top of page

The big difference between PDCA and PDS.

Are you familiar with the term "policy management"?

Today, it is commonly known as "Hoshin Kanri" in English.

This is because Toyota started QC in 1963, and the method that has continued for a long time is spreading worldwide.

When I input "Hoshin Kanri" into Wikipedia, they posted the following explanation at the beginning.

I'm not sure what you mean by "compass management, " but you could call it compass management.

Also, the individual words "hoshin" and "kanri" are explained separately.

I interpret "hoshin" as a direction or goal to be pursued, while "kanri" refers to following up to ensure you get there.

Hoshin Kanri (Japanese: 方針管理, "policy management") is a 7-step process used in strategic planning in which strategic goals are communicated throughout the company and then put into action. The Hoshin Kanri strategic planning system originated from post-war Japan, but has since spread to the U.S. and around the world. Translated from Japanese, Hoshin Kanri aptly means "compass management". The individual words "hoshin" and "kanri" mean direction and administration, respectively.

The following sentence is the automatic translation of this English sentence with Apple's Safari. The underlined part is a little strange, but I respect the software that translates in an instant.

Policy management is a seven-step process used in strategic planning in which strategic goals are communicated throughout the company and put into action. The Hoshin Kanryo Strategic Planning System originated in post-war Japan, but has since spread to the United States and around the world. Translated from Japanese, Hoshin Kanri aptly means "compass management". The individual words hashin and kanri mean direction and control, respectively.

Policy management (PDCA) and (narrowly defined) target management (PDS) will make it easier to understand.

PDCA is Plan-Do-Check-Action. PDSA: It is also called Plan-Do-Study-Action.

PDS is Plan-Do-See. It is the method described in Drucker's book.

There are differences in the Check (Study)-Action and See parts two, so let's compare these parts.

See only says to see (follow) the achievement of goals.

  • In contrast, with Check (Study)-Action, the central point is the results and the evaluation (learning) of what went wrong in the pre-planned problem-solving process, leading to kaizen actions.

  • Since the concept of quality control emphasizes the process, the object of Check (Study) is the process.

  • The quality of the process determines the result, so it is essential to draft the process at the time of planning.

  • Goals include who will do what, by when and to what extent.

  • Stretch goals are set instead of setting goals that seem easy.

  • The most crucial thing in Check (Study) is understanding the root cause.

  • -Here, why-why (5 whys) is used frequently to grasp the root cause.

  • Understanding the root cause will lead to reliable action (kaizen).

Policy management is, of course, a tool utilized within an organization.

At the planning stage, consider the goals and the process to achieve them, and share them with your superiors and subordinates.

It doesn't necessarily have to be top-down. However, it is essential to share even bottom-up.

Throughout the entire PDCA cycle, it is premised that superiors provide reliable support and follow-up until their subordinates achieve their goals.

In the planning stage, the possibility of achieving the table will be further increased by considering detailed plans for achieving the objectives.

At the stage when the task achievement plan is shared, it is almost expected to be achieved.

In addition, each department must share goals and processes they should achieve across departments.

Since communication becomes necessary by seriously tackling policy management, there is also the merit that communication will inevitably become more active.

"This is going well" "What happened to that?" "Can't you do it yet?"

If you take it seriously, this kind of conversation will naturally disappear.


With that much background on policy management, let's move on to the case study.

This business division received information that demand for the products it handles would increase significantly in six months to a year due to changes in the global environment.

Until now, we have been in a situation where we want to make more and can only make half of our production capacity!

In the future, however, it will become a world where "I can't make everything with my current ability."

As a member of the business department, I could not have imagined that the day would come when I would scream like this a month ago.

The business manager seized this opportunity and put forward a policy: "Let's meet this demand with the current staff!"

Although this policy is strict, no one opposes it.

Everyone's motivation is at its peak: "The day has come to clear up the frustration and frustration of the past."

Our goal is clear from the beginning that we can meet this demand with our current staff, so the first thing we need to do is identify the issues.

As a result of examining the abilities of each person in charge, we found that "the customization designer's man-hours will be insufficient" if things continue.

(Note: the other issues are minor and will be omitted to clarify this story.)

Beginning with the issue of "the customization designer's man-hours are insufficient," we decided to work out what each of us should do and create a promotion plan. Still, unfortunately, this did not progress at all.

  1. I did not use the term "policy management" because this activity is an activity to solve the yearly priority issues for this organization.

  2. I proposed to create a "promotion plan that clarifies the problem-solving process." Then, based on the designer's actual person-hours, estimate the person-hours required for increased production and clarify the necessary person-hour reductions.

  3. The person-hours of the designer are analyzed in detail and stratified into value-added and non-value-added work.

  4. Investigate the reality of work that does not add value and formulate measures to reduce it. Then, based on the examination results of 1 to 3, put them into an action plan.

Unfortunately, half a year later, we still haven't been able to reduce the designer's hours.

Let us look back on these kaizen activities.

  • As a result of "analyzing the designer's man-hours in detail and stratifying into value-added work and non-value-added work",

  • We learned that designers spend a considerable amount of time checking the details of each construction project.

  • In addition, we found that there are standard and non-standard types of products, and even though the ratio of standard types is high, the designer's person-hours are required.

At this stage, we realized that it would be possible to roll out best practice examples of improvement activities from another organization, so we decided to conduct benchmarking.

If they had completed the detailed execution plan, I should have noticed the lack of consideration, but they did not complete the detailed execution plan.

When the best practices of improvement cases are horizontally expanded, it isn't easy to apply the cases as they are to one's organization.

Since there are some differences between organizations, it is essential to clarify them.

It is also essential to take a bird's eye view of best practice cases and consider which parts can be used as is and which parts cannot use.

The fact that I did not complete a detailed execution plan shows that this consideration has not been completed, and I was worried.

In policy management, once this problem-solving process is completed, the boss and other stakeholders can judge the achievability of the problem.

However, if it is not possible to visualize how the person in charge thinks about how to solve the problem, there is no way to point it out.

"The designer spends a considerable amount of time checking the details of each construction project." The problem is that the customer's required specifications are not correctly communicated through sales.

However, I later discovered that I didn't recognize this problem as a problem

because they assumed that "sales are busy" or "sales are under pressure from customers."

At least when I scrutinize the best practice examples, it solves the sales vs design communication problem.

However, people say, "I can't help it because I'm busy with sales."

I learned that the scotoma that "cannot help sales because there is pressure from customers" worked, and I didn't raise my awareness as a problem.

Why-why Analytically, we have arrived at the root cause of why this activity did not go well.

It is an essential point of policy management and PDCA.

Looking back on how they carry out the problem-solving activities and identifying where the cause of the problem lies.

This time, if you recognize the following as the root cause, you can take the correct action and solve the problem accurately.

  • They did not consider the countermeasures of "horizontal exhibition of best practice cases".

  • As a result, hesitance toward sales became a scotoma, and essential issues were shelved.

If it were a target management PDS, it would probably mean that I would work hard aimlessly, saying, "I'll do better next time."

4 views0 comments


bottom of page