PDCA

How will you fix the problem? Once the project teams are satisfied with their data and determined that additional analysis will not add to their understanding of the problem, it’s time to move on to solution development. The team is most likely collecting improvement ideas throughout the project, but a structured improvement effort can lead to innovative and elegant solutions. Using six sigma improvement tools, you devise potential solutions, identify solutions that are easiest to implement, and implement actual improvements.

PDCA (plan-do-check-act) cycle, is a continuous quality improvement model proposed by W. Edwards Deming in the 1950’s. PDCA, sometimes called the “Deming Wheel,” “Deming Cycle,” or PDSA was developed by renowned management consultant Dr William Edwards Deming in the 1950s. Deming himself called it the “Shewhart Cycle,” as his model was based on an idea from his mentor, Walter Shewhart.

He recommended that business processes need to be placed in a continuous feedback loop so that managers can identify and fix the parts of the process that need improvements. He then introduced the concept of plan, do, check and act cycle. It’s proven as a systematic, straightforward and flexible approach for solving problems.

Phases of PDCA Cycle

• Plan: “Plan” contains three steps. The first step consists of discovering and investigating the current situation, understanding the problem to be solved, and identifying areas for improvement. During this step, Flowcharts and Value Stream Mapping can greatly help accomplish the process. The second step is to analyze the problem. To collect and interpret data on the process, a group of tools are available. Such as column chart, scatter plot, spider chart, and control charts. To identify possible causes of the problem and determine root cause, you can use brainstorming and cause-effect methods. The third step involves developing potential solutions to the problem that will be tested.
• Do: Teams implement the improvement, documenting any problems, unexpected observations, lessons learned and knowledge gained. Changes are tested before making widespread modifications to policy, procedures or systems.
• Check: Once you’ve finished the project, compile the list of problems and solutions you’ve encountered, then study, analyze, and reflect on results. Compare the new data to the baseline data to determine whether an improvement was achieved, and whether the measures in the aim statement were met. Column charts, run charts, scatter plots, control charts and radar charts are all tools that can assist with this analysis.
• Act: Now you take action to standardize or improve the process. Options include adopt, adapt and abandon. However it doesn’t necessarily stop here. You need to loop back to the Plan Phase (Step 1), and seek out further areas for improvement.

Application

The PDCA / PDSA framework can improve any process or product by breaking it into smaller steps. It is particularly effective for:

• Helping to implement Total Quality Management or Six Sigma initiatives, and generally helping to improve processes.
• Exploring a range of solutions to problems, and piloting them in a controlled way before selecting one for implementation.
• Avoiding wastage of resources by rolling out an ineffective solution on a wide scale.

You can use the model in all sorts of business environments, from new product development, project and change management, to product lifecycle and supply chain management.

Benefits and Disadvantages

The model is a simple, yet powerful way to resolve new and recurring issues in any industry, department or process. Its iterative approach allows you and your team to test solutions and assess results in a waste-reducing cycle.

It instills a commitment to continuous improvement, however small, and can improve efficiency and productivity in a controlled way, without the risks of making large scale, untested changes to your processes.

However, going through the PDCA / PDSA cycle can be much slower than a straightforward, “gung ho” implementation. So, it might not be the appropriate approach for dealing with an urgent problem or emergency.

It also requires significant “buy-in” from team members, and offers fewer opportunities for radical innovation, if that’s what your organization needs.