Tom Peters "Hates" Quality but "Loves" Its Principles and Practices

Expanded Summary

Here is an expanded summary of Tom Peters' major points as they relate to and actually support, even reinforce, the principles of quality advocated by Dr. Deming and others in the "Quality" movement.

Let's begin with Peters' point on page 25 entitled, "Losing Bet II: The Quality Thing." Here, he comments:

This is highly consistent with Deming's point #2: Adopt the new philosophy. Deming wrote in 1996 that "We are in a new economic age. Western management must awaken to the challenge, must learn their responsibilities, and take on leadership for change. Transformation is required."

On page 44, Peters lists the leaders who have brought about big transformations (34 in total) with no mention of Deming or Juran. Yet he commends the Japanese on page 304 who were out-competing the United States with counsel from Deming and Juran.

Peters and Deming differ, if at all, only in the degree of change. Peters' ideal is breakthrough improvement—taking continuous improvement to higher and higher levels. He accuses Deming practitioners of incrementalism—as though major innovation should be expected from each and every effort.

That's not realistic, of course. Not every effort can conceivably trigger major innovation and significant breakthrough. Both Deming and Peters concur that continuous improvement is critical—and neither would object to a major breakthrough in this process. Peters does a good job helping us "raise our sights" in the Kaizen process.

Peters opens Chapter 6 (page 85) with his repeated chapter heading "I RANT" by saying, "We are not prepared ..." as follows:

In chapter 5 (page 77), Peters says under the heading of "BLACK HOLE":

He concludes his intermittent comments on quality on page 307 in chapter 24 with a ringing endorsement of Deming's counsel to the Japanese—again without mentioning Deming (or Juran) by name:

No matter what these efforts may be called, the adoption of this new philosophy is essential—even if it's called "re-imagine."

That's the expanded summary. Here are the specifics.

Zero Defects

In a sidebar on page 29, Peters says:

Likewise, Deming makes the following comments on "Zero Defects":

• Focus on … zero defects … must be abolished, leadership put in place.
• The fallacy of zero defects [is] driving losses and costs to the maximum.

We all respected ITT Hartford's Phil Crosby who advocated many initiatives in addition to zero defects in his highly read books (Quality is Free, Quality without Tears, and Let's Talk Quality)—but both Peters and Deming effectively challenge the value of this latter notion.

Kaizen and Continuous Improvement

In chapter 2, page 31, Peters says, "I imagine … a World Where the Timid Goal of 'Improvement' (and the Tendency to Tinker) has given way to … an Unabashed Commitment to Destruction." On pages 40 and 41:

And as a sidebar on page 41:

Deming comments early in his book that "statistical control open[s] the way to ... innovation. Without statistical control, the process [is] in unstable chaos, the noise of which would mask the effect of any attempt to bring improvement. With statistical control achieved, [we] become innovative, creative." Without metrics, how can you define—and measure—success?

On page 199 of Chapter 15, Peters resurrects his assault on continuous improvement:

Peters again seems to want major breakthroughs without any regard to—or concern for—continuous improvement. They are not mutually exclusive as he seems to imply. Deming says within his comments on his Point #1 (Create constancy of purpose for improvement of product and service):

In chapter 20 (page 250), Peters again berates quality while, at the same time, illustrating what quality disciplines can accomplish at their best and highest levels. He implies that these principles are outdated and have outlived their usefulness when, in reality, they are every bit as valid today as they were when "Out of the Crisis" was published in 1982.

In his more recent book (1994), The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education, Deming says "it is necessary to innovate, to predict needs of the customer, give him more. He that innovates and is lucky will take the market."

Page 150 in Chapter 11 is also relevant to property and casualty insurance. Peters comments:

This is the kind of situation that the Insurance Institute of America course in Delivering Insurance Services (AIS-25)—including Deming's teachings—is all about. No conflict here with Peters. Everyone is on this "same page."

Chapter 17 (page 217) includes this (somewhat backward) approach to system improvement:

This is okay as far as it goes—but it misses Deming's point on correcting inputs in the process to begin with so "things that went wrong don't occur to begin with." In Point #5, Deming says, "Improve constantly and forever the system of production and service." A theme that appears over and over in this book [Out of Crisis] is that quality must be built in at the design stage. It may be too late once plans are on their way.

Customer Focus

Peters begins Chapter 8 with an "I rant" on "customer focus":

Here are some direct quotations from Deming that convincingly show that Peters' focus on customers is consistent with those in the quality movement:

• The consumer is the most important part of the production line. Quality should be aimed at the needs of the consumer, present and future.
• It will not suffice to have customers that are merely satisfied. An unhappy customer will switch. Unfortunately, a satisfied customer may also switch, on the theory that he could not lose much, and might gain. Profit in business comes from repeat customers, customers that boast about your product and service, and that bring friends with them.

On page 224, Peters discovers what Deming has said for decades, i.e., at the end of every process is the customer—internal or external customer—the recipient of the output of each process.

PDSA—Plan, Do, Study, Act

On page 57 (chapter 3), Peters contrasts planning versus what Deming would call "Plan Do, Study, Act"—what we call in AIS-25, "PDCA" or "Plan, Do, Check, Act." Each is essentially the same. Peters calls it "DTAF" in contrast to "planning, planning, planning":

He's talking about prototypes. So is Deming. On page 219, Peters introduces a version of Deming's PDSA:

Whether it's called PDSA, DTAF, PDCA, OODA—or GE's DMIAC—the outcome is the same, i.e., plan a test aimed at improvement, carry out the test on a small scale (prototype), study the results, and adopt the change or abandon it—or run through the cycle again. There's clear concurrence here between Peters and Deming.

Co-Production

In chapter 4, on page 67, Peters says:

Deming (and in AIS-25) would call this "co-production." It's part and parcel of the Quality disciplines. In "The New Economics," he comments, "Anyone that works in an organization works jointly, or should, with his suppliers and customers."

Cross-Functional Communication

Chapter 7 includes "Solutions50" an excellent listing by Peters of methods to avoid "stovepipe myopia"—what we would call "silo management"—through cross-functional communication and cross-functional work. Two Solutions relevant to quality disciplines are:

Deming's Point #9 is "Break down barriers between departments. People in research, design, sales, and production must work as a team, to foresee problems of production and in use that may be encountered with the product or service." Then he cites several illustrations and examples. In his "The New Economics," he takes this notion to a different dimension: "Make physical arrangements for informal dialogue between people in the various components of the company, regardless of level of position."

The second "Solutions50" by Peters is:

In Chapter 11, Peters begins with his "! VISION ... I IMAGINE …"

Both of these pronouncements are precisely what Deming and Juran—and even Crosby—convincingly argue. No conflict here with Peters.

Benchmarking

Reminiscent of a recent political campaign statement (I voted for "x" before I voted against it), Peters downplays the value of benchmarking—yet says it's okay if done in a particular manner.

Deming said the following about benchmarking: "To me, benchmarking is a fancy name for copying. To select the "best in class" without understanding why it is best leads to disaster. Without understanding the theory needed to convert someone else's product to our use, we apply the process as the originator did. This can be completely wrong."

General Semantics

Indirectly unrelated to Quality disciplines and principles, are the principles of General Semantics as asserted by Alfred Korzybski and S.I. Hawakawa. These latter principles are highly valued—and correctly so—by Tom Peters. He appears to be very sensitive to the fundamental principles of General Semantics with particular emphasis on "how men use words—and how words use men." Both Deming and Juran, I suspect, would concur with this.

Conclusion

Although this paper isn't intended to be a full exposition of Dr. Peters' management and leadership philosophies—nor of Dr. Deming's—it is intended to conclusively show that each thinks in the same manner. Only the words chosen seem to be different.

Peters does seem to want to "push" everyone to higher levels of performance—which is commendable—from "incrementalism" to innovation. He does so without demeaning Deming's principles. He demeans only the names of quality disciplines such as TQM, Zero Defects, CI, Six Sigma—names Deming detested as well.

Peters' hyperbole, however sincere, sounds a lot like the story of the tortoise (Deming) and the hare (Peters). In the long run, the tortoise wins every time—and the hare is caught napping between innovations.

What's clearly missing from Peters' entire book is the high relevance and importance of metrics. The many kinds of "soft stuff" he describes are important—but not at the expense of data for measurement purposes and to maintain control of processes and systems. Peters is an engineer. Surely he "gets it" when the need for data is expressed.

It's critical for those who may read Dr. Peters' new book to understand that a casual review may lead to a conclusion that he "hates" quality when a deeper reading will convincingly show that, in actuality, he "loves" its principles no matter what he may call them.