Favourite blogs for Wii's blog

WMG - mbe 08/09 » Francisco's blog

April 25, 2009

Less is more…

I love Jazz. I also love rock, classical music, Brazilian pop music, etc etc, but currently I`m in love with JAzz (again). Many years ago, when I was a musician I fell in love with it. Specially a school of jazz called Be Bop, that was very popular on the late 40`s early 50`s. Its a very fast, technical, show off kind of Jazz. And them I met Miles Davis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_Davis) . He is the father of several jazz styles. One of them was called "Cool Jazz" and it was the antytheses of Be Bop. It was about few, well chosen notes on a slow introspective tempo. The moto of Cool Jazz was "Less is More". On my late teens, being a professional musician, an anxious and communicative human being, it was hard for me to understand this whole "less is more"thing. I really wanted a "more is more"kind of thing. I liked the sound, but I did not support the concept.

Why am I talking about that? Because as the PMA`s go by, I`m more and more into the "less is more"thinking. Not that I`m working less, reading less or doing less. But I`m concentrating more and more on sintetizing my thoughts, on trying to make the ideas I have more clear by puting less ideas on the PMA. I`m not necessarily talking about shorter PMA`s, because you can have the same length even with less ideas if you explain those ideas better or invest more time on having a writing style that is more pleasant to read. But the point is, I`m making an effort on improving one one my weakest spots, that is the difficulty i always had to cut things of and keep them away. I must say I got very proud at the result we achieved on that sense, when we did the KBAM presentation. I think the bit of the work I helped with (KM) was rather sintetic and straight to the point. I think our team managed to do it. But it still a challenge, and one that I`ll think I`ll take with me forever. Always remember Miles Davis saying that less, is more....


April 24, 2009

Tacit to explicit

One of the greatest challenges of any KM policy is how to transform all the huge amount of tacit knowledge that is part of an organisation in explicit knowledge. People want write manuals or fill in systems. The most practical way to do that is through communities of practise or creating in-house training. Based on what I have seen over this years, if a company wants to to somehow make people write down or fill useful information of some sort that has to be connected with some bigger aspect (some prize or being considered a natural part of some other activity). A few years ago we had a structure to allow all projects conducted on the company to leave some kind of information. We managed to have over one hundred projects properly completed on our database. Quite a good number. We did that by establishing that in order to be appreciated over one recognition program we had, all information had to be filled. Some other people also filled because they believed on the idea (and we set example, doing the same on the projects conducted by us). The problem, looking back, was how useful, how frequently those information was used and valued on other initiatives.

But the challenge of making people share and use the available knowledge by turning tacit to explicit persists.


Knowledge Audit

Have you ever performed a knowledge audit on yourself? That is a concept I came accross while working on the mini-project for KBAM. Like many other concepts, is common sense the idea that I should think and know about what I should know. But have you ever done it consciously? Well, for all of us MBE students the answer is yes. At least it should be because every time we are doing a mind map and planning an PMA or the project we are doing some kind of Knowledge Audit. We are identifying what we know, what we need to know and how to do it.

BEsides that, recently I did a different and more complex version of the Knowledge Audit. I was talking to some former colleagues and to some people from the company I worked for and they enquired me if and when I was returning. I knew this question would come so before hand I gave some thought to the the question. And one of the things that came to my mind is that in order to know that, I needed to know what I wanted, what I was looking for. That was something I already knew (see the entry about my personal vision and mission for that answer). Them what I had to think was, what do I needed, what was missing, what were my improving points in order to get to this level. That was basically a knowledge audit with a slightly different connotation. What I needed to have and know here was more closely related to professional experience (a form of knowledge) them to formal academic knowledge.

I think constantly performir personal, honest, realistic audits is a valuable experience to any human being. And I`m not talking about academic or professional experience, more important them all that is making a personal audit, reflecting were I am, were I d like to be and what I need to get there as a human being. 


April 20, 2009

Writing in books….

Never liked writing in books. Them some years ago I had a teacher on university who stimulated me to do so (in my own books, of course, not library ones). So while reading about knowledge management one of the techniques that is often discussed is that people just register conclusions taken from meetings, actions or facts as soon as they happen (Toyota, for example, stimulates that). The idea is that it allows more details to be remembered, real information's to be collected (and not post-fact impressions changed by personal impressions) etc. I related one think to the other. The idea of writing thoughts and ideas on the book as the information is readden relates in an individual level to the same concept. Is a technique for individual knowledge management but that builds in the same ideas used for organisations.

 


April 13, 2009

Do you remember Sue?

Do you remember the lady that used to write all sorts of comments on our blogs? Curious about her? Look at that....creepy! 



http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/gavinalexander/entry/the_guantlet/


April 12, 2009

Organizational Culture is everywhere….

Working on my KBAM PMA. Suggesting how WaiveRiders could use Knowledge Management in order to manage  its assets considering the whole life-cycle of the products. I ended realising that the best way to make it work, is to make those aspects, the care for knowledge and the consideration for the whole life-cycle part of the culture, of the blood of the organisation. That is funny because several PMA`s I worked on had to talk about culture, two of them (PIUSS and LE) were clearly about using specific systems (6S and the EFQM) for that change. It is, of course, a very important aspect. The problem is that changing culture is slow (and I found some interesting material saying that it is not possible to really change at the managers will). The main conclusion is, if you wanna build a good organisation (and thinking, as usual, on the long term!) think about setting up the proper culture on it!


April 10, 2009

Maintenance, Management, Life–Cycle, KM…

Writing about life-cycle costs asset management for my PMA. Actually came to my mind that the basic question of management is always related to the basic question of Life-Cycle. It`s such (or it at least should be) a basic thing, the idea that a manager should make decisions thinking about the life-cycle consequences of those decisions that is sounds funny that somebody has to be remembered of that by a whole body of knowledge. 

But is certainly something we human beings tend to forget. I had a teacher on my MBA who was an specialist on Ethics. He wrote a very interesting book about how the basic question people`s life (and for extension in all business related sciences) is always about spending more, enjoying the moment or saving for later. Reminds me of the old rock`n roll motto that used to say you should have a fast, crazy life and die before being 30....Well personal decisions are personal decisions, but when managing an organisation in which several people depend on you you need to have a non-r`nr approach and think about life time implications and decisions...



April 06, 2009

Knowledge Management and MBE

Yesterday I was in a bus, and I had to wait sometime until the bus left. I had a pen and I started drawing, understanding the KM process. And I was relating to the obvious, to the way we learn. And them I related to MBE, to the way MBE is conducted, planned. To the way we acquire knowledge, for example,  I though that the fact that we are stimulated to choose the way we like to do it certainly makes it easier, because we can use the time of the day we prefer and the topic we are more interested on. How could we do that on a organisational level? How could we allow an organisation to do it in its favourite style ? Them using it. It is very obvious that if we came to Warwick, if we decided to spend all this money we were already planning to use it. But how do we do that in a company? The basic answer is to make it a natural part of the regular processes that they should help, but is still a challenge.


I`m still thinking how I will do that for WaiveRiders....


March 27, 2009

A bit about 5s, organizing a clean enviroment of work

Reading a bit for the future KBAM PMA (still finishing PEUSS....). It came to my mind and incident and something I learn from an older person.

Many years ago I worked on a structure that had a good mix of (very!) experienced people with (very!) junior employees. I was on the second group but I had risen a bit faster so I actually worked as a kind of assistant to the general manager of the area. One day this manager was assigned to take over another area (as well as the one he already had). The are had a quite repetitive work, dealing with LOTSSSSS of papers. It was very easy to lose a paper in there (and depending on the paper it could have quite serious financial consequences).

This manager of mine was a senior person, with about 15-20 years experience but was not a formally educated person and it also had a bit of difficulties communicating, he was not good at it (even though he had some other fantastic qualities). When he assumed the new are he was appalled by the amount of paper and by the lack of organisation on some people`s desks (even though, to be fair, it seemed to work that way because loosing papers was not a particular problem of that area). The thing is that right in the begining he got everyone together (about 20 people on that area) and said that personal stuff should be kept to a minimum on the desks and that they should be very organised, with everything on defined, standardised places). He understood that by doing that the risk of loosing anything would be minimised as productivity would also increase. I did not know (and I`m pretty sure that to this day he still does not know) that this approach is the basis of the Japanese 5S way of managing the working space. Once again, he did not need to know that theory, was just common sense working (like I said very long ago here in this blog, in the end it is all common sense). That made me think, specially because I`m not a organised person. I`m not going to finish the case because this simple request, done in the way he did (and I told him I think he did not do it properly and he agreed), caused all sorts of problems, uncovering serious relantionship questions and ending with the dismissal of a employee.

That entry if for KBAM, for that reason I`ll not go down the road of discussing the communication issues. But the idea of having a organized space stickied with me. So After that I always had quite a bit of organisation when dealing with work. Documents stay on the right place, with the right names, files are organised on the computer, I always do back up, etc etc. I keep a bit of mess on the space itself, in part because it is part of me and I don`t think would be helpful to add any more stress. Besides in the last few years being creative was part of my profession and a bit of confusion, colours, information are proven to help creativity. But for production places, with many parts, objects I think the idea of having a organised space with established processes make all sense.


March 12, 2009

Less selfish capitalism

Fantastic article from today`s FT. The subject itself can interest anyone. But for the discussions we are having specifically on MBE, towards the end of it the author criticises continuously changing. For some that coulr read as a criticism to the whole notion of continuously improving in order to achieve customer requirements and sustainable success in an ever changing reality. I would not agree.
A few days ago I was having that discussion with a friend that works as a business consultant in Brazil. I was defending the concept of constancy of purpose of Deming and he was going against it. He said we always needed to change. I had to explain here that he was mixing different levels of decision. Of course a company has to always change, because the world changes and if the one does not changes it will simply be left behind. As simple as that. But changing is just a way to allow the bigger objective that should not be changed reachable under circumstances that are always new. For example, if taken that concept described on the article bellow that we should create an economy based on values that are more human that should be a constant vision, considered not only on time of crisis like now, but also on the good times. But to do that we will need to constantly improve, learn and improve how to do it. The purpose is always constant (and the deeper it is, the less changed it should go through. For instance you could say that you major life objective -Being happy?- should never change) or should change very seldom, but the strategy the tactics should constantly change, constantly improve.
It took me quite a while to make him understand my point. It is not easy, and I applied the same thinking to the understanding of this article, specially to the bit on the end.

Now is the time for a less selfish capitalism

By Richard Layard

Published: March 11 2009 20:02 | Last updated: March 11 2009 20:02

What is progress? The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has been asking this question for some time and the current crisis makes it imperative to find an answer. According to the Anglo-Saxon Enlightenment, progress means the reduction of misery and the increase of happiness. It does not mean wealth creation or innovation, which are sometimes useful instruments but never the final goal. So we should stop the worship of money and create a more humane society where the quality of human experience is the criterion. Provided we pay ourselves in line with our productivity, we can choose whatever lifestyle is best for our quality of life.

And what would that involve? The starting point is that, despite massive wealth creation, happiness has not risen since the 1950s in the US or Britain or (over a shorter period) in western Germany. No researcher questions these facts. So accelerated economic growth is not a goal for which we should make large sacrifices. In particular, we should not sacrifice the most important source of happiness, which is the quality of human relationships – at home, at work and in the community. We have sacrificed too many of these in the name of efficiency and productivity growth.

Most of all we have sacrificed our values. In the 1960s, 60 per cent of adults said they believed “most people can be trusted”. Today the figure is 30 per cent, in both Britain and the US. The fall in trustworthy behaviour is clear in the banking sector but can also be seen in family life (more break-ups), in the playground (fewer friends you can trust) and in the workplace (growing competition between colleagues).

Increasingly, we treat private interest as the only motivation on which we can rely and competition between individuals as the way to get the most out of them. This is often counterproductive and does not generally produce a happy workplace since competition for status is a zero-sum game. Instead, we need a society based on positive-sum activities. Humans are a mix of selfishness and altruism but generally feel better working to help each other rather than to do each other down.

Our society has become too individualistic, with too much rivalry and not enough common purpose. We idolise success and status and thus undermine our mutual respect. But countries vary in this regard, and the Scandinavians have managed to combine effective economies with much greater equality and mutual respect. They have the greatest levels of trust (and happiness) of any countries in the world.

To build a society based on trust we have to start in school, if not earlier. Children should learn that the noblest life is the one that produces the least misery and the most happiness in the world. This rule should apply also in business and professional life. People should do work that is useful to society and does not just make paper profits. And all professions – including journalism, advertising and business – should have a clear, professional, ethical code that its members are required to observe. It is not for nothing that doctors form the group most respected in our society – they have a code that is enforced and everyone knows it.

So we need a trend away from excessive individualism and towards greater social responsibility. Is it possible to reverse a cultural trend in this way? It has happened before, in the early 19th century. For the next 150 years there was a growth of social responsibility, followed by a decline in the next 50. So a trend can change and it is often in bad times (such as the 1930s in Scandinavia) that people decide to seek a more co-operative lifestyle.

I have written a book about how to do this and there is room here for three points only. First we should use our schools to promote a better value system – the recent Good Childhoodreport sponsored by the UK Children’s Society was full of ideas about how to do this. Second, adults should reappraise their priorities about what is important. Recent events are likely to encourage this and modern happiness research can help find answers. Third, economists should adopt a more realistic model of what makes humans happy and what makes markets function.

Three ideas taught in business schools have much to answer for. One is the theory of “efficient capital markets”, now clearly discredited. The second is “principal agent” theory, which says the agents will perform best under high-powered financial incentives to align their interests with those of the principal. This has led to excessive performance-related pay, which has often undermined the motive to work well for the sake of doing a good job and introduced unnecessary tension among colleagues. Finally, there is the macho philosophy of “continuous change”, promoted by self-interested consulting companies, which disregards the fundamental human need for stability – in the name of efficiency gains that are often not realised.

We do not want communism – as research shows, the communist countries were the least happy in the world and also inefficient. But we do need a more humane brand of capitalism, based not only on better regulation but on better values.

Values matter and they are affected by our theories. We do not need a society based on Darwinian competition between individuals. Beyond subsistence, the best experience any society can provide is the feeling that other people are on your side. That is the kind of capitalism we want.

Lord Layard is at the London School of Economics Centre for Economic Performance. He has written ‘Happiness’ (2005) and co-authored ‘A Good Childhood’ (2009)


Ch ch ch ch changessss!

The most interesting question I took of from the PIUSS PMA (that tks God, I already sent on Monday) was questioning myself if one is really able to build a planned process to change the culture of an organisation. REading books about it I found lot`s of arguments for (and a few against. Smaller quantities because defending that is not possible is obviously less interesting commercially speaking....)


I particularly think that it is possible. But it will take a LONG time. And will need not only a method, a plan, but a lot of skill and occasionally a quite strong fist. I thing it is almost impossible (if not impossible) to change a whole organisation`s culture (unless, perhaps, if it is a small or recently created organisation) smiling, without beeing quite hard and though from time to time.

But I think is possible and Six Sigma can be a good method to do so, if done properly and with care. 


How much would you pay for all the knoweledge in the world?

I did my MBA in finance. I did not particularly love it, but it was useful. But there was one specific module called asset valuation that I liked. I was particularly impressed with a book called "Value at Risk"by an Indian-American scholar called Damodaran. He is a major expert on the subject (Actually pretty much all his writings are available for free in his web page http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/ ) . It was fascinating the way he worked solutions to try to put a value on everything (on a economical sense, of course). For example, how to measure the value of an organisation that never profited? Or of something that is still a plan? He discuss it. 

Of course that is interesting only for people that enjoy financial matters (And important to say not all economists understand or like finance. Several economists are dedicated to historical questions, or development, or marketing related issues, etc etc). But that idea of trying to find a way (creative, often) to measure things often comes to my mind.

All techniques we study recommend (and that is quite logical) that measures should be established to measure the evolution of the initiatives. Fantastic. How to measure knowledge? Of course there are processes and suggestions in several papers. You could measure number of improvements taken from knowledge present on a database, or number of ideas collected from employees, etc etc. BUt is that a good measure?

One could also think about how much money was taken out of an database, or how many bytes on a database..all numerical measures. But are that a good wat to measure?

Of course the best way would depend on the circumstance, on what you are using Knowledge Management for (and a very important feature is that you have to know EXACTLY what you are using it for, exactly what you are expecting to gain from it.


But is something hard to measure...

 



March 08, 2009

Rewards, good or bad?

Every organisation I have always been part of had rewards of some sort. IF you behaved properly, a reward (and sometimes if you didn`t a punishment). Every chance I had to organise something on my professional life took that into consideration. I created prizes related to process improvement, to Knowledge Management, etc. I must say I remember reading some people against this kind of approach, but never paid attention to it. When working on my OPP and CBE PMA`s a found this book (Punished by Rewards - The problem with gold stars, incentive plans, A`s,praise and other bribes) that defended the opposite idea. He said people did not change because of those bribes. They just tried to cheat the system. Once again is something that relates to Deming, that was also not a fan of it. His argument builds on psychology, and is very well defended and rational. I used it as a criticism and reflection in my OPP, CBE, and PIUSS PMA. That came to my mind because in PIUSS several authors defend it a form of making a new culture stick. Create punishments and rewards for those who behave. Today reading something about KBAM I found the same kind of argument. I must say I think the logic behind the book is perfect. I can not argue against it. On the other hand, perhaps out of habit I still can`t think this is wrong. The only defence I can present, however, that if people are not changed by prizes or punishment at least you use those prizes to communicate, to indicate what is desired. This might raise awareness, might make people think about why this reward/punishment is been applied and if you can clearly communicate the reason....another possible advantage is that by giving recognition to someone who behaved in an specific way you could be just saying a "thank you"to someone who did something that the organisation understands is good and desired by it. And that can be used on a Six Sigma program or in a KM initiative. But I agree that people will not change just because of that, they can see that, reflect on it and perhaps change out of their reflection, but not because of the reward itself.


targets

Sometime ago I had a discussion in this blog with the Deming idea that one should not put targets on production. It took a while for me to fully understand and agree that the problem were not the targets themselves, but individual production related targets were wrong. For example, having the idea of continuously improving a company is a target because you will have to measure and identify that those measures are improving. That is the target, improving.

However everything you study and see asks for measures. Study for KBAM one of the procedures that is recommended is to have measures and to attach those measures to results and numbers. And those measures/targets have to be SMART, (what means they should be specific...). So that is an important balance. You need to have objectives and some degree of objectivity is needed , some target is needed. But that has to be real and collective, and has to be thought in such a way that will stimulate everyone to drive honestly together, everyone to work as a system toward this guiding objective.

So that is the hard thing, have objectives that help the system to improve, have the people to know what to do and that actually bring performance benefits that are real and not only created to achieve short term advantages.

 



March 02, 2009

Knowing is more them having

About 1,5 years ago I decided to go overseas to study. I had that dream for a while but for one reason or the other I had not done it. However that moment seem very appropriate.

I started looking for it and found all the information's needed. I liked everything but one thing. It was a very expensive thing to do.  I looked for scholarships and they were available however if I wanted them I would have to wait at least one more year and that could have completed cancelled the possibility of coming due to several personal and professional issues.

The thing is, I had money for that. I`ve been working since I was a teenager and I managed to save money for that. I had just enough with a certain margin of safety (and of course if something REALLY out of control, a special Cause happened, I had some emergency alternatives in place). But was it worth? Would not I be better off keeping it, or using it to help me buy a flat or something else?

The first answer to my problem came from my financial background. I calculated what this degree could bring to me in terms of salary increase and compared it to what the overall amount of money would give me interest-wise in a low risk application (if you prefer, made an economical cost calculation using the cost of opportunity concept).  It made sense to spend it that way.

Second I had a very nice conversation with an uncle I have.  And he reminded me of something I always said but had forgotten. What you know is worth much more then what you have. That is specially true when we are young. Knowledge is the best possible asset. No one will never be able to take it away from you. And in this digital workd even more. That was the killing argument, and perhaps the main reason why I am here in the first place.

Therefore it makes all sense the people and organisations should do their best to manage knowledge, to try to make the best out of it. That`s actually what they are paying for when hiring people, specially expensive ones.



March 01, 2009

Six Sigma

Working on PIUSS PMA I read a lot about 6 sigma. Somebody asked what it was and I was trying to explain. SOmething that comes to my mind that I think it is quite interesting is the idea that a method that started basically as statistical control of processes evolved to became a sort of philosofical way of thinking management. It became something bigger, broader. The concept evolved and could be used to all process in te company.

I have only two strong criticisms to it. First the most common way to address it have little concern for human related issues. It needed a bit more of soft skills in my opinion. Second, I think variation works well for the average and mass production. But human beings are individuals, hard to establish limits, averages for several activities that are basically human. For example, assuming everything is a system, every system has processes that are measurable. But and if this system has someone fantastic, a genius? 

Just thinking.

 


February 25, 2009

Six Sigma and the enviroment

Working on PIUSS, 6 Sigma in my mind..

A couple of weeks ago I read an interview with an government officer defending that the amount of kids per couple should be controlled. The idea is that the world was not able to sustain more people. It is an understandable idea but not a simple explanation for 3 reasons:

-In most developed countries the population stable or even decreasing (Italy, France, etc)

-In several other big countries (developing and developed) the growth is rather small and mainly caused by immigration (Brazil, US, China...)

-The biggest growth is in very specific and usually poor countries (most of Africa, India, etc)

The consumption level of resources per capta is VERY small on most of the high growing countries and is massive on the rich developed countries (specially the US). That combination of factor is helping balance the situation.

I was discussing this matter with an expert about 1,5 years ago. And he told his major concern was not population growth or even increase in consumption of resources per capta but the amount of waste. He gave me an example that I found rather shocking. He said that the most efficient explosion engines only used about 14-18% of the energy potential contained on the fuel. All the rest was wasted on noise, smoke, lack of appropriate technologies, etc...Basically only about 200ml of each litre of fuel we use is really used to move the cars, all the rest is WASTED. He gave several other examples related tp water and paper. It was shocking.

I took 2 lessons out of the combination of the information's above. 1st. reducing waste, using everything more efficiently, recycling is an easier, quicker and more efficient way of helping save the planet. Imagine if we could reach a 6 Sigma kind of level to the usage of resources, being wasting anything an defect? Would we be saving the world?  Reducing variation and increasing efficiency on the process would certainly be a more noble (and in the long term better financially speaking) reason to use Six Sigma like techniques to improve production an processes...

Second lesson learned. Try not to waste. Water is scarce, energy too. Everything has an environmental cost and someday, be sure of that, that price is going to reflect on the actual financial cost of things. Water will be expansive, paper too. And depending how we handle it now things can be only reasonably expensive, not unaffordable...


MBE Education and variation…

Follow-up to Education and variation from Francisco's blog

Just came to my mind, after writing my last entry that the same way of thinking also applies to MBE. For example WMG`s process of moderating marks is just a way of trying to reduce variation in a subjective process. As we know taking variation is good, but in the specific process of moderation is it really good? Some prople might have their marks reduced, by that process. The moderator puting his finger is not a bit of tempering? Sometimes can`t this process be unfair if somebodys note is reduced (it seems that the answer would be know, since the module tutor could insist in the mark even if the moderator considered it too high, but is just a thought)

Just thinking....

 


Education and variation

I had tennis lessons when I was a kid (5-6 years old) and them another 2-3 years when I was about 19-20 years old and I having again now. I still prefer football but I rather enjoy tennis. I found tennis lessons here rather diferent from Brazil.

There are some diferences that are related to socio-economical issues and I will not discuss them. But one is the method. Things here are very technical and formal. Limits and standarts are very clearly adressed, processes and strategies clearly defined, method is very, very structured. In Brazil classes where less formal and structured, more improvisation, less theory and explanations.

I was thinking about that and a story came to my mind. Many years ago I read an interview with Alan Prost. He is a French who was one of the most successful formula 1 drivers ever. The interview was conducted by a Brazilian Magazine, therefore he talked a lot about Brazilian pilots. At that point, 2 of the top 4 pilots in the world were Brazilian (Ayrton Senna and Nelson Piquet). The reporter asked how could a poor country, with no special tradition in motor racing or car industry be so good ate producing pilots. Prost answered by giving an example. He said that if there were 2 pilots, being one Brazilian, racing on the desert and there was a traffic light with the red light on,the non-Brazilian would stop and wait  for the green light while the Brazilian would stop, look and if seeing nothing would go on. Taking away the bad example safety-citizen wise what he said is that Brazilians tend no to ne too attached to rules, to value improvisation and creativity. That fits very well in the stereotype the world has of us and the way people see our football, for instance.

Now what has that to do with the first bit I wrote? Well, in Brazil tennis lessons valued the Brazilian way of seeing things, the improvisation while here they are about a disciplined and structured process. In England they care more about variation, their tennis lessons are more 6 sigma, one could say. I think that style is better to produce regular tennis players, it will certainly fit more people and raise more people to a satisfactory level therefore is more appropriate for the objectives of tennis lessons in the level I intend to play. I would recommend the English Style as a better one just as I would recommend it  to an industry producing millions of products or conducting repetitive processes (what 6 Sigma was designed for). 

But there is a catch. If you talking training or producing something special, something that is different and peculiar (a fantastic player or a very specific and peculiar luxury product) perhaps the not-so-technical-and-structured approach could be better. Could make it easier to identify and customise. That`s arguable I recon, but I think that the fact that Brazil goes well in a sport that does not have that much emphasis on repetition but more in improvisation ike football and does not go that well in Tennis could work as a point (but definitely not as an evidence , scientifically speaking).

Yes...crazy and confusing entry really.




February 18, 2009

Common sense strikes back…

Follow-up to Good sense, organizations and people from Francisco's blog

Working on PIUSS PMAI found a phrase rather interesting "Common Sense is the least common of the senses" (better reference it just in case....(Pande, Neuman & Cavanagh ; 2000) ). It relates to my old post saying that most scientific knowledge I saw in my life in economics, finance, engineering, quality, process and so forth are organised and well presented common sense.

6 Sigma is no different. Common sense all the way. Even though I must say that the way it is presented, the toools, the way priorities are defined do stimulate some thinking that we don`t usually do. I realisedsome colleagues are having trouble perceiving the whole logic of thinking on a process and variation related way, and that what 6 Sigma can help with, to show the importance of understanding that logic and presenting a way to relate it to everyday practises and results. So it is a clever way to stimulate and take results out of common sense.

So if I had to say what is the most important aspect of 6S, the one you should really understand it would be: "Pay attention to processes, look at them carefuly and sistematically and take as much variation out of it as possible".

But when the concepts are understoos, it is common sense ain`t it?