新經濟學與台灣戴明圈: The New Economics and A Taiwanese Deming Circle

「華人戴明學院」是戴明哲學的學習共同體 ,致力於淵博型智識系統的研究、推廣和運用。 The purpose of this blog is to advance the ideas and ideals of W. Edwards Deming.

2014年4月20日星期日

品質眾生相 (249-252): livelier ball in Japan;豐田將召回639萬輛車;談判重量不重質

品質眾生相 252):

 ·【即時報導】
大腸花論壇現場稍早由中正一分局警方向民眾第三次舉牌警告,廣播表示行為已違法*。現場民眾大聲鼓譟試圖蓋過廣播,並大喊「我們宣布警察行為違憲」。人群 中有一名穿著便服的陌生男子,對現場群眾進行蒐證,一名東吳法律系的學生要求男子依照警察職權行使法,出示警察證件,否則要對他提告;而後律師也到場陪同 東吳法律系學生進入警局報案。現場氣氛一度鼓譟,稍後工作人員已經將群眾勸回原本的場地。
*「大腸花論壇現場稍早由中正一分局警方向民眾第三次舉牌警告,廣播表示行為已違法」,因新聞作業疏漏誤植為「廣播表示行為已違憲」,在此向各位讀者致歉,本論壇會持續加強新聞品質控管,謝謝。

品質眾生相 (251)

Japan commissioner apologizes over livelier ball


By Associated Press, Published: April 11

TOKYO — The commissioner of Japanese baseball has apologized after random tests showed the official ball is livelier than it should be.


The tests revealed that balls used at six stadiums on March 29 were livelier than they should have been.




Nippon Professional Baseball Commissioner Katsuhiko Kumazaki says “I want to apologize for causing a commotion.”


Japanese baseball plans to re-test the ball and has asked ball manufacturer Mizuno to explain why the balls are livelier than what the league specified.


The apology is reminiscent of a ball controversy that hit Japanese baseball last season. Ryozo Kato, the previous commissioner, resigned in October to take responsibility after the official ball had been made livelier without his knowing. The juiced-up ball resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of home runs.


Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
品質眾生相 250)
豐田將召回639萬輛車 史上第2大規模2014/04/09
日本豐田汽車4月9日向日本國土交通省提交報告稱,由於發現發動機啟動馬達和安全氣囊等存在缺陷,將召回(回收或免費維修)“VITZ(威姿)”、“RAV4”和“Porte”等約108.5萬輛小型汽車。這些車型的汽車被認為存在起火或安全氣囊無法啟動等風險。據稱至今已發生2起汽車起火事件,但無人員傷亡。加上海外市場,豐田本次將召回共計639萬輛汽車,將根據各國的規則處理。豐田曾於2012年10月在全球範圍實施過該公司史上數量最大的召回,達743萬輛。而本次召回的規模被認為僅次於12年。據日本國土交通省消息,本次召回範圍內的Porte是因發動機的馬達過度運轉,可能引起火災;而RAV4是因存在線路中斷導致安全氣囊無法打開的可能性;VITZ則是因可能出現固定駕駛座椅的零部件——彈簧斷裂而無法固定座椅的情況。本次召回的車輛中,VITZ和使用同種零部件的汽車合計約287萬輛,RAV4等合計約350萬輛,Porte等合計約2萬輛。



品質眾生相 (249):


『《服貿協議》完成談判後,總統馬英九曾不只一次公開宣示,希望協議能在特定時間點前生效;這類的「軍令狀」,對曾參與兩岸過去十九次協議的台灣談判代表而言,其實一點也不陌生。
根據受訪官員說法,我方與中國談判時,經常承擔「必須限時完成談判」的沉重壓力,直接造成談判事前準備不足、無力爭取對我方具較高價值的條件等後遺症,「結果就是兩岸談判『重量不重質』,只重視是否完成協議,不重視目標是否達成。
「這些官員普遍認為,我們情報不夠、根本不了解對方、目標也不清楚;上了談判桌才發現,對手對我們瞭若指掌。」張榮豐直言,事前準備不足導致目標不明確,是談判官員臨場時的另一大致命傷。』

2014年4月18日星期五

The Price of the GM Recalls: Advice for Mary Barra; 我與通用汽車公司:global product integrity organization

Whether General Motors should take its recalled cars off the road is up to federal transportation authorities, a judge has ruled, marking a victory for the company as it faces a legal battle related to the recall of 2.6 million vehicles over faulty ignition switches

A U.S. judge said Thursday that recalled General Motors cars can stay on the road, a major victory for the company as it faces an uphill legal battle related to 2.6 million vehicles recently recalled over malfunctioning ignition switches.
The decision came in a lawsuit brought against them by a couple seeking compensation for the lost value of their recalled 2006 Chevrolet Cobalt. Their Cobalt was recalled along with millions of other GM vehicles after it was discovered the cars’ ignition switches can be inadvertently set to “off” while the car is being operated, disabling power steering and other features. The ignition switch problem has been linked to at least 13 deaths.
The couples’ lawsuit demanded “park it now” notices for every vehicle included in the recall, which would’ve forced owners of the affected cars to keep their vehicles off the road. GM opposed issuing such notices, claiming the car is safe if nothing is attached to the keyin the ignition and arguing that taking all affected cars off the road would be a logistical nightmare.
The judge in the case ruled that determining whether the cars need to be taken off the road is up to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Although the judge’s decision is a win for GM, it’s just one in a growing series of legal battles against the company for the ignition issue, which the company has reportedly known about for years.



Wide-Ranging Recall
The departures of General Motors’ chief spokesman and head Washington adviser, and its top human resources executive are the first major changes in the automaker’s senior management since a recall in February.
這種事,   Alfred Sloan 會如何處理?


用汽車公司(General Motors Co.)首席執行長Mary Barra稱,該公司計劃在其產品開發團隊中設立一個全球產品整合部門 ( 這翻譯有點問題: global product integrity organization) ,這一部門將涵蓋該公司不久前成立的產品安全部門。

今年2月以來,通用汽車公司因多種問題在全球範圍內累計召回700萬輛汽車,其中包括點火開關、剎車和其他問題。


通用汽車首席執行長Mary Barra稱,計劃在其產品開發團隊中設立一個名為global product integrity organization 的部門,該部門將涵蓋公司不久前成立的產品安全部門。



*****
Henry Ford is rightly credited with inventing the assembly line—and with it mass production. But it was his great rival at General Motors (GM), Alfred Sloan, who really invented modern professional management. Sloan organised his company into divisions that specialised in cars “for every purse and purpose” and he fashioned a managerial class that turned GM into the world’s biggest company. His 1964 book, My Years with General Motors, is a cool explanation of how he did it (“management has been my specialisation,” he wrote flatly). It is a book that puts subsequent business autobiographies to shame.


今天讀

GM's Opel Accelerates Its Path to Profitability1


  My Years with General Motors By Alfred Sloan  我與通用汽車公司  台北:協志,1971
第18章海外的活動有併吞Opel公司的詳細決策分析


http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/price-gm-recalls-advice-mary-barra/
暫時找不到作者


The Price of the GM Recalls: Advice for Mary Barra

Mary-Barra

It is about as big a corporate crisis as anyone could imagine: a defective product that leads to deaths, denials and cover-ups, a sluggish corporate response to grieving families, and a government investigation that has raised its own questions of accountability. General Motors does not stand alone in the recall hall of shame, but a combination of its venerable brand and recent storyline — including a promising comeback from bankruptcy, now threatened — gives the revelations of the last few months a particularly powerful punch. What did GM know, who knew it and when?
As the wait for answers goes on, there is a company to run and a crisis to manage that could either cripple GM or empower it. Though several acts remain to be played out in this drama, experts in corporate governance and crisis management say that so far, GM and the woman in the hot seat, CEO Marry Barra, are doing a decent — but not stellar — job of managing the fallout.
“Mary Barra seems to fully embody the position of the CEO who is sorry. She recognizes that she has to pass on the [corporation’s] deepest regrets, and I think she’s been pretty convincing on that score,” says Wharton professor of legal studies and business ethics Amy Sepinwall. “Also notable, she wants us to understand that GM recognizes the error of its ways to the point where it’s not the same company in some meaningful sense. I think that is a powerful trope. We are inclined to forgive sinners when they have changed their character to the extent that it is almost a rupture in their identity.”

GM has recalled 2.6 million cars, mostly Chevrolet Cobalts and Saturn Ions, after revelations that a faulty ignition switch could shut down the engine, lock steering and power breaks, and disable airbags. The flaw has been linked to at least 13 deaths. Barra, who took the helm at GM in January and is the first female CEO of a major international automaker, was called before Congress to explain why the company spent a decade doing nothing about the problem. In one particularly shameful case, GM had threatened to go after a victim’s family for legal fees if they did not drop a lawsuit against the automaker, The New York Times reported.
It’s a critical moment because the recall scandal comes just as GM was coming back to life, says David Vinjamuri, author of the book, Accidental Branding. “They had finally started to get the bankruptcy behind them, they have had some very well reviewed products … [and] they seemed to be firing on all cylinders,” he notes. “This is really a potential inflection point where they show that they are a company that can break the mold” in terms of how they handle a crisis, “or fall back into an old pattern.” That old pattern, Vinjamuri adds, would be choosing “to minimize the cost of the crisis rather than maximizing the value of the brand long term.”
Echoes of Exploding Pintos
Lawrence G. Hrebiniak, emeritus professor of management at Wharton, points out that recalls, cover-ups and threatening behavior by GM carry some historical resonance. “If you look at the auto industry, they don’t come across as clear, decisive and positive. In 1965, Ralph Nader wrote Unsafe at Any Speed [which documented car manufacturers’ resistance to adopting safety equipment, such as seat belts]. The auto industry not only denied [these accusations], they went as far as digging up dirt on Nader rather than facing the problem head on,” he notes. “Nader won a ton of money in a judgment against GM. Shortly after that, there was the [controversy involving the Ford] Pinto and the exploding fuel tank. There is a history here.”
“Mary Barra seems to fully embody the position of the CEO who is sorry.”–Amy Sepinwall
In the case of the Pinto, in which a rear-impact collision could result in an exploding fuel tank, it was discovered that an $11 shield could have diminished risk. The more recent GM case centered on a 57-cent part inside the cars’ ignition switches. In both instances, it seems companies made a particularly cold-hearted calculation — that settlements to families of victims would cost less than a recall. “As consumers and concerned citizens, we think this is not the right way to proceed even if it turns out that the bottom line is enhanced by paying money out in liability payments,” says Sepinwall. “Liability of course never fully compensates the family for the loss that occurs. There is a moral cost to the tragedy, and there really is no price tag assigned to that.”
GM, however, will end up paying for its transgressions many times over, and, at least at this early stage, the Detroit-based automaker is doing many things right, according to veteran crisis management experts and observers. “I do have a lot of respect and admiration for [Barra],” says John Paul MacDuffie, a Wharton management professor and longtime auto industry researcher. “I think she probably is, more than anyone else within GM, the right person to get them out of this crisis.”
MacDuffie points out that Barra, a GM lifer, has real auto-industry credibility that other recent GM CEOs have lacked. “In several of her assignments before this, she was a voice for breaking from the old GM ways: [She worked] in manufacturing, in HR, in product development, and then [was appointed] CEO,” he notes. “In a company where a lot of CEOs came up through the financial side, she came up through the car side.” This means Barra has the potential for changing, in reality and perception, GM’s reputation for emphasizing cost cutting above all else, MacDuffie adds.
Hrebiniak, however, thinks Barra could be presenting a stronger, more positive case for the company. “I feel sorry for her. She is stepping into a mess,” he says. “But she is just not offering positives and not fighting some of the charges strongly enough.” Barra could have said, for instance, that starting this summer, all of GM’s cars will come with 4G technology that will automatically communicate more early-warning mechanical problems directly to the company, Hrebiniak suggests.
Still, some metrics show that GM’s image is holding up in spite of the controversy. March figures for the automaker’s U.S. sales showed a 4.1% year-to-year increase. Boston-based social media analytics firm Crimson Hexagon examined several million Twitter messages with the terms “GM” and “recall” sent between February 7 and April 1, well into coverage of the scandal. It shows 42% neutral tweets and 58% negative ones.
Tweets sorted simply for mention of GM brands overall did not show significantly negative drift as the scandal unfolded, Crimson Hexagon found. Between January 1 and February 7, 3.7 million tweets about GM and its sub-brands were 26% positive, 71% neutral and 3% negative. From February 7 to April 1, 5.3 million Tweets showed up as 24% positive, 72% neutral and 4% negative. “At the brand level, we don’t actually see much difference between the two time periods, which suggests that the recalls aren’t hurting the brand overall,” says Crimson Hexagon’s Elizabeth B. Breese, senior content and digital marketing strategist.
But these samplings dipped into public sentiment just as Barra’s testimony before Congress was getting underway on April 1 and 2. Days later, Saturday Night Live led off its weekly broadcast with a spoof on Barra’s performance, showing her trying to roll her chair out of hearings in a comically evasive routine.
“Knowing people are looking askance at the fox guarding the henhouse, they should invite someone from the outside … who can sit with the committee and examine the data.”–Lawrence Hrebiniak
Meanwhile, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) yesterday levied a $28,000 fine on GM because of what it said was the company’s failure to provide information the government had requested about the recall. That information had been due on April 3, according to press reports. At the same time, the NHTSA itself is under investigation by a congressional committee for what some allege was its delayed response to complaints from consumers about the ignition switch.
The Buzz in Competitors’ Showrooms
“You can bet salesmen in Ford, Honda and Kia showrooms, and the dozens of other competitors GM has, are making comments, and those comments are going to have some impact,” states Gene Grabowski, senior strategist at public relations/crisis management firm Levick.
Furthermore, GM has a significant disadvantage compared to the gold standard in crisis management. In 1982, a 12-year-old girl in Elk Grove Village, Ill., became the first victim of cyanide-laced extra-strength Tylenol capsules. Seven people died in that product tampering case, and the culprit was never caught. Johnson & Johnson responded almost immediately with a massive recall: 31 million bottles as part of a total effort costing well over $100 million. The financial losses, however, were only short-term. Market share recovered after a year, and the company emerged as a hero. How did they do it? “They said the value of life was a lot more important than the business case. This was quick, decisive and wonderful action,” says Hrebiniak.
A strategy of this kind, however, requires that the entire organization focus on the long-term reputation and health of the company. Says Vinjamuri: “The instinct of a large corporation is self-preservation, and at a large public company, the CEO tends to be judged by market valuation in the short term. The decisions [then-J&J CEO James E. Burke] made are not the ones the in-house counsel and CFO are going to tell [a CEO] to do today because it potentially has a very big, immediate and unknown financial liability when you admit liability and actively recall.”
GM, which has more than 200,000 employees around the world, also lacks one key advantage that Tylenol had — an outside perpetrator as culprit, rather than what is now perceived as inside callousness. Tylenol was responding to a crime committed by someone else. On the other hand, GM perhaps has an advantage in that J&J did not have a woman as CEO. “As a speculative matter, I might say that compassion sounds more genuine coming from a woman,” says Sepinwall, who carries the thought one step further: “I would be really troubled if the board of directors saw this was coming down the pike [while choosing a new leader] and felt it would be better to have a woman as CEO.”
According to Grabowski, Barra did a “credible” job in front of Congress, although he points out that one goal of such hearings is for politicians to gain points for being tough. She missed an important messaging opportunity by bringing the staff with her that she did, he adds. “There are these older white men all around her, and as she is speaking about the new GM, these old white guys are scowling. The optics were wrong. I was very surprised that, in 2014, they would have missed something as obvious as that.”
“The instinct of a large corporation is self-preservation, and at a large public company, the CEO tends to be judged by market valuation in the short term.”–David Vinjamuri
What Barra did do, though, is bring news — something seemingly concrete — for the media to put in their headlines and in the leads of their stories: She announced that GM had engaged Kenneth Feinberg, who specializes in administering disaster funds to victims, although she did not offer anything specific about whether GM will establish such a fund.
“That’s what we teach people to do who go before a hearing – to have a bold stroke, because that way you can report something rather than getting beat up, and it gives people on the panel a reason to praise you,” says Grabowski. “You make an announcement, you show a full page ad of something you are doing, or you form a new blue ribbon panel.”
Barra has been criticized for not revealing all the facts of what led to the problems with the cars. “I heard a lot of ‘we’re-investigating-it,’ but I didn’t get a lot of real answers,” one father of a victim told The New York Times. But there are likely legal reasons for not saying more. “It’s so easy to sit on the sidelines and judge people under these pressure situations,” Grabowski notes. “In nearly every case I have seen, the best you can do is emerge from the crisis with an understanding among consumers that you managed the crisis as best you could.”
To be in business in the 21st century, he adds, “is to live in crisis — consumers understand that. If the company manages this crisis well, there is a good opportunity to build its GM brand in the future. Companies have done this. They can leverage the crisis as a positive for their reputation.”
Undoing Wrongs by Doing Good
Projecting the right message and actually doing the right thing are usually one and the same. Making sure this kind of scandal never happens again means changing the prevailing corporate culture, says Eric W. Orts, a Wharton professor of legal studies and business ethics. “What you need to do is look at the actual incentive structure. If someone raises a significant safety issue, you need to reward [that person] for making an ethical decision even though it’s going to cost the company a little bit of money.”
A system that ensures anonymity within the company for reporting problems can also help, he notes. And although this would represent a major change, companies could consider restoring a responsible corporate officer doctrine, which would make members of the corporate board financially — and even criminally — liable for events that happen on their watch. “We don’t have that in the law right now, but it would certainly change the board’s attitude,” Orts points out. “You have this view that has taken over the world — if all a corporation should do is maximize value, then that’s what you are going to get.”
Experts say GM is moving in the right direction in some areas, such as meeting with families of victims and hiring Feinberg. The company has also brought aboard crisis management veteran Jeff Eller for advice. But there are other options open to the company that will help determine whether this ends up being a major collision, or just a particularly nasty speed bump. GM is conducting an internal investigation, but such endeavors may not carry much credibility if not handled correctly.
“There are these older white men all around [Barra], and as she is speaking about the new GM, these old white guys are scowling.”–Gene Grabowski
“Knowing people are looking askance at the fox guarding the henhouse, they should invite someone from the outside … who can sit with the committee and examine the data,” Hrebiniak says. “There needs to be a perception of legitimacy, that it’s not a cover-up. Structurally, it would be good to turn around and add one or two people to the committee who are outsiders.” The team is currently being led by Tony Valukas, chairman of law firm Jenner & Block and a former U.S. Attorney, and by GM’s own general counsel, Michael Millikin.
GM has indicated that although it may be shielded from liability for actions that occurred before its 2009 bankruptcy, it could choose to compensate all victims and their families. That is a potentially powerful action, according to Vinjamuri. “The most loyal customer isn’t someone who never had a problem,” he notes. “It is the person who had a problem who was surprised with a solution that exceeded [his or her] expectations. So the crisis represents an opportunity.” GM should be compensating pre-bankruptcy victims, he adds, “because it is the right thing to do [and] people will remember it.”
GM could find a different way to compensate victims, something with a more altruistic ring to it than just paying out cash, adds Sepinwall: “Sometimes companies will have scholarship funds, or in Philip Morris’s case, have public service messages aimed at discouraging kids from smoking — some effort that seeks to do good beyond the most immediate costs of the wrong-doing.”
The company might also take a page from Toyota, notes MacDuffie. Faced with product flaws, Toyota began in 2009 a series of recalls — so many, in fact, that it may have started to have a paradoxical effect on public perception. “There was a time when recalls had negative associations,” MacDuffie says. “But Toyota decided to get in front of potential recalls, and for a while it seemed there was a new Toyota recall every few weeks. In the end, there may have been some desensitizing, some reframing of what this means, that if Toyota is doing a recall, that’s a good thing.” Toyota also arranged to keep service centers open later and compensated those businesses for doing so – moves that meant a lot to dealers and customers, MacDuffie adds. “To anyone from the outside, it was a sign that Toyota was taking it seriously.” Toyota on April 9 announced that it was recalling more than six million vehicles worldwide for five different defects that impact 27 different Toyota models, in addition to the company-built Pontiac Vibe and Suburu Trezia. No deaths or crashes have been linked to the defects, the company said, but at least two fires were found to be related to a defective starter.
Of course, putting things right does not ensure brand value in perpetuity. For all the praise Tylenol garnered after the 1982 recall, it received just as much criticism more recently after a moldy smell turned out to emanate from rogue substances mixing with Tylenol in manufacturing plants, causing nausea, stomach pain and other health problems. Several rounds of recalls followed. “We have young children,” says Vinjamuri, “and a lot of parents say they don’t trust Tylenol. It was unthinkable that anyone would have said that 10 years ago.”

2014年4月16日星期三

The New Economics by W. Edwards Deming 細讀 I

The New Economics

作者:William Edwards Deming

http://books.google.com.tw/books?id=RnsCXffehcEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+new+economics+deming#


戴明的新經濟觀 戴久永譯天下文化出 版 社1997

   服務業也是如此,顧客只是接受現有的服務(洗衣、郵遞、交通),而不會發明什麼。但顧客學習得很快。如果快遞業出現隔天送達服務,即使它的價格是郵資的數倍,顧客也會選擇這種新服務。他忘掉在其他的開發國家的郵政系統很好,只須去買張郵票,就可能有隔夜送達的服務。(譯按: 參考 )--漏譯

   沒有顧客自己會先想到去要求發明心臟脈拍調整器 (pacemaker---誤譯),也沒有顧客會要求脈拍調整器的電池要能耐用十年、它同時又能夠儲存過去一個月來心跳速度與規律的資訊。








|

Content
導讀 誨人不倦的品管大師 戴久永
緒言 戴明‧卡奚爾/戴明‧芮克里夫
再版附言
作者生平
自序
第一章 現況的省思
第二章 跳脫現代管理的歧途
第三章 建立系統的觀念
第四章 淵博知識體系
第五章 領導者的特質
第六章 人員的管理
第七章 紅珠實驗的教訓
第八章 蕭華德與管制圖
第九章 漏斗實驗的啟示
第十章 來自變異的教訓
附錄  顧客與供應商應建立持久關係
譯後記 戴久永

序言
戴安娜‧戴明‧卡奚爾

先父於一九九三年十二月去世之前,一直孜孜不倦地修訂本書,希望第二版的內容更清楚,同時也是直接回應第一版許多讀者的評論與建議。他所關注的焦點,仍然 是幫助人們獲得必要的知識,以轉型為新的管理方式。轉型之道,就是應用他在本書中所勾勒的「淵博知識體系」(System of Profound Knowledge)。

先父在高壽且貢獻良多的一生中,一直享受工作和學習之樂。誠如他在本書中所說︰「與樂在工作的人共事,是一種樂事。」經由與世界各地人士的往來,我們獲知,戴明樂於助人發掘努力工作的樂趣,同時他的協助也往往令人有最深刻的感動。

一九九三年十一月,先父設立了戴明研究所(W. Edwards Deming Institute)。這個研究所的宗旨,在於培養對於戴明淵博知識體系的了解,以促進商業、繁榮與和平。在諸多認同這個主旨的人士的幫助與努力之下,我們將致力實現他的遺志。

我們相信,戴明的智慧與教誨必將永存於世。


( 戴安娜‧戴明‧卡奚爾(Diana Deming Cahill)疃 琳達‧戴明‧芮克里夫(Linda Deming Ratcliff) )


現況的省思疂畉
  對你傷害最大的,莫過於差勁的對手;對強勁的好對手應心存感激。畉
                ──波利茲(Alfred糺Politz)疃
畉 今天,人類不再孤立生活,這是資訊跨越國界,流通於各國之間的結果。電影、電視、錄影機以及傳真機,能夠在瞬間告訴我們其他人的事,他們如何生活,他們享受什麼。而大家相互比較之下,每個人都希望生活得像其他人一樣,每個人都認為別人過得比較好。畉
 要如何才能活得和其他人一樣好?民眾為了生活不好而責備政府與領導人,或是責備企業與企業主管,也許是對的,但是換人領導就一定會改善生活嗎?萬一新領導 人並不比舊的好怎麼辦?他們憑什麼會比較好?新領導人又有多少時間,可讓他們證明確實改善了大家的生活?換句話說,民眾的耐性有多久?他們用什麼作為判定 的基準?畉
切莫愈陷愈深畉
疬癔新領導人用什麼方法可以改善生活,往往決定於他們是否具備了所需的知識。一位領袖應該具備哪些特質?全力以赴一定會帶來改善嗎?可惜,並非如此。全力以赴與埋頭苦幹,如果沒有知識為指引,只不過是將我們所身陷的坑挖得更深。本書的主要目的,正是提供這些新知識。畉
進行改善所需要的知識來自外界,而本書所要教導及探討的,是關於如何改變的基本知識。請注意,知識是無可替代的。畉
為了改善物質與精神生活,我們必須與其他人交換物品和服務。這種交易是雙向的;例如一個區域想進口物品,就必須輸出一些物品作為交換。畉
  今天,產品可能銷往世界任何地方。同樣的,供應商也可能來自任何地方。在我手邊就有一個小型的鐘,背後刻著︰「瑞士零件、香港製造、中國裝配」。畉 
  又例如,我現在用的筆是德國的牌子輝柏樂(Faber-Castell),這家公司以辦公室用品聞名。有趣的是,有一天當我仔細觀察時,卻發現這枝筆是日本製造的。畉
  而無論在什麼地方,基本的問題都在於品質。什麼叫品質呢?如果某項產品或服務足以幫助某些人,並且有一個良好與持續的巿場,就是具有品質。貿易端賴品質。畉
美國不再是贏家?畉
  某些國家依賴輸出諸如石油、煤、鐵砂、銅、鋁、廢金屬之類的非再生原料維生。這些只是上蒼暫時的恩賜,無法永遠持續。倚賴贈與、信用或借貸,也不是長期解決之道。畉
   一九二○年,從明尼蘇達州米沙比礦場(Mesabi Range)挖出來的鐵礦,含鐵量為七四%。如今的含鐵量卻只剩三三%。由於含鐵量太低,因此鋼鐵公司先就地把鐵砂煉成含鐵量七四%的鐵塊,以節省由鐵路 運至碼頭、再以船運到克里夫蘭(Cleveland)的成本。米沙比礦場目前仍然有很多鐵礦,年產量可達五千萬噸,但是精華已經挖盡。同樣地,森林也會消 失。以外匯收入而言,美國最賺錢的出口品應該是廢金屬。畉
  為了賺錢,美國輸出部分精鍊的鐵礦,還有鋁、鎳、銅、煤,這些全都是非再生的物質。我們耗盡了天然資源,更糟的是(在後面將會提到),我們也在摧殘自己人民的福祉。畉
  美國在貿易收支的表現如何?答案是,做得並不好。畉
   美國曾經對於新知識的發明以及應用貢獻良多。一九一○年,美國生產了全世界一半的製品。由一九二○年起的幾十年期間,美國製的產品遍及全世界數以百萬計 人的手中,若非具備有效率的生產與充沛的天然資源,是不可能做到的。由於美國貨的品質夠好,用過的人會想買更多的美國產品。北美的另外一項優勢,是在二次 世界大戰之後的十年,相較於其他工業國家都曾經遭受戰火的蹂躪,它是唯一有能力全力生產的區域。世界其他地方,全都是美國的顧客,願意向美國購買任何產 品,而美國也因貿易順差而有大量資金流入。畉
  當時最好的出口品之一,也是最賺錢的項目之一,就是軍用物資。如果不必顧慮道德理由,美國可以大 幅擴張這項收入。此外,美國飛機約占世界巿場的七○%。另一項重要出口品是廢金屬︰美國無法利用,所以將之賣掉。結果,日本人付一毛八分,購買製造麥克風 所用的金屬,然後美國人再花二千或一千八百美元,向日本買回這些金屬麥克風──這就是附加價值!再來,廢紙板和紙也賺錢,化學物品也賣得很好,就跟醫藥物 品一樣。同時木材很賺錢,而木材可以再生。據我所了解,營建設備也是美國重要的出口品。美國電影──這項服務業當然很賺錢。銀行與保險業也一度很重要,幾 乎可以與英國比美;但是好景不再,美國最大的銀行,如今在世界上的排名已遠遠落後了。畉
暮色逐漸降臨畉
  每個人都希望好景持續,並且愈 來愈好。在擴展中的巿場,經營企業很容易,同時業者也會傾向假設經濟狀況會愈來愈好。然而,當我們回顧過去,卻與期望相反,發現我們已歷經了三十年的經濟 衰退。想確認某次地震發生的日期很容易,但要確認出經濟到底從什麼時候開始衰退卻不簡單。畉
  大約在一九五五年,日本產品開始進入美國。這時候的日本貨價格低、品質佳,與戰前以及戰爭剛結束時低劣的品質完全不同。由這時起,偏好使用進口貨的美國人逐漸增多,對北美工業構成了威脅。
  很難相信,如今一切竟然都與一九五○年代大不相同了。這種變遷是逐漸的,一週復一週,不易察覺,只有在回顧時才看得清楚。貓兒不會察覺到暮色來臨,當光線暗下來時,牠們的瞳孔會逐漸放大;但在完全的黑暗中,牠和人類一樣無助。
   然而美國目前有些產業卻比過去任何時候都要好。美國汽車數目比過去任何時候都多,空中旅行也更頻繁。這種數字意謂著衰退?還是進步?在回答時必須考慮一 項因素︰一九五八年時,美國各地有行駛城巿間的火車,乘客可以選擇飛機或火車。如今,火車服務很少,唯一的選擇是撘飛機或自己開車。
  幾年之前,美國在農產品貿易上仍有順差,如小麥、棉花、大豆等,但是如今也好景不再。美國農產品的進口超過出口,同時有人指出,如果把走私毒品列入進口,我們在農產品的赤字將遠比發表的數字更糟。畉
關鍵︰教育與領導者畉
  我們必須坦承,大量製造、成本低的產品,不再是美國的專精;這類企業在墨西哥、台灣、南韓以及其他地方,也已經走向自動化生產。但是,我們還是可以用特殊化的服務和產品來提升經濟。這種改變需要知識;換句話說,美國人的問題在於教育以及如何發展重視學習的文化。畉
  我們如何能改進教育?讀者將會體認,教育的改進和管理所需要運用的原則,與改善任何過程──包括製造或服務──並無不同。教育的創新與改進需要優秀的領導者(參閱第五章)。畉
   有一位先生在我的研討會中提出一個問題︰「哪有什麼危機?我們公司和其他的美國同業,合計占有全世界七成的飛機巿場。」我的回答是,一家健全、績效良好 的公司,正是處於改進管理、產品、服務的最佳時機,同時也有最大的改進義務,這樣做可以對本身以及其他人的經濟福祉有所貢獻。對於獨占的企業而言,事實上 它有逐年改善的最佳機會,同時也有最大的義務要如此做。那些岌岌可危的公司,唯一想到的事是︰眼前短期的茍延殘喘。畉
顧客不會發明畉
  顧客的期望常被提到,大家都說要符合顧客的期望。事實上,顧客的期望乃是由你與你的競爭對手所塑造,顧客學得很快。畉
   顧客不會創造出什麼。例如,當初沒有顧客要求電燈︰他們認為瓦斯燈照明的效果已經不錯了;而且,最早期電燈的碳絲脆弱又耗電。又例如,當初沒有顧客要求 照相術,沒有顧客要求電報或電話,更沒有顧客要求汽車︰我們有馬,還有什麼比牠更好?沒有顧客要求充氣輪胎︰這些車胎都是用橡膠做的,想「騎在空氣上」似 乎很傻;美國第一個充氣輪胎並不好用,使用者必須攜帶橡皮膠、插頭和打氣筒,同時還要知道如何使用。此外,也沒有顧客要求積體電路、口袋型收音機,或傳真 機。畉
  一位受過教育的人,或許明確知道自己的需要,知道自己想買什麼,或許也能描述這些需要,讓供應商了解。然而聰明的顧客還是會聽取供應商 的建議,並從中學習。雙方應該如同一個系統在一起商議,而不是一方想壓過另一方。這是我在《轉危為安》一書中所提到管理十四要點中的第四點。我們會在第三 章更深入討論。畉
  同樣地,儘管大家並不清楚怎樣可以改進教育,甚至不清楚應該如何定義「教育的改進」,但都會要求設置更好的學校。畉
  事實上,顧客只是依據生產者給他的期望而期望,但他們學習快速,會將一項產品與另一項產品相比,將一個來源與另一個來源相比。我們當然不希望有不快樂的顧客,但顧客只是滿足還不夠。滿意的顧客仍然會換另一家購買。為什麼不呢?他有可能找到更好的產品。畉
  有忠誠的顧客當然很好,他們會再度光顧、排隊等待,並且帶朋友來。但就算這些都會發生,單有忠誠的顧客仍不足夠。畉
  服務業也是如此,顧客只是接受現有的服務(洗衣、郵遞、交通),而不會發明什麼。但顧客學習得很快。如果快遞業出現隔天送達服務,即使價格是郵資的數倍,顧客也會選擇這種新服務。畉
  總之沒有顧客要求我們發明計步器,也沒有顧客會要求計步器的電池耐用十年、同時能夠儲存過去一個月來心跳速度與規律的資訊。畉
不創新難免遭淘汰畉
疬癔經由創新而得到一種性能更好的新產品,當然很不錯。但是創新源自何處?畉 化油器的製造者如今何在?過去每一輛車都至少有一個化油器。汽車沒有化油器哪能跑?化油器的製造者年年都在改進品質。它的顧客都快樂而忠誠。畉
   接下來發生了什麼事?創新。燃油噴射器誕生了,除了化油器的功能,它還有其他功能。燃油噴射器比化油器貴得多,但是一經某一車款採用,所有車款都跟進。 化油器出局了,甚至卡車也不再使用它,年復一年,很少人還記得它。畉 過些時候,燃油噴射器也會被取代。將汽油與空氣噴入燃燒室的新方法與新引擎將會誕 生,把燃油噴射器淘汰掉。畉
  很少有人會記得真空管,但過去的收音機必須用到真空管。八個真空管的收音機很占空間,九個真空管的收音機效果比八 個真空管的好,但是更占空間。真空管的製造商每年都改進性能,並縮小體積。顧客都快樂而忠誠。但是當貝爾電話實驗室(Bell Telephone Laboratories)的蕭克利(William Shockley)等人,透過對二極體及電晶體的研究而發明了積體電路,真空管的快樂顧客便放棄了真空管,轉而追求口袋型收音機。
  由這些例子所得到的教訓是,我們必須「創新、預測顧客的需求,並且給他們更多」。能創新並且運氣好的人,就可占有巿場。畉
   以上各種敘述,或許可以用一個問題概括︰「我們從事的是哪種行業?」在化油器的個案中,是否就是製造化油器?沒錯。化油器的製造商製造優良的化油器,而 且愈做愈好。他們認為,自己所從事的是製造化油器的行業。然而事實上,如果當初他們把自己的行業視為是將汽油與空氣注入燃燒室,或是發明更好的引擎,也許 情況會不同。結果,別人發明了燃油噴射器,讓化油器的製造商面臨困境。畉
  對於任何經營企業的人來說,一個值得思考的好問題是︰「我們到底從事 的是哪種行業?」將我們所做的事做好──生產出好產品,或是好服務──當然是必要的,但是這並不夠。我們必須不斷地問︰「什麼產品或服務更能幫助我們的顧 客?」我們必須思考未來︰我們五年後將做什麼?十年後將做什麼?畉
零缺點還不夠畉
疬癔沒有缺點並不必然等於能夠建立事業,也不必然能夠保 持工廠營運(參看圖一),要做的事還很多。例如,在汽車業中,顧客──就是讓工廠能維持開門與營運的人──或許對於汽車的性能感興趣,而且關心的問題不只 是加速,也包括在雪地上的表現,在高速下駕駛盤的狀況,還有駛過突出路面時的情況。車子在粗石路面上是否會跳起並打滑?空調運作得如何?暖氣系統又如何? 畉
  顧客也許對造型有興趣──不僅是汽車的外型,也包括車內的按鈕與排檔。乘客的舒適也很重要──是否必須把頭彎到快要斷了才能進出車廂?腳放在哪裡?手放在哪裡?畉
  性能與造型,無論這些字句在顧客的心目中代表什麼意思,必須要持續改進。零缺點並不足夠。畉
  我曾經在一個難忘的星期四,花了一整天,聽了十個小組所作的十場報告,主題是減少缺點。聽眾有一百五十人,都是從事這項工作,他們相當專注地聽講,顯得對於工作很投入。畉
  然而我想他們並不了解,他們的工作或許會相當成功──零缺點──但公司卻在衰退。事實上,除了零缺點,還要做更多的事,才能保住工作(參看圖二)。畉
  那些減少缺點的專家,他們的工作相當複雜。有些缺點是彼此相關的,當一個上升,另一個會下降。例如,汽車業者都很熟悉一組相關的問題︰畉
  關好前門要費的力氣
  高速行駛時的風聲
  雨水
   在車門的邊上少用一些橡皮,就可以更容易地關上車門,但是雨水會滲進來,同時快速行駛時有風的噪音。如果在車門邊多加橡皮,就可阻止雨水進入,也減少噪 音,但只有很強壯的人才關得上車門。降低任何一項因素,就會使其他因素到達令人無可忍受的地步。問題是該如何達成平衡,讓這三項因素都在可忍受的程度以 內。
改善品質不簡單畉
疬癔一般人對於品質都很感興趣。假如我們以下面的問題舉行全民調查︰畉
  你贊成改善品質嗎?胨□胩是胨□胩否畉
  我深信,絕大多數人都會贊成改善品質。同時,很不幸地,幾乎大部分的人都有一套達成的方法。只要看一下讀者投書、演講、書籍就可得知。改善品質似乎如此簡單。以下就是其中一些答案,每個都不完整,還有一些更會有負面效果︰畉
  自動化畉
  新機器畉
  更多電腦畉
  輔助機組畉
  埋頭苦幹畉
  全力以赴畉
  考績制度;年度考核畉
  權責分明畉
  目標管理(MBO, management by objective)
  成果導向的管理(MBR, management by result)
  將員工、小組、部門、銷售員排序;獎勵居前者,處罰殿後者。畉
  加強統計品管(SQC, statistical quality control)畉
  加強檢驗畉
  設立品管部門畉
  指派專人擔任品質的副總裁畉
  獎金制度畉
  工作標準(配額、時間標準)畉
  零缺點畉
  符合規格畉
  激勵員工畉
  經過下面說明之後,我們將可以明顯看出上述各項建議的謬誤之處,它們都是管理者推卸責任的說詞。畉
  某家公司認為多投資才能創造未來,因此大幅投資了四百億美元於新機器和自動化。結果是︰麻煩不斷、產能過大、成本高、品質低。如果要為這家公司的管理者辯護,必定是說他們對未來很有信心。畉
  這一金額夠不夠讓公司流血致死呢?四百億美元,即使以年利五%計算,利息就已經高達二十億美元,也就是每天超過五百萬美元,不分週日與假期、雨天或晴天。這項投資如果合理的話,那麼利潤必須遠超出每年二十億美元。畉
   在參觀我擔任顧問的公司中,我發現過多自動化與過多的新機器,乃是低品質與高成本的源頭,也導致很多公司破產;就算能符合預定目的而運作,實際產能卻超 出需要產能的一倍。有些則是流程設計不良,諸如︰製造→檢驗、製造→檢驗、製造→檢驗……,一再重複其實檢驗並非是最經濟的程序(參閱《轉危為安》第十五 章)。此外,檢驗儀器所帶來的困擾,通常也比製造設備所帶來的麻煩來得多。
品管責任不容推諉畉
疬癔公司的總經理將品質交付到工廠各經理的手中,結果往往變得很尷尬──可以想像得到,品質下降了。工廠經理也很無奈,因為他並沒有參與產品的設計。他只能設法做分內的事,達成他的目標配額,符合各項規格,做些「滅火」工作。畉
  當然我們並不希望不符規格,但是符合規格還不足夠。正如我們先前所見,零缺點並不夠好。裝配線的各部分必須要像一個系統般運作。畉
  某家公司的總經理曾在一本刊物中寫道︰畉
  「本公司的員工為他們所生產的產品以及產品品質負責。」畉
  他們才沒有呢,這些員工只能設法做分內的工作。其實寫這篇文章的人,也就是公司的總經理,才是必須為品質負責的人。畉
  另外一家公司的管理者發給每位員工一張宣言︰畉
  「我們的顧客期望品質。產品品質是作業員的基本責任,他們必須正確地製造,並與檢驗員分擔責任。」畉
  我只能以言不及義來形容。
  同樣地,作業員並不能為產品或品質負責。他們只是努力盡自己的職責。此外,責任由作業員和檢驗員分擔,必然會造成錯誤以及困擾。我們在後文將會進一步討論分擔責任的弊病。產品品質是管理者的責任,而且應與顧客共同合作。
  上述例子的管理者,都是把自己的責任推諉給一些對品質或創新使不上力的員工。畉
  再舉另外一例,一群管理顧問的廣告詞如下︰畉
  「電腦化的品質資訊系統,可提供高科技與有效決策之間的重要聯繫。」畉 我倒希望管理真的這樣簡單。畉
   品質必須由高階管理者決定,不可能授權此人。此外,上述那些說詞也欠缺我所稱的淵博知識這項要素。知識是無可替代的,只靠埋頭苦幹、全力以赴,或是竭智 盡心,並不能創造出品質或巿場。管理必須轉型(transformation)──學習並應用淵博知識。我將在第四章介紹淵博知識體系的大要。畉
高階管理者該為品質負責畉
疬癔我發現管理者和勞工都深切地關心未來,關心工作是否保得住?我曾與某家大型製造公司的高階管理人員數度接觸,發現他們都認為,只要作業員都在崗位上認真生產,大家的工作就保得住。我問他們︰「你們聽過某某工廠倒閉了吧?它為什麼會倒閉?該不是技術不良吧?」不是的。畉
  該工廠被公認為是效率、溝通的楷模,與供應商關係良好,經常被媒體報導,而且技術一級棒。為什麼它竟然會倒閉?答案︰產品已經沒有巿場。管理者的職責,就是能高瞻遠矚地預測,及時改變產品而維持工廠營運。畉
  銀行為何倒閉?是因為行員的櫃台服務差勁、銀行表單錯誤、貸款的利息計算錯誤嗎?沒這回事。即使這些作業都是零缺點,銀行照樣會倒。該誰負責?當然是管理者,還有他們的呆帳。
  品質源自何處?答案是,高階管理者。公司產品的品質,不可能高於高階管理者所設定的品質水準。
  創造並確保工作機會,完全取決於管理者是否有遠見,能否設計出足以吸引顧客、建立巿場的產品和服務;同時能夠時時領先顧客,修正產品和服務。
  位於曼菲斯(Memphis)附近的聖心聯盟(Sacred Heart League),設定了一項目標,就是要為田納西州四郡的貧困兒童提供醫療照顧和食物。為了籌得所需款項,該聯盟向郵寄名單上所列的人士募款。募款相關的流程可用圖三表示。畉
  你該如何評估這項作業的品質?一項重要的指標是以所募得的總金額,減去0至7階段所花費的成本。畉
這項品質指標的根源是什麼?畉
  答案︰信封內傳達的募款訊息。誰決定這項訊息的內容?包柏神父,也就是聖心聯盟的主持人。畉
  信紙的折疊可能完美無缺、信封上的地址可能都沒有錯誤、郵政系統也無懈可擊。但結果募到的經費還是可能不夠支付成本,那麼聖心聯盟這項任務只有解散一途。募款的成效有賴於所傳達的訊息。只有完善的作業,並不足以達成募款的目的。畉
  圖三的流程圖,列出聖心聯盟的作業過程,如果受過一點流程圖的訓練,不難重新繪製出如圖四的配置流程圖(deployment flow chart)。畉
  另外一項品質指標,是該聯盟如何利用所募得的款項。但如果成本超出募款所得,這項指標將無從衡量。我們在後面還會提到,大多數管理活動的效益是無從衡量的。例如,訓練的效益無法衡量,雖然訓練成本會顯示在帳單上,但是效益則否。畉
  那麼我們為什麼要花錢進行訓練?答案︰我們相信未來的獲益會超過成本。換言之,管理是根據理論、根據預測,而非根據數字。
*****

新經濟學
第 33 頁
In my experience, most troubles and most possibilities for improvement add up to proportions something like this:
94% belong to the system (the responsibility of management)
6% are attributable to special causes
中文(第四十頁)的翻譯有點走調了 幾乎完全不管原文的用字之用心

我們可以比較一下他的寫作之改善 看 Out of the Crisis (1986)
第 315 頁
I should estimate that in my experience most troubles and most possibilities for improvement add up to proportions something like this:
94% belong to the system (the responsibility of management)
6% special
文(第367頁??)的翻譯可能比較信實點






\
  有沒有想過:為什麼許多員工離職後另謀高就,在新公司的表現卻遠優於他在原來公司的表現?
   也許,《戴明的新經濟觀》能夠提供許多讓人茅塞頓開的想法。在傳統經濟管理制度的桎梏下,企業對外強調競爭,對內則以績效掛帥,員工無法樂在工作,企業 的效率難以充分發揮。而戴明所倡導的觀點,正是要打破這些傳統的迷思,以系統與變異的理念,創造人人皆贏的局面。(CB156)


戴明

「品質之神」戴明一九OO年出生於美國愛荷華州,一九二八年獲耶魯大學數學物理學博士,一九五O年至日本擔任產業界之講師及顧問,一九五六年榮獲天皇裕仁 頒發之二等瑞寶獎。一生得獎無數。享壽甚高,逝於一九九三年十二月。戴明終年游走世界各地,介紹著名的四日研討會,每年有上萬人前來聽講。為了紀念他早年 對日本產業發展的貢獻,日本科技連並以他為名設立了戴明獎。一九八O年,NBC播出「日本能,我們為什麼不能」節目後,戴明的理念在美國颳起了一陣品質革 命旋風,大幅提升了美國的生產力與競爭地位。








戴久永

中原理工學院數學系畢業。美國新墨西哥大學統計碩士、博士。民國六十五年回國在國立交通大學管理學院任教至今。曾經在美國奧克拉荷馬州立大學工業工程與管 理學院進修一年。生平以「品管教士」自期。經常在中華民國品質管制學會的《品質管制月刊》和《管理雜誌》,以及<工商時報經營知識版>上也偶有發表,介紹 品質新理念。 著有《品質管理》、《全面品質經營》、《如何做好SPC》等數本書。志趣廣泛,尤其偏重在統計應用、品質理念的研究與推廣,並關心社會教育與環境保護。

網誌存檔