PDSA on the rise
Article Date: Jan 06 2006
PDSA stands for ‘Plan, Do, Study, Act’, a circular model that can be used, say its exponents, to improve working practices and efficiency at any organisation of any size.
It sounds like some bizarre new management mumbo-jumbo, but this is far from a new concept and has been used for eons as a systematic approach to business. According to Jan Gillett, chairman of business consultancy Process Management International and an ardent fan of PDSA, the seeds of the idea were sown with the ancient Greeks. They were renowned philosophers but short on practical skills compared to the Romans, who were eminently practical, building aquaducts and the like, but spent less time theorising. Slowly, the idea of systematic evaluation developed, giving rise to science; PDSA is a scientific approach to business planning developed in the 1950s by W Edwards Deming, and seized upon and refined by many successful Japanese businesses.
How it works
Despite being named PDSA, the first stage in the process is always study; look carefully at whatever the particular issue you’re tackling is, how wide-reaching the effects of it are and who and what it impacts upon. Obviously, the length of time devoted to this will depend on the scale of the problem you want to address, but it creates the foundations for taking action.
This involves some delegation. Allocate someone to lead the work, ensuring they understand the outcome of discussions in the study phase.
Next, of course, is the planning stage. The individual leading the project
must ask him or herself some key questions: what are we trying to accomplish?; how will we know that any change is an improvement?; what changes shall we make that will result in an improvement?; and what resources will it require, in terms of people, time and money?
Once these questions have been addressed, a test has to be arranged on a small scale, to see if the proposed changes will be as effective as desired, rather than risking the changes throughout the organisation. Carry out the test and gather data and observations on the results.
This brings the circle back to study again. Compare what actually happened with what was predicted or expected. If the results correspond with predictions, then it is safe to put the changes into full-scale effect. If, however, the results differ from expectations, the original theory did not hold water and it’s time to go back to the drawing board!
So, depending on how the test turned out, the next step is to either implement the changes in full, look again at the original theory and adapt it, or perhaps even abandon the project if it doesn’t appear to merit further attention.
Stick to the facts
‘The process must be based on evidence,’ states Gillett, pointing out that it will fall down if those leading the process report back to you, the CEO, saying what you want to hear rather than what actually happened. ‘Data can be fixed, but this is obviously dangerous as implementation on the full-scale would reveal any flaws.’
It is also easy to skimp on the study process but, Gillett urges, ‘Don’t come up with decisions until you understand exactly what you’re trying to do. Otherwise it defeats the whole object of the exercise and you won’t benefit.’
After all, he says, ‘If you’re not basing your business model on something like PDSA, what are you basing it on?’
