Beyond PDCA by Praveen Gupta

W

wmarhel

#61
Another false dichotomy? Are you saying that the only available alternatives are seeking perfection and doing nothing?:cool:
I don't see where I stated that at all. Maintaining the status quo is a possibility and I guess it would be adequate for a business if all their competitors had the same feelings. One additional option could be to intentionally tank the company.

The word perfection is thrown around alot, but that is a driving factor for many. Maybe it is bowling a perfect game, maybe it is eating a perfectly prepared meal. For businesses, perhaps it driving every ounce of possible waste from the system. This is Toyota's goal and it appears to be working well for them, yet even they realize that it is an unlikely possibility. But because something isn't attainable, does that mean it can't be a driving force?

I was simply stating that it is important to view the possibilities and potential that could be realized if people/companies worked towards perfection. What the individual's perception of perfection means, is left up to them to define.

Wayne
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#62
I don't see where I stated that at all. Maintaining the status quo is a possibility and I guess it would be adequate for a business if all their competitors had the same feelings. One additional option could be to intentionally tank the company.
You said,
Standing by and doing nothing is just an invitation to your competitor to take away some of your market share and possibly put you out of business.
Which seems to indicate that the two alternatives are doing nothing (or maintaining status quo, which is the same thing, effectively) or seeking perfection. It is possible to take action to significantly improve things without creating unreachable goals, however. My own opinion is that goals should always be attainable, but your mileage may vary.


The word perfection is thrown around alot, but that is a driving factor for many.
Perfectionism is usually considered a neurotic condition.

Maybe it is bowling a perfect game, maybe it is eating a perfectly prepared meal.
One of those things is objectively possible, and the other isn't, in a general sense.

For businesses, perhaps it driving every ounce of possible waste from the system.
Note your use of the word "possible". This is different from saying, "drive out all waste."

This is Toyota's goal and it appears to be working well for them, yet even they realize that it is an unlikely possibility.
I think you have too many "possibles." Why should Toyota, or anyone else, believe that something possible (your word) is an "unlikely possibility"? That's not what we're talking about, but the other side of the coin (something that's impossible being an "unlikely possibility) is wrong too.


But because something isn't attainable, does that mean it can't be a driving force?
Not necessarily, but I think it's more likely to be neutral or destructive.

I was simply stating that it is important to view the possibilities and potential that could be realized if people/companies worked towards perfection. What the individual's perception of perfection means, is left up to them to define.
But it's also important to view the possibilities for damage to be done, not least of which is morale being beaten beyond recognition by never allowing the mule to reach the carrot. And you simply can't leave it up to individuals in business to define what key terms mean. Lack of clear definitions makes any goal-seeking impossible, and can only result in chaos.
 
P

PraveenGupta

#63
Hi Jim:

If your idea works for you, it is great! Use it. Don't pay attention to 4P. If your company is growing profitably, you should enjoy it as long as it lasts.

praveen
 
P

PraveenGupta

#64
It is about establishing your performance targets, either defined by the customer, or defined internally at the cost the customer is willing to pay for. - prvn
 
P

PraveenGupta

#65
Wes:

First, 50 - 60% reduction in defects using the target verification practice, vs. conventional specification driven manufacturing processes.

As to Cpk of 1.0 means all parts within specifications. If you have two simple parts, i.e., with fewer dimensions, it may be ok. When parts have multiple critical dimensions, and mating parts...if both parts are at the opposite specification limits, with Cpk of 1.0, may not work very well. It has been proven by and written enough about that having parts at or close to specification limits is not good enough for the customer, and not cost effective for the producer. Such circumstances require inspection which is not the best way to produce product.

prvn
 

Wes Bucey

Quite Involved in Discussions
#66
Wes:

First, 50 - 60% reduction in defects using the target verification practice, vs. conventional specification driven manufacturing processes.

As to Cpk of 1.0 means all parts within specifications. If you have two simple parts, i.e., with fewer dimensions, it may be ok. When parts have multiple critical dimensions, and mating parts...if both parts are at the opposite specification limits, with Cpk of 1.0, may not work very well. It has been proven by and written enough about that having parts at or close to specification limits is not good enough for the customer, and not cost effective for the producer. Such circumstances require inspection which is not the best way to produce product.

prvn
If :having parts at or close to specification limits is not good enough for the customer",
then, perhaps the customer erred in setting spec limits.

An obvious error such as "wrong spec lmits for EACH critical characteristic" signals neither customer nor supplier did an adequate job of contract review to determine the customer's TRUE requirements.

My experience s an effective maufacturer is not atypical - I think you err in taking a poor example of business operation and inferring it is the norm versus its true status as an outlier. Certainly, I am aware of such substandard operations, but would never hold them out as "typical."
 
P

PraveenGupta

#67
You are right, Wes. Having parts close to specs are good enough. If you were a customer evaluating suppliers, where one is offering product right on target, and another one just 'good enough.' at the same price, who would you choose?

That's what I am trying to communicate. PDCA allows you to produce parts 'good enough', not the best or excellence. All gurus with much more than 30 years experience have said that better quality saves money, does not cost more.

The entire debate is primarily about good enough using PDCA vs. excellent using 4P. I understand everyone must make economic decision, sometimes good enough, and some times excellent. However, since 70's quality expectation has been rising, now some customers expect 'zero' PPM (parts per million). To me that is perfect! PDCA does not allow you to ship 'zero' ppm as some always going to escape the 'c' in PDCA.

So, the goal really is to go beyond 'good enough' economically.

Regards,

praveen
 

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#68
The entire debate is primarily about good enough using PDCA vs. excellent using 4P.
No, that's not "the entire debate." It's the way you want to frame the debate in order to sell your product. When you say that the alternatives are "good enough using PDCA" or "excellent using 4P" you conveniently glide past (and do a disservice to) all of the excellence that's been achieved by people who understand what "profound knowledge" is.

So, the goal really is to go beyond 'good enough' economically.
"Good enough" is used in this context to identify something that is inherently lacking some important ingredient, so your use of it is essentially tautological. Perhaps in order to be "good enough" we need to achieve excellence. Fiscal responsibility consists in finding an optimum level of performance. This is done only after risks have been rationally identified--to the extent possible--and mitigated. (all part of the "P" and "C" in PDCA) The best economic policy in business is to find the delicate balance point between customer satisfaction and reasonable profitability, and there are no magic bullets or packaged panaceas that will do that.
 

Tim Folkerts

Super Moderator
#69
...PDCA does not allow you to ship 'zero' ppm as some always going to escape the 'c' in PDCA.
Praveen,

I think I have a fundamentally different interpretation of "check" than you do - and perhaps a fundamentally different view of PDCA as a whole.

The statement above implies that you equate "check" with "inspect" (and please correct me if I am wrong). For example, you might plan a new production line, do the construction, check the parts, and act by shipping good parts and scrapping bad parts.

I view "check" as "analyze the data and compare the results to the desired outcomes". (I can see why many people prefer the word "study" for this sort of activity!) So in the hypothetical example above, the plan is for a production line, so the production line is what is being checked, not the individual parts. If the production line as a whole is not adequate, I wouldn't just check the parts to eliminate individuals that don't meet specs.

I would act by initiating a new project (with potentially many subprojects) to improve the process. Perhaps start with a PDCA cycle (or PPPP) to identify the types of problems. Then a PDCA cycle to find out when & where they occur. Then a PDCA cycle (or perhaps many) to reduce/eliminate the problem.


Perhaps PPPP is more of an an overall process management philisophy, while PDCA is the way to acheive the specific "perfect" stage. (And I pronounce that "per-FECT" as in "bring nearer to perfection", rather than "PER-fect" as in "flawless; always meeting specs")


Tim F
 
P

PraveenGupta

#70
No, that's not "the entire debate." It's the way you want to frame the debate in order to sell your product. When you say that the alternatives are "good enough using PDCA" or "excellent using 4P" you conveniently glide past (and do a disservice to) all of the excellence that's been achieved by people who understand what "profound knowledge" is.
Jim: I was not on this Forum. You invited me to here to discuss the 4P model, and now you blame me of selling my product. Absolutely sounds unexpected. There is a knowledge of 4P which many people have liked it, and some people, like yourself, are trying to critique it. I believe critique would only make the 4P better. So, I appreciate your comments.

"Good enough" is used in this context to identify something that is inherently lacking some important ingredient, so your use of it is essentially tautological. Perhaps in order to be "good enough" we need to achieve excellence. Fiscal responsibility consists in finding an optimum level of performance. This is done only after risks have been rationally identified--to the extent possible--and mitigated. (all part of the "P" and "C" in PDCA) The best economic policy in business is to find the delicate balance point between customer satisfaction and reasonable profitability, and there are no magic bullets or packaged panaceas that will do that.
Here I do not see any difference what we are saying. We both are saying excellence achieve economically for customer satisfaction. Only thing I am adding to it by reducing waste by being on target. As Taguchi has said, any deviaiton from target causes loss to society.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
T Class A PRTD beyond 300°C General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 0
B Go Beyond ISO 9001 WITH IATF 16949 (January 28) [Paid] Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 1
qualprod To raise a NC beyond the audit scope? Two signatures were missing ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 11
M Calibration certificates avowing accuracy beyond the uncertainty limits? Measurement Uncertainty (MU) 7
Hershal Star Trek Beyond (ST 13) - 2016 Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 4
N "Beyond Economic Repair" - Scrapping Customer Material - DCMA Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 7
somashekar Authorization to use shelf life sensitive materials beyond its valid shelf life... Manufacturing and Related Processes 7
2 DOE to minimize Noise Contributions that enlarge the Variation beyond Part-Part Quality Tools, Improvement and Analysis 5
C Controlling Documents: Beyond the standard, how do we truly define what to control ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 9
J Calibration and Customer 'Requirements' - Something Stupid Beyond Belief General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 40
U Beyond words and wonderment Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 1
J Taking Lean beyond 5S - Commercial Printer Lean in Manufacturing and Service Industries 10
Jen Kirley Beyond Compliance: Value-added auditing for system performance The Reading Room 9
R Beyond Lean manufacturing - Operation management / Performance improvement Lean in Manufacturing and Service Industries 1
BradM 29th Olympics in China - Beyond the opening Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 82
R Getting started (beyond the standard) and getting up to speed with AS9100? AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 3
K Risk Management Portal - Beyond ISO 14971 - Incorporate $$ into the Risk Assessment ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 4
A Do you register NC's beyond Internal Audits? Internal Auditing 13
Casana Beyond CQE: Any suggestions to improve my knowledge further? Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 25
J ISO 9001 - Product ID & Traceability - Beyond our door? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 10
K PDCA cycle and ISO processes alternative model Quality Management System (QMS) Manuals 14
M PDCA as a project tool Quality Tools, Improvement and Analysis 5
M PDCA cycle - Process mapping - Environmental ISO 14001 ISO 14001:2015 Specific Discussions 1
L 5 minutes only for this Survey on the Value of PDCA and Your EMS Miscellaneous Environmental Standards and EMS Related Discussions 1
M Problem Solving: JDI (just do it) vs. A3 vs PDCA Projects Lean in Manufacturing and Service Industries 1
M PDCA Free Webinar - 14 February 2013 ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 1
E Problem Solving using PDCA/A3 - Tips & Exercise Lean in Manufacturing and Service Industries 3
L Filled examples of a Factor Tree (PDCA-FTA) Analysis or a Training Document wanted Problem Solving, Root Cause Fault and Failure Analysis 2
J PDCA Cycle - Stuck at D, D, D, D, D... Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 20
G TQM Practice (What is the difference between QC Story & PDCA?) IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
Q Has anyone heard of DST-PDCA or Cap-Do? Quality Tools, Improvement and Analysis 4
G Deming PDCA Cycle Automotive Mfg Sector Example IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 7
G The ASQ 'Facilitating Continuous Improvement' course - Takes you thru the PDCA cycle? Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 0
D Deming Cycle PDCA - The Check phase clarification, please Quality Tools, Improvement and Analysis 2
RoxaneB Does anyone have a clear way of showing alignment between PDCA and ISO 14001? ISO 14001:2015 Specific Discussions 6
RoxaneB Does anyone have a clear way of showing alignment between ISO 9001 and PDCA ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 7
S Standardization of Problem Solving - 6 Sigma, Red-X, 8D, VA/VE, PDCA, RCA, C&E Quality Tools, Improvement and Analysis 15
Y Training Video/ video clips for PDCA (Plan - Do - Check - Act) Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 11
A PDCA (Plan Do Check Act) vs. DMAIC (Define Measure Analyze Improve Control) Quality Tools, Improvement and Analysis 24
K PDCA - Plan Do Check Act Cycle - What is PDCA? Quality Tools, Improvement and Analysis 3

Similar threads

Top Bottom