Statistical thinking W. Edwards Deming's teachings in the administrative environment

Statistical Thinking and W. Edwards Deming’s

Teachings in the Administrative Environment

Statistics and the persistent pursuit of improvement have generated many efficiencies at Windsor

Export Supply.

George Brooks and J.R. Linklater

T h e application of the famed W. Edwards Dem- ing’s teachings in many productivity- and quality-improvement programs has been a recent phenomenon on the floors of many North American factories. Dr. Deming is the man widely acknowledged as the leader of the Japanese surge to become a worldwide industrial power. Since Japan’s conspicuous rise to promi- nence as a global leader in many industries, the great power of making decisions based upon statistical principles has been widely recognized in North American industry.

Until now, however, the use and application of these principles has been largely the domain of the factory floor. Windsor Export Supply (WES), a component of the Ford Motor Company, has applied sta-

tistical principles in the administrative/office environment. This article describes WES’s experience using this approach.

Windsor Export Supply, located in Windsor, Ontario, Canada, is a component of the Ford Motor Company, more specifically a division of Ford’s Latin American Automotive Operations. It employs approximately 235 people. WES’s functions include coordi- nating the worldwide supply of automotive compo- nents for Ford North American-designed vehicles. This involves supply of original equipment manufac- turers’ parts to Ford’s automotive assembly plants, and also to some outside suppliers. In addition, WES is responsible for the coordination of the supply of parts to the aftermarket, commonly called parts and

Summer 1986 271

In order to bring about change in the organization, the organizational culture had to

be reassessed.

accessories , through overseas dealers and distributors for service to North American-designed vehicles.

The WES organization is a diverse operation that involves the actual performance or coordination of various functions, including:

Developing parts bills of material; 0 Parts purchasing and follow-up; 0 Packaging design and quality assurance; 0 Traffic and customs documentation; and 0 International financial services.

Up to the early 1980s, WES had been a successful and profitable organization. Its customers had been comfortable and satisfied with the services received. However, in the 1980s, some of the world’s realities began having a negative impact on WES’s overseas sales. The increasingly strong value of U.S. currency and the impact of Asian and European im- port vehicles on U.S. markets (primarily Latin Amer- ica) were beginning to reduce dramatically demands for WES’s products, that is, North American-designed vehicles.

This spiraling sales picture caused WES to recognize that it was in a new economic age of global competition. The top executives in the Ford Motor Company, and, more specifically, WES’s top management, began to see that a change was required.

By mid-1984 WES managers realized that, if the organization was to survive in the long term in the world marketplace, it had to continually strive to improve by drawing upon its full resources in order to offer the most innovative and cost-effective products and services to its customers.

In 1984, the average WES manager was fifty- two years of age and had about thirty years of company seniority. The work force, approximately 60 percent of which was unionized personnel represented by the United Automobile Workers, had seen its total number shrink from a high of 325 people in 1977 to 253.

It was evident that, in order to bring about change in the organization, the organizational culture had to be reassessed. Management had to be careful not to launch what might be perceived as just another short-lived quick-fix program that someday would go the way of other unsuccessful management ideas of the past. Dr. Deming, acting as a consultant to the Ford Motor Company, and the Ford Statistical Meth-

ods Office became the primary sources of ideas in carrying out this transition, which has been named ‘‘Continuous Improvement. ”

What is Continuous Improvement?

Continuous Improvement is the practice of not living with a procedure or process without continually monitoring its performance and trying to improve on it. Too often, WES management would first design a system or procedure, and then deal with the excep- tions by reporting the problems individually after they occurred.

What was needed was a method of accurately predicting problems before they materialized-a problem avoidance instead of a problem detection approach. Statistical thinking and the application of Dr. Deming’s management principles became the main tools for achieving this end.

Dr. Deming stressed that statistical thinking is only one of the ingredients required in a Continuous Improvement effort. Since CI requires a never-ending attempt to improve the organization’s processes, it requires a committed work force that operates coopera- tively with management to monitor the organization’s processes on an ongoing basis.

An effort in this direction was certainly needed at WES, because it had been observed that management and the work force viewed themselves as separate entities and did not communicate well. Launching the Continuous Improvement effort at WES meant that management and the work force would have to begin to communicate more with each other, to trust each other, and, most importantly, become part of the same team.

Teamwork, communication, and training

Teamwork, communication, and training became the cornerstones of the effort to improve productivity at WES . And while important individually,

272 National Productivity Review

Managers must look at the inputs to their processes euen when they are not perceiued to

be a problem.

these cornerstones do not stand alone but rather are closely interrelated.

For example, telling people one is dedicated to training and improving their skills, and then following through with it, has the effects of

1. Improving one’s credibility; 2. Increasing trust; and 3. Improving the likelihood of being listened

to in the future.

Thus, communication is improved by displaying a commitment to training.

Teamwork, communication, and training have all contributed toward implementing Continuous Im- provement. We will now examine the role of each.

Training

The training effort focused on giving personnel the basic knowledge necessary for functioning in the ever-changing atmosphere of Continuous Im- provement. One of the main goals was to make work meaningful and even fun.

Training for all personnel included:

1. A basic working knowledge of statistical

2. Fundamental communication skills; 3. Exposure to the principles of Dr. Deming;

4. Interpersonal skills.

One of the first tasks was to establish an on- site training center with video equipment. This visibly demonstrated a commitment to training. In September 1984, Dr. Deming visited WES and spoke in separate meetings with management and the general work force. Among other things, Dr. Deming pointed out that a common denominator between manufacturing and a service or administrative organization is the costliness of mistakes and defects and the fact that the farther the mistake goes without correction, the greater the cost to correct it.

Over the next five months, a statistical training program was initiated by corporate staff personnel from the Ford Statistical Methods Office. Every person within the organization was given a minimum of

process control (SPC);

and

eight hours’ off-site training in Dr. Deming’s principles and statistical process control techniques. Through the use of various statistical charts, management and the general work force were provided the tools to begin the system monitoring required to achieve change. Familiarity with SPC created a common language within the organization.

Management was given further specialized training sessions in SPC and was taught how to manage a system. It may seem strange that a manager must be taught how to manage. But at WES many supervisors and managers had gravitated upwards from their previous positions and had been promoted according to how well they had performed in their previous job. This was a problem, since a good supervisor might or might not make a good manager, a good manager might or might not make a good operations manager, etc. One thing management had to un- derstand was that management skills must be learned; they cannot be ‘ ‘gravitated into. ”

Dr. Deming repeatedly pointed out that management’s job is to manage the system and the general work force’s job is to work within the system. Too often, managers were devoting their time to variants without knowing whether the variation was acceptable within the system being used. This resulted in exces- sive control, which usually increased the number of problems instead of reducing them. The management team was shown how to manage the resources that made up their processes-people, equipment, materi-

Summer 1986 273

al, methods, and the environment. In the past, often only one or two of these resources had been looked at and others had either not been recognized as having importance, or, if they had been, monitoring them had taken the form of dealing with an issue once it was a problem. A very difficult message to convey to managers is that they must look at the inputs to their processes even when they are not perceived to be a problem. Daily maintenance of the process resources became the order of the day. These efforts were viewed as Continuous Improvement.

Other training programs were introduced not only for the sake of training, but also to show the members of the work force that training had personal value for them as well as value to the organization. This was a way of enlisting greater commitment from personnel.

For example, in a program called “Bits and Bytes,” twelve forty-five-minute video training sessions were conducted on company time to introduce every employee to computers. Most of the work force used video terminals or computer data daily but did not have a basic understanding of computers or how they operated. This program was designed to launch personnel into the contemporary world of computers without the cultural shock so common in today’s work place.

Every employee has been involved in an “interpersonal skill development” program. The twenty hours of training were conducted on-site (in many cases by company personnel). The program’s aim was to improve the communication and problem-solving skills of all employees. It provided a model both for how personnel should treat others and for how they could expect to be treated in the work place. The program provided another common denominator for communication.

All members of management except supervisors have received five days of off-site training in creative problem solving. Its purpose was to open people’s minds to new ideas and enable them to build upon the thoughts of others. One outcome was the creation of a Business Development Group made up of volunteers from management. It operated with a mandate to seek new business and new functions for WES as a way of coping with the uncertainties of the world market. Supervisors received two days of off- site training in creative problem solving.

Several other training programs were imple- mented and are ongoing. These include a supervision training program called “The One-Minute Manager,” based on Kenneth Blanchard’s book of the same name.

Communication

An “open door” policy was introduced. It was designed to give everyone an opportunity to communicate ideas or concerns directly to the top of the organization. This policy prompted many mangagers to make closer contact with their employees. The managers’ thinking was that, if their people wanted to communicate, better it be to the managers themselves than to the operations manager.

Judging from the feedback received, such ac- tion makes the average individual feel that he or she has an equal opportunity to contribute and to do so in a responsible manner. Many people reacted to the open door policy not only by communicating problems, but also by suggesting remedies.

One such suggestion resulted in the orgariza- tion’s adoption of flextime, which allows employees to start work within two hours of the required core time, and hence, at hours more suitable to their personal schedules.

Since October 1984, a weekly newsletter has been published from the operations office, which provides all employees with updates on key issues at WES and alerts them to events taking place at overseas customers’ operations. In becoming better in- formed, employees have begun to feel more a part of the organization in general. This publication has not only been well received by the work force, but also has received praise from other company locations in North America and overseas regarding its timely con- tent. The newsletter is perceived as a vital communication link within the organization.

In November 1984 and again in November 1985, a summary of operating budgets was presented to all employees at an off-site location. Such previously guarded topics as the company’s profit picture, risks and opportunities, new projects, and many other items were shared with everyone.


A highly individualistic orientation does not always parallel what is best for the organization.

Teamwork

The third cornerstone of the Continuous Im- provement effort is teamwork. Teamwork is a simple enough concept, but early on this question had to be asked: What gets in the way of teamwork? Two points were raised:

1. People in business fear becoming invisible and turning into clones of everyone else in the office. In sum, they fear getting stuck in a mindless, routine mode of operating.

2. People traditionally place a high value on receiving credit for individual successes and on “climbing the ladder” through their own efforts. Being part of a team effort seems to involve risking the loss of raises and promotion.

Where do these attitudes come from? They start in the home with the teaching of the young to walk by themselves and feed themselves and are rein- forced in the school system, where students are per- sistently pushed to work toward their personal goals. This attitude is magnified by the working world, where individual accomplishments are evaluated by personalized performance evaluations and summa- rized in resumes.

Unfortunately, such a highly individualistic orientation does not always parallel what is best for the organization. WES’s experience has been that people, if encouraged and supported by management, will shift from a selfish approach to a teamwork method of working together for the common good of the organization.

How has this been accomplished? Acceptance of the concept behind teamwork has partially come about through the formation of Continuous Improve- ment (CI) project teams to analyze and monitor various processes and procedures. These project teams have become the core of Continuous Improvement. The solicitation of new ideas, discussed above, links up with the formation of these teams. When an individual (at any organizational level) comes forward with an idea, a Continuous Improvement Team is formed. This is done by calling together all people necessary to set the suggested project in motion. Indi- viduals are then added as necessary to accomplish the team’s objectives. (In the formation of teams, the

above-cited links among communication, training, and teamwork- the three cornerstones of CI-are apparent. )

No bounds are imposed upon the team’s mem- bership. Anyone who can assist the team is called to participate. The problem-solving power of the teams is dramatic. As in many organizations, the team tran- scends the office bureaucracy and provides the necessary expertise for getting the job done. Each project team generally has a spokesperson elected by the group and a secretary who records the team’s progress. The teams are not firmly structured, but generally include a mixture of supervision, management, and general salary employees. Thirteen project teams have been formed at WES, with about 25 percent of the work force participating. Progress to date has been remarkable.

How remarkable? What efficiencies have these groups been responsible for? How many jobs have been eliminated? What are the dollar savings? One lesson of this program has been that success and savings are not always measured in these traditional ways. Thus, while there have been dollar savings, there have been no head count reductions. In fact, the organization is committed to the principle that no one loses employment as a result of a CI effort. Should worker redundancy be created due to a CI project, WES is committed to retraining and to the creation of additional endeavors to ensure that no one is dis- placed. Indeed, our goal has been to save and create jobs. To date, this principle has been steadfastly maintained. Doing so is essential if personnel are to have the commitment needed to sustain a CI effort.

But there have been many other kinds of efficiencies. Below some of the successes to date are presented.

Freight audit and payment system

By utilizing SPC, a project team dealing with the freight audit and payment system has accomplished the following:

0 Work has been brought back in-house from outside the company operation;

0 Queries have been reduced from 34 percent of freight bills submitted to less than 1 percent; and

Summer 1986 275

The payment period for freight bills has been improved from an average of twenty- three days to six days.

Packing efficiency for rolro overseas shipments

In packaging parts for overseas assembly operations, WES has been an innovator in developing the roll on/roll off (ro/ro) method of shipping. At a pack center operated by Livingston Export Packing, Inc., a private supplier of this service, parts from many different suppliers are transferred to specially designed racks for loading into customized forty-foot over-the-road vans. These vans, when loaded, are driven onto specially designed ocean vessels for ro/ro overseas shipments. At the port of destination, these vans in turn are simply driven off the vessel to the Ford assembly plant. In order to minimize the number of vans shipped and to attain the lowest possible cost for ocean freight (a major operating expense deter- mined by a combination of weight and the number of cubic feet used), each van must be packed with the correct mix of parts in order to maximize the usage of cubic feet of space in the van without exceeding the weight restrictions.

WES material handling engineers and management began to observe a gradual decline in the efficiency of this operation. Efforts to improve the function via traditional means were not successful. An SPC control chart showed that there was a long-run decrease in packaging efficiency. A project team was formed to investigate the problem of van cubic utilization. Team members identified several causes of the problem, including the following situations:

0 The packing services supplier was being paid on a per-van basis with no incentive to improve;

0 Packing supplier personnel were also being paid on a piecework basis and likewise had no incentive to improve;

0 WES’s own shipping schedules were caus- ing packing problems; and

0 The packing supplier did not consistently use equipment specially designed to ensure maximum van cubic utilization.

Changes were made in the system. Perfor- mance inhibitors such as WES’s paying the packing services supplier on a piecework basis were eliminated, and changes were made in WES shipping schedules and in the supplier’s use of special equipment. The combined achievements of this team have resulted in significant reduction in the cost of ocean freight and the rental of ro/ro vans.

WES has conducted various other projects. But rather than enumerate them all here, it seems more useful to take a detailed look at a specific project in order to view the dynamics of a CI effort.

Revitalizing the print shop

A project pertaining to the WES print shop began, like other projects, with an idea that never would have been pursued, and perhaps never even voiced, without the existence of a meaningful open door policy-that is, a policy in which people feel uncensored in their expression of ideas and in which people seriously consider the ideas proposed. It was observed that the print shop had become caught up in the modern era of paperless systems and consequently had lost 50 percent of its personnel over three years. It appeared that the print shop would eventually dwindle down to a one-person operation. The idea was the following: expand the WES print-shop functions and ca- pabilities beyond WES so that it would be serving the entire six-organization, 6,000-employee Ford Wind- sor site, which had a much larger volume of printing requirements than WES alone and which was outsourcing its printing. Eventually, the print-shop function would be extended beyond the organization.

This expansion would create a more viable operation, thereby creating revenues for the organization and job security, and even expansion, for those within the process. The print shop was given a mandate to create a Continuous Improvement team that would establish an entrepreneurial approach for conducting the print shop business.

In June 1985, the print shop project team was called together and presented the proposal that WES expand the scope of the print shop. Not surprisingly, the proposal met with some furrowed brows. The group identified four major hurdles:


I t was suggested that the WES print shop expand to serue the entire six-organization Ford

Windsor site.

1. WES’s print shop did not have the equipment necessary to perform the printing function;

2. The print shop did not have the skilled manpower to support a sophisticated printing function;

3 . Assuming the print shop obtained the equipment and expertise, it did not have any business to conduct anyway; and

4. There was no statistical evidence pertaining to past activity, nor was there any desire on the part of print shop personnel to become involved in statistical thinking in the future.

The early meetings were marked by free- wheeling discussions during which this small but persistent group observed the results of the outsourcing of printing for the Ford Windsor site. The CI team decided to find out why printing was being done by outside sources at the cost of thousands of dollars when the service could be provided more cheaply and with superior quality in-house at WES, and would not only save money but would also employ people. The team began attacking the issues. Further scrutiny by the team located the existence of some “mothballed” professional printing equipment at a Ford Windsor location. Team members were dispatched to the location where the equipment was being warehoused and, along withi! an outside printing consultant (who was temporarily included on the team), made the decision that the equipment was indeed salvageable at almost no cost to the organization.

The equipment was transferred into the WES print shop. It should be noted that the CI team drew upon the organization’s vast resources, including the finance, traffic, and office services functions, in order to accomplish objectives. Individuals were brought into the team as their expertise was required. A genu- ine spirit of accomplishment developed among not only the team members but also among others in the organization.

Intrapreneurial spirit

The term entrepeneur, meaning one who or- ganizes, manages, and assumes the risks of a business

or enterprise, is a familiar one. Another term, intra- preneur, has recently come into use. This term was adopted by the CI team because it perceived itself as organizing, managing, and assuming the risks of business from within the organization. The team held meetings with senior management, the union, and others involved in the process of producing printed matter. The team then tackled the question of how much expertise would be required to support a sophisticated printing function. It was clear that productivity and quality had to be improved. To accomplish this, the existing press operator was launched into a training program. In addition, a new printing specialist position was created to bring into the area a knowledge- able and experienced printer. Fortunately, an experienced journeyman printer who was working in another capacity within the organization was willing to take up the challenge.

These developments demonstrated how the attitude of the organization had changed, because, in the past, the print shop jobs had been considered dead-end positions. The new attitude toward these jobs signalled that progress was being made.

It became evident that special print work, such as special color print jobs and business cards, which normally would have to be sent outside, could now be done in-house at substantial savings to the company. The print shop was becoming recognized as a prime area of efficiency. For example, the forms-control function previously handled in another department was transferred to the print shop.

The Continuous Improvement team was armed with a solid resolve that it could do what it claimed- that is, produce printing for the entire Windsor site at equal or better quality than the outside competition- and, in addition, with the belief that employees involved in the process shared a commitment to this goal. When asked to comment regarding this effort, employees had several interesting things to say about the commitment, trust, responsibility, and teamwork that underlay it. The print shop coordinator reported:

After years of being told what to do, when to do it, this intrapreneurial spirit approach was something entirely new to me. Although this was sometimes an uncomfortable feeling, it soon became very rewarding to be responsible for something besides showing up, doing what was

Summer 1986 277

“I came to feel that my superoisor really did haoe enough faith and trust to let me make my

own decisions. ”

expected of you. What could at first be taken as a lack of supervision soon became obviously a new style of leadership. This was a new freedom, not just a window dressing. I really was responsible for the operation of my job. I was treated more as a decision maker and less as a worker by both my immediate supervisors and other management within the company.

I came to feel that my supervisor really did have enough faith and trust to let me make my own decisions, justify them where necessary and also live with the results, whatever they may be. This feeling of trust was not only evident in day-to-day work situations, but my whole feeling on the job. No one was checking when 1 came to work, how long I took for lunch, when I left, etc., but I realized I was fooling no one but myself by abusing this trust. The work had to be done, the pressure to do the work was no longer really pressure at all. You did the work because it was there to be done and when you completed a par- ticular job it was you who was thanked or patted on the back not just your supervisor.

One of the female printing press operators stated:

Even though the print shop is a small department, everyone pulls their own weight , works together, helps each other and, yes, there is teamwork.

The one thing that stands out most in my mind is that my supervisor was not standing over my shoulder watching every move I made. In fact, I was immediately made to feel by him that I was included in discussions [and] decisions and I was even asked for my opinion. I am trusted on my work performance which only gives me more of an incentive to work harder and gives me pride in the job I do.

It is a good feeling to want to come to work now. I know I am treated with respect as an individual, as a person-not only for my job performance but also for what I can contribute to better the progress of the department and the company.

The importance of statistical thinking

An important analytic approach that had been overlooked in the past in the printing area was statistical thinking. In investigating several items related to the printing operation, the CI team had been thwarted because of a lack of historical statistical data. The team resolved to correct this oversight, particularly with regard to quantifying the value of the printing operation.

Formerly WES print shop’s sole function had been restricted to providing a printing service exclu- sively for WES (rather than the entire Windsor site), and therefore the print shop did not charge for its services. Although interdepartmental financial assess- ments had been phased out as being counterproduc- tive, the team thought it would be advantageous to cost all printing assignments for WES in order to establish a perceived value to the operation. This would help the team to assign a value to work being done in-house that would indicate what the cost would be if the work were being done on the outside.

Two specialists joined the team from WES’s finance department. They immediately provided guid- ance in quantifying the operation. Since the print shop was intending to offer its services to the entire Wind- sor site, the creation of a single price list was estab- lished as a priority.

In order to create targets for the print shop operation, the finance specialists calculated a break- even point at which the cost of producing printed matter-considering such factors as personnel, maintenance, and allocated costs-is equal to the cost of outsourcing the printing function. Break-even points for the operation were displayed visually in charts and graphs. In a series of meetings, the print shop personnel were briefed on the finance specialists’ findings. All information, including risks, was shared within the organization.

The Continuous Improvement team was now in the position to make its move, and, in a meeting with purchasing and industrial relations in August 1985, the team was given the mandate to produce printing for the entire Windsor site operation. To date, the operation has been quantifiably successful, each month exceeding its break-even position while


also receiving praise for its quality. As of the writing of this article, tracking of the printing operation’s performance indicates that there will be a projected sur- plus in excess of the calculated break-even point of about $150,000 annually.

The “Who’s in charge?” syndrome

It has often been noted that an enlargement of the role and responsibilities of personnel at the lower end of the traditional organizational hierarchy creates problems for middle management. The situation was no different in the Continuous Improvement program at WES.

The initiator of this Print Shou Continuous Im- provement program was the middle manager of system. He brought with him a commitment to success of the team. However, he said:

At times I found the dynamics scary. 1 had been a member of management for approximately twenty years prior to the formation of the team. I was steeped in the traditional management styles, very aware of the “Who’s in charge?” syndrome. Traditionally i t was my way. . .or else. . .and if anyone wanted to know anything about my organization you saw me! As the Continuous Improvement team progressed, more and more the goals of the team became en- twined with the goals of the people involved in the process. I found without much choice that if I

the the

wanted to establish the status of various tasks, I had to communicate with the people.

Initially, I thought of this as a weakness (as traditionally I felt pressure to have all the an- swers), but as we moved along with the project more and more I , and the people in the project, realized we were working together. Now, rather than having one mind controlling our destiny, we were all making important shared input to the process. I was now acting more as a coach or facilitator using inputs from all the people involved in the process to improve the overall system. I had become free of the day-to-day problems and was now able to concentrate most of my attention on improving the system.

Fears of middle management

In an effort such as WES’s Continuous Im- provement project, middle managers such as the individual quoted above have two principal fears, which may be real or may be imagined. Middle management is afraid that:

1 . The project would reveal that the previous system was inadequate. Since middle management created the previous system or at least perpetuated it, the middle-level managers would look bad.

2 . New ways of conducting the business through either innovative methods or technology might be suggested by the team. This would result in change being required of the manager, a process he or she might find threatening.

Whether these concerns are real or imagined, they must be dealt with. First, managers must be made aware that they must adapt-that unlike other programs, “this will not pass.” This was done at WES by making it clear that the mandate for CI came from the very top of the organization, clearly demon- strating the company’s commitment. This disposed managers to accept rather than resist the new way of doing business.

Second, training programs were initiated to enhance management’s skills so that they could better handle the changing organizational environment.

Summer 1986 279

In an effort such as WES’s Continuous Improoement project, middle managers haoe

two principal fears.

These programs included “interact, ” an interpersonal problem-solving technique, and creative problem solving and “The One-Minute Manager,” discussed above.

Conclusion

Dr. Deming has pointed out that most of the benefits that stem from Continuous Improvement come from intangible changes, and that one cannot quantify the impact of these intangibles. To para- phrase what Dr. Deming told us, who can measure:

0 The multiplying effects on sales or the good will from a happy customer or employee?

0 The improvement in quality and productivity when management becomes involved and employs people for their minds and not just their arms and legs?

0 The improvement in quality and productivity generated by teamwork and improved communications?

0 The improvement of quality and productivity through the elimination of inhibitors to employees’ pride in workmanship?

And yet such gains have occurred. This is not to say that WES has been magically

transformed and that all personnel are accepting change in an open-minded and positive way, and that the organization is now welded together with one common purpose and with equal drive from all personnel. That would be a great exaggeration, and it would have been folly to expect it.

Rather, the change has just begun. The easy part has been accomplished. The initial blush was

heartening. Now the real task is sustaining on a long- term basis the initial commitment won from those involved in the process and those responsible for the creation of the process.

With continued training and support from the top, it can reasonably be expected that communication and teamwork will further draw the various elements together until the entire organization is transformed. This may take years, but, as the Ford vice-president for operations support services has said, “In pursuit of Continuous Improvement, there is no instant pud- ding.”

NOTES

I . Rosabeth Moss Kanter, The Change Masters: Innovation .for Productivity in the American Corporation (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983).

George Brooks is special projects coordinator at Windsor Export Supply, Ford Motor Company, Windsor, Ontario, with responsibility for training. He also manages office services and the printing department at WES. Previously he was a supervisor in preproduction control, material control, and other areas at WES.

J.R. Linklater is operations manager at Windsor Export Supply. From 1979 to 1981 he was supply director for Ford Motor Company-Venezuela, and from 1981 to 1984 he was supply program coordinator for the Latin American Assembly Operation at Ford World Headquarters in Dearborn, Michi- gan.


Documents

Statistical thinking W. Edwards Deming's teachings in the administrative environment