by Thomas Pyzdek

President Obama, Rush Limbaugh, and me

Did Rush Limbaugh really say that he wants Obama to fail? Does it matter? What’s my opinion? (Okay, so nobody asked. But it’s my blog after all!)

Personally, I sincerely hope the world returns to prosperity soon. I think there is overwhelming agreement on the fact that there are few downsides to prosperity. But the great debate is how to achieve prosperity. I won’t argue the relative merits of the different economic systems because I doubt that you care. However, I have a rather strong opinion that spending more money will not, by itself, lead to improvements. Deming used to say (I’m paraphrasing here) that doubling the pay of every worker in the auto industry wouldn’t make any difference in the quality or productivity of the auto companies. Why? Because the systems were the same. Unless systems (root causes) are changed, the results (effects) won’t change. When I look at the plans proposed by the government they largely consist of spending more on, for example, roads and schools without changing the way roads are built or education is delivered. Medical records are to be digitized, while the healthcare systems being automated are not substantially improved beforehand.

In short, I think a good deal of the money being spent will fail to provide any fundamentally different results because the underlying systems won’t be improved by the spending. A penny spent on six sigma, lean, or quality improvement would go a lot further than a dollar spent on the current systems.

GD Star Rating
loading...
GD Star Rating
loading...
President Obama, Rush Limbaugh, and me5.052

Tags: , , ,


One Response to “President Obama, Rush Limbaugh, and me”

  1. gbarker says:

    Activity without a plan is wasted energy. And that plan must focus on improving the process. The waste is caused by the system, not by those performing within the system. Working hader is not an answer. Working smarter is THE answer. Until individuals are provided with a better way money and time will be lost, worker satisfaction will be low and customers will remain dissatisfied.

    Six sigma, lean and quality improvemrnt focus on improving the process. These approaches provide the guidance for identifying those processes that will benefit most from change. As we learned many years ago in industry, throwing money at a problem is wasteful if all it does is perpetuate a flawed or inefficient process.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    GD Star Rating
    loading...

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in (click to log in or register) to post a comment.

Get Certified!

Be trained by Thomas Pyzdek

Black Belt

Green Belt

Learn More!

Resources for Six Sigma


Introduction to Six Sigma
Six Sigma Projects
Six Sigma Tools
Six Sigma Statistics
Six Sigma Videos (Requires QuickTime)
Leading Six Sigma
Healthcare Quality
Process Excellence Podcasts
Other Useful Links
Good books on Six Sigma and other topics

What is Six Sigma?

By Thomas Pyzdek, Author of The Six Sigma Handbook

For Motorola, the originator of Six Sigma, the answer to the question "Why Six Sigma?" was simple: survival. Motorola came to Six Sigma because it was being consistently beaten in the competitive marketplace by foreign firms that were able to produce higher quality products at a lower cost. When a Japanese firm took over a Motorola factory that manufactured Quasar television sets in the United States in the 1970s, they promptly set about making drastic changes in the way the factory operated. Under Japanese management, the factory was soon producing TV sets with 1/20th the number of defects they had produced under Motorola management. They did this using the same workforce, technology, and designs, making it clear that the problem was Motorola's management. Eventually, even Motorola's own executives had to admit "our quality stinks." Read More...