Part of it is our overreliance on hardware and gadgetry to solve problems. Like I said before, it only makes the inefficient seem more efficeint, usually about as long as it takes a manager to get his bonus. The real problems in America are systems problems. We have to get our software to do more and be easier for for everyone to use, and we have to get it honed in on being more specific to dealing with the problems presented by a given processes instead of the one size fits all "configurable" software of today. We have to be more willing to junk entire exisiting systems that produce low quality product instead of taking the bandaid approach. If a particular process produces a low-quality product, management should be spending some of their time designing an entirely new process instead of walking around looking for places they can patch the tire.

I think one of the most potent concepts I saw in action in TQM shops were Re-Engineering Teams, composed of people who could make the kinds of decisions and get the money to replace processes- these teams interlocked with the mid level manager's more detail specific Process Reengineering Teams. Re-engineering and Demming's CIP are really two different philosophies, but used in tandem by savvy top management, business processes can be defined as those needing a Continous Improvement Program, and those needing Re-engineering. Done well, it leads to a much better way to allocate resources towards improving product quality. It think this is a much better approach than pure CIP, which can lead to the kind of problems you described at Boeing, or pure Re-engineering, which gets the wrong people fired along with the right people. If we don't start leading in these areas, we are doomed to speak Chinese some day.