[100] From: Roy Roebuck at HQS3 9/2/93 3:31PM (5803 bytes: 102 ln)

To: Joan Schafer at PNT1, Shirley Atkinson at DITSO_HQ, Ann Black at DECCO2,

Boyd Blevins at HQS7, Ron Bouchard at HQS8, Judy Byrd at CIMTYS1, Mary Eggers,

Marilyn Franey at HQS1, Donna Jarvis, Margaret Lipinski at DISA.JIEO.FM1,

Wanda Martin-Sims at HQS6, John McKendree at VSP2, Beverly Sampson at HQS1,

Tawny Stitely at HQS4, Jay Tate at HQS1, Marlene Tate at HQS1, Mike Weatherly

at DECCO5

Subject: TQM Placement, Program Survival vs. Thriving of a Philosophy

------------------------------- Message Contents -------------------------------

Hi Gang.

I'd like to present a consideration in looking at "placement" of

TQM. As long as TQM is a Program, and not a philosophy, it is

subject to:

bugdet and manpower cuts,

prioritization (usually towards the bottom, because crisis

response is far more exciting/addicting/visible than managed

change),

undermining from competing philosophies (usually well grounded in

the lure of reaction to crises rather that proaction/response

to needed change or in the Taylor/Fayol school of dehumanized

management),

arguments on variations in quality methods/tools/processes/terms,

and

being perceived by all (including many of us) as a passing fad.

As long as a continuous quality improvement Perspective is NOT

employed within DISA, by Executives, Management, and Workers, TQM

will always be a Program.

How many personnel are full time TQM people? Few personnel if TQM

is a Program or a duty (and therefore easily identified for position

review/cuts and whymsical reorganization). All personnel if TQM is

a philosophy.

I'm coming to the belief that We are needed most as educators/

coaches/ mentors/ high priests/ advocates/ zealots/ warriors for

continuous quality improvement and all that entails, rather than

consultants or facilitators of "TQM". Our full time production

duties could be related to integrated culture/business strategy and

improvement, employing a wide range of technologies and sciences,

and getting DISA personnel to see the big picture. We could keep

the "High Watch" for our executives and be "Scouts" in this

wilderness of change. A DISA executive said recently, "If I want a

TQM consultant, I'll contract for one". I suspect he said that

because he might see TQM as a series of tasks and tools, not a

philosophy.

I propose we work from a Dynamic System perspective. It's based on

five principles. 1. There is only a Single Dynamic System. 2.

Every thing is a Subsystem. 3. Our identity is defined by our

perceived Context of our subsystem. 4. Opportunities/Challenges

are perceived from that context. 5. Action is required to benefit

from the opportunity, or survive the challenge.

I'll put this in a practical view.

1. DISA is a single dynamic system, with a single dynamic

process/activity. Although you can all perceive where DISA is a

subsystem of DoD/Executive Branch/Federal Government/United

States/World organizations, for this purpose, it can be perceived

as a system. Everything outside of DISA is a potential external

customer (they're subsystems of a larger DoD/etc. system too,

using our products or providing us products).

2. Everything within DISA is a subsystem (e.g., sensing, informing,

coordinating, guiding, resourcing, actuating and disposing

subsystems), all of which are interconnected, and on which other

subsystems are directly or indirectly dependent (interdependent

internal customers). All internal boundaries are illusions. If you

define your subsystem boundary widely enough to encompass your

external customers, they become an internal customer.

3. We either perceive all our selves/ positions/ duties/ offices as

interdependent within DISA, or separate bounded domains within DISA.

(Note that one of the highest priorities of the earlier DISA Culture

Major Focus Area was the adoption of a shared identity by DISA

members, to take down the barriers within.)

4. If we have a defined future state/vision, we'll find

opportunities to move towards that state all over the place,

constantly, just by scanning the environment. If our perceived

context is based on separation/barriers, the opportunities we find

will strengthen separation/barriers, optimizing our subsystem

(suboptimizing), usually to the detriment of the larger system and

the interdependent subsystems. If our perceived context is

interconnection, then the opportunities we find will strengthen

interconnection, optimizing the system, to the long term good of

all the subsystems, including those that are changed by the

optimization.

5. When we find an opportunity, we have to take action (e.g.,

Shewhart's Plan/Do/Check/Act) fearlessly. The fearlessness

generates dynamic striving for success. Fear will dampen action.

When looking at these five principles we can say that principles 1

and 2 are wholistic/strategic (we are responsible TO everyone), and

3-5 are within our personal control (we are responsible FOR only

ourselves).

Until we, and the organization as a whole, start thinking and acting

more strategically, much of what is being done to improve DISA will

be wasted/destructive/disintegrative suboptimal effort.

RoyR.