Talk:PDCA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Business (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Plan–Do–Check–ADJUST[edit]

I added Adjust, which is both a well know variable and a variable that make more sense than Act, which doesn't imply a correction by it core meaning. Yug (talk) 10:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The description of ACT that was there was essentially the description of ADJUST... and then there was the following NOTE about using the term Adjust, since ACT doesn't imply making adjustments. The alternate interpretation of ACT was not represented at all. So, I have put the alternate interpretation under ACT, and left the NOTE about some using Adjust instead. I think that more fairly represents the two alternative viewpoints. Given PDCA is primarily intended as a continuous improvement mechanism, the notion of establishing standards or baselines against which all changes are made is critical... without that, the real point of PDCA in continuous improvement is lost. BrianKatTCC (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, guys. It is a bit of a word war, and perhaps arises from whether people are in a production environment where standards are easily quantifiable or in administrative jobs where the enACTment of new standards isn't as black-and-white as in the production environment. When someone says a new standard is "enACTed", I'm kinda thinking "yeah, duh, the standards are now ADJUSTED, why are you using funny words for that". Maybe it's because English isn't my first language, but Adjust just seems to be easier to understand. Pretty much the only place I hear "enactment" is in "enactment of a law". Right or wrong it implies DOing to a lot of people, including me. But I do support the essential idea behind the wording of the ACT paragraph and Note, the crucial question to ADJUST is is WHAT you adjust: what you ADJUST in the ACT phase are your standards/principles/conceptual ideas. If that is not clear to a reader he may wonder what exactly is being adjusted? I used to think it was the PLAN that was adjusted before diving into the matter. Now, with new, adjusted standards in place you can make a new plan that is informed by those very standards. I'll dare a small addition on this language issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malkavian (talkcontribs) 13:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality?[edit]

"Certainly, the PDCA approach can bring us closer to whatever goal we choose." - Speaks for itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradgon (talkcontribs) 21:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)