be changing our documentation software because there's a newer one out there that instead of having four different softwares we have to interface with, there'll be one. So that cuts down on rework, that cuts down on learning time for a new team member. There's less resistance for clients to understand how scheduling and billing work. So I don't know if I'm answering your question, Andrew, but I think from a standpoint of, I think it was Jack Welch I heard say years ago in an interview, "there's two ways a business is going. You're either growing or you're dying." And that resonated with me, there's no sitting still because if you do, you're going to get run over. So that's always looking through, can we make it easier to schedule?

0:32:40.0 Travis Timmons: Like right now we don't offer online scheduling for physical therapy. We will in 2026. And if we don't figure that out, it could be a reason that we would eventually go out of business. So I just looked through that mindset. There's always somebody coming after you.

0:32:58.7 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, yeah, that's...

0:33:00.3 Travis Timmons: Complacency doesn't work.

0:33:01.3 Andrew Stotz: I like to think about when I was young and I took a break and I stood still. I was standing on the flat ground, no problem. But now with my 87 year old mother, if she goes one day, two days, three days without movement, she's going backwards and it's harder to catch back up. And I start to realize she's operating on a plane that has been slanted against her. And eventually the slant will win against all of us. But in the world of business if you think, well it's not about growing or dying, well, there's someone out there trying to take your business by providing a better product or service. And that's just the reality that actually is invigorating to know that, and as Dr. Deming said to have a great competitor is such a valuable thing. If you're just poking around and you're doing okay in market you're probably not going to improve as much. So that the focus on improvement is something that I just find really fascinating. There's another question that I have which is these days, way I look at like the job of leadership is that it's like imagine a very strong magnet ahead of you and you're constantly pulled to that magnet.

0:34:37.7 Andrew Stotz: That magnet is the average, the consensus what everybody's doing. And you can't help but feel that force. And if you don't realize that you're being affected by that force, you're just being pulled into it. And what I mean by that is if you say, well, what if we tried something different, a different way of doing something and then you go to customers, no, sorry, your competitor does this. If you don't do that, I'm not going to give you the business. And so you're naturally drawn towards the center or towards consensus, but what you're doing is trying to pull your business and yourself and your thinking and your team away from that and saying there's a different way. And how hard is that?

0:35:24.4 Travis Timmons: It's hard. You have to have a different lens. Comment earlier, the problem named is the problem solved. One of the things, I love that analogy. I've never heard it described that way. In physical therapy it's very common for a physical therapist to have two or three patients scheduled at the same time because the problem that was named by most organizations is poor arrival rate. And if you have holes in your schedule you're not getting paid. So they look at that as a revenue loss. So to answer your question, that's where our industry is. Like you got a double, triple book or you're going to have lower revenue. Well, what that does is it increases, in my opinion, increases the likelihood that people are not going to come because they're going to have a bad experience, they're going to have poor outcomes. Physicians are going to stop referring because their patients aren't getting better. So problem named is the problem solved? And we pulled, I like that magnet. I'm going to use that one. But pulled away and said, no, if we provide one on one care at a very high level and the entire system works well for the patient, they're going to show up, they're going to continue to show up.

0:36:49.0 Travis Timmons: They're going to be happy to pay for the service we're offering because it's going to be exceptional. And because they show up, they're going to get better. And because they get better, they're going to go tell their doctor and then more doctors are going to refer to us. And that's thinking much differently. So that gets to the problem name, problem solved. Or using your magnet example, we are like, physicians come and talk to us all the time. They're like, are you really only seeing the patients one-on-one? Are you really doing that? Because nobody else says they can do that. It's like, yes, we are. That's exactly how we're doing it. And that's why you're here talking to us right now. Because it's so much different. You can't, there's some things that are just immeasurable. Like Dr. Deming talks about that quite a bit. We don't have to market, we don't spend... I shouldn't say, we don't have to market. We don't spend nearly the amount of money on marketing that our competitors do because we have physicians saying, hey, what's different over there? That's invisible. Right? That's invisible.

0:37:56.9 Andrew Stotz: And they weren't saying that in the beginning, but over the time they got that...

0:38:01.4 Travis Timmons: Yeah, yeah. It's a process, but you know, like the flywheel. We use that flywheel example. And now it's like, we're having a hard time hiring enough team members to keep up with the growth. One of the other thing's, "joy in work." Dr. Deming talks about joy in work a lot. And that's to your question earlier about continual improvement and jobs. So we exist, there's a lot of burnout in healthcare. You can't hardly open a business article.

0:38:37.7 Andrew Stotz: Seems paradoxical.

0:38:40.4 Travis Timmons: But it's because two and three patients at a time burdened with administrative stuff. So we also exist because, man, it's so fun when you have a team member join you from one of those other organizations and we've had eight new team members we've hired since July. And I have what I call a fresh eyes lunch with them a month in. And every one of them has said, my spouse can't believe how much happier and more enjoyable I am to be around. If that doesn't motivate you to want to continue to grow, I don't know what does. So that's the joy in work piece that Dr. Deming talked about a lot.

0:39:24.6 Andrew Stotz: And let's now talk about one other thing, which is I was just talking, I gave a speech last night in Bangkok to some business owners and then we had a dinner out and I was explaining to them that like, there's a disease that's come from America, not from Wuhan, China, in this case. It's come America, it's spread all across Thailand. And you really have to be careful with this disease. It's a deadly disease. And I said, and particularly Thailand, where there's harmony. People enjoy working together. They want a fun environment, they want to make friends at work. It's a little, it's very different from a US work environment where it's like, go there, deliver, go home, separate lives. That's not the way Thai people see work. And the disease is, the disease of individual KPIs and saying everybody, by optimizing each individual, we are optimizing the whole. And I'm trying to get them to realize like, there's another way. And I'm curious I'm sure if you're getting people from the bigger institutions and stuff, they're being KPI'd to death. And how do you, how do you manage the idea that I don't want to optimize the individual, I want to optimize the whole system, but yet I also want employees to know they gotta do a good job. So how do you manage that?

0:41:03.2 Travis Timmons: It's hard when somebody comes, because you're right, there's a lot of PTSD. I've got an example from today. So we turned on, within our system, there's a net promoter score that can be sent out to patients automatically after their first couple visits with us. And we turn it off and on from time to time just to get the voice of the customer, right. I think Dr. Deming talks about the voice of the customer and who all. So it's like, hey, we haven't done that in a while. We're going to turn it back on. And there were several therapists that were like, wait a minute, you're scoring me? And then if I get a low score, I'm in trouble. So we have to spend a lot of time educating the team on some of that old head trash. It's like, no, this is to study the system and where we can improve either improving our operational definition, whatever it is, give the team member tools on how to handle a difficult client. But to your point, you have, people's brains are so wired in the way you just described. So part of it is we, we let them know up front, like, here's why we don't have employee of the month at Fitness Matters.

0:42:15.4 Travis Timmons: Here's why we don't have the parking lot for employee of the month at Fitness. Like, all of those rewards, how all of the negative unintended consequences that can go along with that. Like even giving an individual an award in a group setting. Like, we had a team who's one of my clinic directors, the business she came from before, they had like a WWE, like the heavyweight wrestling, big champion belt. They had one of those. And each week somebody would give the belt to whoever they thought was the best employee that week. And she didn't get it for like two months in a row. And she was crushed. She's like, people don't like me. So it's fun to talk about the negative unintended consequences of the individual reward, the individual competitions. We could talk for an hour about motivating via monetary motivation. That's probably a whole nother podcast. But to answer your question, we have to make it very known why we don't do those things. Because as much as people hate some of that stuff, they also expect it. Yeah, why don't, why don't we have employee of the month? You mean I'm not going to get in trouble if I get a low net promoter score from one patient?

0:43:34.3 Travis Timmons: It's like, no, we know we hire good people. We know you do your best job every day. They could be upset because their billing didn't go correctly. So we just need to know. So I don't know if that answers your question, but it's a big thing because you do have to still track KPIs or you're out of business. Like, you do have to know what's going on within your system to measure it. It's just that concept of we all are responsible for the output of the system and the system has to produce exceptional results.

0:44:06.7 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, yeah.

0:44:07.9 Travis Timmons: And we have to have a weight by what method. We have to have a system to create whether you're doing plumbing, electrical work. Like if you're going to scale a business, you have to have a repeatable product that can scale.

0:44:23.2 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. And one of the answers to that too is if you believe 94% of the problems come from the system, then even when an employee is identified as having a bad net promoter score, then the question is, does the 94% apply in that situation? Well, generally yes. And so let's dig in. I have some people that ask me like my, one of the guys last night at this event works for a bank and they have put KPIs into everything. And he was saying, I just can't escape. But another guy was like, well, I have my own business and I can do what I want. I've implemented KPIs, but what should I do? I said the first step in disentangling yourself from this individual KPI situation is just to disconnect compensation to the KPI. So just right there, there's still incentive for the employee to do something bad for the organization to do their best. But when you remove that compensation aspect, you've really taken away a huge part of the incentive. So even if you have to keep KPIs, take away the tie to compensation and then they say, well, that's the whole reason why we're supposed to do it is have the tie to compensation.

0:45:44.5 Andrew Stotz: And I said, yes, it's a little bit of a circular references cannot be resolved.

0:45:49.7 Travis Timmons: Right. Yeah. And I think we even give examples to the team as much as we can around why we don't do those type of things. Here's what would happen. And most people have worked in organizations when you point it out to them. So again, Dr. Deming talks about making the system visible. Point it out to them. If I bonused you like you see this, this used to be a thing at car dealerships. When you're buying a car, hey, you're going to get a call to rate your experience with me. If you don't give me a 10, it's going to impact my pay. And you're like, what? So we talk about that like hey, the net promoter score. If we did the same thing here and bonused you on every 10, then you're going to be bothering your patients to fill that survey out. Or if you're afraid they're going to give you low score, you're not going to, you're going to encourage them not to do it. And then me as the owner, I'm not going to hear about system breakdowns. So to answer your, I think it's an important thing that a lot of businesses like number one, don't tie compensation to your KPIs.

0:46:58.3 Travis Timmons: Like just, it's an output of the system and then explaining it to them and giving examples over time because their brains even though they hated it, like we don't do performance reviews, annual performance review. And people hate them. And I still get asked like hey, when are you doing my annual performance review? It's like do you want to do one? Well no.

0:47:21.2 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. We dropped performance appraisals in 2016 in my coffee business here in Thailand and we never looked back. We didn't come up with any particular stunning replacement. We just knew it was bad and we were willing to just walk away from what was bad. I want to wrap up and just get into the... What are the, let's talk about kind of extrinsic versus intrinsic. There's some external factors that we can say this Deming implementation provided these benefits to our company and then there's this internal or intrinsic benefits that you're getting. Maybe you can go through some of those benefits of where you're at now, what you're able to do now and we'll close it on that note of kind of what's the hope for somebody that's stuck in the situation. They're the entrepreneurial seizure, they're the technician, they're great at physical therapy, they start their physical therapy business and they're just scaling chaos basically. Tell us about, give us hope.

0:48:37.8 Travis Timmons: Yeah, no, happy to, the reason I have had the opportunity to speak in a lot of different settings about Dr. Deming and the reason I do it is because it's brought so much joy to me personally and to a ever growing team. It's having a positive impact on lives and the more I can do that, that gets to the intrinsic motivation. So the joy in work, there's a lot of bad organizations out there that just suck the life out of people. So that's my intrinsic motivation at this stage of the game of if Fitness Matters is bigger, so more jobs, there's more people having a positive experience in life and our outcomes being 35% higher, our community is getting healthier. So that's the intrinsic motivation at this stage. It's fun. I know again, we're not perfect. So continuous improvement to our conversation earlier. But the intrinsic motivation is the busier Fitness Matters gets, the busier Fitness Matters gets because of high outcomes and it's positive experience for more people in life. Extrinsically, I guess that gets to community outcomes. So that's intrinsic and extrinsic. You know, extrinsically, if you get this figured out, it's very easy to scale a business.

0:50:06.0 Andrew Stotz: And tell us about your scale, where are you at or where are your averages versus national averages? You know, what have you accomplished that's driving that external factors, let's call it.

0:50:19.4 Travis Timmons: Yeah. So a couple things. One, externally, a practice like ours nationally on average is growing at 9% to 10%. We're currently clipping along at 25% to 30%. So you know, that flywheel effect and chaos is no longer there. So we have process, so it's easier to scale. The other extrinsic piece is because of our outcomes and continuing scale, we're able to negotiate better rates with our insurance companies to reinforce our strong desire to keep one-on-one care model. So Deming talks about who all is part of your system. So insurance companies are part of our system and we don't have a lot of control over them. But because our data is so powerful externally, we have been able to negotiate higher rates than most of our competitors because our data speaks for itself.

0:51:23.2 Andrew Stotz: Faster growth, the ability to negotiate better terms because you're delivering better product and service generally means higher profit margins.

0:51:34.2 Travis Timmons: Yes.

0:51:34.6 Andrew Stotz: Fast growth with higher profit margins generally means you're generating more cash and you're no longer in cash crisis all the time and you have resources to decide, okay, now we want to expand or we want to invest or whatever.

0:51:50.9 Travis Timmons: Right.

0:51:51.4 Andrew Stotz: Is that...

0:51:51.9 Travis Timmons: Yeah, the cash crunch was real those first 10 years. So yeah, to your point, when you get to the other side of that and process is a big part of that so you're having a whole counting process, but yeah, you get to that size. But yeah, the intrinsic piece, one of the reasons I talk about Deming as much as I can. I've got two sons that are in college. My hope is there's more companies in the world today than there were 10 years ago that know about Deming, because that means there's a higher likelihood that my boys will work at a Deming company. And just seeing what a lot of companies do to people, we as owners have a big responsibility, I feel, we have a big responsibility to have a positive impact on our employees. And you're, as an owner, are responsible for that, in my opinion. And if you get it right, man, is it fun to look in the mirror or sit down with a team member or their spouse and be proud of, be proud of what you built. That's at the end of the day, the intrinsic motivation.

0:52:57.9 Travis Timmons: If you can be proud of what your product is and proud of the impact you're having on your team to where you're not sucking the life out of them, but actually intrinsically motivating them. There's not much else you can accomplish in business that was worth more than that, in my opinion.

0:53:18.5 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, wonderful. That's a great way to end it. What's the likelihood that our children are going to be working in a Deming company? Well, that's the whole reason why we are here talking about it. So, Travis, I want to say on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute, I want to thank you for this discussion and of course, for listeners out there and viewers, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. This is your host, Andrew Stotz. I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming, and I believe it's probably one of Travis's too people are entitled to joy in work.

0:53:56.0 Travis Timmons: Love it. Love it. Thank you, Andrew.

0:53:58.0 Andrew Stotz: Yep.

How do we really know when improvement has happened inside a school or organization? In this episode, John Dues and Andrew Stotz unpack a clear, three-part definition of improvement and show why evidence, method, and sustained results matter far more than year-to-year comparisons. Their discussion offers a practical lens for leaders who want to distinguish true progress from noise and build changes that last.

TRANSCRIPT

0:00:02.4 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz and I'll be your host as we dive deeper into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today I'm continuing my discussion with John Dues, who is part of the new generation of educators striving to apply Dr. Deming's principles to unleash student joy in learning. The topic for today is, How To Define Improvement. John, take it away.

0:00:23.3 John Dues: Hey, Andrew. It's good to be back. Yeah, I think this is really interesting. Apologies on the front end. I'm a little bit under the weather, so I may sound a little raspy today. But you know, one of the things that's really interesting is there's lots of claims of improvement. In my world, there's lots of claims of school im- improvement. I would even go as far as to say that those claims are like a dime a dozen, something like that. And the reason I say that is not to be mean or anything, but you know, I think that a lot of these claims, they're not grounded any kind of reasonable evidence. And I think sort of even beyond that, that claims are often made without a logical definition of improvement. So I thought in this episode we could talk about a three-part definition that makes it really easy to tell when improvement has occurred and just as importantly, when it hasn't.

0:01:21.9 Andrew Stotz: Exciting.

0:01:23.2 John Dues: Yeah. When I talk about this, I always like to start with a challenge. So, you know, if I'm in a workshop, I'll say, you know, get out a piece of paper and a pen so the listeners could do this as well and think about, you know, the successful improvement efforts that you've led throughout your career. So in my world, maybe it's increase in state test scores or maybe you improved student enrollment in your school. Maybe you did a better job at retaining the teachers in your school. It could be any number of things. Maybe it's decreasing student office referrals or decreasing chronic absenteeism rates in your school or your school system, which are two things on everybody's mind coming out of the pandemic especially. And I tell people, just create a list of those instances. And I give them a few minutes usually. And typically, people come up with eight, nine, 10 or so instances of improvement, whether that's teacher in their own classroom or principal in their school, or a superintendent thinking about the whole system. Then I say to them, now what I want you to do is pause and think, what does it mean to improve?

0:02:46.7 John Dues: What do you mean by that? And that really brings us to this important question. What is improvement? You know, and this was... Full disclosure, when I started thinking about this, I stumbled across the definition in a book I'll show you here in a second. But when I stumbled across this, you know, there was some conviction. And I think that probably a lot of educational leaders or just, you know, leaders in general would say, actually, I never really thought about that. I don't have an answer for this seemingly simple question. And like I said, I didn't have an answer to that question when I really thought about it, when I stumbled across the definition, probably for the majority of my career, maybe the first 20 years or so, if I'm at year 25. So, yeah, the first two decades, I would not have had a clear answer for that simple question. Now, I turn to this seminal work in the field of improvement science called The Improvement Guide. I'm sure a lot of people are familiar with this. And I'll share my screen so people can see the book and kind of share an interesting story about the book. And, you know, when you're... Can you see my screen all right now?

0:04:06.9 Andrew Stotz: Yep.

0:04:08.1 John Dues: So you can see, if you're just listening, you can see the covers of two books. So on the left, a lot of people will recognize The Improvement Guide. But there's an arrow up there. It says, second edition. And a lot of people will recognize that book. Probably less people. Maybe some people that have been doing improvement work for maybe three decades will know this other book, the first edition of The Improvement Guide. It's this purple book on the right, if you're watching. But there's this interesting anecdote that I actually think I might have heard maybe on your podcast when some of the authors were on. And almost as soon as they wrote this first edition, this purple edition, they got this note from this professor in Brazil, and it said, I know you guys are really big into improvement, and you're really big on operational definitions, but you've written this whole book on improvement, and nowhere in the book have you defined what you mean by improvement. So, you know, talk about a swing and a miss.

0:05:15.0 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. And just for listeners out there, you can go to the podcast.deming.org and you can search for quality as an organizational strategy with Cliff Norman and Dave Williams. We didn't talk about The Improvement Guide specifically, but definitely it's worth listening to those two.

0:05:33.3 John Dues: Yeah, and I think... So any of us that feel bad when we come to realize, like, how obvious that question is when we've made claims of improvement and don't have a definition. So even these guys that were writing a whole guide about how to do improvement missed as well. You know, and it's pretty obvious when you think about it that The Improvement Guide, that a book like that should have a clear definition for the central concept. That's right in the title. But it should be just as obvious to leaders that they also need a definition of improvement. And that definition should really precede any improvement claims then. So I thought it'd be interesting to take a look at the definition that the authors came up with in their improved second edition.

0:06:20.9 Andrew Stotz: Improvement in their improvement.

0:06:24.4 John Dues: Improvement in their improvement guide. Right. And the definition is really easy to follow. It's got three parts, and now I've adopted it into my own improvement work. But what they've said is improvement is "a change that alters how work is done or the makeup of a tool that produces visible positive differences relative to historical norms and relevant measures and it's sustained into the future." So we can kind of break that three parts of the definition down now. So in part one of the definition, what you have to be able to do is point to a change that was made that led to better results. You know, that could be a new tool you're using, a new approach, a new framework, maybe it's a new staff role, but something has to change, a new method, something has to change in what you're doing. So that's sort of part one of the definition. Part two is performance improved after the change compared to past results. So that also should be fairly obvious. So you did something different. You noted when you started this new thing, and at some point in relative proximity to when you tried that new thing, the data improved.

0:07:54.2 John Dues: You know, it went up. If that's the direction of good or, you know, if it's like chronic absenteeism or office referrals, you want it to go down. But you see that in the data after you've made this change, that's part two. And then part three is that improvement after the change was sustained into the future. So it wasn't just a temporary thing because you were paying a lot of attention to it, but you made the change. The data improved over time after you did this new thing, and then it kept going into the future.

0:08:27.9 Andrew Stotz: Which is the hardest part, by the way.

0:08:30.1 John Dues: The hardest part, I'd say too. Assuming you could bring about improvement, then sustaining it into the future, especially as you maybe take your eye off it a little bit, and then work on something else, that's very, very difficult.

0:08:43.1 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, the initial seizure that you get into of making change can be really powerful compared to the energy, you know, devoted to sustaining it.

0:08:55.9 John Dues: Yeah.

0:08:56.3 Andrew Stotz: And you could also argue, if something's not easily sustained, was it really an improvement?

0:09:02.8 John Dues: Right. I think that's just right. And, you know, what I do in the workshop then is then after I go over the definition, I ask people, now, think back to your list of successful improvement projects. You know, and for the listeners, if you pause, then you created your own list and then you heard that definition. Then I just asked the participants, would you revise your answer after reading this definition of improvement? And ask people, okay, now how many things, how many items are on that list? And a lot of people, if they're being honest, are left with none, actually. You know, because this definition sets a really high bar. But I think it is the right bar if you're actually interested in improving outcomes in your school, in my case, or in your organization. And I think what you often run up against is, this is kind of a simplified version of most improvement claims. But in my world, you hear claims, something like, you know, our state test scores improved. Right. The translation is, this school's or this year scores are higher than last year's scores.

0:10:25.8 John Dues: But that claim falls really short of that definition. Well, okay, the scores are better than last year. Well, what did you do to make them better? Also, a single data point is probably not enough to back that claim up. Let's instead turn to an example that meets the definition, and it'll help you understand how powerful this can be in practice. So, you know, let's suppose that you've been working to increase some student outcome measure. Let's say we gather it on a monthly basis, whatever this thing is. So now I'm going to show you a visual that has some data plotted over time. And the three parts of the definition of improvement have been labeled right on that chart. And having this visual is very, very powerful. This is when this definition really clicked. So I'll go ahead and share my screen again with you. All right. Can you see that chart?

0:11:35.9 Andrew Stotz: Yep.

0:11:36.9 John Dues: Okay, great. So first off, if you're watching that, you can just see very quickly that the claim of improvement has been substantiated with evidence. So for the people that are just listening, we have some data plotted over time for the first 15 months and it's kind of traveling along around an 80% average. And then all of a sudden that data shifts up substantially to now it's humming along at about a 91, 92% average. And it's much harder to sort of internalize this without being able to see it. But I'll do my best to explain it. So the first thing was, part one. There's a clear point in time where a change was introduced. So that's labeled as part one. Right in between month 15 and 16, there's an arrow there on the chart where some change was made. If this is a teacher's data, maybe they made some type of change to how they were instructing the class.

0:12:55.3 Andrew Stotz: In research, sometimes we'll call that time zero.

0:13:00.6 John Dues: Time zero, absolutely. And then second again, there's this clear difference in results after the change was introduced as compared to historical results. So that's part two. So there's this positive, visible difference relative to historical norms. Now, you know, this is an example for illustration purposes and I wanted to make it very clear, like this delineation, this definition. But in reality, you know, if you're a teacher trying this new method, for example, it might be that even if the method is successful, you're not maybe going to see the results immediately. Right. But this illustrates, what you're hoping to see. And it makes it very clear. And then part three on here, that improvement was sustained in the future. So you see the bump in scores in this, whatever this outcome is in this hypothetical in month 16. But it wasn't just months 16 and 17, it carried forth for another 15 months at this much higher level. So you can very quickly start to see there's this profound difference between most improvement claims and one supported by this three part definition. It makes it very simple. When do we introduce something new? And then what does the data look like over time after an initial baseline period?

0:14:36.9 Andrew Stotz: It reminds me of something I often say to people, which is, do you ever make the same mistake twice in your business? And of course, everybody says yes. And I ask them, imagine if you never made the same mistake twice, how would that change the outcome of your business? And then we have a discussion about that. But the point is that most people just live in a world where they never are able to really sustain improved performance. They just fall back to the same things. And this chart is a good way of understanding, have we truly sustained improved performance?

0:15:24.4 John Dues: Yeah, yeah. And you have to have a method. You know, that's why Deming would frequently say, you can't just have a goal. You have to be able to answer the question by what method? So that's why part one of this definition was calling out whatever change was introduced. Because in this system, in that baseline period from month one through 15, while there are some ups and downs in that data, it's really just bouncing around that 80% average. And if you don't change something in that system, then you're very likely just to keep getting those same results over time. Some fundamental change has to be introduced so you have a stable system, but it's not satisfactory. So you got to change something. And then you're going to keep gathering the data to see if that change had an impact. So again, it's not rocket science. And it was pretty intuitive to see that definition in that improvement guide. And then actually this sort of chart I'm showing you with a three part definition combined with a control chart or a process behavior chart, I saw this in their latest book called Quality as an Organizational Strategy.

0:16:42.0 John Dues: And when I saw the visualization of the improvement definition, which was only in like text form in The Improvement Guide, then it all just clicked. Oh, this is so obvious what this definition actually means and how you could tell if something has improved or not. So I think anybody that's doing improvement work, you know, whether you're in schools or some other type of organization, and whether you're the superintendent of the entire system, the principal of the building or the teacher in a classroom, all of you can use this. A student could use this, an athlete could use this. This definition, it doesn't really matter. It's sector agnostic and can be applied, you know, pretty widely against different contexts. But it makes it very clear how to tell when things are getting better, how to tell if, you know, maybe things are going the other direction or if they're just staying the same. Makes it very, very clear.

0:17:36.8 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, I mean, it's a great thought exercise that you started with that, you know, got me thinking and I'm sure for the listeners and the viewers got them thinking, like, what changed? Where have we really improved? And one of the hard things in business, and I'm sure it's the same in teaching, is that ultimately personalities and ultimately it's about the people, whether that's business or teaching. And one of the things that you can say about people that's commonly said, whether it's true or not, I'll leave you to think about that. And that is people don't change.

0:18:19.8 John Dues: People don't like to change.

0:18:21.1 Andrew Stotz: They don't like to change. And I would argue that they rarely change.

0:18:25.9 John Dues: Yeah, yeah, no, I would agree with that.

0:18:28.5 Andrew Stotz: I mean, the whole mission of life is to get to a point where you don't have to change. That is the human body, the human mind is just like trying to get to that point.

0:18:42.6 John Dues: Yeah. Unfortunately, it doesn't work.

0:18:45.6 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. And then you die.

0:18:50.1 John Dues: Yeah.

0:18:51.3 Andrew Stotz: But it just gets me thinking too, about... And for everybody, here we are at the... We're discussing this on the 9th of December. So we're getting near the end of the year, thinking about what we're trying to do next year and all that. And in my coffee business, as an example, we've had our shares of ups and downs, but we've tried to right the ship as far as making sure that we've got the right balance of profitability, the right number of staff, cash flow and a buildup of cash so that we have the resources to go after markets. And the question is, that I always have in my mind is, how do we prevent ourselves from slipping back into some old habits of maybe spending on marketing and sales and then not getting the delivery of that, and therefore the costs go up, but the revenues don't follow? How do we ensure that the improvements that we're making right now aren't just lost six months from now? And this starts to give me some ideas that I'm thinking about.

0:20:00.5 John Dues: Yeah. I mean, and once you get that improvement, like, how do you sustain it? How do you have the discipline to do that?

0:20:09.1 Andrew Stotz: Well, I think the first thing that this raises is, are we clearly measuring, first, whether the improvement happened?

0:20:19.3 John Dues: Yeah.

0:20:19.7 Andrew Stotz: And second, whether it was sustained?

0:20:22.8 John Dues: Yeah. And even before that, you know, just having a baseline. Most people have the data somewhere, but they haven't plotted it like this so it's clear what the typical performance is currently, a lot of people don't even take that step. You know, it's just last year, this year. Last month. This month.

0:20:39.8 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, that's good point. That's a good point. That's something you pointed out to me a long time ago about looking at, you know, my enrollments in Valuation Masterclass Boot Camp and saying, well, you need to understand, you know, what's the system you're operating in, and therefore, you've got to understand what that system can produce before you start thinking about, you know, what's your next steps.

0:21:01.6 John Dues: Yeah, yeah. And like I said in the middle of this episode, you know, this is a very high bar. This is not easy to accomplish. It takes discipline. It takes continual improvement. Dr. Deming talked about he liked using continual versus continuous because a lot of this would be discontinuous. You know, you have a focus, you may be improving an area, then you have to change your focus. But you can't keep your eye totally off this other thing. Like you were just saying, you have to kind of keep your eye on multiple things to keep an organization going. And that's part of the challenge of running an organization for sure. Be it a coffee business or a school.

0:21:39.9 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. It's interesting that we're talking about the definition of improvement long after we talked about the method of improvement, like PDSA.

0:21:50.5 John Dues: Yeah, yeah. And that's probably the best method I've come across. So, you know, in this visual that we're looking at, for people that can see it, you know, part one, a change was introduced. The most powerful tool that I found thus far is the PDSA cycle. That's where you would document the change. And again, this is for illustrative purposes, but in reality you probably have to run multiple cycles and kind of learn your way to a better system rather than you're probably not going to see this. Now, there are some things where you may see this start improvement between month 15 and month 16, but the reality is, in most situations that's going to take multiple rounds of PSAs and where there's sort of a gradual improvement over time. Again, you know, there are some things where you could see an improvement like this, but most stuff, it just takes sustained effort over time and continual learning and continual improvement type stuff.

0:22:51.4 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, I mean, this really helps me, and I'm sure for the listeners and the viewers to put PDSA in a very clear spot, which is, it's the tool for sustained improvement. Because you could imagine that in this chart where we have time zero and we have the past, let's say that's our starting point. We don't have any future data, but let's imagine that according to PDSA, we decided that we would try out and test out one particular method. And we find after testing it, no improvement, no change. Okay, that wasn't what we expected. Now we got to go back and adjust and then run the PDSA again. And then let's say we do that again and we find very little improvement. Okay, that wasn't what we expected. And our goal is to really try to get to a higher level of improvement. And let's say the third round, we get to a point where we get, oh, now this has sustained, you know this has produced improvement way beyond the others. The question is, can it be sustained? And that also has to do with the constraints of the system.

0:24:01.0 Andrew Stotz: Because if you don't have the proper, let's say, electricity, steady electricity supply, or you have problems with employees coming and going, bad training or whatever, you may find that you did make an initial improvement, but you weren't able to sustain it, so you couldn't really call it an improvement, it was more like a test.

0:24:24.0 John Dues: Yeah, yeah. These are all things that make improvement work so challenging, especially in a complex organization. Very, very challenging. No doubt. But I think this is probably a good place to wrap up and summarize. But I think just having this clear definition for the concept of improvement, I think there's sort of these three big ideas that I think from this episode that can put you on the right track. I think one is just recognizing now kind of being listening for this in your organization that most improvement claims lack evidence. So when you hear somebody in your organization make a claim, this went up, or this got better, or that got better, you know, ask for some evidence. How do you know? Let me see. Show me what you're seeing. How do you know this is improvement? So I'd call that sort of big idea one is, this idea that you need evidence.

0:25:27.7 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. The other thing I would take away from it, too, is actually in the process, you end up narrowing in on one thing. That chart is about one specific outcome.

0:25:42.6 John Dues: Yeah.

0:25:43.6 Andrew Stotz: And once you get so narrow to one specific outcome and you're tracking it and following it, it gets you more focused. And I think that to really get sustained improvement, you have to focus. And it's so easy to be distracted by the 15 things that need to be improved that you see as you walk down the hall in a school every day or as you... But in the end, true improvement is really hard. You can't improve 15 things. You can probably only improve one right now.

0:26:13.2 John Dues: Yeah, you gotta have a focus area for sure. What's the most important thing or the most important few things? Yeah. So the big idea one is, you know, from what I've seen, most of these improvement claims lack evidence. You need evidence. The second big idea is very simple. You know, you have to have this definition, and it's got to precede any improvement claims. Whatever your definition is, that this is the one I would use, this is the one I do use. But you know, before you can make a claim, you have to have a definition that clearly outlines when the thing has happened and when it hasn't. And in my mind, big idea three, is use this three part definition because it makes it so easy to tell when things have improved again and when things haven't. Yeah, after you apply these three big ideas, you know, I think you'll be able to answer the question, have we improved with conviction. You know, it makes it very, very straightforward. I like very straightforward things. And this is very straightforward.

0:27:14.8 Andrew Stotz: Yep. Most improvement claims lack evidence. John, on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this discussion. And for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. You can find John's book, Win-Win W. Edwards Deming; the System of Profound Knowledge and the Science of Improving Schools on Amazon.com. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with my favorite quote from Dr. Deming, and that is that people are entitled to joy in work.

What if more quizzes created more joy—not stress? Lee Jenkins shows host Andrew Stotz how Deming-inspired practices like random-concept quizzes, student-led charts, and "all-time best" celebrations turn classrooms into true learning systems that build confidence, motivation, and real understanding. A simple shift in method—massive shift in joy. (View the powerpoint referenced in the podcast.)

TRANSCRIPT

0:00:02.2 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz and I'll be your host as we dive deeper into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm talking with Lee Jenkins, who is a career educator in public schools, completing his full-time work as a school district superintendent. During that work, he was introduced to the teachings of Dr. Deming and has been applying those teachings to his life and work since. In his business, Crazy Simple Education, he helps people apply Dr. Deming's principles in their schools to bring joy back to learning, to help kids learn more. The topic for today is how educators have applied Dr. Deming's ideas to learning. Lee, take it away.

0:00:42.8 Lee Jenkins: Thank you so much, Andrew. It's amazing what Dr. Deming taught in five minutes. I've been able to teach that for over 20 years. It's just amazing. And then you see in the next slide, it was Lou Rhodes. And this is just a short little review of what we did on the first podcast. But he's the one that said, I think you're going to enjoy this. Little did he know how much I was going to enjoy that in 1990 when he said that. And then in 1992, heard Dr. Deming in person as the statistician. And he described in five minutes just a little touch of what was different about a classroom as opposed to all the other systems that he was teaching. And so over time, you're going to see how it's been implemented with great joy with so many people. He taught that education should have a learning system instead of an inspection system. And that's what we have, is an inspection system. The state departments of education inspect the schools and the teachers inspect the kids. We don't have a learning system. So if you think about that distinction, it's truly a learning system. And you're going to see that as we go through this today.

0:01:51.2 Andrew Stotz: Lee, I was just... After listening to you in the last episode and listening to some of our other great guests on the show, I talked to my students about this. And one of my students, after I went through it and talked about the random sampling as an example of questions to understand the level of knowledge that students as a group are getting, one of my students at this prestigious university I teach at in Thailand said, "So why are you grading us? "

0:02:26.1 Lee Jenkins: Yes. Yes. That's it.

0:02:27.4 Andrew Stotz: And I said... Lee, I need help. I gave my best answer and that is, "I decided that right now, the fight with the university to change the way it's done is not a fight I'm prepared to take. But what I'm going to do is try to deliver the best experience I can in the room." Now, that was a bit of a cop out, but that's part of... People who are listening and viewing this are also caught in a system, in a trap, an inspection system. So it's just great to hear you talk about this and it can help us think about how we can handle it.

0:03:09.9 Lee Jenkins: People say that education hasn't been improved for 50 years. Then think about it. We've had an inspection system for 50 years. Maybe that's the problem, right? So here's what Dr. Deming taught. Tell them what you want them to know first week of school. Here it is. You're going to give them a weekly quiz. The quiz is going to be the square root of the total number of concepts you want them to learn. So a teacher teaching a second language, 400 vocabulary words, they had 20 words a week at random out of the 400. It's simple, but it's crazy that you don't... People say, "How can you assess them on something you haven't taught yet? " You can, if you have a learning system. And then he said to build a scatter diagram and a class run chart. And let's look at those two just to review. The scatter diagram, and if you can't see this, it's just across the x-axis on the bottom. It says 1 to 14, which is for half a year. The y-axis goes from 0 to 10 because there are 10 questions every week in this classroom. And we have a dot by how many kids got 0 right, how many kids got 1 right, how many kids got 2 right. And if you look at over a semester, you can see all the dots moving from the lower left corner up to the upper right corner. So that's the scatter diagram.

0:04:29.7 Andrew Stotz: That's all the students in the class. That's not one individual student.

0:04:33.0 Lee Jenkins: That's not one student. It's the whole class because you're the manager of the learning of a classroom. He taught that. And then he said graph the total correct for the whole classroom.

0:04:46.6 Andrew Stotz: So you just did what he said.

0:04:49.8 Lee Jenkins: Yeah, add it up. It is simple and it is crazy. I mean, all the coaches who are listening to this know when you go to a game, you add up the total for every athlete. You add it up to get a total for the team. Then that same coach is in the classroom on Monday and they never think about that this is a team of learners. It's the same thing. Add it up. And they love it. And they help each other and they contribute and they celebrate when a struggling student helps the class out as much as a student that's advanced.

0:05:24.2 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. I mean we're social creatures, right? We want to be part of a group. We want to contribute. It's just such a clear principle.

0:05:35.0 Lee Jenkins: Yeah, it's simple. So then here's the expansion. Here's different things that happened over time with the process, and we'll share those with you. One was people said, well, ya know, my problem is not... It's partly they don't remember what I'm teaching well enough, but they clearly don't remember the prior courses. So this is a high school math teacher teaching geometry, and so she has half of her questions are coming from geometry because they're teaching geometry. But the other half of the questions come from the four courses they had in math prior because she knows they don't remember it. And then there's a secondary science department. The same thing. They said half of our questions for every quiz have to be from the prior courses, not just the current one. Because students think...

0:06:29.6 Andrew Stotz: Wow! That's fascinating. And before you go for that, so let's look at geometry. You've got these buckets. Before geometry is algebra two, and before that is algebra one, and before that's pre-algebra, and before that is math seven. I remember my pre-algebra class at school with Dr...Mr. Tyler. He was the football coach, and that guy was a slave driver. Even if you got the question wrong, if you structured your answering process right, you would get half points.

0:06:58.9 Lee Jenkins: Oh, okay. Yes.

0:06:59.6 Andrew Stotz: He helped me learn the structure and the order of solving algebra problems, but if I didn't do that well or I didn't have him as a teacher, I could end up in geometry not actually knowing that. But what the heck is this geometry teacher supposed to do if they find out that the class doesn't really understand some of the prior core principles?

0:07:21.7 Lee Jenkins: Well, they, obviously, they need to teach it, and so part of it they do. The other part of it is the kids don't want to forget the prior courses. If you just throw all these into a bucket and they don't say where it's from, they don't... Well, okay, I missed a question. But when you say, you're in 11th grade in geometry, and you missed the 7th grade question, they don't like that. So it builds, it's a visual. It's right in front of the room every day. They can see, I need to know all of this. And the science teacher is the same thing. The kids say, I'm in chemistry now. I don't need biology. Why do I need that? Until you see it right there in front of you every day, and you think, oh, I'm supposed to learn this.

0:08:12.9 Andrew Stotz: Gosh, it just brings me back to when I was in high school, and I really got frustrated because the pace was really fast, and I felt like I didn't fully understand the prior material, and now I'm on to the next. And that was, and I felt like I was building on a shaky foundation, and this is a part of addressing that.

0:08:33.7 Lee Jenkins: It is, absolutely. So that's one of the changes that was made. Teachers took and expanded that to the whole curriculum as opposed to only the course they're teaching.

0:08:43.0 Andrew Stotz: And just to think about that, is that in order to truly do that, you really want to have the math, the pre-algebra, the algebra, the algebra 2, and the geometry teachers all working on the same playbook.

0:08:56.2 Lee Jenkins: Yes, yes. And when we do make those lists for each class, there's no duplicates.

0:09:02.7 Andrew Stotz: Right.

0:09:04.3 Lee Jenkins: I mean, like with the science, I remember the biology teacher saying to the chemistry teacher, "You teach that? I teach that also." And they'd been teaching next door to each other for 10 years and didn't know it. So they have to say, who owns that one? So it's all a system that's tightly designed.

0:09:25.1 Andrew Stotz: And in the academic world of universities where I've taught, there's this thing that they want to give you independence to teach what you want in the way you want. I don't know about what's happening in schools these days, but is the curriculum pretty much set and therefore the teacher can't veer from that and therefore this would not be a problem? Or is it that, hey, every teacher's doing something different and it doesn't all work together?

0:09:53.6 Lee Jenkins: Right. What's the "what." The essential "what", needs to be agreed upon no matter who's teaching it. Now, on these lists, we don't put trivia. And trivia should be in the classroom. It's fun. It's interesting, but they're not accountable for it.

0:10:11.3 Andrew Stotz: Right.

0:10:11.7 Lee Jenkins: So it's what's essential for the kids to know. And the teachers, when they have time, the principal sets aside a day and said, okay, science department, get together, get this listed, what you want. They like that discussion and the agreement of what's expected.

0:10:30.1 Andrew Stotz: Yep.

0:10:31.8 Lee Jenkins: The next thing that was added, Dr. Deming did not talk about students graphing their individual progress. So this is a student run chart, not a class run chart. So you can see...

0:10:46.3 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, that's interesting. Before you even go into that, it makes me think about the factory. It was kind of accepted that the statistics guys would kind of run the run charts and management would look at it. It would be public, it wasn't hidden. But the idea of really bringing the accountability to the people on the production line is what this reminds me of.

0:11:10.0 Lee Jenkins: It's exactly the same, and the kids like making the graphs. When you see, this is a younger child, but it's done by a high school child, not all of them, but some of them, but who like to doodle, they become very, it's kind of pieces of art, but they own it. They own that learning. They can see how they're doing, and they're so happy when it goes up, but it goes down at times. Why does it go down? They went down because bad luck, because it's random. Sometimes you choose the hard ones, but overall, you see a progress of going up and up and up, and so that's why it's not an inspection chart. It's a learning chart. It's showing a picture of my learning.

0:11:58.8 Andrew Stotz: And just to be clear, the first two charts we saw were looking at the overall classroom, but now the chart you're showing is one student mapping their progress throughout the quizzes.

0:12:11.7 Lee Jenkins: Yes, every student does their own, and if the teacher is scoring the papers to give them back to them, the results, they have to change, a slight change, instead of putting how many, they put a plus at how many correct, because you're graphing the number correct.

0:12:30.6 Andrew Stotz: Yep.

0:12:32.8 Lee Jenkins: And then another thing is kind of a celebration, a thank you, when students do better than ever before. So if a student had two right and then three right, and then they finally had five right, they never had five right all year long, they do something for the kid quickly to just say, yay, this child went and hit the gong. Just means I did more than, got more right than ever before. So what's the power of that? Dr. Deming wants every student to win. And I've been in classrooms six weeks after school started, maybe four or five in that time, and say, "Is there anybody in here who hasn't had a personal best? " I've never had a hand go up. They all have by then. Now, so you can be a struggling student, you can be an advanced student, but they all have a record of doing better than ever before, and we have ways of celebrating that.

0:13:32.4 Andrew Stotz: And that also is the idea of the objective really here is to improve ourselves relative to our prior selves.

0:13:43.7 Lee Jenkins: Yes, you're in competition with your prior self, that's it, yes. And I would say it's even 1% of the time that I saw somebody twist that and make it into a bribe. It's not a bribe, it's a thank you. I'm so proud of you, it's a thank you. It's a completely different mindset. They want to do that. And if we look at the next one...

0:14:09.8 Andrew Stotz: And just to understand this one last thing is that, are you saying that in a classroom when a student hits an all-time high, they go up and bang the gong or the teacher bangs it or what?

0:14:19.3 Lee Jenkins: No, the kid does it, the kid does it. Or whatever's done. One, you know that in sports where they make a tunnel and the athletes run through that tunnel of other athletes. There was a classroom that did that. The kids made a tunnel and the ones who had an all-time best that week ran through the tunnel. Okay? And there's...

0:14:41.0 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. And you could do simple things. You could also just say, if you did an all-time best, stand up.

0:14:46.6 Lee Jenkins: Yeah, it could be... But we try to make it something fun.

0:14:51.3 Andrew Stotz: Yep, yep.

0:14:52.3 Lee Jenkins: Something that's enjoyable for them. And it depends on the age. Here's one, another classroom, they wrote their name on a shape when they had a personal best. If you go to the next slide.

0:15:05.4 Andrew Stotz: Okay.

0:15:05.8 Lee Jenkins: You will see there's a collection of probably 200 shapes. With individual kids, they wrote their name on it when they had a personal best. And see, it's everybody. And it's a graphic in the hallway that lets all the other classrooms see, look how much we're learning.

0:15:29.9 Andrew Stotz: Right.

0:15:30.3 Lee Jenkins: Because every time you have a personal best, you put your name. This happens to be a star instead of a feather, but they put it up there.

0:15:36.7 Andrew Stotz: Yep.

0:15:39.1 Lee Jenkins: And then here's a middle school. When they have a personal best, they write their name on the whiteboard. And the kids have made kind of a Scrabble out of it, a crossword puzzle, where they can use the letters from somebody else's name to make their name. They love it. And they particularly like it because their friends who happen to be in that classroom but a different period, when they come in, they see their friends' names. Again, it's everybody. It's simple. Write your name on the whiteboard when you have a personal best. And then this is a high school. They had the game Kerplunk. And if anybody's not seen that, it's a cylinder. And it has holes. About halfway up it has a bunch of holes. And you put straws through the holes. And then you put marbles on top. When a kid has a personal best, they pull a straw out. When you pull enough straws out that all the marbles on top come crashing down, that's why they call it Kerplunk. And then the class does something for a couple minutes of fun. But it's everybody.

0:16:49.0 Andrew Stotz: Right.

0:16:49.8 Lee Jenkins: Then here is, they added the word all-time best. That was an addition.

0:16:57.7 Andrew Stotz: Right.

0:16:58.1 Lee Jenkins: And this is a class run chart, like I showed you last time, where you add up the total for the whole class. But when the class has more correct than ever before, it's an all-time best. We use that word for kids also, and you'll see in school that the initials ATB are very common in the schools.

0:17:22.1 Andrew Stotz: Right.

0:17:23.3 Lee Jenkins: It's one of the most common things. And you can't see it, but I'm looking at this when they had 28 quizzes in the year, and there are one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight times during the year out of 28 that the class had an all-time best. Also, if you look at the x-axis, it's 28. Dr. Deming said every week, and it was changed to 28 instead of every week.

0:18:03.6 Andrew Stotz: Right.

0:18:03.9 Lee Jenkins: That was a huge deal for me because I knew that every week was too much. There's snow days. There's things that happen, and you just... In the schools, it's too much going on for it to be every week. But I also knew that every other week's not enough. Not for kids to really prove that they're learning. Plus, they like them. They want...

0:18:29.6 Andrew Stotz: So, what does the 28 mean? Why 28?

0:18:33.5 Lee Jenkins: It's seven times a quarter instead of nine times a quarter. That's why.

0:18:37.1 Andrew Stotz: Okay.

0:18:38.3 Lee Jenkins: So, out of a quarter, two times they didn't. And actually, the complaint the kids had was, why aren't we doing one this week? And so, in a sub-sense, it's only for the teacher to just kind of a sense of... It just eases up a little bit. For the teacher, not for the kids.

0:18:55.8 Andrew Stotz: So, in other words, rather than strictly tying it to a week, you tie it to the number of quizzes that you're going to do, and then you manage that.

0:19:08.6 Lee Jenkins: Yeah, and I've never heard anybody say they couldn't get the 28 in. It's reasonable.

0:19:12.5 Andrew Stotz: Right.

0:19:13.1 Lee Jenkins: Yeah. It's a reasonable...

0:19:16.3 Andrew Stotz: Just for people that don't recall, like myself, I can't even remember what numbers of days in the classroom and numbers of weeks in a class and stuff like that, can you just remind me what that is?

0:19:29.6 Lee Jenkins: Okay, in a year, the school is divided into quarters, and there's 36 weeks in the year. So, there's nine weeks per quarter, and we're quizzing seven of those nine weeks.

0:19:42.8 Andrew Stotz: Perfect, okay, got it. Okay.

0:19:46.5 Lee Jenkins: Now, here is something else that has been added, and it is the goal. And so, Dr. Deming talks against numerical goals, and we agree with that. That goal is not an artificial number. It's the best from the prior year. So, it's a real number. So, the students are trying to outperform the prior years.

0:20:18.6 Andrew Stotz: So, this is the best that the system could produce in the past period?

0:20:23.8 Lee Jenkins: Yeah, are we smarter than the kids that you had the last several years? Are we smarter...

0:20:29.5 Andrew Stotz: Am I teaching better? Are you learning better?

0:20:33.5 Lee Jenkins: No, it's a challenge. It's a challenge, and they are so excited when they do better than the prior years. So, how did they get so high up there? Part of it is because there are kids who get, on the quizzes, they get perfect, perfect, perfect, perfect, and it's kind of boring for them. And so, we've come up with... When you get them all right seven times, it could be five, it could be six, we've usually gone with seven, then you don't take the quiz anymore in the room because you've proven you know it. And then we give you a harder one.

0:21:17.0 Andrew Stotz: Right.

0:21:18.3 Lee Jenkins: The class gets credit for the quiz you didn't take, plus how many you get on the next one. So, that helps it to go on up because you've got kids that are, the word we're using is they test out. They've proven they know it.

0:21:34.9 Andrew Stotz: Yep. Yep.

0:21:36.5 Lee Jenkins: We use the, when I talk with the teachers, the flip of the coin statistics. If a kid gets a perfect score, you have a 50% chance they're lucky, and a 50% chance they know all the content for the year.

0:21:49.7 Andrew Stotz: Yep.

0:21:49.9 Lee Jenkins: You don't know what it is. After seven times, you're up to 99% sure they really do know all of it.

0:21:56.3 Andrew Stotz: Right.

0:21:57.1 Lee Jenkins: Yeah. Oh, this day, this is a run chart from a middle school, and they had one more right than ever before. They are beyond happy. And you will see kids in the rooms doing a chest bump.

0:22:20.2 Andrew Stotz: Yep.

0:22:20.4 Lee Jenkins: A kid that's struggling, and says, it was me. I'm the one that put us over the top. If it hadn't been for my two questions right, we wouldn't all be celebrating. And of course, if you don't count it, you'd never know as a student or a teacher that you had your best. Nobody'd never know.

0:22:43.3 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. Yep.

0:22:44.0 Lee Jenkins: Count it out and graph it. Oh, they're so happy.

0:22:48.2 Andrew Stotz: Yeah.

0:22:48.5 Lee Jenkins: So that... And then here is a run chart by grade level. This is 16 classrooms together.

0:23:01.5 Andrew Stotz: What does that mean, 16 classrooms?

0:23:03.9 Lee Jenkins: There's four science classes, four English, four math, and four history. And we took all of those questions right from 16 rooms and calculated a percent correct.

0:23:19.2 Andrew Stotz: So in other words, how we're learning as a school or how we're learning all the subjects, how would you describe that?

0:23:25.9 Lee Jenkins: This was grade seven.

0:23:28.3 Andrew Stotz: Right.

0:23:28.9 Lee Jenkins: This was for the grade seven teachers. They wanted to have a total for their grade level.

0:23:35.5 Andrew Stotz: And so it starts off on quiz number one, that students got 16% correct. That's quiz number one.

0:23:46.7 Lee Jenkins: Right.

0:23:46.9 Andrew Stotz: Or quizzes number one.

0:23:50.7 Lee Jenkins: For quiz number one. Right. You can't say week one, it's quiz one.

0:23:53.2 Andrew Stotz: Yep, yep. Sorry.

0:23:53.8 Lee Jenkins: And this is for first semester, because there's 14 right there.

0:24:00.4 Andrew Stotz: Yep, yep. And then by the time they get to quiz number 13, that's, or quiz number 13 for all four subjects brought together into one measure, they're at, say, they've gone from 16 to 55.

0:24:14.5 Lee Jenkins: Yes. So you can say that at halfway through the year, the seventh grade class, 16 classrooms, but seventh graders know half of the content. And you know it's in their long-term memory. They couldn't study the night before.

0:24:31.9 Andrew Stotz: Right.

0:24:31.8 Lee Jenkins: Because you don't know what's going to be chosen at random. They know half of the content.

0:24:37.8 Andrew Stotz: And interesting that we see kind of a linear rise. I wonder if there's an exponential rise towards the end as the students get totally pumped up and into it and they're learning more.

0:24:47.8 Lee Jenkins: They are. They want to get as close as they can. It won't land on 100%.

0:24:54.0 Andrew Stotz: Yep.

0:24:55.0 Lee Jenkins: Somebody's going to miss something, but it gets really close.

0:24:57.7 Andrew Stotz: Yep.

0:25:01.3 Lee Jenkins: Now here's something else we've added. Because Dr. Deming talked about the classroom, this is a whole school. And they're all taking a math quiz. It's an elementary from kindergarten through fifth grade. On Thursday afternoon, the teachers go in to their computer on a Google Doc and they put in how many questions their classroom got right on the quiz that week. It's all set up in advance and there's a total. And then on Friday, the principal announces if they had an all school time best, all-time best for the school. And you can see...

0:25:45.8 Andrew Stotz: And the number here is 3878 I see in quiz number 28. Is that the total number of correct answers out of accumulating all the different quizzes of quiz number 8, all the different classes that do quiz number 28?

0:26:00.4 Lee Jenkins: Yes. On quiz 28, they answered 3,878 math questions correct.

0:26:06.2 Andrew Stotz: And somebody could look at this and say, "Oh, come on, kids are just going to game this, right? It's just quiz questions and all that." Now, I think I understand why that's not going to be the case. But how would you explain to somebody that says that?

0:26:21.4 Lee Jenkins: Hey, as the kids get older... Let's go back. This is math.

0:26:28.0 Andrew Stotz: Yep.

0:26:28.5 Lee Jenkins: So the concepts are the same, but the questions are different. So they can't game it. And other subjects where it's not math, teachers tell me that three different questions per concept is enough and they don't game it. They can't. But if you only had for every question for the year, I mean, for every concept, if you only had one question, they would game it. They just remember the answer to the question.

0:26:58.7 Andrew Stotz: Right.

0:26:58.9 Lee Jenkins: Yeah. As they get older.

0:27:00.7 Andrew Stotz: And what would you say to some people that may look at that and say, "Oh, you're just teaching to the quiz or teaching to the exam? "

0:27:13.3 Lee Jenkins: Well, we're saying, here's what you're going to learn this year. University professors give out syllabuses. A syllabus is what you're going to teach, which is different from stating this is what the kids are going to learn. And so when you list what you want them to learn, this is evidence they learned it. Now, yes, we're teaching to what we said we want them to know. It didn't come... When you teach to the test, that often means that somebody else made up the test that I've got to teach to that test they made up because there's high stakes.

0:27:55.3 Andrew Stotz: Right.

0:27:55.6 Lee Jenkins: But when we as faculty say what we want the kids to know, we're not teaching to the test, we're teaching to what we said we want them to know.

0:28:05.5 Andrew Stotz: Yep. Yep. And then the other thing I would say is when you get students so deeply involved in the whole process, ultimately young kids actually are not going to necessarily celebrate cheating.

0:28:22.8 Lee Jenkins: No, no, they're not.

0:28:25.5 Andrew Stotz: They understand right and wrong. They haven't gotten to the level where adults are, where we put a lot of gray area between right and wrong and politicians will lie about this and that to get in office or get money or whatever.

0:28:37.4 Lee Jenkins: Let me tell you a story about the cheating. There were three fourth grades in a row in a school. And in the middle between the other two fourth grades, they did cheat early in the year. They got a very high score. Then the teacher found out how they cheated and stopped it so they couldn't do it anymore. But they couldn't get classroom best because they had an artificial high score. So they're saying to her, "We cheated teacher, take it away that score that we cheated." She says, "No, you cheated." It took them till November before they could have a classroom best.

0:29:16.7 Andrew Stotz: Right.

0:29:17.4 Lee Jenkins: So they paid a price for it. Now, people have fun with random. This is out of the state of Delaware. It looks like a skeleton from Halloween and they spray painted lima beans, put them inside the skull, wrote numerals on them and you draw the numerals out and that's the concept you're going to quiz. So there's been fun with how you do random, fun with how we celebrate.

0:29:55.0 Andrew Stotz: Right.

0:29:55.2 Lee Jenkins: Fun with making the graph pretty with I get to put Google... I mean, I get to scribble on it and do different things that make it pretty. Yeah. And here is a... There is a styrofoam nose. I'd say it's a meter tall styrofoam nose. And the teacher had slips of paper with the concepts on them. And an eighth grader said, that is boring. Brought in a styrofoam nose and you put the slips up the nostril and that's where you pull out...

0:30:26.2 Andrew Stotz: Only kids are going to come up with that.

0:30:28.1 Lee Jenkins: Yes, I know. And this is a history teacher, world history. She has 65 concepts are going to learn during the year. She gave them the list, put the 65 on a tongue depressor, put them in a bucket. She pulls eight out each week and the kids have to put the eight in chronological order from memory.

0:30:52.3 Andrew Stotz: Right. That's interesting.

0:30:53.5 Lee Jenkins: But they can't do it in the beginning.

0:30:55.1 Andrew Stotz: Yep.

0:30:56.0 Lee Jenkins: But by the end of the year, you want every kid to be able to pull any eight you pull out and put them in chronological order, not because they know dates, but because they know history.

0:31:06.2 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. Yep.

0:31:10.1 Lee Jenkins: And then here from Saskatchewan is a teacher who hyperlinked the periodic table. It's up on the whiteboard. So in the bucket are the names of elements. So if a student pulls out the word potassium, they go up to the whiteboard and they click on the letter K. It's hyperlinked. When they click on it, up comes a question about biology. The question has nothing to do with potassium.

0:31:42.6 Andrew Stotz: Oh!

0:31:44.4 Lee Jenkins: It's just a clever way to do random.

0:31:48.6 Andrew Stotz: Yep. Yep.

0:31:50.1 Lee Jenkins: Okay. And then we celebrate as a whole class. This is a class that's celebrating doing the wave. They've been to athletic events. They've seen people do the wave at athletic events. When the class has an all-time best as a class, they do something quick to celebrate. They're doing the wave. This classroom, they have a spinner. And the kids chose 10 ways they wanted to celebrate. I said, "What's your favorite? " And they said, "Hamster ball." I said, "What's a hamster ball? " They said, "We've got a hamster in the room. We put it in a hamster ball, put it in the middle of the room and watch where it goes."

0:32:32.7 Andrew Stotz: Yep.

0:32:34.4 Lee Jenkins: Fun. This is the whole school again. Just celebrating. One principal, when the school had an all-time best, somebody came in and cut his tie off. And he had dads giving him all their old ties to cut off. Yeah. And then they like to do item analysis. That's kids doing that.

0:32:59.0 Andrew Stotz: Right.

0:33:00.1 Lee Jenkins: They like to tell you what it is we most need help with.

0:33:04.2 Andrew Stotz: So this is looking at errors to say what we're struggling with. What does that mean?

0:33:07.7 Lee Jenkins: Yeah, here's the most room, most missed item in the whole room, all the way to the right, the item that nobody in the room missed it.

0:33:15.8 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, like allusion. I'd miss that too.

0:33:21.1 Lee Jenkins: And then we made histograms. So it's taking the data from the scattered diagram and putting a different one together for each week. So the kids see an L-shaped curve in the beginning, a bell curve in the middle of the year, and a J-shape at the end of the year. And this was taken because they were so excited that they could see the J finally. They knew the J was coming, and there it was.

0:33:47.8 Andrew Stotz: Yep.

0:33:49.7 Lee Jenkins: Yeah. And then we used the information from the scatter diagram to calculate effect size and to see what's the effect of all of this compared to all the other things in the world that have been done. And we got six times the average of the effect size research from John Hattie. If you don't cram and forget, you actually just remember, of course, it's a lot higher. Duh, of course.

0:34:15.5 Andrew Stotz: Yep.

0:34:18.0 Lee Jenkins: And we did the scatter diagram that I showed earlier, we mentioned earlier, that's what we use. And when John Hattie saw the scatter diagram, he said, "That's what you need for effect size."

0:34:29.6 Andrew Stotz: Right.

0:34:30.3 Lee Jenkins: Because effect size is you increase the mean and you reduce the variation. I've been talking a lot about knowledge. I haven't been talking about skills. The same process works for skills. And this is the dichotomous rubric. It's on my website. It's blank. It's free. And we use the dichotomous rubric to measure skills.

0:34:53.4 Andrew Stotz: Yep.

0:34:56.6 Lee Jenkins: So this is my pastor. It was, school was starting, he called two kids up on the platform and he said, "What are you excited about school? School started. What are you excited about? " The girl says, "See my friends." And the boy said, "Quizzes."

0:35:09.3 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, making my charts, seeing the quiz, watching the progress.

0:35:13.3 Lee Jenkins: It's hard to believe, but that's exactly what happens. And there's the Jenkins curve, which is the loss of enthusiasm year by year through the grades. I would have never done this without Deming because he talked about graphs have to be long and skinny.

0:35:29.3 Andrew Stotz: Man, we just grind down the kids in a normal situation.

0:35:32.9 Lee Jenkins: Just grind them down.

0:35:34.4 Andrew Stotz: Yep.

0:35:34.7 Lee Jenkins: Every year, fewer and fewer kids love school.

0:35:37.3 Andrew Stotz: Yep.

0:35:39.9 Lee Jenkins: So podcast number three, when it comes up, will be the future. What can we do because of all this that we haven't done before? It'll be fun.

0:35:51.2 Andrew Stotz: Wow! That is a lot of stuff. If you were to take all that we just went through, which was really fun and exciting, what would be the one takeaway you want people to get from that?

0:36:04.2 Lee Jenkins: The takeaway is that we can keep the intrinsic motivation alive that children were born with. And when we keep it alive, the complaint in the staff room will be, I can't keep up with all these things that these kids want to learn.

0:36:22.3 Andrew Stotz: Yeah.

0:36:23.7 Lee Jenkins: Instead of complaining that they won't sit still, they won't do the work, we'd be saying, "I can't keep up. They want to learn so much. I'm overloaded with what they want to know."

0:36:32.7 Andrew Stotz: And the end result is they become lifelong learners.

0:36:38.0 Lee Jenkins: Yes, absolutely. Yeah.

0:36:38.2 Andrew Stotz: Yeah.

0:36:38.9 Lee Jenkins: Yeah.

0:36:39.2 Andrew Stotz: I'm going to wrap it up there. And Lee, on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this discussion. It was fascinating and it was fun. So for listeners, remember to go to Deming.org to continue your journey. And this is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming that ties directly in to what we've been talking about, and that is, people are entitled to joy in work. And I'm going to add in, learning.

Ever wondered what Dr. Deming really meant by "profound knowledge" — and how it can still transform your work today? In this conversation, Bill Scherkenbach shares with host Andrew Stotz lessons from Dr. W. Edwards Deming on profound knowledge, systems thinking, and why "knowledge without action is useless, and action without knowledge is dangerous." Tune in for wisdom, humor, and practical insights on learning, leadership, and finding joy in work.

TRANSCRIPT

0:00:02.2 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we dive deeper into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with Bill Scherkenbach, a dedicated protege of Dr. Deming since 1972. Bill met with Dr. Deming more than a thousand times and later led statistical methods and process improvement at Ford and GM at Deming's recommendation. He authored the Deming Route to Quality and Productivity at Deming's behest, and at 79, still champions his mentor's message, learn, have fun, and make a difference. Bill, how are you doing?

0:00:36.3 Bill Scherkenbach: Doing great, Andrew. How about you?

0:00:38.6 Andrew Stotz: I'm good. It's been a while since we talked. I took a little holiday to Italy, which was. I was out for a bit, but I'm happy to be back in the saddle.

0:00:48.9 Bill Scherkenbach: Dove in Italia?

0:00:51.3 Andrew Stotz: Yes.

0:00:52.5 Bill Scherkenbach: Where in Italy?

0:00:53.6 Andrew Stotz: Well, I went to Milan for a trade show in the coffee industry, and then I went to Lake Como and relaxed and oh, what a paradise.

0:01:03.2 Bill Scherkenbach: Beautiful. Beautiful. Yep.

0:01:05.0 Andrew Stotz: And, of course, always great food.

0:01:09.4 Bill Scherkenbach: Yep, yep, yep. Well, you have a chance to use the PDSA on improving your mood there.

0:01:16.6 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, it was just... The resort I stayed at was a tiny little place on the side of a hill, and the food at this tiny little place was fantastic. We just didn't want to leave. Every single meal was great. So I love that. Who doesn't love that?

0:01:34.4 Bill Scherkenbach: They didn't have a food cart in the background.

0:01:38.0 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. In fact, they didn't really open for lunch.

0:01:39.8 Bill Scherkenbach: Like what they do over here.

0:01:41.3 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, they didn't open for lunch. They only served sandwiches at 2pm so we had to hold out. But we still, the sandwich was so good. We just thought yeah, just wait.

0:01:51.3 Bill Scherkenbach: Early lunch. Yep.

0:01:53.3 Andrew Stotz: Well, you've got some interesting stuff to talk about today, and I'm gonna share the screen, and then I think we can kick it off from there. So let me see if I can get that up straight here. One second in. All right, so hopefully, you see a white screen that says profound knowledge. You see that, Bill?

0:02:16.0 Bill Scherkenbach: Yes, I do.

0:02:17.2 Andrew Stotz: All right, well, let's... Yeah, let's. Let's get into it.

0:02:23.2 Bill Scherkenbach: Oh, okay. I'll go from the bullets that I've got, and we'll hear from Dr. Deming and how he couched it in a little bit, in a few minutes, but he recognized that leaders would say they had the knowledge. Oh, yeah, we do SPC. We follow Deming's philosophy, we do that. But they really only knew the buzzwords. And to an extent, and I don't know how he came up with the word profound, but I do know in speaking with him that he intended it to be a degree of expertise that was beyond the buzzwords. Now, he said you didn't have to be an expert in it, but you had to know enough to be able to understand it and in fact, use it, as we'll talk about in a little bit. And knowledge obviously includes, as he said, an appreciation for a system and variation and knowledge and psychology. And as we'll hear in the audio, he also didn't really limited to that when he said there was there... His point, main point was that there are a whole bunch of interrelated subject matters that are very, very useful in managing your business or managing any organization.

0:04:17.1 Andrew Stotz: You know, I was thinking about that word profound. It's oftentimes wondering exactly what is meant by that. This is helpful to help us understand. It's, number one, about expertise. And I think the thing that I've always also felt is like, when you understand appreciation for a system, knowledge about variation, theory of knowledge and psychology, it, like things click, like it comes together, it's a whole. And that's the way I've thought about it. But that's interesting about the expertise aspect.

0:04:51.8 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah. And that's something Don Peterson at Ford spoke about. He gave a very good talk to our leaders with Dr. Deming in attendance. And he said that a lot of you have said, "Oh, yeah, we already do this at Ford, " but you have to come to grips with a lot of you have been promoted for perhaps the wrong reason throughout your career, and you're gonna have to change. The change starts with us. So that was very impactful for Dr. Deming to listen to that.

0:05:32.7 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. And I just thought about the idea of profound action. Like, once you get this knowledge, does that mean that you're going to also, you know, the way that you do things is going to change substantially.

0:05:47.3 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah. I mean, that's been a philosophical question. In one of the slides, I quote Confucius. About 2500 years ago, essentially saying knowledge without action is useless and the action without knowledge is pretty dangerous. But that's been consistent with Eastern and Western. Aristotle did the same thing, and Mid Eastern folks did it as well. Philosophers dealing with, yeah, we've got knowledge, but everyone agrees, at least in the good thinker role, that, that you've got to take action, otherwise it's useless. Okay, so we've got, and the subject matters, as I said, are not new. And he coalesced on four, but the general thought was that. And you've got to remember Dr. Deming was a classically trained physicist in the 1920s. And because of that a lot of, although it had been a few years, but they were very aware that everything started in the both, the eastern philosophies and western philosophies. Everything started with philosophy. Science wasn't a separate subject matter. And so everything was connected on how people should live, on how the stars move, a whole bunch of stuff. It all was philosophy. And these various subject matters evolved over the years.

0:07:50.6 Bill Scherkenbach: So even though he stopped it for his general intent was that a whole bunch of things are interconnected. If you go study these various subject matters.

0:08:05.1 Andrew Stotz: It's interesting because I attended the seminars in 1990, 1992 and then I went to Thailand and then I did other things and I didn't really keep up with it because I was in the financial world and doing my thing. And then I got The New Economics years later and there was this discussion about System of Profound Knowledge. And then I think about also going back to your previous discussions of what it was like being in a classroom with Dr. Deming when you first met him and studied with him. You know, that these things were going on. Obviously he had a deep understanding of variation. He definitely understood about the theory of knowledge from his scientific background. But I'm just curious, as you... It's interesting what you said, these things are not new. It's the way he brought them together. I just find that, that fascinating. How do you see that journey for him going from when you first met him to a very full formed concept or theory of profound knowledge at his later years?

0:09:15.3 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah, I think things just solidified or codified. I mean, when I first met him in '72 at New York University Graduate School of Business, he didn't have 14 Points. He didn't have the Deadly Diseases. So none of the stuff that were codified as he progressed. I mean the one thing that I've mentioned it a number of times, the most important thing I learned from him is that you never stop learning. And he epitomized that sense of continual learning in improving oneself. So he tried to learn from everyone. But, but yes, for instance, as I mentioned, he was a degreed physicist and ended up doing a whole bunch of. And that transitioned into statistics which was a relatively. Well, I'm going to say everything is relative. But new in operationalizing the use of statistics besides counting people and the experiments at Rothamstead for agriculture. I mean, that really was some of the... But the earlier stuff, yeah. Was helping their patrons gamble better.

0:11:02.0 Andrew Stotz: And so I often take comfort in your descriptions in the first episodes about how he hadn't put all of these things in place at the age of 72. And I think there's still hope for me, Bill, to figure it out and put together my grand thinking.

0:11:22.7 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah. Oh, no, I understand. I mean, I'll be 80 in less than six months. But he really, he started out getting his foot in the water here anyway when he was 79 also. So there's a chance. There's a chance.

0:11:46.4 Andrew Stotz: There's a chance. All right, well, the next slide, you're talking about the connections.

0:11:51.6 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah. Again, all the subject matters are, again, evolve from philosophy and they all are interconnected in many, many ways. So, yeah, if you could play what Dr. Deming's introducing, that might set the stage.

0:12:14.0 Andrew Stotz: Okay, let me play this audio. Hopefully it comes across. Okay.

[video playback] Dr. Deming: Let us begin our study of Profound Knowledge. Profound Knowledge. Provides a roadmap to transformation, not just change, but a roadmap to transformation. Nothing else will satisfy our needs. Not just change, a roadmap to transformation into a new state. The System of Profound Knowledge, appears here in four parts, all related to each other: first, Appreciation for a System. Which we shall study, we shall study a system, and soon, I won't keep you waiting. And Theory of variation and theory of knowledge and knowledge of psychology and add anything you please, sociology, anthropology, whatever you please. I present these four parts to Profound Knowledge. They are interdependent, they cannot be separated. One need not be imminent in any part of Profound Knowledge in order to make it, in order to understand it and apply it.

0:13:30.9 Andrew Stotz: That's quite a mouthful.

0:13:33.1 Bill Scherkenbach: Yes, it is. Yes, it is. What I've got to do is go back to the tapes and get the lead in and follow on to that. But yeah, that's how he introduced profound knowledge in his later seminars.

0:13:56.2 Andrew Stotz: So what would this have been? What, 1990, 1991, 1992?

0:14:03.8 Bill Scherkenbach: Well, probably, I would say, yeah, maybe '89.

0:14:10.6 Andrew Stotz: Okay.

0:14:11.9 Bill Scherkenbach: In there. Yeah.

0:14:13.8 Andrew Stotz: So I took out a little transcript of that and I want to just go through a couple quick points, if you don't mind. He starts off by talking about it's a roadmap to transformation, not just change. Why would he say transformation rather than just change?

0:14:38.6 Bill Scherkenbach: Well, he changed really, transformation. And he thought a metamorphosis would be better. There's a butterfly in there somewhere, but it needs change. And it's not just, I know he mentioned the western style of management, but in my travels, Eastern style of management is just as bad. And again, knowledge is, is literally encompasses space and time. Looking at the past, projecting or predicting the future, little space, great space. And when you look at Western philosophies or western style management, we have emphasized the individual. So restricted space and short term. And the eastern philosophy of management took a longer term viewpoint of things. And they said it's not the individual, it's the team, the family. In my opinion, you have to, everyone, no matter where you live in the world has to balance those two, being able to take joy in your work as an individual. To be able to take joy in your work as a member of the team. And, I mean, I've been asked years ago, how long would it take? And I would say, "Well, Deming says it'll take 30 years." So over here in the US it's going to take a long time, but it's not going to take a long time in Asia, it's only going to take them 30 years. So time is relative, so is space.

0:16:53.2 Andrew Stotz: And there's something else he said in here that if you could try to help me understand and help the listener understand it. He talks about, you know, he gives a summary, theory of variation, theory of knowledge, knowledge of psychology. And then he adds in this line, "add anything you please, sociology, anthropology, whatever you please." What does he mean by that?

0:17:16.6 Bill Scherkenbach: That's what I said before he came from the the school that everything started with philosophy and things broke off science and all of these various disciplines. What he's saying is he's gone to, his theory of profound knowledge is included these four. But the general message is any discipline is interconnected with each other. So you don't have to be restricted to these four. And you're going back to how knowledge was developed in the first place. And perhaps it could be full circle, although I'm not going to get bogged down with the potential of AI contributions. But you need to, you need to recognize that many, many subject matter are interrelated because they were spawned from the original Eastern philosophy and Western philosophy.

0:18:37.5 Andrew Stotz: And one last thing on this, he wraps it up with this statement that also, you know, particularly given his depth of knowledge of the subject, he said, "One need not be imminent in any part of profound knowledge in order to make it, nor to understand it and to apply it." Why do you think he had this need to explain that you don't really have to know this in super deep detail?

0:19:02.7 Bill Scherkenbach: Well, I think he was being off a little bit. The word profound scares a lot of people. And so there's again a balance. You need to go far beyond the buzzwords, but you don't need to be an expert in any of those fields in order to grasp and be able to in some cases, I think, contribute to them. So he's saying that he's trying to better explain or define the word profound.

0:19:48.8 Andrew Stotz: Yep. Okay, now the next slide is incredible. A lot of different things on here that you're showing. Maybe you can explain what you're getting across in this one.

0:19:57.9 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah, this is a MEGO chart. My Eyes Glaze Over. What I tried and I'm. I'm continually updating it. The different colors are from the fields of statistics, the fields of epistemology, psychology and systems thinking. And I'm linking a whole bunch of them together to show that there are similar thoughts in all four of these fields that contribute to a better understanding and use of all of them. Now the next slide, hopefully is more visible. It should be. I'm focusing on a stable process, which is statistical concept. Stable process means you've got by definition of Shewhart. There's a... Deming would call them common causes. When common causes are... When a process is stable, you're able to do design of experiments. Some of the enumerative methods work very, very well or with some degree of belief with a stable process. The red bead experiment was stable. Rule one and two of The Funnel. Stable process. Common causes in theory of knowledge. There's comment, well, I've seen that before or no, jeepers, I've never seen that that hooks up to some other special causes and statistics. There's a concept in theory of knowledge where you're talking about general providence or specific providence that the storm just, it hit everyone and pick out anyone in systems thinking you can only have a stable process if you have negative feedback loops and negative feedback.

0:22:40.0 Bill Scherkenbach: Again, I think I had mentioned in a previous discussion with you, negative doesn't mean it's bad. It just means it closes the loop and it seeks a stasis so, and that's the only way you're going to get. I'll simplify just about the only way you're going to get a stable process. There's a negative feedback loop in there somewhere. Stable process leads to long term thinking versus short term thinking, the theory of knowledge, empirical knowledge is never complete. Knowledge is theory applied over time. Stable process over and over and over again. The theory matches the data or what you predict, you then have knowledge. So the point is that, that there are a number of specific learnings. Well, for instance, let me see here, what's on. I have to adjust this. Okay. From psychology you've got what the psychologists call a fundamental attribution error. And that is mistaking who, as Dr. Deming says, who, who did it, who did it, did the people do it? Or did the system do it? Did the process do it? And in psychology, although it's in a different place, you've got following Rule 3 of The Funnel is a psychological term called complementary schismogenesis.

0:24:42.3 Bill Scherkenbach: And that's easy for me to say, going back to the Greek schism of split in genesis of a birth of a split. What that means is in psychology it's two people trying to one-up another. I've got this example. Well, I can do it. I mean, who, yeah, and the move or the musical Annie Oakley. Anything you can do, I can do better. So, psychology has observations and subject matters that they didn't have a clue. That was rule 3 of The Funnel. So my point in looking at all of these is that as you dig into things, they are interrelated. Now I haven't dug through anthropology or started. I've just restricted it to the four things Dr. Deming spoke about. But that would be a challenge to our listeners. If you really know some of these sciences, some of these bodies of knowledge, how are they connected? Okay. The aim of profound knowledge, he says, has to have an aim. Confucius in the East, Aristotle in the West, and in the Mid east, someone essentially said knowledge without action is useless and action without knowledge is dangerous.

0:26:51.0 Bill Scherkenbach: And Deming said the aim of a system, of his System of Profound Knowledge is action. And as we discussed previously, it's a transformation of Western, I think it's a transformation of Eastern and Western style of management. And he, the way he pronounced it was metamorphosis. And I will have to check the OED, Oxford English Dictionary. I haven't done that yet. But he has been 100% right in his pronunciation and usage of the English language. So as I said, there's got to be a butterfly in there somewhere. But he's talking about a major, major shift, major rebirth if you will, management. Systems theory. A lot of this is obvious and these are what he mentioned in his, not Out of the Crisis, but The New Economics. A network of interdependent components that work together to try and accomplish its aim. And, and he, and this I had mentioned earlier, I think that in his work. Well, I've got... Going back to some things, this is a 1954 speech he gave in Rome and this is a 1940 speech he gave. And because he was a Renaissance scholar, they were talking about a Systems View before it was popular.

0:29:06.5 Bill Scherkenbach: Everyone knows that he introduced the improvement on the old: design it or spec it, make it, try to sell it. And he introduced his expertise, sampling theory to be able to check on the customers and see what they think about stuff and be able to create a system of production instead of just one way through. Now. And I'm sure anyone who has read any of his books knows he spoke about the interdependence. He said in the example he gave was bowling. You just add up the scores. In the orchestra, you don't use a bunch of soloists, but they have to work together to be able to make sure that the result is what the composer, well, we don't know, I don't think what modes are intended.

0:30:28.9 Andrew Stotz: One of the things that's interesting about that orchestra concept is even, you know, it's a relatively complex system, but there's a score, there's a rule book, there's a play guide, here's what we're going to play. But sometimes with business there is no guide particularly, you know, you're running your own business relative, you know, you're focused on your own development of your own business. And it's not like you wake up every morning and there's a manual that says, "Here's what you do, here's what you play today." Which makes it that interdependence even more difficult and the need for communication and cooperation even more challenging. I have a client of mine that they've struggled to get the team to work together. But what I've also found is that they never sat down as a team and really had honest discussions consistently to try to break down the barriers and figure out how we're going to work together for this aim. So I'm curious about how do you look at business compared to, let's say, that orchestra example?

0:31:36.9 Bill Scherkenbach: Well, yeah, and Deming made that exact same point, at the far end of complexity or just about is business. They are far more complex and require far more interaction than the orchestra. Now, in trying to operationalize Dr. Deming's philosophy, I've tried to emphasize. And we've got a process to be able to create a vision and it obviously is followed by mission, values and question. We covered the physical, logical, emotional a few talks ago. But, but you have to... Top management has to have that vision that will include everyone in its and all sorts of voices in its creation. And then you have to have a way to be able to master that vision or make sure that that vision is operationalized. And that requires a whole bunch of feedback loops, if you will, systems thinking, a whole bunch of being able to work with people. And so it literally needs the application of profound knowledge from the management's perspective. You need to be able to operationalize your vision, not just come up with the vision and put it on the bookshelf.

0:33:34.5 Andrew Stotz: And the final bullet, says "the obligation of any component is to contribute its best to the system, not to maximize its own production, profit or sales, nor any other competitive measure." Oftentimes in the world of finance where I teach and I work, a lot of stuff, people think that the objective is to maximize profit, but the reality is the objective is to maximize value. And so when we look at, for instance, the value of a business, it's two components. Number one, the profit, which you could consider is kind of in the numerator. And then we reduce the profit by the denominator, which is risk. So think about it. If you were to invest money in two projects. One, you invest $100 in two projects, and one is very proven and you're very confident that this is going to work, and the other one is brand new, very possible it doesn't work. We would reduce the second cash flow and say, "Well, yeah, the amount we're investing is $100, but the reality is the cash flows may or may not hit." So we would reduce the value by the risk. And I try to help my young students particularly understand that it's an intricate balance of profit and risk. And if you overemphasize profit, you could be increasing the risk, which actually doesn't increase the value of the company.

0:35:07.0 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah. And Dr. Deming had a similar statement saying that the cost of something doesn't mean anything. It's the value of what you get for the cost and value is determined by the quality. My look at systems theory, especially the obligation this last one is to contribute its best to the system. What many people forget is as I mentioned in the beginning, everything is defined as in space and time. And Bill Ouchi who wrote the book Theory Z stated that... And this is an eastern management concept that you have to have, I guess, corporate knowledge because in order for someone to say, "Okay, this department, I'm going to..." Well, for instance, lunches, the corporate lunch room will lose money so that the corporation can make. So the people would stay on site and be able to contribute more work. But that's in the longer term. And so if someone steps aside today to let someone else get the kudos or the credit, the corporation needs to remember that. He called it societal knowledge or memory. And if you ended up being saying, "Screw you, I'm taking what's owed to me, " that also will be remembered. So you have to introduce the dimension of time to any systems theory view. Time and space.

0:37:36.3 Andrew Stotz: You mentioned about... Oh, go ahead.

0:37:40.5 Bill Scherkenbach: No, it's a statistician's attempt at humor before Einstein. Yeah.

0:37:49.6 Andrew Stotz: You mentioned about metamorphosis and you mentioned about transformation and I was just looking it up and let me maybe if I'll read out what I found. "Metamorphosis is a biological stage based change. Like a caterpillar turning into a butterfly. It implies a natural structured process. Transformation is a broad change in form, character or condition. It can be physical, emotional or organizational. In short, every metamorphosis is a transformation. But not every transformation is a metamorphosis."

0:38:26.2 Bill Scherkenbach: Good point. Understand.

0:38:30.7 Andrew Stotz: So let's continue.

0:38:35.0 Bill Scherkenbach: Okay. Variation. I think the first noble truth of Buddhism is "life is suffering." And Deming equated variation with suffering. So when I presented similar slides to my friends in Asia, I... Life is variation.

0:39:02.2 Andrew Stotz: That's great.

0:39:03.0 Bill Scherkenbach: Now there are two extremes in taking action on variation. Well, in taking action, I know this is in front of us, but Dr. Deming spoke about Shewhart's contribution. And that is the two mistakes that people can make with variation, while in taking appropriate action on variation. And one is mistaking common cause for special causes or special causes for common causes. And that's really the primary view. But Deming seminars showed that if you're going to take action, there also are two extremes in taking action. And one was every action taken tends to make things worse, which he used The Funnel experiment. And the other extreme is every action taken has no effect on the variation. And that's obviously the red bead experiment. And so he, those were the two extremes that he wanted to show and demonstrate to people in order to solidify the folks learning. Theory of knowledge. Okay, Management is prediction, temporal spread, space and time absolutely required, knowledge is built on theory.

0:40:50.5 Bill Scherkenbach: He got that from Shewhart and indirectly through C.I. Lewis and on knowledge being built on theory. And with that, that jogged my mind as far as coming up with my theory-question-data-action cycle, which is a bit different than the Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle. But in knowledge development knowledge is built on theory. So anytime any data that you see you and he asked, he told people, by what method did these data get to me? If you see data you have to ask that. If you see data you have to say what was the question that was asked? If you're a question asker, questions come from theory. They're connections of concepts in your mind. And so theory could be a guess or it could be as proven as scientific law, but everything, and that scares people away, but everything really starts with theory. Given a theory you can ask a question. You can tell people when you ask the question what I'm going to do with the data so they have a better idea of how to collect the data and what data to collect. And then you take the action and go back and revisit the theory. So theory, question, data, action over time generates knowledge. And with some other emotional and physical constraints and consistencies, you're going to gain wisdom.

0:42:58.8 Andrew Stotz: There's something...

0:43:00.4 Bill Scherkenbach: Go ahead.

0:43:01.5 Andrew Stotz: There's something that I always, I've questioned, I think you can probably clear it up in this part of our discussion is that Dr. Deming used to say something along the lines of without prediction or without theory there is no knowledge. Something along that line as I recall. And sometimes I understood that clearly and other times I question that. What would you say about that? How should I understand that?

0:43:33.1 Bill Scherkenbach: Well, it's something that he and Shewhart spoke about a lot. And let's see, in his 1939 book The Statistical Methods from the Viewpoint of Quality Control by Shewhart and edited and commented on by Dr. Deming, they speak about that, as far as. And again Shewhart was influenced by C.I. Lewis. And as an aside, when, when I was at Ford and we had a speaker who had studied under CI Lewis. I had to get Dr. Deming to speak with them. And I've put part of a video of their conversation on LinkedIn, YouTube, I guess. But knowledge is built on theory. Now can you explain it again? I might be able to...

0:45:03.0 Andrew Stotz: So let me get a quote from New Economics. He said "experience by itself teaches nothing. Without theory, experience has no meaning. Without theory, one has no question to ask. Hence without theory there is no learning."

0:45:19.0 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah. Yeah, okay. He was getting to, and he had all sorts of examples on the, on the first statement that experience teaches nothing. If you're, you might have an experience that perhaps you were, you, you were picked on. And what are you going to do about it? Well, your theory could have been: well, they don't like me. It could have been that: well, that person was a bully. Could be a whole bunch of things. But without the theory, what are you going to do in the future to make that experience more to your liking? And so you have to go beyond the experience and look at what is the thoughts and motivations behind that, which is theory. And now I don't know why I mentioned that, but I mean a number of the way... Well, I'll leave it at that.

0:47:02.8 Andrew Stotz: Yeah.

0:47:04.3 Bill Scherkenbach: As the left and right dukes it out based on their own theories. Okay. Psychology, it's incomplete without knowledge of variation. You mention that if you know the red beads, you won't make the fundamental attribution error. I had mentioned schismagenesis earlier, which is rule three of The Funnel. It invites, it says helps us understand people as different individuals. In, again, my take on this part of psychology. And again Dr. Deming saying everyone is entitled to take joy in their work. And he spoke about extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Well, I have looked at it for many years as each one of us has an internal voice of the customer. We are the customer. And what makes me take joy would make another person perhaps take despair. And so it's management's responsibility who manages the people, materials, methods, equipment, environment to know me as a customer and be able to, if this works for me, then the management would try to arrange things that would help me take joy because it's more congruent with my internal voice of the customer. Deming used a number of examples that I gather some psychologists call it overjustification. But it in fact says the description was he tried to tip someone and it was an insult.

0:49:30.8 Bill Scherkenbach: And so instead of a thank you. He talked, he talked about the letter he sent to a surgeon of his, meant more than adding $500 to the bill. And the surgeon would carry the letter from Dr. Deming because he was, Deming was thankful for it. But it takes an astute manager to be able to understand all of the individual voices of the customers, their employees, and be able to construct a system that is going to be more congruent with each of them. And if you know that money doesn't influence or isn't congruent with someone, maybe it's retirement point, maybe it's a day off, maybe it's a variety of things managers would know that works for one person pisses off another. So that's where I stand on that, on the overjustification. And the obvious: fear invites wrong figures. Yeah. Although I think I had mentioned that in my work over in Asia, in China. So we don't have fear. It's called respect. So.

0:51:09.0 Andrew Stotz: I've just been reading a book about the Gaokao, the exam that students have to take in China to get into the elite university system. And it really makes you, it definitely gives you all kinds of both sides of the thinking on that. It really has got me thinking about this, one measure, everybody's ranked and they go through the pros and cons of it, which is challenging, it's good to go through that and think about that. So, fascinating. Well, that's been a great discussion for me, the idea of transformation, the concept of metamorphosis was interesting to me also the stuff related to having, you know, that how do we acquire knowledge? I think sometimes when in research, let's say in financial research that I've done all my life, I come up with a vague hypothesis and then I just start playing with numbers to see what I find. And so I'm kind of fiddling around. I wouldn't say that I have...

0:52:18.7 Bill Scherkenbach: What's the vague hypothesis? Give an example of...

0:52:22.7 Andrew Stotz: So, one observation that I've been able to make is that a particular ratio has fallen consistently across the world for the last 30 years, and that is the amount of revenue that assets generate out of companies. And I looked at 10,000 companies across the world. So the first thing I thought, okay, well, maybe it's a particular sector that's causing this. And I broke down that those 10,000 companies into 10 different sectors, and I saw they all had almost the same pattern. So that kind of showed me yeah, it's probably not that. And then I went through. I came up with kind of five different ideas of what it could be. And I could test that because I had a lot of data to be able to test it, but I couldn't find an answer to it. Now, I guess what you could say is that my fiddling around was based on some type of theory or guess or prediction. It wasn't until I came up to one final one, which was, could interest rates have a relationship with this? We have been through a period of time of very, very low interest rates.

0:53:39.7 Andrew Stotz: So could that decline have been caused by or related to interest rates? So I looked at the average interest rate that these 10,000 companies were paying over the past 30 years, and I saw it was going down, down, down, down, down, down very low. And I would say that that was the most plausible explanation I could find was that low interest rates incentivize companies to invest in projects that generated less revenue than previous projects.

0:54:13.2 Bill Scherkenbach: Okay. Yeah. I would think that the system. Well, you have to take into account the lag in response to lower and lower. Okay, am I going to wait for the next one? Whatever. And what's the lag in decision-making on the thing? But you need to codify, what's your theory? Okay, if X, then Y, then collect, ask the questions, make sure you understand how you got the data. And then try to take action there. But, yeah, everything starts with theory. Yeah. So it'll be good to be specific about it. What do you think it is?

0:55:09.8 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, that's, that's helpful. Well, let's wrap this up. How would you, if you were to, to bring this into a very condensed takeaway of what you want people to get from this discussion, what would you say is the core takeaway you want them to remember.

0:55:25.7 Bill Scherkenbach: Space and time. And I have done my best. Dr. Deming ended all of his lectures.

0:55:38.9 Andrew Stotz: I have done my best. Well, I love that. And let me wrap it up, Bill, by saying, on behalf of everybody at the Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this discussion, another one that I've enjoyed immensely and for listeners remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. And of course, you can find bill on LinkedIn in particular, where he's posting a lot of these cool discussions and thoughts and all of that. So this is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming, and it relates to what we were just talking about. And that is "people are entitled to joy in work."

Are you looking for smarter, more sustainable improvements? In this episode, John Dues joins Andrew Stotz to challenge the way schools - and businesses - set goals. Instead of chasing stretch targets that often frustrate teachers and students alike, John shows how to use data and systems thinking to create real improvement.

TRANSCRIPT

0:00:02.2 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we dive deeper into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with John Dues, who is part of the new generation of educators striving to apply Dr. Deming's principles to unleash student joy in learning. The topic for today is how to set educational goals. Take it away, John.

0:00:25.6 John Dues: Hey, Andrew. It's good to be back. Yeah. So the thing that I see just over and over again is that goal setting in schools is just really ineffective. And not only that, but it's often counterproductive. So I thought it'd be good to talk about a different approach to how to set educational goals. I think most typically what I see, and this is probably not just true in schools, but in other places too, you get some result, and then you set a goal to increase by 10 or 15 or 20%. But I think that what often is missed is that without certain conditions in place, these stretch goals end up disconnected from reality. And so what I wanted to do in this session is to teach three conditions that I believe will lead to much more effective goal setting.

0:01:20.8 Andrew Stotz: It's interesting because goal setting seems really simple, like, just set a goal and go get it.

0:01:29.1 John Dues: Yeah.

0:01:29.5 Andrew Stotz: And yet when you're... You say that it's simple as an individual that I'm going to go walking every morning. That's my goal. It seems simple as an individual, but when it gets to a company level, it can get really complex, or a school level. And also there's this... What did you call it? Like aspirational... Or what was the word? Stretch, stretch goal. It's so common, particularly when business is not going great. Like, I want this from this team, and it's just so common to say, to lay down demands. I want 20% revenue growth. I want students passing this by 70% or whatever. And yet it just doesn't work that way. And so I'm looking forward to hearing from you about your three conditions. So let's go.

0:02:23.1 John Dues: Yeah, sounds good. So let's start by looking at why I don't think stretch goals are helpful. And since I'm working in schools, I like using data that people are familiar with. So I'll use this third grade reading state test score data. It's very common. It's really important. There's often some guarantee around third grade reading scores or there's often high stakes attached to third grade reading. So I'll use that. And so let's say in year one, and this is actually real data, 54.9% of third graders scored proficient or higher on that test. And then in the next year, they score 63.8% of the third graders scored proficient or higher. So in most places, leaders and teachers would celebrate because that represents an 8.9% increase in proficiency rates. And so then they do something like set a stretch goal of, well, next year we're going to grow by 20%. So you think, well, we grew by nearly 9%, so we can surely hit 20%. But then what often happens in a situation like this is that the next year's data comes out and actually goes down.

0:03:41.4 John Dues: And that's exactly what happened in year three of this data. Now, in this third year, only 61.2% of the students scored proficient or higher. And so then you think to yourself, well, what stretch goal would I set next? Would you change that 20% goal because of the decreased rates in the most recent year? So it actually is an interesting exercise. If you're listening to this, actually get a number in your head. You're the school leader, you're the superintendent, you're the principal or whatever, think about what goal then would you set for this group. So they grew by almost 9% and they went down by a couple percent. Between year one and two, they set the goal of 20%. Now what are you going to do? What's the goal? What are you going to say?

0:04:36.2 Andrew Stotz: And I'm thinking about the tampering concept that Dr. Deming talks about, constantly adjusting based upon where you're at. And it's interesting because in that case, you may say, you know, a disappointing year, but we've got to stick to our 20%. We got to stick to our strong, we can't give up. Remember that celebration we had?

0:05:01.0 John Dues: Yeah, this is a one year blip. We had increased by nearly 10. I know we can do it if we just double down. Let's keep that 20% goal in place. Yeah, that's definitely what a lot of people would do. So let me show you the results for those three years and then what happened for the next several years after that. So I'll share my screen for those that are watching so they can see this actual data in chart form.

0:05:27.7 Andrew Stotz: Great. Yep, we can see that.

0:05:29.8 John Dues: You can see it. All right. So now we have nine years of test data, and we can see that setting that early stretch goal had no effect whatsoever on outcomes. And so in year one, we had that 54.9% of those third graders were proficient. Then we went up to 63.8 like we said. Then we dipped back down in year three to 61.2, and then in the subsequent years that we're looking at now, it jumped up to 60.7, and then it fell to 51.9, and then it jumped up to 59.8, and then it rose again to 62.3, and then it rose again to 64.5, and then it fell again to 61.3. So again, between year one and two is when we set that stretch goal of 20%, and we can see again that it had no effect on outcome. So really, in all likelihood, the goal was not only ineffective back there between year one and two, but it was likely counterproductive. Because if you're thinking about, if you're a teacher in this school, you're teaching third grade or you're the principal of the school, year after year, this team didn't come close to approaching that 20% stretch goal that had been set.

0:06:52.8 John Dues: Year one, year two, year three, all the way through year nine. Some years the scores go up, some years the scores go down. It's pretty demoralizing if you think about it. I think the good news is, and the reason we're having this conversation is I think there's a better method for understanding your data and then using that data to set school goals in a smarter way. So I'll introduce these three conditions. I think about them as three conditions of healthy goal setting. So the first thing that you want to do is gather baseline data in the area that you're interested in improving. So this could be historical results if you have data, or it might be new data that you need to collect if this is a new focus area. But either way, you need some type of baseline as a starting point, and then you can work to understand these three conditions.

0:07:55.9 John Dues: So the first condition, condition one is what I call the capability of the system under study. And by system under study, in this case, I just mean the third grade reading test data. So how capable is it? Condition two is the variation of that system under study. And then condition three is the stability of that system under study. So those are the three conditions that I'm interested in taking a look at. And this focus could be on any data that occurs across time. It could be like state test scores, like we're looking at here. Could be attendance rates, could be oral reading fluency rates for those elementary teachers. It could be the number of office referrals that are coming into the principal's office or assistant principal's office on a daily or weekly basis. For this example, I'll just keep using the third grade state testing data.

0:08:52.8 Andrew Stotz: And let's just go through that just to review. So you talked about gathering baseline data. So you got to figure out what's happening here. The second thing, the first thing then you talked about, step one is capability of the system under study. And what does the word capability mean?

0:09:10.5 John Dues: Yeah, we'll get into each of them and then define each one.

0:09:12.0 Andrew Stotz: And then the second one is the variation of that system. Okay. Now what I noticed in all of these as you're talking about system, third one is stability of the system. So I guess a big part of this is basically saying if you're not looking at it as a system, you're not going to have the success that you want to have. So that's certainly a reinforced point there. Okay, keep going.

0:09:38.1 John Dues: Yeah. And by system, I just mean there's all these inputs into the third grade reading test, and then there's things that we do in schools, and then there's an outcome, there's an output that happens. So that's why I'm calling this third grade reading state testing data system, basically. So the first thing that I've done is taken that data that we've been looking at in a table and I put it into what I call a process behavior chart. Other people call a control chart or Shewhart chart. We've talked about those charts here, and I've done that so that we can better analyze those three conditions. So this charting method allows us to do that. So can you see the chart now?

0:10:22.6 Andrew Stotz: Yep. And for the audience, we have a chart up on the screen, third grade English language arts test, state testing proficiency rates. And maybe you want to describe what you got in the chart.

0:10:36.1 John Dues: Yeah, so it's the same data that was in the table, but now I've just taken it and plotted it. And that's what the blue dots are. So for each year, which is running along the bottom of the chart of the x-axis, there's a year, year one through nine. Those all represent school years. And on the y-axis I just have proficiency rates running from 0 to 100%. And then I've plotted that data that we had just looked at for each of those years. So it's the same exact data. So the thing that should... Before you even get into the chart in detail, the thing that should jump off the page is how much more intuitive the analysis is just by looking at the chart as compared to looking at that same data in the table.

0:11:23.8 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, in some ways it just looks like a boring chart that looks pretty normal, a little ups and downs.

0:11:30.7 John Dues: It does, but it's super powerful. And it allows us also to start looking at those three conditions that we just talked about by putting it in this format, taking that data from the table and putting it in the process behavior chart format. So you had asked about capability. So what I would say is that the capability of this third grade ELA or reading system is actually defined by the chart. So some of the most important components of this are that green line running through the middle for those watching the video is the average of the nine data points that we have. So the average of those nine tests is 60.7%. That's the green central line. And then those red lines, there's the bottom line and the top line. Those are called process limits. And they're set by plugging nine years of data into a formula.

0:12:28.8 John Dues: So the most important thing is I don't get to choose where those limits are placed. They sort of appear on either side of the nine data points. So that lower limit is a little bit lower than the lowest point. So it's set at 44.9%. And the upper limit is a little bit higher than the highest data point, and it's set at 76.5%. This data, or this really tells us that the data is really just likely to bounce around this 60.7% average, but could plausibly range between those two limits.

0:13:09.8 Andrew Stotz: So is that when we say capability of the system is that this system, as is could just by randomness, could end up between 45, is highly likely to end up between 45 and 75 without it necessarily being attributed to anything but random variation.

0:13:31.9 John Dues: That's right, yeah.

0:13:33.0 Andrew Stotz: Yep.

0:13:33.6 John Dues: So another way to think about it is given what we're seeing in this nine years, if we call this our baseline, the data is likely to bounce around that average of 60.7%, but it could plausibly range between those limits.

0:13:51.9 Andrew Stotz: And one of the fun things I was just thinking about is if you made the average and the blue line of the data like invisible, then you'd have a really good picture of the system, right?

0:14:05.6 John Dues: Yeah, that's right.

0:14:06.3 Andrew Stotz: The capability is between these two fixed lines. There it is. There's your capability. Okay.

0:14:13.3 John Dues: That's the capability. And the thing that we can tell for sure, well, that's fairly certain, with a high degree of probability, we can tell that this third grade reading system as it's currently set up is incapable of hitting that 20% stretch goal. And the reason that I know this is if I add 20 to that average of 60.7%, the answer is beyond the upper limit of 76.5%. So is it possible that you could hit that stretch goal? I would say it's not impossible. It's highly, highly unlikely. And nowhere in that time period did we get anywhere close to hitting that 20% target. And so when you start to look at data this way, it becomes self-evident that the 20% stretch goal in this case is...

0:15:16.5 Andrew Stotz: So then a crafty manager would say, okay, John, that's great, so I'll set the stretch goal at 75%. We should be at the upper limit and therefore just below the upper limit. It's within the capability of the system. Let's go.

0:15:33.5 John Dues: Yeah. So that target setting is beyond the content of this podcast, but to me it would depend on what's the nature of that target. Is it an accountability target that a manager has set for subordinates and that people are going to be held accountable in some way? Demotions, lose their job, affects pay, that type of thing. That's completely the wrong way to go about target setting. But if the target setting is, hey, look, it's a fact of life that more kids need to be able to read proficiently. We need to, as a team, figure out how we're going to bump this up every year until we get to 80, 90, 95, 99, 100%, that type of thing. That's a completely different sort of mindset. That's an improvement mindset, and I would be all for it even if the target is outside of the capability. I'd be all for it if there's an improvement orientation and team orientation to that target setting. So that's the first condition, that's the capability of the system. So the second condition that we'll look at here is that we want to understand the variation in the system. And so the data now in this process behavior chart format can help us understand the variation in this system.

0:16:55.6 John Dues: So the first thing to notice when it comes to variation, you want to look at the blue data points and how they orient themselves around that green central line. And so you'll notice if you're able to see it, that those blue data points are really just regularly bouncing above and below the green line. There's nine of them. And if you look closely, three of the points are below the line, one point is just about right on the line, and five points are just above that average line. So if you're doing year to year, the results increase and then decrease, then increase, then decrease, then increase slightly for three points in a row before decreasing in that most recent year.

0:17:50.2 John Dues: So again, given the data we have so far, it's clear that this system is not going to increase from that average of 60% or so to 80% proficiency rates in any given year. It's just not going to happen based on what we're seeing in this baseline data. So again, the table, it's much harder to see. I mean, you can see it if you're really looking, but it's much less intuitive when you don't have the plots or the dots plotted and then connect them by line so you can see the ups and downs. And the other problem is, so often with something like state test data, but with lots of data, we only have two or three of those points in a table. And we're just looking at did we increase or decrease from last year.

0:18:41.3 John Dues: And so we completely miss all of these patterns that are happening in a relatively recent time period. So by charting, we get that analysis that jumps off the page when you look at data in this way.

0:18:55.7 Andrew Stotz: Yeah you feel like when you get a table of two data points, you get an understanding of data, but when you look at it like this, you get an understanding of the system.

0:19:09.0 John Dues: Right. And if someone's hearing this for the first time and you hear, okay, system capability, system variation, and the third condition, we're about to get into system stability, it sounds technical and engineering-like and things like that. You got to have some mathematical ability. You really need none of that to understand this. I mean, it actually makes data far more intuitive and far easier to understand, even for those that aren't mathematically or statistically inclined, which I would count myself as being among those people.

0:19:41.0 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, it's interesting that point, when I think about what's fantastic about Dr. Deming and his teachings, was that he understood statistics to an extremely deep level. But then he brought it back to us in such a simple way of understanding common cause, special cause, and understanding that just chasing around data points is what most people are doing. And I just think that that's impressive because I studied statistics for a long time before I really thought about that type of stuff deeply. And I didn't understand that most of what we're doing is rewarding and punishing random variation.

0:20:23.3 John Dues: Yeah, that turns out to be the case. That turns out to be the case. So that third condition is understanding stability. So the thing to understand there is that systems can be stable or they can be unstable. And then from there we want to understand that by a stable system we mean it's predictable. We can within reason predict about how that system is going to perform over time. In an unstable system, we don't have that power of prediction. Unstable systems are unpredictable. The other thing to know is that if the system is producing predictable results, it's performing as consistently as it's capable. And so this third grade ELA or reading state testing system, it's a stable, predictable system. So there's no patterns in this data to suggest otherwise.

0:21:20.0 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. And I feel like, congratulations, you have a stable system.

0:21:25.9 John Dues: I mean, there is something to take from that. And it is that if you do have a stable system, it does tell you that what you do need to do is improve the system as a whole. There's no special thing to go look at. It's just that random variation that you were just talking about.

0:21:44.7 Andrew Stotz: And in this case, if we could just imagine on this chart that we take all of these lines and we shift them up without changing any data or anything except that the underlying data just is moved up so that the upper limit is 95 and the lower limit is 65 or whatever that would be, you would still have a stable system.

0:22:11.4 John Dues: Still have a stable system. Yep.

0:22:13.1 Andrew Stotz: But it would be operating at a different level.

0:22:16.6 John Dues: Yeah, you might not be as worried about it if it was performing at a much higher level. You might not have the same concern as a system that's producing a 60% average proficiency. So that's a good segway.

0:22:32.5 Andrew Stotz: In some ways, this chart and what you've explained is very depressing for us aspirational goal setters. Come on, let's get 20%! And what you see here is like Ah.

0:22:42.9 John Dues: Yeah, I mean, I think what I always say there is not saying it doesn't make it not true. I mean it is what it is. You might as well know it. Right? And that's a good point though, because just because this system is stable like it is, it doesn't mean it's acceptable. And we've talked about this before, but in this particular system, on average only 60% of the kids are proficient. So that means that only three in five students are reading proficiently. In this system, that means two in five are not reading proficiently. So we have this stable, predictable system, but it's producing less than desirable outcomes currently. So it might be a little depressing, but at least we know actually what's happening in the system. I think you have to know that before you can have any hope of improving it.

0:23:35.8 Andrew Stotz: Yeah.

0:23:36.2 John Dues: And then once you know those three things, the capability, the variation and the stability, then you can ask that question. You can ask that by what method question that Dr. Deming would ask.

0:23:48.7 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. And when I look at what this, as I was saying about the aspirational goal, all of a sudden it becomes harder. Like all of a sudden you come to this realization that to get to a new level of output of this system is going to really require new thinking, new action, rethinking. It's going to show that, there's so many things that hit me when I look at that.

0:24:15.2 John Dues: Yeah, yeah. I mean, so to drive that point home. So we've talked about that 20% stretch goal. It's beyond the capability of this third grade reading system as it's currently designed. The target is currently nothing more than a hope and a dream. But that all important question is by what method? So by what method could this third grade ELA system be improved?

0:24:40.2 Andrew Stotz: That great old song, coming in on a wing and a prayer.

0:24:45.5 John Dues: Yeah, that's about right. That's about right. But I think we should shift the focus to that question more than this question of setting a goal or people hitting this target that's been set for them in education. And we should think about what fundamental redesign of that third grade reading system would have to happen for any chance of improved outcomes.

0:25:16.1 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, I mean, this, by far, this wakes you up to that reality and helps you then start to rethink. How are we going to tackle this?

0:25:25.9 John Dues: Yeah, and you can do things like look for bright spots, right? There are places that despite having a high percentage of kids that are economically disadvantaged, still get very high scores. What are they doing that could be studied and perhaps brought to other places? Now you have to be a little careful there because education is one of those complex systems that context really, really matters. So you can't just pick up an idea from one place and put it in another place and expect it's going to work. There's more that goes into it than that. But at least going and finding those bright spots is something that's a starting place you can start to learn from.

0:26:11.5 John Dues: But that... At least when you have the three conditions, again, you have this logical starting point for that target setting. So again, you can set a stretch goal in my mind, but you should first understand those three things. And again, it should take on this improvement orientation where you've set this challenge out on the horizon, you've rallied your team around it, you've clearly communicated this is an improvement thing and not an accountability thing. And then you get to work as a team, slowly trying to figure things out and working your way closer and closer to that ambitious goal out on the horizon over maybe a six month or 18 month or three year timeline, something like that, depending on what the nature...

0:27:03.4 Andrew Stotz: I had an interesting experience with this because you helped me look at my student enrollment for Valuation Masterclass Bootcamp in a process chart. And I looked at it and I could see it was just like, this is a stable system. And then I made some adjustments to the system and we had a huge number outside of the control limits.

0:27:24.6 John Dues: Oh, yeah.

0:27:25.9 Andrew Stotz: And then the next time it went right back down where it was. And I realized like, it was like extra human effort for that period, like double down everything, and it wasn't a sustainable change to the system. And now I'm working on that sustainable change because I realized that even an exceptional effort in one period couldn't be sustained.

0:27:52.1 John Dues: Yeah, I think next time we'll actually talk about that. I'm working on an article about how to define improvement and how to know when it's happened and when it hasn't. So that'll be a good pickup point for next time. But I think that's the basic message I wanted to get across this time. And I think as we move towards wrap up, I think school leaders, I mean people in schools, they want to do better, right. So they set those stretch goals for that reason. But I think the three big ideas from this article can really help people as they're navigating that process with their team. So three big ideas that people can take with them from this episode. I think big idea one is that we've talked about setting stretch goals is ineffective and counterproductive in most cases.

0:28:54.7 John Dues: Big idea two was we want to gather that baseline data and then we want to plot it on some type of time series chart, even if it's just a run chart. And then big idea three was we wanted to understand those three conditions prior to setting any type of goal. And I think if people apply those big ideas to their goal setting work, now the team in place at the school is set up to answer that most important question, which is, by what method are we going to improve our system?

0:29:29.9 Andrew Stotz: Fantastic. Well, that's a great summary of it and I think you've walked through it in a simple and clear way. So I just want to thank you on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute for this discussion. And for learners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. And you can also find John's book, Win-Win: W. Edwards Deming, the System of Profound Knowledge and the Science of Improving Schools on Amazon.com. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming: People are entitled to joy in work.

What if learning could feel like a team sport instead of a pressure test? Lyle "Lee" Jenkins, PhD., a longtime educator, shares how a chance encounter led him to a Deming conference specifically for educators in 1992, which transformed his thinking. Deming emphasized defining learning outcomes, rejecting numerical goals, and avoiding ranking. Lee explains how Deming methods prevent "cram and forget", celebrate small wins, and rekindle students' natural love of learning. (Lee shared a powerpoint during the episode, which you can find on our website.)

TRANSCRIPT

0:00:02.3 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today I'm talking with Lee Jenkins, who is a career educator in public school, ending his career as a school district superintendent. It was as a superintendent that he was introduced to the teachings of Dr. Deming, and he has been applying it to his life and work since then. In his business, Crazy Simple Education, he publishes books and schedules speaking engagements. Lee, how you doing?

0:00:38.4 Lee Jenkins: I am doing just great, Andrew. Yeah, this has been fun to put together. And just to highlight, I haven't done this before, just to highlight just simply what Deming taught. We've obviously, over the years added other things, but today we're just talking about what did he teach, just the pure form of it and our implementation of that.

0:01:01.6 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. And I think you and I have already met once and gone through this. It's pretty interesting, you know, I think what I enjoyed about our discussion, truthfully, what I liked, was your energy and the energy about the teachings of Deming and how we can apply that. And so I'm looking forward to seeing you bring that to the audience. Now, for those that are listening, we're going to have... Lee's got a PowerPoint and a presentation he's going to share, but we'll walk you through it. It's not like it's full of very complicated things. So, Lee, why don't you take us through a little bit about what you've prepared here?

0:01:38.3 Lee Jenkins: Okay, I can do that, Andrew. I was like anybody else as a school superintendent. I went to a meeting of the Association of School Administrators. I can't even tell you what city or state it was in, but I was there. And while I was in the hallway between sessions, Lew Rhodes, who worked for AASA, he came up and he said, "Lee, I think you'll enjoy this next session." And that's why I've called this, One-Minute Invite That Changed My Life. So I went in and no idea, I just liked Lew. I trusted him. And it was David Langford's an administrator. And that's how I was introduced to Deming and spent a lot of time after that, reading everything I could get my hands on and absorbed it. And I knew that he was correct in how organizations are operating. And so that intrigued me a great deal. But it was the same information that he shared with all organizations. I just took them and applied them to education. But then two years later, in 1992, American Association of School Administrators, under... With Lew Rhodes' leadership, sponsored a Deming conference. So I went to Washington, DC in January that year to hear him speak.

0:03:20.2 Lee Jenkins: We were there four days. He was assisted and was a part of it for two days. And for two days it was him on stage, the red beads, you know, all the things that listeners know about with Dr. Deming. And I would say that the first part of it was the things you would normally expect to hear. Now, understand, the audience here was educators. And I know there were educators sprinkled in his audiences in his whole speaking career. I know that. I wasn't one of them, but I know that. This was one that was specifically for educators. And nobody's told me any other time when he spoke to educators as the audience. So, but just things he'd say that we've all heard.

0:04:13.7 Lee Jenkins: Best efforts are not enough, you have to have knowledge, you have to have theory. He said too, you can't delegate quality. And I had school superintendents doing that all the time. You ask them about, anything about teaching or learning, they say, oh, no, I'm not involved in teaching and learning. I have an assistant superintendent for instruction. In other words, they've delegated quality. Deming talked about wasting time and wasting money in all organizations, and certainly schools are good at that. I'm going to talk at the end of this, how I took it onto one other point which is similar to what he's talked about also. The losses of the current system. He said in one place that, for 50 years... Now, he said this in the '90s, but for 50 years, America has been asking for better education without a definition of what better education is. And...

0:05:10.5 Andrew Stotz: That reminds me of talking to Bill Scherkenbach, who showed a picture of him, Dr. Deming, in the old days at an event of national teachers, and he said they really couldn't come up with a conclusion about what was the aim. [laughter]

0:05:25.9 Lee Jenkins: Yes, right. It's... Yeah, okay. And then he described fear, brings about wrong figures. So what did our government do? No Child Left Behind, which says, you increase your reading scores or your math scores or we're going to fire you. Well, then you get wrong numbers. That's what he predicted, that numerical goals are a failure. I had a discussion with a pastor several years ago and he said, "Our goal is to have 2,000 people in attendance on Easter Sunday." I said, "Okay, what's the best we've had so far?" "It was around 1800." "Okay, what happens if we have 1900 on Easter Sunday, the best ever? What do we do?" Well, it kind of caused him to think, which is my purpose. It wasn't to be critical, it was to get him to think. You could do your best ever but call yourself a failure because you didn't meet this artificial number. And I can hear Deming talking about just pulling the number out of the air. And that ranking is a failure. We rank and rank and rank in schools. I've got a granddaughter in first grade. School has just started. She's student of the month in her class, which means there's 19 failures of the month. I mean, Deming, it's just sad to see that it's still going on. But then Dr. Deming, I don't think it was in... It wasn't in his PowerPoint. Not even a PowerPoint. We had transparencies.

0:07:12.0 Andrew Stotz: Acetates.

0:07:12.6 Lee Jenkins: It wasn't in his transparencies. It wasn't in the handouts. But it's like he went on this little tangent and that's what has captivated my career, his tangent. And it was Dr. Deming, the statistician, talking about the classroom. So I'm going to go through what he said, just as he said, point by point. He said, number one, tell the students what they will learn this year. Now, when I share this with people, they say, oh, yeah, our college professors had syllabuses. I said, no, no, a syllabus is what the professor is going to teach. Dr. Deming talked about, what are they going to learn? They're two different things. What are you going to learn? And you give it to them. And we've done this pre-K, kindergarten all the way to grade 12 and a little bit of work at universities.

0:08:14.6 Andrew Stotz: And how detailed do you go on that? I see you're showing concept one to concept 19. Is it, you know, this is everything you're going to learn, or this is generally what you're going to learn?

0:08:26.5 Lee Jenkins: Well, this is a partial list. So it's the essential.

0:08:31.6 Andrew Stotz: Yep.

0:08:32.6 Lee Jenkins: I tell people, put down what's essential. Do not put trivia on the list. Now, of course you teach trivia. It's interesting, it's fun, but they're not accountable for it. And so it's what students have been asking for for years. What am I supposed to learn this year? I don't know how to study for the exam. I don't know what's important. I was at a... Doing a seminar for teachers in Missouri. And I said, "I wasn't a good test taker in college. Were some of you?" And a lady raised her hand and said, "Oh yeah, I was really good at it." I said, "How did it work?" She said, "Well, I was in a study committee and by design, half of our time was sharing our insights as we psyched out the professor. And then once we agreed on what was important and the personality of that professor, then we studied that." That's nonsense. Here's Dr. Deming saying, just tell them what you want them to learn, it's so simple.

0:09:47.0 Andrew Stotz: In the world of teaching, we often talk about learning outcome statements at the beginning of a lecture.

0:09:55.6 Lee Jenkins: Yeah.

0:09:56.5 Andrew Stotz: And I know, for instance, with CFA for Chartered Financial Analysts, they have very clear learning outcome statements and then they have a whole section that they teach and it's self study. And then you take an exam. Is that... Is learning outcome statement the same thing or is this something different?

0:10:13.0 Lee Jenkins: I would say it's the same. It's very, very close. It's same in general terms. Exactly. We're not talking about how it's going to be taught, only that it's going to be learned. Okay, the next thing Dr. Deming said to do... And by the way, before we leave, make sure this is a partial list. If I put the whole year's list on there, it's so small nobody could read it on the screen. Okay, next he said, give the students an exam every week on a random sample from the whole course. Said if, for example, you had a 100 concepts on your list, they would take a quiz on 10 of them each week, randomly selected.

0:11:02.6 Andrew Stotz: This is so mind blowing. Go ahead, keep going.

0:11:07.7 Lee Jenkins: Yes, because... So what do we do now in schools? We do cram, get a grade, forget. That's the most common thing in American education. Cram, get a grade, forget. Have a friend in college. He said, "Lee, I've looked at your website. I have a little bit of an idea of what you do. You don't know this about me, but I never studied the night before an exam in college, ever." "Oh, really? What'd you do, Larry?" He said, "Well, I set the alarm for 4 o'clock in the morning. I studied the morning before the exam." I said, "Why is that?" "I couldn't remember it overnight. So I did well in college. I got the grades on the exam and by noon it was gone. But I got through. That was my system." I was at my annual dermatology exam and the medical doctor said, "What do you do?"

0:12:20.7 Lee Jenkins: I said, "Well, actually I get on airplanes and I give speeches." "Ah, who do you give them to?" "Well, teachers and administrators." "But what do you tell them?" "I tell them how to set up a system where it's impossible to cram and forget, you just have to learn." She said, "Oh, that's interesting. That's what I did all the way through medical school." And I'm thinking, here I am with somebody who crammed and forgot all the way through. So I checked with an MD on my next plane flight who I happened to be sitting next to one. I told him the story. He said, "Yeah, that's how it works." I said, "Well, when do you learn?" "Residency." So Dr. Deming didn't talk about cram, forget. But the side effect was, when the students don't know what's coming on the Friday exam, they'll say to me, I just have to learn. There's no other choice. You just have to learn.

0:13:25.8 Andrew Stotz: Right. And then you talk about the... You're talking about the random sample size is roughly the square root of total concept list. I'm thinking about a 15 hour course that I teach and there's 25 concepts that I'm teaching. So a random sample would be 5 of those 25, give them that test. And then the idea here is that we're testing their understanding of that material. And in the beginning, let's just say that random, in the beginning, I haven't taught anything. So they have five questions and on average, let's say they get one right in the beginning because...

0:14:05.2 Lee Jenkins: You'd be lucky if you got an average of one. Yes.

0:14:07.8 Andrew Stotz: So we have evidence that they don't know the topic.

0:14:10.9 Lee Jenkins: Right.

0:14:11.6 Andrew Stotz: And then as we... Let's say we have five weeks and each week we go through, then in theory, if we've taught right and they've learned right, that they would be able to answer all five of those randomly selected questions on the fifth week?

0:14:29.3 Lee Jenkins: That's what you're after. You want them to not have to study, but whatever five is pulled out, they would get it. And if you're teaching a five week course, you might give 10 quizzes during the time, one at the beginning and one at the end of each class. So that because the random, you want them to have questions come up more than once, you want them to have the same question come up. Because that's part of the joy. Oh, we've had that, it's been taught or I've seen that before and it's not 25 questions, it's 25 concepts. Because you can ask it a multitude of different ways to see if they have the concept.

0:15:09.3 Andrew Stotz: And for teachers nowadays, or administrators, they're going to say, what's the point of giving quizzes for topics you haven't taught?

0:15:22.7 Lee Jenkins: That is the most common thing I've been told. Okay. And teachers who have done this for a number of years, sometimes 10, they will say that is the most powerful part of the whole process. Think of it as the synonym for what Dr. Deming taught as review preview. People are used to previews of movies and TV shows and all kinds of previews. And that's what it is. It's a preview. It's not graded. You know, the quizzes aren't graded. That is not fair.

0:16:00.9 Andrew Stotz: You mean they just don't count... They don't count as a grade for the students?

0:16:05.4 Lee Jenkins: Don't count as a... They're scored.

0:16:07.0 Andrew Stotz: Yeah.

0:16:07.3 Lee Jenkins: They're scored...

0:16:08.6 Andrew Stotz: They're scored.

0:16:08.7 Lee Jenkins: But they're not ABCDF on it. Yeah.

0:16:10.3 Andrew Stotz: Yep.

0:16:11.1 Lee Jenkins: It's just a number, correct. Yes. And so like a geography teacher, excuse me, science teacher, said, "You can't believe what happened to me last Friday. I said to the students, on Monday, we're going to start a unit on rocks. And these are middle school students. And they all applauded." He said, "I've never had students applaud about rocks before." Why? Because it keeps coming up on the quizzes and they want to know. It does that. And then when the students get things right that the teacher hasn't taught yet, then they get, oh, they're really happy. I outfoxed the teacher. I know that.

0:16:57.8 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. You can also imagine it would be interesting if you gave a test and the score was, you know, a four on average out of five, let's say, right at the beginning of the class, you think, wait a minute, they already know this stuff. How did they learn that? Where did they learn that? What am I doing in this class?

0:17:15.1 Lee Jenkins: And see, and one of the things we have to get our heads around is, it doesn't matter how they learn it. The question is, did they learn it? I mean, with AI out, okay, they can... They could do AI... They could find out on their own. They can ask their parents. I mean, there's books, there's the Internet. It doesn't matter. Did they learn it?

0:17:40.4 Andrew Stotz: Yep. Okay, this is great.

[overlapping conversation]

0:17:42.5 Lee Jenkins: So then Dr. Deming said, if you've got 100 concepts, then you'd have 10... It's what he said. You'd be 10 questions a week. So that was in January and in November, I wrote him a letter and we had teachers in the school district already doing this. "Thank you for your kind letter and for the 100 sided die." I had just seen that and they're on Amazon. You can buy a die that's 100 sides. It's like the size of a golf ball. He said "it's exciting. Thank you also for the charts, which I've looked at with interest. I wish for you all good things and remain with blessed greetings. Sincerely yours, W. Edwards Deming."

0:18:29.3 Andrew Stotz: That's cool. And that 100 sided die, that was just saying, if you had 100 concepts, just roll the die and pick whatever ones that land... The 10 that lands on it.

0:18:43.1 Lee Jenkins: Right. Now, I've discouraged over times people landing on 100 because you want essential. So to get to 100, you either have to add trivia to get to 100 or you have to take away essential to get down to 100. So I want people to put down what is it that's essential for their kids to know and when they see them 10 years from now, they still know it.

0:19:10.0 Andrew Stotz: Yep. Okay. So, let's not... We're not going to fixate on 100 is what you're saying.

0:19:14.6 Lee Jenkins: Don't fixate on the 100. But I'm telling what Dr. Deming said as an example. Yeah. And what we did. Okay. Then he said create a scatter diagram. This is not a scatter plot, it's a scatter diagram. So if you look at the bottom left, you can see that... And let me find here, if I can just pointer options. Let's get this. Okay, if you look right here, this is Quiz 1, Quiz 2, Quiz 3. Over time...

0:19:49.4 Andrew Stotz: Okay. So the... Just for the listeners, we're seeing a document that's up here with a 14 quizzes across the bottom. Yep. And then on the Y-axis...

0:20:03.1 Lee Jenkins: And the Y-axis is from 0 to 10.

0:20:06.5 Andrew Stotz: And that's the quiz questions.

0:20:09.8 Lee Jenkins: No, it's... They were asked 10 questions. Yes.

0:20:12.0 Andrew Stotz: Okay. So in this case we can see...

[overlapping conversation]

0:20:12.7 Lee Jenkins: The question number...

0:20:12.7 Andrew Stotz: And then those questions were randomly selected. And then they were put into a quiz format of 10 quizzes, quiz questions. And here we can see, for instance, question number two, four people, I'm assuming, got it right.

0:20:29.8 Lee Jenkins: On quest... This is... On quiz two...

0:20:31.0 Andrew Stotz: Quiz number one, let's say quiz number one, question number two.

0:20:35.7 Lee Jenkins: Quiz one, nobody... One person got zero right. One person got one right. Four people got two right.

0:20:41.7 Andrew Stotz: Okay. Okay. I see.

0:20:42.8 Lee Jenkins: One person got three. Okay?

0:20:44.8 Andrew Stotz: Yep.

0:20:45.8 Lee Jenkins: These are people for quiz one.

0:20:49.1 Andrew Stotz: Okay.

0:20:50.3 Lee Jenkins: Then this is quiz two. And then this is quiz three. Generally one each week. We've landed on seven times a quarter, because think snow days come up, things happen.

0:21:09.0 Andrew Stotz: Yep.

0:21:09.5 Lee Jenkins: But so seven out of the nine weeks works. So this is the quiz for a semester.

0:21:16.8 Andrew Stotz: Okay.

0:21:17.6 Lee Jenkins: And the end, at the 14th week, a 14th quiz, I mean, you've got one, two, three, four, five, six. We've got all 10 right. You got four of them with nine, et cetera. That's your Scatter diagram.

0:21:32.2 Andrew Stotz: Okay.

0:21:33.4 Lee Jenkins: Okay. Then he said, do that. Then he said, which I've heard nobody else ever say, add up the total for the whole class. That is unbelievable. Think about it. When an athletic team wins, the players and the coaches celebrate together. In schools, when the final's over, the students celebrate and they do not invite the teacher. Here, every time they are tracking their work, this is quiz one, quiz two, quiz three, four, five, six, seven. It's an interesting one. Somebody put this chart up on a bulletin board, put push pins up and connected with rubber bands.

0:22:24.5 Andrew Stotz: Right.

0:22:25.8 Lee Jenkins: Okay. Here's another one where they're learning that the United States states, they have a blank map of the United States. An arrow points to one of the states. They have to write down what state that is. And there they are. And this shows the progress over 18 quizzes. And you can see it going up and up and up. And here's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight times, where... And maybe there's another one. But you're... I'm covered... Oh, there is another one. There's nine times that the class did better than ever before as a team of learners. And they celebrate together, the teachers and the students together.

0:23:16.1 Andrew Stotz: Right.

0:23:16.7 Lee Jenkins: Look what we did. Then here's another one. This one on the left is from Australia. And I don't know what subject it was. There's no information. But I know that they went out and took a picture of it with one of the students holding it because they were so excited they'd hit the 200 mark after having started out at 65.

0:23:41.3 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. And for the listeners, we're... Basically Lee's showing different run charts of the number correct, starting from quiz number one all the way through to the final quizzes. And the number is going up and to the right showing that the process of learning is working.

0:24:03.4 Lee Jenkins: Yes. And this one here is spelling. We know that spelling doesn't... Spelling tests don't work. It starts in first grade. It's the classic cram on Thursday night if your mom makes you, take the test on Friday, forget on Saturday. So here is a classroom with 400 spelling words for the year. They're all put in a bucket and 20 are pulled out each... 20 are pulled out each quiz at random. And you can see they're learning the words. Now, sometimes people think that we teach at random. You don't teach at random. You teach logically.

0:24:40.1 Andrew Stotz: Right.

0:24:41.2 Lee Jenkins: But the random is giving you accurate information. Are the students actually learning it and not just playing the game. And here's a... You want students to do the work as much as possible. They're your student. That is when you see the coloring and the art, the creativity. Yeah, that's... You want to hand that over to kids to do as soon as you can. And here's one. A French class out of Canada. This is a Spanish class, a third year Spanish class. And the teacher has written that ABC, ABC, ABC, because the teacher had three different quizzes all for the same concepts. So they got quiz A, one week. Quiz B the next time. Quiz C the next time. Whatever, random numbers, but then she had three different complete sets of questions for each of the concepts.

0:25:37.0 Andrew Stotz: Right.

0:25:39.6 Lee Jenkins: Oh, I love this one here. The class had 69 correct, then 108, then 128 right as a class. Then they slumped. One, two, three, four, five, six weeks they slumped and they ended up 129 correct as a class. One more than ever before. The kids are thrilled. If you don't count it up, you'll never know that as a teacher. You'll never know it.

0:26:07.3 Andrew Stotz: And you wouldn't know your progress relative to your past class.

0:26:11.2 Lee Jenkins: You would not.

0:26:12.0 Andrew Stotz: Yep.

0:26:12.8 Lee Jenkins: And so I can't tell you how many teachers have told me, when they have a... The class has an all time best by one or two, a student in the class who's been struggling will stand up and do a chest pump and say, it was me.

0:26:27.6 Andrew Stotz: Yeah.

0:26:28.8 Lee Jenkins: If it hadn't been for my correct questions, which were few in number, but hadn't been for mine, the class wouldn't be celebrating. Yeah, we all understand that, if you're a poor athlete, you're on the basketball team and you're on the bench and the coach decides to put you in for a little bit. The other team fouls you because they know you're not a good athlete. But you make the free throw and the team wins by one.

0:26:57.3 Andrew Stotz: Right.

0:26:57.6 Lee Jenkins: You don't hang your head and say, we only won by one. No, you and everybody knows you're the one that made the point that counted, yeah, it's the same thing. And I've wrote this, it's so important. But sports teams celebrate together, coach and athletes, with class run charts, teachers and students celebrate together. So since 1992, we have subtracted nothing from Dr. Deming, what he taught. We've added some clever additions. The little dots on there that say all time best, that's an addition. We changed it from every week to almost every week. And if we have a chance to do another podcast, I will focus on all the things we've added that are so creative, that have come mainly from students. But what Dr. Deming said, and I'm estimating it was three to five minutes, that he shared and they went back to his normal program and it just impacted me. I couldn't believe it.

0:28:15.7 Andrew Stotz: Right.

0:28:17.9 Lee Jenkins: On the website, Crazy Simple Education, there are free blank graphs. So if anybody's interested in what I'm talking about, there's... If you're... And you'd have to look at, if I'm adding... If I'm asking five questions a week, then there's question... There's graphs for that. If I'm asking 20, there's... They're all there. And other things.

0:28:36.6 Andrew Stotz: Yep.

0:28:39.6 Lee Jenkins: So there's kind of just my little bit of the bio, but it's already been shared. And then on the website, if anybody's interested after over 25 years, what would be the most detailed information of Dr. Deming it's in this book. But you're going to get that information in the future anyway. But I'm just saying, it is there.

0:29:10.9 Andrew Stotz: And just for the viewers, that book, go back to the book for a second. For the listeners, it's called the Essential Navigation Tool for Creating Math Experts, Numbers, Logic, Measurement, Geometry.

0:29:24.0 Lee Jenkins: It has the actual quizzes for grade five, the 28 quizzes for the year. They're there.

0:29:31.2 Andrew Stotz: Right. Right. Amazing.

0:29:33.0 Lee Jenkins: It is superbly put together. Each of the concepts in grade five is assessed seven times. Each of the grade four concepts are assessed twice during the school year. And each of the grade three concepts are assessed once during the year.

0:29:53.5 Andrew Stotz: Yep.

0:29:54.0 Lee Jenkins: So you don't have to waste the first month or so going over last year. You just start the new content and the review is built in.

0:30:02.4 Andrew Stotz: Yep. Okay. And for the listeners and the viewers, we're not trying to sell this stuff. What we're trying to do is show it as an example of the things that you're doing, which is great.

0:30:12.6 Lee Jenkins: Yes. Yeah. It just shows what can be done with the simple concepts.

0:30:18.5 Andrew Stotz: Yeah.

0:30:18.8 Lee Jenkins: And this is one example. Yes. And so then Dr. Deming talked about waste. And he also said that graphs have to be long and narrow. So here's my long and narrow graph on waste. I asked 3,000 teachers, five different states, just what grade level do you teach and what percentage of your kids love school? Okay, well, kindergarten teachers said 95% of their kids love school. First grade said 90%, second grade said 82% love school. And it goes down every year. It gets fewer and fewer kids love being in school until we get a low of 37% love school in grade nine. It ticks up slightly in grades 10, 11, and 12. But I show this to people, the most common answer I get is, well, of course it went up in grade 10, 11, and 12. I dropped out of high school. They didn't count me.

0:31:25.9 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, yeah.

0:31:28.6 Lee Jenkins: So, but, so the biggest waste in education is the love of learning kids bring to kindergarten. Much more damage caused by that than wasting time and money. That the kids have all the motivation they need for life in that five-year-old body. It's not our job to motivate...

0:31:52.4 Andrew Stotz: And then we flush it out of them.

0:31:52.4 Lee Jenkins: Yeah. It's not our job to motivate them. It's the job to maintain it. So I'll tell you a story of a good friend that I worked with from the very beginning. I mentioned that when I had the note that went off to Dr. Deming. And after we'd just gotten started, he's still teaching grade eight science. He has five periods of science. He says every year, the first day of school, three, four, five eighth graders come to him each period. And they say, "Just so you know, Mr. Burgard, I hate science." So he says to them, "Oh, that's interesting. How long have you hated science?" The kids say the same thing every time, "I always hated science." He says, "You know, actually, that's not true. You loved everything in kindergarten. Tell me your story." And they tell the story. Well, I was in grade three or I was in grade five, whatever, they tell their story. He says, "Okay, here's the deal this year, I'm not going to motivate you to learn science. What I am going to do is to try to put you back the way you used to be. We're going to put you back with the mind of a kindergartner loving learning. That's what we're going to do." Because they... Everybody has stories on what happened to them.

0:33:23.4 Andrew Stotz: Yep.

0:33:24.3 Lee Jenkins: So I would conclude this part by saying, I am forever grateful to Dr. Deming. My younger son went to the Deming Scholars Program with Joyce Orsini and he graduated. I got to meet both Diana and Judy Cahill, and they were helpful. Kevin just been helpful to me. Kevin Cahill, the grandson, David Langford, I met with him in-person probably 20 times. All encouraging. Jake Rodgers now is the reason why we're here. And of course you, Andrew. So there's so many people to be grateful to that have encouraged me along this journey, in addition to several thousand teachers who send me their stories and their pictures of their graphs, thanks.

0:34:14.1 Andrew Stotz: Fantastic. That's quite a story. And I just love those lessons that you've gone through. I'm going to stop. Is it okay if I stop sharing the screen? I'm going to do that myself here. Is that okay?

0:34:27.9 Lee Jenkins: Yes.

0:34:28.4 Andrew Stotz: Okay, hold on. Don't do anything there. Okay, now I see you, you and me. I want to wrap up because I think that was a great presentation. A lot of things that I'm thinking about myself. But I did have one question for you that I... I'm not sure what to do. One of the things that I've found with teaching is that sometimes my students, they have a hard time focusing. And so when I tell them, okay, you need to read chapters one, two and three before we meet the next time, let's say short chapters. And then they find it's hard for them to stay, they're like, ah, I'll do it later. So they really haven't covered the material. Now, if I give them, if I say, you need to read chapters one, two and three, and I'm going to have a short quiz on chapters one, two and three, and I'm going to give you quizzes every time that we meet, not as an objective to score your work, but as an objective to help you keep focused. And then I do that, let's say five times, and then I take the two best scores and I drop the rest, so, it shows that they did it. And I find that my students, they definitely do... They stay up on their work with it. So my question is, how do I incorporate this, which is really an assessment of the learning in the class with that, or do I need to drop what I'm doing with my quizzes?

0:36:00.6 Lee Jenkins: Okay, we're really talking about the difference between them intrinsically wanting to learn it and being pressured to learn it.

0:36:13.8 Andrew Stotz: Yep.

0:36:14.0 Lee Jenkins: In a sense. Okay? Now, one of the parts I did not share that could be for future. But the students do graph their own work. Dr. Deming didn't talk about that, but that was... I just focused on what he taught. They graph their own work. And then there's the graph for the whole class. They want to know if they have a personal best. They care about that at all grade levels.

0:36:41.8 Andrew Stotz: Yep.

0:36:42.4 Lee Jenkins: When I... My work is with teachers and if it's a two-day seminar, there's three quizzes, day one and three, and three more quiz, two, day two. There's... You see them, high five. They're teachers. They got... They did better than ever before. Other people are congratulating them. They're so happy. And then at the table where they... Because they usually sit about six or eight at a table, they can see their table did better. There's a chart up on the wall, that's everybody in the room. It might be 200. And altogether we did better than ever before. They care about that. And so kids...

0:37:29.6 Andrew Stotz: Okay so from that, do I take from that drop the quiz that I'm doing and replace it with what you're talking about and get them excited about that and then they'll do their work naturally.

0:37:41.3 Lee Jenkins: Because they don't want to let the team down.

0:37:45.7 Andrew Stotz: Right.

0:37:46.1 Lee Jenkins: Okay?

0:37:46.5 Andrew Stotz: Okay.

0:37:47.7 Lee Jenkins: One of Dr. Deming's story for business was, a businessman came, listened to him and he had salespeople on commission. He went back after hearing Dr. Deming and he said, I'm not going to pay everybody their individual commissions anymore. We're going to put all the commissions in a bucket and everybody gets the same amount. So what happened? The best salesperson quit and the company sales went up because everybody wanted to help the team. They couldn't... They didn't want to be the freeloader. They wanted to contribute. But when you think, oh, that person always gets the free trip to Hawaii. I'll never get that. It's not motivating. It's demotivating.

0:38:37.7 Andrew Stotz: Right.

0:38:38.4 Lee Jenkins: And so they want to help. My only time that I know about a good experience in college, was a professor teaching masters students. And he taught the same class on Monday night and Tuesday night. They were doing research methods from all departments on campus. He gave the quiz on Monday night and then the same goes on Tuesday night. And students, they're taking night classes. They don't come every time, things happen in their lives. So it used to be if a student said, I can't come next Tuesday night, they just wouldn't come. Now they say I can't come next Tuesday night, is it okay if I come on Monday, if I do that and take the quiz, will you put my score on the Tuesday night group? Because they don't want to let their team down. Here they are in their 30s and 40s and 50s, getting their master's degree and they care about... So it's... And then something else we haven't talked about, that we have graphs for the school. It's the whole... It's the school-wide graph. And every teacher has to turn in the total for their classroom for whatever subject they're doing it with by a certain time. And then there's a graph in the hallway for the whole school. Teachers you're not going around the clipboard and inspecting the teachers to make sure they turn it in. No, they do turn it in because they want to help... They don't want to let the team down.

0:40:06.4 Andrew Stotz: Right, right. Okay, I got it. All right. Is there anything you want to share in the... In wrapping up?

0:40:16.0 Lee Jenkins: I would say that you will get the question, how can you assess them on things that you haven't taught yet? And the answer is you don't grade... You don't give them a letter grade for it.

0:40:28.6 Andrew Stotz: Yep. So you're assessing their knowledge. You're not scoring that assessment.

0:40:34.3 Lee Jenkins: Yes. Yes. And you will have more fun than you can believe from Dr. Deming's simple concept, no matter what age you're teaching, no matter what subject, you will love it.

0:40:48.8 Andrew Stotz: It's brilliant. It's brilliant because it shows that the teacher cares, that first the teacher says, I know what I want to get you guys to learn in this semester as an example. And it's very clear. And I want to know that you're learning it.

0:41:08.5 Lee Jenkins: Yes. And actually, the hardest part for teachers is to write down on a sheet of paper what they want them to know at the end of the year.

0:41:15.7 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. It forces a lot of structure onto you to have to think ahead of time, what do I... What exactly do I want here? You can't... What you're talking about is really clarifying the learning outcomes.

0:41:28.7 Lee Jenkins: Yes. You can't just say one... Stay one chapter ahead of the kids.

0:41:32.7 Andrew Stotz: Yeah.

0:41:33.2 Lee Jenkins: No, you got to know upfront what it is, and that's hard. That takes time. And you revise it. At the end of the year, you'll say, why did I put that dumb one on there, everybody knows that. Oh, I left off something else that was really important. Why didn't I put that on there? Well, every year you will tweak it, but you're not starting over again, ever.

0:41:54.0 Andrew Stotz: One of the interesting things that I can do is, I have my valuation masterclass, which is an online course, and it's a 12-week course. And I do it, let's say roughly three times a year. So I've got a great data set there that I rep... You know, my repetition is not annual. It's three times a year. I even may do it four. But the point is that, you know, I can just repeat, repeat, repeat, improve, improve, improve, and then show them as...

[overlapping conversation]

0:42:20.1 Lee Jenkins: You can... You got a perfect model.

0:42:21.1 Andrew Stotz: Yeah.

0:42:21.4 Lee Jenkins: Yes, you can.

0:42:22.4 Andrew Stotz: Yeah. No, that's exciting. Okay, well, on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute, I want to thank you, Lee, for joining us and sharing your Deming journey and just a very tiny interaction with Dr. Deming and what he's teaching, that you've expanded into something to bring that joy in learning. So I really appreciate that. And ladies and gentlemen, this is your host, Andrew Stotz. And I'm going to leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming and I'm going to tweak it a little bit for education because he said, people are entitled to joy in work. And I think today what we're talking about with Lee is that, people are entitled to joy in education.

0:43:04.9 Lee Jenkins: Absolutely. They are entitled to that. Absolutely. Yes. Thank you.

Great leaders know there's no one-size-fits-all formula. In this episode, Bill Scherkenbach and Andrew Stotz discuss practical lessons on how to connect with people on physical, logical, and emotional levels to truly get things done. Discover why balancing "me" and "we" is the secret to lasting results—and why empathy might be your most powerful leadership tool. Tune in now and start rewriting your own leadership playbook. (You can view the slides from the podcast here.)

TRANSCRIPT

0:00:02.1 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we dive deeper into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with Bill Scherkenbach, a dedicated protégé of Dr. Deming since 1972. Bill met with Dr. Deming more than a thousand times and later led statistical methods and process improvements at Ford and GM at Deming's recommendation. He authored The Deming Route to Quality and Productivity at Deming's behest, and at 79, still champions his mentor's message, "learn, have fun, and make a difference." And the episode today is Getting Things Done. Bill, take it away.

0:00:41.5 Bill Scherkenbach: Okay, Andrew. We will get 'er done today. The reason I put that on there is that in many of his seminars, Deming said that, "I am not a businessman and not trying to be one." But you need to think about these things. And his approach really was to improving organizations was to put people who he thought were masters of his teachings into organizations, and they would be there full time to facilitate the transformation when he wasn't there, such as Ford and GM and a few other companies. There were a few of us who he trusted to be able to be there to get things done. And I'm reminded of the philosopher, the Asian, Chinese philosopher, Mencius, and I'll read it there. It says, "Don't suspect that the king lacks wisdom. Even in the cases of things that grow most easily in the world, they would never grow up if they were exposed to sunshine for one day and then to cold for 10 days. And it's seldom that I have an audience with the king. And when I leave others who exposed him to cold arrive, even if what I say to him is taking root, what good does it do?"

0:02:35.7 Bill Scherkenbach: And quite honestly, that's the lament of every consultant trying to get stuff done in today's world, in Western style management. And so one of the things in this slide, the framework for getting things done, for having fun learning and making a difference, is one of the two, I think, major contributions I do say that I've made to the profession of quality. And that is using this Venn diagram to be able to show that even though other people have used other terms for physical, logical, and emotional, that there usually have been holy wars being fought by people who say, "Well, emotional is better. That's how you get stuff done." And other people saying logic and other people saying physical. And in fact, I think in the last time we spoke, the three major gurus of quality were those ships sailing in the night. Dr. Deming was the epitome of logical thinking, whereas Phil Crosby was looking for the wine and cheese parties and the emotional sell part of it. And Joe Duran was looking at physical, how are you going to organize to get stuff done? Now, they all had their followers who were pretty much on those frequencies, and they reached people in other frequencies. I came up with this idea for the Venn diagram to show no hierarchy, I guess back in 1987, something like that.

0:04:49.3 Andrew Stotz: And for the listeners out there, we're looking at a diagram that shows one circle that says physical, that's interlocked with another one that says logical, and then there's a third, a Venn diagram, that third is emotional. And so those are the three pillars that Bill's talking about. All right, keep going, because you got stuff in the middle too, which is interesting.

0:05:16.1 Bill Scherkenbach: And the thing is that I based it primarily at the time in the mid-60s, there was a theory of brain structure called the triune brain. Now, and it was the limbic system, the neocortex, and the R-complex. And pretty much followed the logical, emotional, physical words that I'm using. Now, our understanding of the brain in the decades up through now, it's a little bit more complicated than that. But physical, logical, and emotional is in all of us. In our body, I mean, the latest looks at neural connections extend to your gut. And nerves are just about everywhere and connected, and that the way the brain works is still not even fully, not begun to be fully understood. Having said that, in order to get stuff done, this Venn diagram shows very, very simply that the intersection of physical and logical, I put as science. It's the logical explanation of physical phenomenon. And the intersection of logical and emotional is psychology, logic of the soul. And the intersection of emotional and physical is art. All art is is the emotional interpretation of sensory input, whether it's a great meal, whether it's a Mona Lisa picture.

0:07:27.9 Bill Scherkenbach: But what will make one person absolutely swoon will make another person barf. So it's all personal, but it's physical, logical, and emotional is in all of us. And in the center, we're looking at what Eastern philosophies call harmony, where all of these are working together. And Western philosophies would call them peak experiences. And it's where the whole can be a lot greater than the sum of its parts, but with some slight changes can be a whole lot less than the sum of its parts.

0:08:14.3 Andrew Stotz: Great. I like the harmony in the middle. That's the challenge, really. Now, just out of curiosity, is harmony the goal? Is that what you're thinking with that being at the center? Or what is the meaning of harmony being in the middle?

0:08:28.0 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah. When I apply this to the individual, harmony would be the goal. When I'm applying it to an organization, the larger an organization grows, the more you really need to use this overarching approach. And the reason I say that is, and it doesn't happen all the time, but most of the time when we're starting up a company, you want to surround yourself with fine people just like yourself. And so if you have a particular way of getting stuff done, you're going to hire people or surround yourself with people that are just like that, and everything is fine. But the more you grow the company, the more you're going to get people that are absolutely vital to your organization that aren't on those frequencies. And certainly, if you're in international business, you're trying to sell things to the world that in the larger the group of people, the more you have to be broadcasting on the physical, logical, and emotional frequencies. I mean, one of the first things that I did at GM when I joined was looked at the policy letters that Alfred Sloan wrote. And Sloan, it was very interesting because in any policy, Sloan had a paragraph that said, "make no mistake about it, this is what we're going to do."

0:10:31.8 Bill Scherkenbach: That's a physical frequency. In the Navy, it's shut up and fly wing. And so make no mistake about it, this is our policy. The second paragraph had, well, this is a little bit why we're doing it. And to be able to get the, and I don't know whether he was thinking that, but to my mind, it was brilliant. He was explained things. And the third paragraph or so in the policy letter was something that would instill the GM spirit, that there's something to do with the values. Hugely, hugely prescient in my viewpoint, but he's Sloan, I'm me, so he knew what he was doing.

0:11:29.9 Andrew Stotz: For people that don't know Alfred Sloan, he took over and was running General Motors at the time when Ford had, I don't know, 50% of the market share by producing one vehicle. And part of the brilliance of Sloan was the idea of building a lineup of different brands that went from the low all the way up to the high of Cadillac. And within a short period of time, he managed to flip things and grab the majority of the market share from Ford at the time, as I recall. Now, I don't recall it from being there, but I recall from reading about it.

0:12:12.3 Bill Scherkenbach: There you go. There you go. Yeah, having saying that, he offered those by buying the various little auto companies, littler auto companies to put that conglomerate together. But as people who have read my works, specifically my second book, The Deming's Road to Continual Improvement, this change philosophy is in there. And as I said, that's one of, I think, my major contributions to the field of quality. The other one being in a process model back in '86, we also were learning about Taguchi, Genichi Taguchi's approach to customers and the loss function, and he used the title or the terminology voice of the customer. And it occurred to me in our process definition, there was something called the voice of the process to go along. And so the voice, I introduced the voice of the process, and the job of anyone is to reduce the gap between the voice of the customer and the voice of the process. And I mentioned that because this matrix that we're showing now has physical, logical, and emotional, and the various process states that you could be in, there's a dependent state where you're completely dependent upon your customers or suppliers.

0:14:00.9 Bill Scherkenbach: There's an independent state where it's just you and an interdependent state. And I have that cross-reference with physical, logical, and emotional. In dependent state, it's essentially feed me, teach me, love me, do it for me, teach me, and love me. Now, in the independent, it's, I do it, I understand what I do, and I take great joy in doing what I do. And in the interdependent is, we do it. I understand how what I do helps optimize our process, and I take great joy in belonging to this team. And joy is the ultimate goal of what Dr. Deming had said for years, the ability to take joy in one's work. Now, I mean, every one of us starts out in life as dependent. It's feed me, teach me, love me, newborns, parents have to do everything. When you're a new employee, you might have some skills and understanding and emotion or pride, but this is how we do it in this company. And so you're dependent upon how you are introduced to that organization. But everyone tries to get out of that. Now, having said that, a pathology is there are givers and takers in this world, and some of the takers would just be very happy for other people to feed me, teach me, love me.

0:16:18.8 Bill Scherkenbach: My point or my philosophy is you've got to get out of the dependency and you have to balance that sense of independence and interdependence that is in each of us. Whether you're doing it or whether you're doing it in your family, as part of a family or a company or a motorcycle gang, whatever your group is, you're looking to blend being a part of that. Every human being looks to balance that sense of me and we. And in the thing we're finding in Western cultures, obviously, especially in North America or the US, we celebrate the me. It's the individual. And the team, we talk a good game about team, but mostly we're celebrating the me. In Eastern philosophies, they're celebrating the we. It's the team. It's not necessarily the, well, not the individual. The point is that in the Western philosophies, if you can't feel a part of a family or express that part, what we see in the US, there's a whole wave of people volunteering to belonging to organizations, whether it's sports teams, whether it's volunteer teams, whether the family balance. If you can't be a part of a family at work, you're going to go offline and do it.

0:18:24.9 Bill Scherkenbach: And the problem is your life suffers because you can't fulfill yourself as a person. In the Asian cultures, if you can't feel important as an individual, you go offline. Golf is huge in Japan and elsewhere, and it ain't a team sport. Calligraphy isn't a team sport. Karaoke isn't a choir event. There are ways to be able to express yourself offline if you can't feel important as an individual in your group. And so my philosophy is every human being needs to find that balance for each individual to be able to lead a fulfilled life.

0:19:28.7 Andrew Stotz: I'm reminded of a book by Dr. William Glasser called Reality Therapy, brought out in late '60s, I believe. And his philosophy was that part of the root cause of mental illness was that people didn't have one person they could trust. And that all of a sudden sets up all kinds of defense mechanisms that if prolonged end up leading to mental illness. That was a very interesting book, but the thing I took from it is that people want to connect. They want to belong. They want to be a part of it. They may act like they don't sometimes and all that, but we want to be in this interdependent position. And I'm looking at the bottom right corner of the matrix where it says, "I take joy in belonging to a team or this team." And that to me is, you know, that book helped me understand that it's not just the idea of, "Hey, we should all get along and work together." There is true value for a human being to be able to feel good about being part of a family or part of a business or part of a team. Something that just reminded me of.

0:20:53.7 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah. Where I'm coming from is that everyone needs to balance that pride that you take as an individual and as you take as a member of a team or a family. That the independence is not, the interdependence is not the preferred state. Everyone, even people who are celebrating team need some time out to be alone, to do whatever they need to do to hone their skills, improve their knowledge, get excited about things that they also do as individuals. So it's a balance that I'm pushing for.

0:21:51.4 Andrew Stotz: Okay, got it.

0:21:53.3 Bill Scherkenbach: Okay. So with that as a framework, I think there are a couple of mistakes, well, there are many mistakes that leaders make, but the two big ones are, is don't think that what works for you must work for everyone. Okay. And don't even think that the sequence that works for you has got to work for everyone. Change is not a predictable hierarchy. And I'll explain that further. Let's see here. Yeah, I can do it on this next one here. I've got the matrix again, and of physical, logical, emotional, and physical, logical and emotional. And if a physical person is talking to another physical person, they're communicating on a similar frequency. And so a physical person is going to say, "Okay, this is the policy." The mother will say, "Because I said so." However, that physical person is communicating, the physical person receiving that communication is going to say, "Aye, aye, roger that, consider it done."

0:23:43.6 Andrew Stotz: Loud and clear.

0:23:45.3 Bill Scherkenbach: Okay. If a physical person is telling a logical person, using those same things, these are the policy, you could be a dean at a college and you're telling your professors, "This is what we're going to do," a logical person would say, "They're ignorant suit."

0:24:11.3 Andrew Stotz: Suit, what do you mean when you say suit? You mean an ignorant executive? What does it mean suit?

0:24:16.4 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah, executive. Over here, they're called suits.

0:24:19.5 Andrew Stotz: Okay.

0:24:22.3 Bill Scherkenbach: So, no, but I'd be interested, you're logical, what would a logical person respond to a physical person who said, "Do this"?

0:24:34.5 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, I think without any logical backing, it's rejection maybe is what I would say is that ignorant, this guy doesn't know what he's talking about, he thinks just do it.

0:24:51.0 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah. Yep, yep, yep. Okay. So, and again, if that same physical leader is saying, "Well, get this done," to an emotional person, that person might say, "You Neanderthal, you don't, you don't feel what the value system is." Okay. So, I'm trying to come up with sayings or whatever that these particular people would be saying. So if the logical person tells the physical person, "We've got to do this," it could be, well, the physical person is going to say, "That's too academic, spray some paint on it so I can see it." So, and that's the diss. Logical person talking to another logical person, "Yep, I got it, I understand it, it'll be done." A logical person talking to the emotional person, "You're heartless," or, "Quit mansplaining," as they say over here. So, and again, an emotional person trying to talk to a physical person to get stuff done, the physical person's going to say, "There's no crying in baseball." And so, and the logical person will say, "That's too touchy feely," and the emotional person reacting to the emotional signal, "Oh, they really like me." So, I'm trying to use movie quotes there to express the feelings and the understanding and the, what to really get done.

0:27:04.4 Andrew Stotz: So, people really come from different places, and if we don't take that into consideration, we may, it's one of the things I teach, Bill, when I teach a course on presenting, and I say, "Are you more of a logical person or are you more of an emotional?" And half the audience will say logical, half the audience will say emotional, let's say. And I said, "If I look at your presentations that you create, they're going to be based around what you are, logical or emotional. The problem with that is that you're only going to connect with half the audience. So, you need to build the logical and emotional aspect into your presentation to capture the whole audience."

0:27:50.8 Bill Scherkenbach: Well, I would argue that you're missing a third of it because you didn't check for the physical folks. I mean, in the story I tell about what we were doing at Ford, our vice president of supply purchasing was listening to Dr. Deming and said, "Well, we need longer term contracts." And so he had his people talk to the buyers down through the ranks and we need longer term contracts. And at Ford, a longer term contract was a contract that was more than one year. And so, yep, there were classes. It's important to get it done. Everyone's enthused. We look at it six months later, no change. A year later, no change. And so we looked at, because some people react to physical stimuli. And so we looked at the policy. And in order to get a long term contract, then you had to go through three levels of supervisory approval. No person in their right mind is going to go through that hassle. So we changed one word in the policy and it changed overnight. So now if you need a contract that's less than a year, you need to go through three levels of supervisory approval.

0:29:48.5 Bill Scherkenbach: And the long term contracts were magically appearing. So there are physical people. That is not a pejorative. I know that the educators are saying, "Well, the logical and emotional, but physical is a very viable way of getting stuff done." That should not be a pejorative.

0:30:14.1 Andrew Stotz: So I think now when I'm looking at my teaching in presentation, when I think about physical and presentation, there's people that really like props. They like having physical things to bring up on the stage. They like people, "Hey, stand up and raise your hands," or "Turn and talk to the person next to you," or something like that. So maybe that's what I need to do is bring that physical into my thinking and teaching.

0:30:44.0 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah, I would recommend that. Find a way. There are many dimensions of physical. But you've got my second book. There are a bunch of ideas.

0:30:58.9 Andrew Stotz: Right here.

0:30:59.8 Bill Scherkenbach: Okay. Yep, yep, yep. Let's see here. Now we're going to go that transformation is not hierarchical. And this is hugely, hugely important. Again, if it works for you, don't make the mistake that it's going to work for everyone. And one of the sequences is everyone knows form follows function, form follows function. Physical form follows logical function. And in the automobile industry, if an automobile is to be fuel efficient, that's the function. It's got to have a jelly bean form. It's got to be aerodynamic. If the function of the vehicle is to carry passengers in comfort, the form has got to be a shoebox. Okay. And so that certainly form follows function. A screwdriver, whether it's the tool or the drink, the form follows function. If the function is to, no matter what the screw head is, you need to be able to screw it in or unscrew it, the form of it, you're going to give that head some leverage to be able to turn it.

0:32:36.9 Bill Scherkenbach: And if the function is to relax, you need to have a good vodka in the screwdriver, in the drink anyway. So if we look at how animals have evolved, a bird's beak is a prime example of over the years of whatever you want and whatever you want to say happened, the beaks went from blunt to very peaked so that they could get into a particular flower and be able to feed themselves. Dr. Deming used the example of what business are you in and the carburetor people went out of business because they only thought in terms of form. But if the function of the carburetor was, as Dr. Deming said, provide a stoichiometric mixture of air and fuel to the combustion chamber, then you might expand the number of forms that could be useful. So a number of examples of form following function, but function also follows form. The logical follows physical. And we're looking at it in the US government today. If your headcount is cut in half, you can't keep doing the same functions you were doing.

0:34:43.4 Bill Scherkenbach: You've got to figure out what your function is. So your function is going to follow form. Logical is going to follow the physical because you don't have the resources. In other times, when I was in Taiwan, I used the example of, if the price of petrol gets to 50 new Taiwanese dollars, the function of the automobile is to sit in the parking space because gas is too expensive to go anywhere. And again, the function of, I mean, if the function is security on the internet, one of the forms is the CAPTCHA. You have to identify, click the picture of all of the cars in this picture to prove you're a human. Next week, I'm going back up to Michigan to be with some of the grandchildren, but my daughter has toddlers, twins, that are 19 months old now. And whenever she is lying on the ground or on the floor, the twins sit on her. And I keep thinking of these large language models who are, that are in the AI approach to, she could be classified as a chair because her function is something for babies to sit on.

0:36:43.3 Bill Scherkenbach: And so it even applies in the AI generation. Okay, so now we come to seeing is believing. Physical leads the emotional. In Christianity, the doubting Thomas must see for himself. Some people don't really appreciate, it's not necessarily believing, but the emotional impact of going to our Grand Canyon or seeing something that is so indescribably beautiful and vast is, you have to see it to believe it or appreciate it, actually. The use of before and after pictures, if unless I see the before picture, I don't believe you did lose 150 pounds or whatever the before and after is, seeing is believing. Other, who is it? Thomas Kuhn in The Essential Tension wrote of Foucault. There's something called Foucault's Pendulum. It's a weight on maybe a 20 meter wire that back in the 1850s, he really was able to unequivocally get people behind the Copernican view that the earth really is rotating because that was the only explanation that this big, huge pendulum and the figure it was tracing in the sand, he had a spike at the end of it. Absolutely, okay, I believe the earth is spinning before the space shuttle.

0:39:07.4 Bill Scherkenbach: So, and yet, okay, seeing is believing, believing is seeing. Emotional leads the physical. Many times our beliefs cause us to use or see or miss seeing something I've said or quoted a number of things. The greatest barrier to the advancement of knowledge has not been ignorance, but we think we already know it. And so we're not going to even consider another perspective. Our friendships, our like of someone or dislike of someone can blind us to other qualities. The placebo effect, conspiracy theories, they're all believing is seeing. You believe in UFOs or unidentified aerial phenomena now, you're going to see a whole bunch of them based on your belief. And then there's feeling should drive reason. Emotional drives logical. You use your gut or intuition to make decisions. I mean, impulse sales, what's on the cap in any grocery store. You're going to buy the sizzle, not the steak. At least that's what they're selling, the sizzle. Political battles often play on the heart. So rescuing someone, emotional drives logical. If you see on YouTube, but even before that in the newspapers. I don't know if anyone remembers newspapers, but yeah, they would show pictures of someone running into a burning building and try and rescue someone or a crashed car getting them out before it explodes.

0:41:30.3 Bill Scherkenbach: If you had to think about it, you wouldn't do it perhaps, but the spur of the moment, the feelings driving over reason. Choosing a career for fulfillment and not the money. A lot of people do that and that perfectly fine. None of these as I go through them are a pejorative. They're perfectly, everyone uses, well, all of these at various points in time in your life. And last but not least, reason should prevail over passion. That logical rules the emotional, make a decision on the facts. Don't cloud your decision with emotions. Some of the ending a toxic relationship or diet and exercise. You're using reason. I've got to stick to this even though I'm hungry and sore. I've got to do this. And hopefully investing. You're not going to go for the latest fad. And there hopefully is some reason to investment strategies.

0:43:04.7 Andrew Stotz: And when...

0:43:06.8 Bill Scherkenbach: Go ahead.

0:43:09.1 Andrew Stotz: Let's just take one just to make sure that we understand what you want us to take from this. So seeing is believing and believing is seeing. And I think in all of our lives, we have some cases where we don't believe something and then we see it and then we think, "Okay, I believe now." And there's other times where we have a vision of something and we believe that it can occur and we can make it happen. And eventually we get it, we get there. So seeing is believing happens sometimes and believing is seeing happens sometimes in our life. And then some people may be more prone to one or the other. So what is the message you want us to get is to recognize that in ourselves, we're going to see it. It's going to be one way sometimes and another way and other times. Or is it to say that we want to make sure that you're aware that other people may be coming from a different perspective, the exact opposite perspective?

0:44:04.5 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah, it's the latter. This whole thing is really what management, how is management going about communicating. And if they think if what works for them is form follows function or feelings should drive reason, then they have to be aware that other people need to, might look at it the other way around and approach their communication. Again, and this goes to the voice of the customer and the voice of the process. Every one of us has an individual voice of the customer. And people, psychologists would say, "Well, that's internal motivation or motivation's internal." Many of them do. Having said that, it's management's job who manages the process to be able to, if someone is motivated by money, that's important to them, then management needs to talk on that frequency. If they want retirement points or time with their family or recognition in other ways, what will, and Deming mentioned it, what will, he gave a tip to someone who just wanted to help him with his luggage getting to the hotel room and gave him a tip and completely demoralized him. And so management's job is to know their people, they're the most important customers that management has if you're going to satisfy whatever customer base your organization is trying to meet. And so how to get stuff done, getting things done, this applies to all of it.

0:46:15.5 Andrew Stotz: Fantastic. All right, I'm going to stop sharing the screen if that's okay?

0:46:19.9 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah.

0:46:20.6 Andrew Stotz: Okay, hold on. So an excellent run through of your thinking, and I know for listeners and readers out there, you've got both of your books, but one of them I've got in my hand, Deming's Road to Continual Improvement, and also the other one, which we have right here, which is The Deming Route to Quality and Productivity, both of these books you can find on Amazon, and you go into more detail in it, in particular in The Deming's Road to Continual Improvement. Is there anything you want to say either about where people can go to find more and learn more about it, and anything you want to say to wrap up this episode?

0:47:04.1 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah, the first book, my second edition, is in e-book form on Kindle. You can get it through Amazon or Apple Books. And in Apple Books, that second edition has videos of Dr. Deming as well as audio. And a whole bunch of stuff that I put in my second book. And that's in e-book format, immediately available from Apple or Kindle.

0:47:37.0 Andrew Stotz: So let's wrap up this episode on getting things done. Maybe you can just now pull it all together. What do you want us to take away from this excellent discussion?

0:47:49.6 Bill Scherkenbach: As we began, if what works for you doesn't necessarily work for everyone else. And the larger your span of control, the larger your organization, you have to understand to be broadcasting on physical, logical, and emotional levels, as well as trying to help people balance their sense of individual and their sense of team and family.

0:48:22.5 Andrew Stotz: Great, great wrap up. And the one word I think about is empathy, and really taking the time to understand that different people think differently, they understand differently. And so if you really want to make a big change and get things done, you've got to make sure that you're appealing to those different aspects. So fantastic. Well, Bill, on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this discussion. And for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. And also, you can find Bill's books on Amazon. And as he mentioned, on Apple, where there are videos in that latest book. You can get them on Kindle, on printed books. I have the printed books because I love taking notes. And so this is your host, Andrew...

0:49:12.0 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah. But old people like that.

0:49:15.4 Andrew Stotz: Yes. We like that. So this is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'm gonna leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming. And that is, that "people are entitled to joy in work."