The Deming circle has been developed in the context
of quality management. It is a way to achieve quality improvements. The four letters PDCA stand for Plan, DO,
Check, Act. It means that you make a plan, then go to work to
implement it, and then check whether the intended plan has been achieved, and
make adjustments if that is not sufficiently the case.
If
this methodology, which in itself is very valuable in its context, is also used at a
wider level of policy, and is used to support a learning organization,
something things go wrong. The operational implementation of something according
to the criteria that were set is a different assignment than organizing a
learning process in an organization. The latter is much wider.
What
should precede a plan and is not included in the PDCA concept is:
- The vision and strategy that underlie the
plan, and which must deliver the 'why' of that plan. This must be provided by the mission of
the organization and the organization concept that has been developed to meet
this.
- The strategic significance of the plan,
and therefore also the priority and importance given to it, and the
relationships with other objectives and plans, including timing, investments,…
To
describe and develop a real learning process, a start must be made with
"wanting". This concerns: motivation, ambitions, assignment, strategy, intentions, long term, … . A good plan can only be made if the "wanting" is sufficiently present and
of satisfactory quality.
Critics
might state: we can also see that "wanting" as part of the plan. But of course, this is how you solve
everything. If we give different meanings to one word, then we
create confusion instead of clarity. Then, in this case, strategic and
operational objectives and processes begin to fade, and in practice everyone understands
and uses it according to their own wishes. Too many policy makers think that they are
working on a policy basis, while they mainly work in an operational focus. They are not aware of the underlying
strategic questions, and will therefore fall short on that point.
What
is missing in the 'Check' of PDCA to make it a broader policy-based process is
the following:
- Was it a good plan?
- Even if results complie with the plan, is
that result a step in the direction in which we operate strategically, and were
the efforts worthwhile?
- Are the objectives of the plan still
relevant when we reach them, or can we learn something about the way in which
we make plans?
- Whose goals have we served now? Is that consistent with our mission?
Case:
The progress of the ISO 9000 project was discussed on a board of directors. Someone asks: "Who really
believes that the quality of everything we do will be improved when we have
completed this process? Nobody, it turns out. New question: "Is there another
compelling reason why we do this?" No, it turns out. New question: "Why are we doing this?"
Two months later the project was canceled as irrelevant. There was clearly something wrong at the
level of "wanting", the driving force behind starting the project. This type of evaluation is broader than
the "check" whether the plan is being realized. That is the real dynamic of a learning
organization. It has been learned that work processes that are not
and should not be standardized cannot be improved with an 'ISO 9000 style'
quality approach. In a service delivery (and certainly with expansion in
a healthcare environment), the processes are too diverse and the context too
unpredictable to standardize all solutions. New versions of quality systems have tried
to compensate for that and place more emphasis on responsibility and authority. But policy-based 'learning' goes further than PDCA.
If
we apply this to education, PDCA appears to work well as long as the goal is
'teaching'. Then we are purely in operational optimization
(quality management). If the goal of the school is redefined to 'develop children', then the relevance
of teaching becomes a completely different one. Perhaps it is no longer so important that
certain systems work as they were intended, and the pedagogical vision shifts
to other forms of guidance and support. Even the organizational structure may have
to be altered, even though it was almost perfectly implemented according to the
old concept. ( eg departments).
We
have of course saved ourselves beautifully if we speak of a “PDCA on a higher
level”, meaning that the strategy is also the subject of a PDCA cycle. To my taste the words 'plan' and 'check'
should certainly be replaced. In this context, I would rather replace 'act' for 'adapt '.
And
concerning 'do'; I believe much more in 'trying'. This means that you keep looking for
alternatives, even if they were not in the plan, to achieve your goal/result if
unexpected difficulties arise. That dimension has everything to do with
involvement, and makes the difference with operational obedience to a plan.
Remember
that the PCDA cycle originated in production companies, in the US and
Japan. (top-down cultures)
Conclusion:
A
real learning process starts with 'wanting', including all the visions and
motivations that underlie it. Then we try to realize something and we use
a plan, action, follow-up and adjustment. The third step is the evaluation and appreciation. Everything is questioned on the basis of
that result, and the 'wanting' is adjusted, possibly confirmed. The relative importance, the vision,
possible alternative plans .... Everything can be part of the real
learning process at that moment. Including sometimes radical changes to
policy.
This
has to do with the difference between 'efficiency' and 'effectiveness',
something many people don't realize either. And that's why they use those terms
interchangeably. Efficiency is the ratio between results and resources. Effectiveness is about doing the right
things.
Hugo
Der Kinderen
March
2019
No comments:
Post a Comment