Welcome to the deep dive. Today, we're tackling
something that's, well, both incredibly basic
and somehow massively misunderstood in organizational
improvement. The Plando Check Act cycle. PDCA.
PDCA. It's pretty much the bedrock, the core
framework for, you know, everything from quality
control to lean manufacturing. Exactly. But here's
the strange thing we found in the research, a
real paradox. Which is? You can't really run
a successful improvement project without PDCA,
yet most projects that say they're using it,
well, they fail. They do. And that's our mission
today, isn't it? To cut through that confusion
and show you exactly why they fail. We're really
going deep on the fundamentals that just keep
getting missed. And the cost of missing them
is huge. I mean, the documentation we looked
at is pretty clear. Most big improvement projects
don't fail because they lacked some fancy software.
No, not at all. They fail because they didn't
properly follow this simple four step loop. So
we're going to unpack each step, but really zero
in on where things tend to go off the rails.
Absolutely. It's about moving past Just knowing
the letters, PDCA, and understanding the rigor
needed for each part. If you rush even one step,
especially those later ones, your project's chances
of actually sticking, of being sustainable, pretty
much zero. Okay, let's get into it then. Starting
with P Plan. Now when most people hear plan,
they probably think, yeah. Got it. We know the
problem. Let's just start doing stuff. Right.
The action bias. But the source material suggests
this plan phase. It's massive. So big, someone
commented, it maybe needs more letters. Why is
that? Because plan. when you do it right, can
easily eat up, say, 50, maybe even 70 % of the
whole effort. It's not just jotting down an idea.
It's this whole iterative cycle of analysis.
And if you skip parts of that, well, you've pretty
much doomed your project before you even begin
the due phase. And hang on. Don't most places
think their regular reports and dashboards are
enough? Why this really intensive upfront analysis
in the plan phase? What makes it so vital? Ah.
That's where the rigor comes in. See, the plan
phase isn't just one thing. It needs like five
essential sub -steps. First, you gotta define
the scope. What exactly are you looking at? Which
machine? Which process? Okay, there we go. Precisely.
Second, define the target. What specific measurable
goal are you actually trying to hit? If you skip
those two, you're basically just wandering around
hoping for the best. And the third step. That
seems like the one that really pushes back against
how things usually work in an office, right?
Sitting behind a desk. It absolutely does. Step
three is analyzing the current situation. And
this is an optional. It must involve Genchi Genbutsu.
Go into the source. Go into the source. Yeah.
To the shop floor, the call center, wherever
the actual work happens. You have to watch. You
have to talk to the people doing the job. Collect
data right there. Get your boots on the ground.
Don't just, you know, stare at spreadsheets someone
else made. So if you skip Genchi Genbutsu, you
might be solving a problem that looks real on
paper. But doesn't actually exist that way in
reality. Yeah. Or you miss the real problem entirely.
Exactly. So once you have that deep observed
understanding, Then you do the last two parts
of plan, develop a few potential solutions, different
ways to tackle it, and then critically select
the best one. Usually that's the one offering
the biggest bang for your buck. Best results
for the effort involved. Okay, so that intense
planning sets the stage. That's our blueprint.
Now we move to D, the implementation. Yep, D
is where the rubber meets the road. You actually
implement the chosen solution. You change the
process, maybe pilot the new equipment. Sounds
straightforward enough. Well, the material really
stresses something here. Problems will pop up
during due. Things you didn't think of and plan.
And that's okay. That's not failure. No, it's
normal. The goal during due is just to tackle
those unexpected little fires as they come up
and keep the implementation moving forward. But
the really crucial bit, it seems, isn't just
making the change happen once. It's making it
stick, right? How do you make sure the new way
actually becomes the standard way? Ah, that's
key. Through really rigorous standardization
and training. Look, it's easy to get people to
try something new for an hour when you're watching.
Sure. It's way, way harder to get them to actually
adopt it permanently. So you have to create the
new standard operating procedure, the SOP. train
people on it thoroughly, and then this is critical.
You have to go back and confirm they're still
following that standard a few days later, not
just while you're standing over their shoulder.
And checking if they're still doing it. That
leads us straight into C -Check. And this is
where, well, the documentation practically screams
warnings at us. It really does. It seems to be
the moment most projects just sabotage themselves.
It is. It's the most frequently skipped step,
definitely. And I'd argue probably the most important
one. If we're looking at the big picture, check
is, well, it's your reality check moment. OK.
The fundamental question you have to ask is,
did the solution we implemented actually work?
Did it hit the targets we set back in the plan
phase? And crucially, did it sustain those results?
But if managers are supposedly so committed to
improvement, why would they skip the step where
they actually check if it worked? I mean, what
makes them think a project is successful even
if maybe it isn't really delivering? Ah, well,
sometimes the mere attention from management
creates this illusion of success. This brings
us to something called the Hawthorne effect trap.
The Hawthorne effect, right. What exactly is
that and why is it flagged as such a danger here?
So the Hawthorne effect. It goes way back, observed,
I think, in the 1930s at the Hawthorne Works,
a Western electric plant. Basically, it showed
that just the act of management paying attention
to a group of workers, implementing any kind
of change, really, whether it was good or bad,
temporarily caused productivity to go up. Just
because they were being watched? Pretty much.
So imagine the VP is touring the area every day,
asking for updates on the new process. For that
week, guess what? The KPIs, the metrics, they
probably look fantastic. OK, I see the trap.
Right. But that improvement might have nothing
to do with how good the new process actually
is. It's purely down to that temporary spotlight
effect. Which means, as soon as the VP moves
on to the next big thing, the next crisis. Exactly.
The spotlight moves, the old habits creep back
in, things get comfortable again, and bam, those
amazing KPIs, they often slide right back to
where they started. Or worse. Ouch. Yeah. So,
a real sustained improvement has to keep working
long after that initial attention fades. And
that's why a rigorous, deep, and maybe even long
-term check phase is absolutely non -negotiable.
You have to measure the results, the output,
over enough time to prove the solution holds
up on its own. Okay, so the check gives us the
hard truth, which finally brings us to the last
step, a act. This is the decision point, right?
Based purely on what that sustained check told
us. Precisely. Act is where you decide what happens
next. If your check phase revealed, maybe uncomfortably,
that the implementation didn't really meet the
target sustainably, then you have to stop. You
can't just ignore it. You have to dig in, find
the root cause, why it didn't perform as expected.
And that discovery, that immediately kicks off
a new plan phase. The PDCA loop starts all over
again, but this time you're smarter. OK, so failure
leads back to planning. But what if check shows
it was success? You've got proof, sustained results.
The new standard works even when no one's looking
over their shoulder. Well then, first things
first. You stop everything and you celebrate
the team. Yeah. Success needs recognition. Seriously,
the research we read really hammered this point
home. Celebrating success. Yeah, acknowledging
it is critical for keeping people motivated.
There's actually a great little anecdote in there.
Something about how effective a simple three
-pound bucket of gummy bears or similar could
be for a shop floor team. Gummy bears? Really?
Uh -huh. Yeah, it's not about the, you know,
the monetary value. It's the immediate, tangible,
hey, your hard work paid off. We checked. It's
real well done kind of recognition. I like that,
it's memorable. But okay, gummy bears consumed,
celebration done. The work isn't over, is it?
Continuous improvement means continuous. Right,
so post -success, that newly proven standard,
that becomes the new baseline, the new normal.
And then you look around, prioritize the next
most important problem, usually the one that
promises the best outcome for the effort needed,
and you kick off a brand new PDCA cycle for that.
On to the next improvement. It all sounds so
logical step by step, yet you mentioned earlier
that check and act often get skipped. Why? Beyond
just wanting to stick to the plan and do phases,
what makes companies actively resist those last
two crucial steps? Well, let's be honest. Check
and act can be... politically tricky, sometimes
even dangerous for people's careers. How so?
Because they force the organization to confront
potential failure. Uncomfortable truths. Imagine
you spent, say, millions on some fancy new equipment
based on a plan that looked amazing on paper.
And then a really thorough, honest check reveals,
oops, that expensive gear isn't actually delivering
the promised results. Maybe it's even causing
new problems. Does management really want that
news getting out sometimes? Ah. So the goal can
subtly shift from genuine, sustained improvement
to just the appearance of improvement to avoid
blame for costly mistakes. That's a very common
trap, unfortunately. And this whole struggle,
this resistance to frankly simple discipline
of PDCA has led people to look for alternatives,
competing frameworks, which brings up that whole
debate around things like DMAIC. Right, DMAIC.
Define, measure, analyze, improve, control. You
hear that one a lot, often pitched as maybe more
modern, more structured than PDCA. Sometimes,
yes. And the critics of PDCA might say, well,
plan is too vague. And do an act sound almost
the same? Why waste letters? Isn't DMAAC's control
step a better way to think about holding the
gains than PDCA's act? That's definitely the
argument some consultants make. They'll pitch
DMAAC as more logical, maybe easier to teach
in a workshop. However, the author... of the
main source we dug into was, let's just say,
absolutely not impressed with DMAAC. Really?
Why not? They found the sequence wasn't as stringent,
not as rigorous. Specifically, they argued that
DMAAC sort of bundles the entire PDCA cycle into
its single improved step, which kind of muddies
the water. OK. But the real deal breaker, the
biggest criticism, and this brings us right back
to why projects fail, was that DMAAC's concept
of checking if the improvement actually worked
and stuck the control part, was described as,
and I quote, extremely weak or completely absent.
Wow. Extremely weak or completely absent. That's
a pretty strong accusation against a popular
methodology. It is. And if that core component
for long -term success, the rigorous check, the
verification is missing or weak, then you're
almost designing project failure right into the
process from the start. So DMAIC might let you
declare a victory too soon based on maybe just
the Hawthorne effect? That seems to be the core
critique. PDCA, by forcing that distinct check
and then a conscious act based on the check,
makes you confront the long -term reality. DMAC,
in this view, can let projects wrap up based
on those initial, possibly misleading gains.
Leaves the door wide open to being fooled. Okay,
so wrapping this up, what does this all mean
for you, the listener? Whether you're trying
to optimize a huge production line or just, you
know, make your own work process a bit smoother.
PDCA really is the fundamental building block.
It sounds simple. Maybe even simplistic. But
doing it right, consistently, that's what the
real challenge lies. Absolutely. While plan and
do often happen naturally, people like planning,
people like doing stuff, getting that true lasting
improvement. That demands real focus, real discipline
on the whole cycle. Especially check and act.
The steps that, let's face it, aren't always
fun. Yeah, confronting reality isn't always fun.
So the big takeaway seems to be genuine improvement
isn't about that first shiny presentation showing
success. It's about what's actually happening
three months down the line when the spotlight's
off and the gummy bears are long gone. Exactly.
Which leaves us with the final thought for you
to maybe mull over. Based on that observation,
we discussed that sometimes management might
not want to hear the bad news from a rigorous
check. Right. What should you prioritize in your
work? The immediate appearance of success may
be closing the budget on time or the tougher,
potentially unpopular, but sustained truth that
only comes from really following through with
check and act. Something to think about. That's
our deep dive for today. We'll catch you on the
next one.