PDCA cycle and ISO processes alternative model

[KNOWLEDGE_SEEKER_21]

Can someone please an alternative model, I'm so tired of using the same one that is literally in 99% of all quality manuals. I would like to see something different (can't think of anything else on my own lol)

 

[Johnny Quality]

Go to a dysfunctional organization, it'll most likely be an "alternative model".

Alternatives to PDCA would be PDSA (it used to be Study instead of Check, presumably because check has one syllable and the full name rolls off the tongue better). Check implies inspection, study implies understanding (what did we learn, what went wrong, what went right).

DMAIC I suppose is an alternative to PDCA as well but I'm not versed on it at all.

Toyota didn't use ISO 9001, I'm not sure if they still don't.

 

[Pancho]

Yup. Speaking of Toyota, Deming’s cycle is implied in Ohno’s “Where there’s no standard, there can be no Kaizen”, and “Standardized work at Toyota is a framework for kaizen improvements. We start by adopting some kind—any kind— of work standards for a job. Then we tackle one improvement after another, trial and error.”

“Act” in PDCA means modifying your process and, for permanence, the improvement must be documented (“placed in the standard”).

You can also look at it from the organizational knowledge/learning angle. More generally, it is the same process as evolution, how science advances, and how the immune system fights off infections. Check out Mayfield’s The Engine of Complexity.

No matter what model you use, the QMS is an organization's DNA. Adapt (through continuous improvement) or die.

 

[KNOWLEDGE_SEEKER_21]

Thank you but sorry for not explaining myself correctly. I was just talking about the actual graphical representation. This the example in AS9100D (page 8) and used by many. I was just wondering if anyone have a different representation that could share. Thanks.

 

[KNOWLEDGE_SEEKER_21]

I cannot add attachment as yet but just google PDCA and ISO and that's the one I'm talking about I'm sure you are familiar.

 

[John Broomfield]

I would wager that the Toyota Production System unintentionally fulfills the requirements of ISO 9001.

...and natural compliance is probably better than forced compliance.

 

[KNOWLEDGE_SEEKER_21]

I would wager that the Toyota Production System unintentionally fulfills the requirements of ISO 9001.

...and natural compliance is probably better than forced compliance.

With 2015 but not 2008

 

[John Broomfield]

Why not 2008?

 

[Pancho]

Since we are picking nits, here's my personal peeve with the PDCA model:

"Plan" seems like something that should be part of "Do" (or "Act"). Good processes have documented instructions, objectives, and expectations. These should be set in the last "Act", and available at points of use with the QMS. Why do we need a separate "Plan" step?

Furthermore, I think "check" muddles together observation (measuring) with diagnostics (compare, investigate). Those two tasks should be separate things.

So here is a different model: "PAD-UP" Produce, Assess, Diagnose, UPgrade.

• Produce: Execute or perform the process
• Assess: Observe. Measure process outputs and receive feedback from observers (process clients, participants and other parties)
• Diagnose: Compare with expected results, Investigate root causes.
• UPgrade: Improve process. Upgrade standards, instructions, objectives and expectations. Document in QMS.

And here is the new graphical representation that you're looking for, the "Stairway to Quality":

 

[Sidney Vianna]

No matter what model you use, the QMS is an ENLIGHTENED organization's DNA. Adapt (through continuous improvement) or die.

Just adding an enhancement to your brilliant statement.

Unfortunately, the strategic importance of a QMS is ignored by a significant percentage of the business world, who adopt the "command & control" approach, instead of any PDCA version....