Global Community

My background is infantry - combat in close quarters and heavy weapons - and law enforcement.  My take on PDCA is that it is a useful model, but insufficient in many cases. All models break down because theory can only describe a common explanation - the center of the bell curve (Gaussian Distribution). The model used in combat and other high-energy situations is the OODA Loop: Observe, Orientate, Decide, and Act. The starting point in both PDCA and OODA is missing - what is the goal?  We can say that the Plan requires a goal, but that may not be the case if PDCA is reactive.  Digging a few levels down may unearth the real goal and change the desired outcome. Likewise the Check must reference the goal - and if the goal is not the correct goal, then the direction of PDCA is lost and the result will not be achieved except by accident. Keep in mind that most people, including customers and engineers, have a really hard time articulating what their goal actually is.

Additionally, I typically add another step in PDCA: Plan, Do, Check, Plan, Act (as another Do).

Where have you seen the various models in ISO break down? What adaptations have you seen that have been successful with achieving the real goal?

Hello Karl, wish to share my view and experience of PDCA in a typical Japanese enterprise. Overall PDCA is a useful generic continuous improvement cycle but as you pointed out it may be too generic in some circumstances. Therefore Japanese enterprise has further devise each P D C A cycle into detailed "Quality Story" steps.

the first step started from C instead of P. 

Step 1 (Check) Check current situation

Step 2 (Act) Select theme (or problem statement)

Step 3 (Plan) Set target

Step 4 (Do) Analyze root cause

Step 5 (Do again) Implement solution

Step 6(Check again) effectiveness of solution

Step 7 (Act) Standardize the effective solution

My background is infantry - combat in close quarters and heavy weapons - and law enforcement.  My take on PDCA is that it is a useful model, but insufficient in many cases. All models break down because theory can only describe a common explanation - the center of the bell curve (Gaussian Distribution). The model used in combat and other high-energy situations is the OODA Loop: Observe, Orientate, Decide, and Act. The starting point in both PDCA and OODA is missing - what is the goal?  We can say that the Plan requires a goal, but that may not be the case if PDCA is reactive.  Digging a few levels down may unearth the real goal and change the desired outcome. Likewise the Check must reference the goal - and if the goal is not the correct goal, then the direction of PDCA is lost and the result will not be achieved except by accident. Keep in mind that most people, including customers and engineers, have a really hard time articulating what their goal actually is.

Additionally, I typically add another step in PDCA: Plan, Do, Check, Plan, Act (as another Do).

Where have you seen the various models in ISO break down? What adaptations have you seen that have been successful with achieving the real goal?