From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Shouldn't this information be moved to the Shewhart cycle page and just make this a redirect? ...especially since this seems to be a more focused discussion of the topic than what's there?

--Prainog 13:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added the template for merging this page into Shewhart cycle.

--Prainog 03:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: "Velocity of change"; "velocity" reads like a buzzword. How about "volatility"? Re: "allows for quantum breakthroughs"; "quantum" sounds like selling. How about "allows for breakthroughs".

--Monsterinabox 17:54, 11 April 2007

I agree. 'Velocity of change' to 'rate of change.' Volatility is suggestive of great change, but not necessarily mostly in one direction.

As for 'quantum breakthroughs,' how big is a quantum? It's defined by those promoting the breakthrough. A nice adjective that does not, IMHO, add information. Do we ever have a small breakthrough?

In the changes just made (by me), the references are in the text because I don't know yet how to put them in properly.

--Jay Warner 4:59, 18 Sept. 2007 (UTC)

2 February 2008

It is at best debatable and at worst incorrect to state that PDCA/PDSA is meant to be used for major changes. This was never the intent or application by Shewart or Deming, which was confined to improvement for quality control purposes for products, experiments, etc. I have left it in the main text while pointing this out as dubious in the problems with PDCA section. In my discussion with Deming about 2 decades ago when he visited Australia he emphasized that PDCA was at least a simple way to get people thinking about quality and laughed when I pointed out that Do and Act have the same meaning in English. Such are the foibles of simple methods. Han —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanvanloon (talkcontribs) 09:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem with this, but please bear in mind that major changes should be discussed on this page prior to implementation. (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
After seeing changes to the page, I raised the issues here for that purpose. It is my hope that we can achieve a balanced viewpoint on PDCA, which the page as initially viewed did not have. Whether PDCA should be critiqued here or off page is open to discussion. I tried the latter initially but the links were deleted - I think for political reasons (i.e. no criticism or dissent here please), so I feel it necessary to raise it on page. As the author of the originating pages I make it available under the GNU Free document license provisions. I am happy to see the discussion linked off page if that is the desired approach. Han. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanvanloon (talkcontribs) 09:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I urge you to read the following Wikipedia policies: -- DanielPenfield (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Daniel, I apologize for the anonymity - that was a problem with loss of account details, since corrected
As stated, I think any commercial organization link is exactly the same (including ASQ, the quality network, etc. which are all selling services, courses, consultancy, etc). As soon as you link to their site, you open up their ability to sell things. So I am quite happy to have all these commercial links removed - I accept consistent application of link policy - hence if you remove the ASQ link then you are being consistent and I accept that. On the other hand if you allow links to such commercial organization information pages from this page, then this should be consistent too, although I know from other pages that I share editing with others that Wikipedia policy is not consistently applied ;-) . --Hanvanloon (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Hanvanloon (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:SOAP: Wikipedia is not a soapbox
  • WP:NOR: Wikipedia is not a forum in which to publish original research
My work has been published in ASQ's Quality Progress and other Quality magazines and journals in Australia and Europe, so it is no more nor less spam/soapboxing/original research than PDCA, DMAIC, etc. While it is probably the case that you have not read about it, that does not make it less so. It is important for readers to be aware of shortcomings or problems with various concepts, methods, techniques otherwise authors are doing readers a disservice. I know in my discussion with Deming about some of the weaknesses of PDCA our views had a lot in common. I take this seriously, I am not trying to belittle Deming and his work which I hold in high respect and I follow his admonition to questions and learn from what you see and read. --Hanvanloon (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Hanvanloon (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:VANDAL: Blanking is prohibited, as you attempted to do anonymously, then via your account:
Is this not what you did first or was it someone else? I was following that lead by removing the remaining commercial organization links that in the page link to items sold on the site (see bottom of the ASQ page where they are selling the Quality Toolbox). So, I would like to return to the question I posed. If the linked page provides information on topic (even if a critique as I did), is it allowable or not? If it is a valid link, then I am happy to see the text removed from the page and the link made. --Hanvanloon (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding links - there is a link battle going on here, either all external information links that are directly relevant to the topic should be allowed, or none. With PDCA being such a generally known concept, every organization can claim or provide information pages (including ASQ of which I am a member). It is therefore better not to link to any such commercial organizations if readers/contributors think the links are being abused. Han

You seem to be trying to define Wikipedia policy yourself. Please do not embark on campaigns of hacking out exisitng links, or adding them 'en bloc' on the basis of your own personal opinion. There is a long standing set of guidelines and internal policies here. (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I disagree and am not trying to do so. I am not sure who did the original link deletion, although Daniel Penfield has been active of late in maintaining some commercial links in while deleting others (ASQ is a commercial organization as I note above). It is why I raised it here in discussion. It would be helpful to know with whom I am having this discussion. Thank you. Han

Continued confusion over Wikipedia policy

Hello Daniel, I want to recap the history here if I may. When I first visited the PDCA page, there were several external links to various information plus pages. I added another: Problems with PDCA/Improved PDCA. The pages were information pages and there was no sales spiel (i.e. no buy this book or buy my consulting text). Yes there are links to other information and consulting pages on the web site, no different to those on the ASQ and other externally linked pages. Someone (I assume you) deleted the links. I restored the links several times after they were deleted each time. Then someone (I assume you) posted the notice: [Note: Before adding your company's link, please read WP:Spam#External link spamming and WP:External links#Links normally to be avoided.] and deleted the links again. Following that policy, I deleted the ASQ link because it fails the same test even more clearly than my pages because it directly tries to sell visitors the Quality Toolbox. You are now accusing me of WP:VANDAL: but I followed your lead and applied the policy you did. To try to overcome your unilateral interpretation of link policy, I put a modified version of the text into the Wikipedia page. Someone (I assume you) has objected to this. I have to surmise that your link deletion is in fact personal-political and not Wikipedia policy driven, maybe because I did it anonymously as I have explained and apologized for above. For me the original link to information pages is valid - the page is meant to encourage people to think about PDCA and its shortcomings. I therefore pose the question again - Is using external link to an Information page to be allowed or not? Thank you Han. --Hanvanloon (talk) 07:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

  • You really ought to read the previously cited policies as they would clear up your confusion.
√ Anonymously adding a link to your own personal consulting web-site in a thinly-veiled attempt to drum up business (as you did here and here) fails the following policies:
√ Injecting your pet theory into article content fails the following policy:
√ Deleting legitimate content with no explanation (as you did here) fails the following policy:
√ Your consulting business's website fails the WP:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided policy on the following points:
It is mainly intended to promote your consulting business
It primarily exists to sell your consulting services
√ You might want to read WP:WEB if you are confused as to why your for-profit mom and pop consulting business is probably not the type of "source" that should be included in Wikipedia whereas the not-for-profit professional association, the American Society for Quality, definitely is.
-- DanielPenfield (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Daniel, I have responded to these allegations on the talk page where you placed my last post. Please take a look there. --Hanvanloon (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

New comment

Daniel Penfield appears to be engaging in vandalism WP:Vandalism because he has an incomplete view of the topic. I have to note that another editor also highlighted problems with PDCA that were deleted when Penfield deleted the section: Problems with PDCA. I am therefore undo Penfield deletions. --Hanvanloon (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This page is disorganized

This page is badly disorganized. It is difficult to follow conversations. I am going to reorganize it into proper chronological order. Sbowers3 (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability versus Opinion

A note to Sbowers - my understanding from you and others was that not only should we make sure that text is verifiable but we should also discuss changes to the page on this discussion page as a common courtesy between editors. It appears that an editor thinks this does not apply to him. I personally think that is unfortunate, but I am not going to edit this page while this continues.--Hanvanloon (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)



I want to correct this, but felt I might be missing something.

There's a whole part of this article which uses the acronym PDSA. Is this intentional or should it be PDCA? Thanks.

Pazza98 (talk) 06:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth

From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

The entire contents of this article may be true, but it is not easily verified. There are no footnotes at all. An entire new section was recently added with no additional references. Was it made up from the editor's own knowledge or is there a reliable source?

Please add footnotes for all new material and for old material, too. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Added 3 inline references--Hanvanloon (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
one additional note, the third edited paragraph in the problems with PDCA section ending in 'healthcare' is from another editor. I cannot provide a reference for this. --Hanvanloon (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Added references to several paragraphs and sections that lacked them for a while. Removed one marginally relevant, unsupported paragraph for which I found no source. A reference is still needed for the six-sigma mention -- Panchobook (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)