6 replies to this topic

[Simon]

Here's a challenge for the SDF, define the differences between the PDSA and PDCA models. 
Wallace.

Erm...a Word!

[Wallace Tait]

Nice one simon,
I'm looking at the differences between Check and study. I may just be blabbing over semantics here (And I often do) yet, it's clear that Check and Study hae different implications relating to Improvements.
Wallace.

[Simon]

Apologies for being a bit mischievous Wallace.

We also had the Continual V's Continuous Improvement debate on the forums recently along with the ‘'Correction' 'Corrective Action' and 'Preventive Action''debate. It's a bit of fun (I think) and it does get the grey matter working, so why not…let's have the Check V's Study debate.

The PDCA (Plan Do Check Act) concept was first discussed by Shewhart in his 1939 book, Statistical Method from the Viewpoint of Quality Control although it was Shewart's protégé Deming who encouraged a systematic approach to problem solving and promoted the now widely recognised four step process for continual improvement. Or to put it another way he nicked the idea off his boss, massaged it a bit, marketed it to great effect thus making it his own, and the rest is history as they say.

Deming referred to it as the PDSA Cycle (Plan Do Study Act) or the Shewhart Cycle. The Japanese call it the Deming Cycle. Others call it the PDCA Cycle (Plan Do Check Act) or the Deming Wheel.

So is there a real difference between ‘Check' and ‘Study'? Or is it just semantics?

Dictionary definitions:

Check:The act or an instance of inspecting or testing, as for accuracy or quality.

Study:The pursuit of knowledge, as by reading, observation, or research.

In which case I'd say yes there is a difference, what do you think?

Do you use the model? If so, do you check or study?

Regards,
Simon

[Jim Wade]

Of course, if you are a disciple of John Seddon, the current reigning British 'quality' guru,
you would believe his claim that "the best way to improve performance is to follow
the ‘check-plan-do' cycle:

Check = understand the ‘what and why' of current performance

Plan = predict what measures will improve through taking
your chosen course of action

Do = do it - take action - as long as you have measures in
place that relate to purpose, you will learn"

rgds Jim

[Wallace Tait]

Jim,
How is John Seddon being received in the UK?
He's relatively unknown here in North America. I've read through his Vanguard standard and, it certainly makes a lot of sense to me.
Wallace.

[Jim Wade]

Hi Wallace

People seem to be polarised about Mr Seddon.

I think the majority of the Q community are agin him simply because he disrespects and ridicules things like ISO 9000 and the 'excellence' models and all those associated with them.

But he has a loyal band of systems thinker followers and plenty of practical examples of how his approach works.

I've shared platforms with him and he makes a lot of very good points based on the thoughts of the likes of Deming and Ohno.

Personally, I think he is a leading light. If only he weren't so rude!

rgds Jim

[Wallace Tait]

Yeah Jim,
I've read that he can be quite the ass regarding social skills yet, I can overlook that when, the person in question is obviously a system thinking genius. His excentric manerisms are natural to his unique character I'm sure.

I'm really more interested in the apparent threat to the establishment that, Mr Seddon's standard alternatives and theories are being received.
It's clear that his approach is a common sense approach that many organizations tend to allow to be pushed aside due to, their established culture.
The established culture of profit first and not service, the old and entrenched Management by Objectives approach is still alive and well. Seddon may indeed go down in history as one of the people who challenged the established perceptions of quality and its definitions and measurements.
Wallace.