Introduction
Have you ever followed the PDCA cycle (Plan-Do-Check-Act) and still ended up with no tangible results?
You’re not alone.
The truth is: PDCA is a powerful framework — but only when used in the right context, with the right starting point.
Too often, people jump into the "Do" phase without clarifying what they're really trying to achieve or solve.
That’s where my original framework GP-PDCA comes in.
What's Wrong with PDCA?
PDCA is popular because it provides a simple loop for continuous improvement.
However, many teams run into the following issues:
- ❓ Unclear what the real problem is
- 🎯 No alignment with the ultimate goal
- 🌀 Endless cycles of "doing something" without meaningful impact
- 📉 False sense of progress
The root cause: PDCA assumes the problem and goal are already clear — which is rarely the case in the real world.
Introducing: GP-PDCA
To make PDCA effective, you need two steps before Plan:
Goal and Problem.
🥅 Goal
- What are we really trying to achieve?
- What is the ideal future state?
- Why does it matter — and to whom?
🔍 Problem
- What’s preventing us from reaching the goal?
- What are the bottlenecks or pain points?
- What is the root cause?
Then finally: the original PDCA loop
- Plan: Hypothesize and design solutions
- Do: Execute a small-scale trial
- Check: Measure and evaluate
- Act: Standardize or iterate
GP-PDCA Flow
G (Goal) → Define your ideal target or outcome (KGI)
P (Problem) → Identify obstacles or root causes
P (Plan) → Create hypotheses and KPIs
D (Do) → Take action
C (Check) → Evaluate performance
A (Act) → Reflect, standardize, or retry
Real-World Example: Improving a Dev Team's Output
- Goal: Double the team’s release frequency
- Problem: PR reviews are slow, test automation is lacking, rework is frequent
- Plan: Improve CI pipeline, enforce WIP limits, clarify review guidelines
- Do: Pilot these changes for 1 sprint
- Check: Measure PR turnaround time, number of weekly releases
- Act: Adopt successful practices across the team
Why “G → P” Before PDCA Is So Powerful
Starting with Problem is better than jumping into “Do”.
But starting with Goal is even better.
Without a clear goal, you're just solving problems — not driving toward anything meaningful.
GP-PDCA forces you to answer:
- “Where are we going?”
- “Why does it matter?”
- “What’s standing in our way?”
Only then is it worth asking, “What should we do?”
Summary
PDCA is not broken — but it’s incomplete when used in isolation.
The GP-PDCA model adds two crucial layers: purpose and problem clarity.
This simple mental model has helped me dramatically improve how I approach product development, team processes, and even personal projects.
Final Thoughts
If PDCA has ever felt like busywork or a corporate ritual, you're not alone.
GP-PDCA gives it teeth again — by anchoring it to purpose and clarity.
If this model resonates with you, feel free to comment or share your own use cases.
Let’s upgrade our thinking — one cycle at a time.
Written by [Your Name]
Inspired by real-world frustration with shallow PDCA loops.
Top comments (0)