The Demand Driven Institute’s Approach to Suppressing Dissent on DDMRP
Executive Summary
- The Demand Driven Institute spends a good chunk trying to suppress voices that dissent with DDMRP.
- This article will explain the strategies they use.
Introduction
The Demand Driven Institute, led by Chad Smith and Carol Ptak, makes significant efforts to stop those with extensive experience in the MRP, forecasting, and supply planning space from critiquing their creation of DDMRP. By observing multiple interactions and debates, mostly on LinkedIn, the Demand Driven Institute’s strategy has become apparent.
Our References for This Article
If you want to see our references for this article and related Brightwork articles, see this link.
In this article, we will layout these techniques. We will call these “Chad’s Rules,” as Chad Smith has articulated them.
Chad’s Rule #1: DDMRP Cannot be Critiqued in Isolation Because it is Part of a Bigger Picture?
This comment by Chad…
“Please, do not just make this a DDMRP discussion. This is where so many of us are missing each other. DDMRP is simply a supply order generation and management engine. We constantly try to tell people is only a part of a bigger picture – a part that is a starting point (albeit it a rewarding one) to a larger transformation.”
It is worthy of some propaganda award.
If any person wishes to write an article about DDMRP, they have the right to do it without being policed to writing about a different or “broader topic.”
The second part of this quote is pure misdirection, also known as a pivot — it proposes that an item’s specifics (like DDMRP) should not be critiqued because of some more significant issue proposed by an organization (DDI) that does not want that item critiqued.
I could do the same thing. If someone were to critique an article at Brightwork Research & Analysis, I could state, “please do not critique the website. It’s just a “starting point — albeit it a rewarding one — to a larger transformation.”
Chad’s Rule #2: The Item of DDMRP Itself Cannot be Critiqued: And the Untestable Hypothesis
This comment is also from Chad in a comment to Rakesh Paras Singh.
Please, do not just make this a DDMRP discussion. This is where so many of us are missing each other. DDMRP is simply a supply order generation and management engine. We constantly try to tell people is only a part of a bigger picture – a part that is a starting point (albeit it a rewarding one) to a larger transformation.
Chad does not like DDMRP to be critiqued on its specific merits but only wants it praised for its specific merits.
If the item itself cannot be critiqued because it is part of a larger transformation that is not actually part of the item, then the item itself has been converted into something permanently unfalsifiable or is called an untestable hypothesis. The hypothesis cannot or should not be tested because it is just a cog in a larger machine. But if a hypothesis cannot be tested or analyzed outside of a group that has an incentive to promote it (DDMRP/DDI in this case) — then it is given a protected space — that no hypothesis should have, and that no other hypothesis has in supply planning.
I know something about this, having engaged in numerous debates with Chad Smith and other DDMRP proponents. There are only two outcomes of this discussion. You either agree with DDMRP, or you will be accused of not understanding DDMRP.
Chad’s Rule #3: Chad Smith Is Not Opposed to Articles on DDMRP, Except When He Opposes Them
Chad is opposed to this article Can DDMRP Work in the FMCG Sector? but then states he is not opposed to it. Notice the following comment on this article shared on LinkedIn.
I am not objecting to the article at all.(emphasis added) Please carefully read my post. At no point in any of my posts do I object to you posting this article. It did foster discussion (albeit a discussion that has occurred, at least for me, in many other forums, at many other times over the last few years).
What seemed odd to me is that you say you want a broader discussion but posted a specific article about a specific replenishment method in a specific industry. Why not start with the broader question/article if that is the discussion you want to foster as per you post that I replied to? – Chad Smith
In a comment to Rakesh, he states that Rakesh needs
“to carefully read his posts,”
This is because Chad contradicts himself from one response to the next.
The reason for the contradiction is simple. Chad wants to give the impression he is for freedom of expression, but that part of his comment is not meant for that individual. It’s meant for the audience.
Chad only wants comments written that promote DDMRP and actively suppresses comments from those that would critique DDMRP.
He can then say something like the following..
“DDI has never ever tried to restrict anything written about DDMRP, and anything said to the contrary is just salacious gossip.”
He then also wants authors to know he does not want this type of article published.
That is what the dog and pony show was about the article’s scope not being correct and placing the hypothesis of DDMRP into the unfalsifiable space. (see Chad Smith Rule #2 above)
No One Should State a Pro or Con Observation About DDMRP, as it Reduces Objectivity.
If Chad only defended his work, as Chad stated was his right, it would not be an issue. Notice that Rakesh comments that DDMRP proponents have been conducting themselves in a manner that violates discussion principles. This is not equivalent to defending one’s work. The idea that Chad would complain that debates on DDMRP frequently devolve into personal attacks is hypocrisy as Chad can barely write a message to someone he disagrees with without including several personal digs at the individual.
And obviously, I agree with Rakesh. I have been pointing out that DDMRP proponents behave in ways that seek to stifle debate for several years. And as I pointed out previously, Chad has been extremely dismissive of critiques of DDMRP by Stephan De Kok and Joannes Vormel. DDMRP proponents have stated that the only reason Joannes critiqued DDMRP was that he was “jealous that DDMRP was adopted by SAP.” What a cheap shot. Secondly, how does this DDMRP devotee know this? I have seen this repeatedly, DDMRP proponents can not tolerate criticism of DDMRP without lashing out and making the discussion personal.
This comment is interesting..
“I also think that someone that is trying to be impartial should not comment for or against a particular direction.”
This translates impartiality into silence. However, as with nearly all of Chad’s rules, they are selectively applied. I believe this translates into the idea that Chad would like people to not comment on DDMRP – but the only time I have ever heard Chad say this is to a person who has critiqued DDMRP.
Firms like Camelot can make all manner of exaggerated claims about DDMRP (and about SAP), which is apparently fine with Chad. Carol Ptak (also of DDI) is seen right here in the video nodding along.
This appears to be a message to Rakesh to stop analyzing or commenting on DDMRP — because then he won’t be “impartial.”
The evidence that Rakesh is partial?
Well, his criticism of DDMRP. Rakesh needs to keep quiet, or else he will break Chad’s rule.
The Broader Implications of Rule #4
This rule is insanity that one can only imagine in some 1984-esque society or something the current Chinese government might propose.
The entitlement of someone to say something like this is off the charts. This seems like a rule we would have to follow….if we all lived in Chad’s DDMRP Prison. Through this statement, Chad has unilaterally removed freedom of speech. Truly amazing, as I thought the 1st Amendment had nothing to do with Chad’s approval or disapproval of the said amendment. I thought the Demand Driven Institute was just an organization that promoted DDMRP, but it appears to have much larger ambitions.
Chad’s Rule #5: Critiques of DDMRP Are Not to be Published
More so in the past than the present, but there was a time when critiques of DDMRP, according to Chad Smith — should be “taken off-line.” This means that the critique should not be published as a comment, but instead, critiques should be taken to Chad so they can be discussed in private without anyone else seeing them.
Chad has repeatedly asked people to bring up their concerns to him directly. I had my obligatory conversation with Chad “offline” but then continued to critique DDMRP after the conversation.
Chad’s Rule #6: The Time of the BLM Riots Created a “Cone of Silence” Which No Critique of DDMRP Should Violate
There were riots during the BLM protests, and therefore Brightwork should observe some cone of silence. I violated Chad’s 6th rule when I responded to a rude comment from a DDMRP proponent. Curiously, the DDMRPer did not get into trouble with Chad and was not critiqued for breaking the BLM Cone of Silence. However, I was.
This seemed unfair to me. If we violated this unwritten rule, shouldn’t both of us have been sent to the DDMRP principal’s office?
Chad’s Rule #7:Debates Become Toxic and Should be Exited
Chad Smith has said that he does not like debates where “toothless lions” (that is when people disagree with him in public) and should no longer continue the debate.
By Defining Discussions as Toxic
According to Chad, our debate had become “toxic,” Therefore, the discussion should be ended, but then he reentered the debate.
Chad has opted out repeatedly from discussions, only to come back in at a later date. The opt-out request coincidentally occurs whenever Chad cannot answer an argument — for instance, when I showed that Chad was making DDMRP an untestable hypothesis.
Furthermore, Chad and other DDMRP proponents nearly constantly gravitate towards personal attacks, therefore being the primary source of toxicity in discussions. The point of the personal attacks is to stop DDMRP from being critiqued.
Chad’s Rule #8: The Only People that Critique DDMRP Do Not Understand DDMRP
Chad states that all disagreement with DDMRP is based upon ignorance. This quote is found in one comment to Rakesh.
“We have made many many things freely available and will continue to do so even though people refuse to put the time into exploring those things.”
I have put considerable time into understanding DDMRP. This is just one of my articles on DDMRP. How is DDMRP Buffer Stock Different from Safety Stock?
Furthermore, the author of the article Can DDMRP Work in the FMCG Sector?, Steve Allanson, also put effort into understanding DDMRP. And we both see shortcomings in DDMRP. I go further than Steve and consider DDMRP not useful enough to warrant being used.
However, the problem is not our ignorance of DDMRP; it is a fact we don’t see DDMRP the way Chad expects us to.
Furthermore, couldn’t this argument be applied to anything? For instance, ISIS has published a rape manual. It explains how to rape when to rape women, girls, and young boys who are prisoners of war. ISIS states that this is entirely supported by the Koran, which views the rape of POWs as a type of spoil of war (if the person is an unbeliever).
I’m not too fond of this manual. However, if I were to debate a proponent of ISIS, could they not use the same defense? I don’t understand the ISIS rape manual, which is why I’m not too fond of the ISIS rape manual.
If the only test of something true is whether everyone agrees with it, this is a non-falsifiable standard.
Chad’s Rule #9: The Existence of Material Published by DDMRP Equal Evidence of its Accuracy
This is found in the following quotation from Chad.
We have made many many things freely available and will continue to do so even though people refuse to put the time into exploring those things.
Chad is correct that he has made things available for free online—however, everyone is trying to promote something that does the same thing.
There is lots of free material on the IBM or Accenture website.
How about Infosys? Don’t they make free material available on their websites?
Are we to praise the world’s worst companies because they have free stuff on their website?
I found this on the Scientology website. It’s free. But does its existence make it true?
Chad has a habit of overstating what the things he shares prove. He thinks that the existence of a DDI output ends the discussion. Don’t you like it, look Chad “put it out there.”
The assumption that Chad would like to be accepted is that because he wrote something or because the DDI funded some study, it must be true. That is the existence of the material, which is all the evidence that is required.
On what planet does this assumption apply? To note, I have found numerous false statements about forecasting and MRP and inconsistent and word games used to describe the benefits of DDMRP. I do not consider DDI’s website to be a source of anything, except what the DDI thinks about things.
Conclusion
Chad Smith and the DDI are entirely opposed to anyone who disagrees with DDMRP voicing this view and claims the right to censor those DDMRP does not convince. Chad’s intent is not to engage the criticism but to shut down the critic. That is where most people who debate Chad miss the boat. He has no interest in understanding the criticism. He questions the critic’s right critique of DDMRP. Chad says exactly otherwise, but Chad does not tell the truth about his intentions.
Brightwork does not back down from corrupt vendors like SAP or consulting firms. Our research calls out what we think is true, without consideration for whom it might offend. We also do not allow ourselves to be censored or to self sensor out of a concern for engaging in confrontations with those that make non-evidence-based assertions. This means that — we will not be following Chad Smith’s Rules.