Just for fun click here for the games @ CM Level 1.
If interested click OOPS! above for the 15 reasons why projects fail at CM Level 1.
And Traditional Project Management process often is blamed for the chaos!?
Agile methods touted as the solution but operated at CM Level 1 will simply add to, and bring about increased chaos!

Move your mouse over the image directly below.

PLAN

Establish the objectives and processes necessary to deliver results in accordance with the expected output (the target or goals). By establishing output expectations, the completeness and accuracy of the spec is also a part of the targeted improvement. When possible start on a small scale to test possible effects.

DO

Implement the plan, execute the process, make the product. Collect data for charting and analysis in the following "CHECK" and "ACT" steps.

CHECK

Study the actual results (measured and collected in "DO" above) and compare against the expected results (targets or goals from the "PLAN") to ascertain any differences. Look for deviation in implementation from the plan and also look for the appropriateness and completeness of the plan to enable the execution, i.e., "Do". Charting data can make this much easier to see trends over several PDCA cycles and in order to convert the collected data into information. Information is what you need for the next step "ACT".

ACT

Request corrective actions on significant differences between actual and planned results. Analyze the differences to determine their root causes. Determine where to apply changes that will include improvement of the process or product. When a pass through these four steps does not result in the need to improve, the scope to which PDCA is applied may be refined to plan and improve with more detail in the next iteration of the cycle, or attention needs to be placed in a different stage of the process.

Note: Some modern trainers now also refer to the "A" as "Adjust". This helps trainees to understand that the 4th step is more about adjusting/correcting the difference between the current state and the planned state instead of thinking that the "A" is all about action and implementation (which actually happens in the second ("D") stage).

We all know that Plan-Do-Check-Act is the heart of Continuous Improvement, so why do so many business leaders fall down when it comes to Check-Act? And what should they do about it?

Directors and Senior Managers provided that they aren't completely stuck in fire-fighting mode are usually quite happy with the Plan part.
They've been trained to set SMART objectives, they appraise their direct reports regularly, and they regularly provide effective feedback. They understand effective Project Management and perhaps apply Hoshin Planning/Policy Deployment. Having worked out the Plan, they often develop their people by delegating the Doing. They know that for people to learn, grow and develop they need to be challenged and supported. So they expect the best but they also provide plenty of support. In other words they coach: they work with their people, they don't do it to them or do it for them.

Sounds great, doesn't it?

But experienced leaders know the reality coaching can be time-consuming, frustrating, and damned hard work! And often there just don't seem to be enough hours in the day.

That's one reason why many managers instead of delegating, coaching and empowering often let people just get on with it. And most operations folk are very good at getting on with it it's what they like, it's what they're good at, and traditionally it's often what they're rewarded for.

The problem is that most people are good at doing what they've always done, in the way that they've always done it. So they produce the same results that they've always produced not always consistently, and not always Right First Time. At an organizational level, that leads to inertia and complacency and that in turn hampers learning which ultimately leads to extinction.

Maybe it's human nature: we all want to improve we just don't want to change. Yet in our hearts we know that if we really want to improve then we have to change what we do or how we do it.

We have to stand back and review what we do, and what we get, and then we need to take action as appropriate. As leaders we have to make sure that reviews are properly conducted, that follow-up's actually happen and that actions are taken. In other words, we need to spend time on Check and Act. So how do we actually do this in practice?

The answer as with most improvement activities is: (1) Start Simple; and (2) Make it a Habit

Simple means diarizing a review session, and making sure it takes place.

Make it a Habit means making sure that all leaders always build in a review to all improvement activities.

This is an ideal opportunity to lead by example show colleagues how quick and easy a review can be, and how useful it is. Once people begin to get the review habit, you can move on to formalize it, by including review and action steps in your key processes. To start with, focus on the areas of the business where this will have the biggest impact or where you most need to improve. Maybe it's after completion of each major project, job or contract. Get the team together formally with your supplier(s) and customer(s), if at all possible and ask honestly what went well, what didn't go to plan, and what you can learn from this.

How you handle these sessions goes to the heart of the organization's culture always remember, when things go wrong: Never blame the people; always blame the process.

As W Edwards Deming taught us many years ago (his 14 observations for management), Continuous Improvement will only happen in an open, honest environment of trust and an absence of fear.

Critically, leaders then need to make sure that the right actions are taken.

If you've achieved the results you wanted, then the new ways of working need to be locked in with Standard Operating Procedures and training, and regularly monitored until the new One Best Way becomes embedded.

If you haven't sufficiently closed the gap between as is and should be then you need to go through the PDCA cycle again.

And remember the Act part isn't done until you've taken full advantage of any read-across opportunities, you've removed those initial quick fixes and you've embedded your new One Best Way until next time!

The message then for senior managers is if you want to keep on improving, complete the cycle!

Implementation is about planning and doing but improving is about checking and taking action. By all means delegate these tasks but ultimately it's your responsibility to ensure that improvements are identified, acted upon, followed up and sustained.

In other words, to borrow a great motto from the corporate governance arena, Trust and check: trust people to do what is required but also build in sufficient checks and balances. If you do then you will be sure to improve, and you'll also be sure that you're improving.

Article by Andrew Nicholson

PDCA was made popular by Dr W. Edwards Deming, who is considered by many to be the father of modern quality control; however, he always referred to it as the "Shewhart cycle". Later in Deming's career, he modified PDCA to "Plan, Do, Study, Act" (PDSA) because he felt that "check" emphasized inspection over analysis.

The concept of PDCA is based on the scientific method, as developed from the work of Francis Bacon (Novum Organum, 1620). The scientific method can be written as "hypothesis" "experiment" "evaluation" or plan, do and check. Shewhart described manufacture under "control "under statistical control " as a three-step process of specification, production, and inspection. He also specifically related this to the scientific method of hypothesis, experiment, and evaluation. Shewhart says that the statistician "must help to change the demand [for goods] by showing how to close up the tolerance range and to improve the quality of goods." Clearly, Shewhart intended the analyst to take action based on the conclusions of the evaluation. According to Deming, during his lectures in Japan in the early 1950s, the Japanese participants shortened the steps to the now traditional plan, do, check, act. Deming preferred plan, do, study, act because "study" has connotations in English closer to Shewhart's intent than "check".

A fundamental principle of the scientific method and PDCA is iteration "once a hypothesis is confirmed (or negated), executing the cycle again will extend the knowledge further. Repeating the PDCA cycle can bring us closer to the goal, usually a perfect operation and output.

Another fundamental function of PDCA is the "hygienic" separation of each phase, for if not properly separated measurements of effects due to various simultaneous actions (causes) risk becoming confounded.

PDCA (and other forms of scientific problem solving) is also known as a system for developing critical thinking. At Toyota this is also known as "Building people before building cars." Toyota and other Lean companies propose that an engaged, problem-solving workforce using PDCA is better able to innovate and stay ahead of the competition through rigorous problem solving and the subsequent innovations. This also creates a culture of problem solvers using PDCA and creating a culture of critical thinkers.

In Six Sigma programs, the PDCA cycle is called "define, measure, analyze, improve, control" (DMAIC). The iterative nature of the cycle must be explicitly added to the DMAIC procedure.

Deming continually emphasized iterating towards an improved system, hence PDCA should be repeatedly implemented in spirals of increasing knowledge of the system that converge on the ultimate goal, each cycle closer than the previous. One can envision an open coil spring, with each loop being one cycle of the scientific method - PDCA, and each complete cycle indicating an increase in our knowledge of the system under study. This approach is based on the belief that our knowledge and skills are limited, but improving. Especially at the start of a project, key information may not be known; the PDCA scientific method "provides feedback to justify our guesses (hypotheses) and increase our knowledge. Rather than enter "analysis paralysis" to get it perfect the first time, it is better to be approximately right than exactly wrong. With the improved knowledge, we may choose to refine or alter the goal (ideal state). Certainly, the PDCA approach can bring us closer to whatever goal we choose.

Rate of change, that is, rate of improvement, is a key competitive factor in today's world. PDCA allows for major "jumps" in performance ("breakthroughs" often desired in a Western approach), as well as Kaizen (frequent small improvements). In the United States a PDCA approach is usually associated with a sizable project involving numerous people's time, and thus managers want to see large "breakthrough" improvements to justify the effort expended. However, the scientific method and PDCA apply to all sorts of projects and improvement activities.