Wedding of profound knowledge

Marriage based on W. Edwards Deming's System of Profound Knowledge ... or not!

Chapter 1. A Continually Improved Union

Meeting in the Margin of Error

When Eva, a data analyst, and Leo, an industrial engineer, first met at a Total Quality Management conference in Denver, their connection wasn’t immediate fireworks—it was a perfectly controlled experiment. Both were drawn to a breakout session titled “Understanding Variation in Human Systems.” Sitting beside each other, they found themselves nodding in unison as the speaker referenced W. Edwards Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge.

Later, over coffee, Eva joked, “You had me at ‘special cause variation.’” Leo smiled. “It’s rare to find someone who understands common causes in relationships.”

And so began a romance rooted not in impulse, but in system thinking.

Appreciation for a System

Their courtship unfolded like an intentional design of experiments. From the beginning, they treated their relationship as a system—each person a component contributing to the whole. Rather than trying to change each other, they observed how the environment shaped their behavior.

“We need to optimize the marriage, not the parts,” Leo would often remind Eva during their reflective Sunday check-ins. They’d review the week like a process audit, not to find fault but to improve the system.

When Eva’s long hours at work caused strain, they didn’t blame each other. Instead, they examined the process: how were they allocating time? What inputs were missing?

Theory of Knowledge

They approached big decisions through the lens of the scientific method. When considering whether to adopt a dog, they wrote hypotheses:

• If we get a dog, we will increase our shared outdoor activity by 20% over the next 3 months.

• The presence of a pet will reduce Eva’s work-related stress.

They ran a small pilot Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) by volunteering at a shelter together. Their observations were logged, discussed, and used to reach a decision—not based on feelings alone, but by testing theory against experience.

They knew knowledge wasn’t static. What mattered was the method of learning, not being “right.” They admitted when predictions failed and used each misstep to refine their understanding of one another.

Understanding Variation

They learned to distinguish between noise and signal in their conflicts. Not every bad day was a “problem” that needed fixing. When Leo forgot to bring home groceries one evening, Eva didn’t launch into a critique. “Was this a special cause?” she asked gently.

“Forgot because my boss called while I was walking into the store,” Leo replied. “Special cause, not a trend.”

Over time, they began to anticipate variation. They created margin in their routines—buffers in their schedule, emotional slack for fatigue. They celebrated not perfection, but stability and predictability in the chaos of life.

Psychology

They respected the individuality of the other. Deming taught that people are motivated intrinsically; Eva and Leo never used shame, guilt, or rewards to steer each other. Instead, they fostered a climate of safety, where vulnerability wasn’t punished but welcomed.

When Leo wrestled with anxiety about becoming a father, Eva didn’t rush to reassure or solve. She listened. “What’s the system behind the fear?” she asked. Together, they mapped it—old expectations, career pressures, family history.

They recognized that human behavior could not be fully optimized, only understood with compassion.

Marriage with Control Charts

Their wedding vows included lines like:

• “I promise to consider your context before judging your output.”

• “I vow to reduce tampering and avoid over-correction.”

• “I will always seek to understand before seeking to improve.”

Friends chuckled, unsure if it was a joke. But for Eva and Leo, it was the truest declaration of love they could make.

Years later, with two children, a jointly run consulting business, and a dog named Shewhart, their home ran on joy, not rules; reflection, not blame.

Their marriage, like all systems, wasn’t perfect. But it was profoundly aware—and that made all the difference.

In the System of Love

On their tenth anniversary, they toasted with Deming’s Fourteen Points printed on the wine labels. Eva raised her glass and said, “Here’s to never mistaking common cause variation for a crisis.”

Leo smiled. “And to nurturing a system where both of us thrive.”

In a world that often treats relationships as disposable or chaotic, theirs stood quietly—like a beautifully tuned process, humming along, guided by wisdom that saw beyond the parts to the whole.

Chapter 2. Vows as unmet targets

The Honeymoon Period—Without the Feedback Loop

Maya and Chris met at a music festival, their connection instant and electric. They jumped into a relationship fast, married within a year, and figured love would do the rest. But unlike a well-tuned system, their marriage was reactive, not designed.

They never talked about how decisions would be made, how they’d handle stress, or how external systems (jobs, families, health) would impact their dynamic. Each believed the other should “just know.”

No structure. No reflection. No shared method for learning.

The Myth of Individual Blame

When Maya began working overtime at the hospital, dishes piled up. Chris resented it and snapped, “You don’t respect this house.” Maya retorted, “You’re lazy.”

They saw each other as the problem, not the system they were both trapped in. There was no appreciation for how work hours, lack of sleep, or shared responsibilities influenced behavior. Everything was framed as a moral failing.

She was “inconsiderate.”
He was “immature.”

Instead of understanding variation in performance, they kept tweaking each other like broken components.

Shooting from the Hip (No Theory of Knowledge)

When problems arose—money, parenting, in-laws—they relied on gut feeling and past habits. There was no shared method for trying things, testing changes, or reflecting on outcomes.

Chris tried to “fix” problems by buying things. Maya journaled but never shared her thoughts. They threw solutions at issues without ever defining what the actual problem was.

Their arguments ended with band-aids, not insights.

“I guess I just won’t talk to you when I’m stressed.”
“Fine. I’ll just handle the bills myself.”

Each “fix” introduced new side effects—just like tampering with a stable process.

Misreading the Noise

Maya had a hard week and snapped at Chris during dinner. He assumed this meant something was fundamentally broken.

He reacted with panic: “You’re always mad at me. Maybe we shouldn’t be together.”

He didn’t understand that people vary—especially under pressure. He saw special causes as trends, and trends as catastrophes. Every argument felt existential.

There was no control chart for their emotional health—only the rollercoaster of unmanaged perception.

The Psychology of Distrust

They started keeping score. Every forgotten task, every missed phone call became data for blame.

Chris started withholding affection. Maya stopped sharing ideas. Over time, they became managers of one another, not partners. They tried to “motivate” each other with punishment and withdrawal.

There was no intrinsic joy in the marriage—only compliance, performance, and fear of being criticized.

They had built a system not of understanding, but of control.

Drifting without Purpose

They didn’t talk about purpose. Not of the marriage, not of their family, not of their own growth. Without a unifying aim, every discussion turned into a turf war.

She wanted to travel; he wanted to save money.
He wanted kids soon; she felt unready.

Without shared vision or systems thinking, they became rivals in a zero-sum game.

Breakdown Was Predictable

Eventually, after too many cycles of blame and correction, they separated. In therapy, Chris said, “We were just incompatible.”

But Maya, wiser now, said quietly, “I think we were just unmanaged variation in an unmanaged system.”

Moral

Without Appreciation for a System, you blame the parts.
Without Theory of Knowledge, you chase illusions.
Without Understanding Variation, you misread reality.
Without Psychology, you break trust.

A marriage without Deming's System of Profound Knowledge isn’t just inefficient—it’s unstable, reactive, and destined for entropy.