The Myth and Limitations of the PDCA Cycle

1. Why PDCA Has Been Widely Adopted

The PDCA cycle—”Plan → Do → Check → Act”—is a classic model for quality management and continuous process improvement. Its most common applications include:

Quality Control
Process Improvement
Management Systems (such as ISO 9001) improvement mechanisms

Its strengths lie in clear processes, distinct phases, and repeatability, making it highly suitable for “predictable and controllable” environments.

2. When Environments Become Unstable—PDCA’s Limitations Emerge

1. Challenges in Facing Emergent Change

Dutch scholar Everard van Kemenade, in his paper “The Myth of the PDCA-Cycle in Times of Emergent Change,” points out that when “change is unpredictable and emerges from the periphery,” continuing to use PDCA as a vehicle for change often leads to delays and rigidity. This is because PDCA’s assumption—”plan first → execute → check → improve”—does not align with the characteristics of dynamic, complex systems.

He further proposes an alternative framework, ACCRA (Attention / Context / Commitment / Reflection / Action), as a more practical approach in uncertain contexts.

2. Tendency to Become Formalistic in Practice

In fields such as healthcare and education, research has found that PDCA or its variant PDSA (Plan–Do–Study–Act) is often treated as a reporting or audit process rather than a genuine learning cycle. For instance, John E. Reed et al., in their BMJ Quality & Safety study, note that most organizations view it as an “execute→document→complete” process rather than a “reflect→learn→innovate” mechanism.

3. Structural Limitations: Slow, Rigid, Lacking Human Considerations

Other research has also identified several limitations of PDCA:

Slow pace: Executing a complete PDCA cycle requires repeated collection, checking, and improvement, making it difficult to match the pace of innovation
Ritualization risk: When PDCA becomes an institutionalized process, it easily evolves into “auditing for the sake of auditing”
Neglect of human factors: Traditional PDCA assumes rational operation but overlooks culture, motivation, creativity, and other factors

3. Calls to “Move Beyond PDCA”

Quality scholar Praveen Gupta, in “Beyond PDCA – A New Process Management Model,” criticizes that although ISO 9001 incorporates PDCA, its implementation often becomes “audit-oriented” rather than “innovation-oriented.” Therefore, a management model is needed that not only improves processes but also supports innovation dynamics.

These critiques provide a theoretical trajectory: moving from “process improvement” toward “innovation and dynamic adaptation.”

4. What Insights Can We Gain?

PDCA is not entirely obsolete—the key lies in context:

In stable, predictable environments, PDCA remains effective
However, in highly dynamic scenarios requiring breakthrough innovation, relying solely on PDCA may be insufficient

If your organization faces needs such as innovation, knowledge accumulation, or new business models, consider:

Treating PDCA as a foundational structural tool
Simultaneously adopting more dynamically adaptive frameworks (such as ACCRA, System Dynamics, feedback loop analysis)
Not “abandoning PDCA,” but rather “returning PDCA to its most suitable position”

In other words, establishing suitable auxiliary tools and mindsets for volatility and uncertainty is essential to truly unleash organizational adaptability and innovative capacity.

5. Further Reading

Van Kemenade, E. (2014). The Myth of the PDCA-Cycle in Times of Emergent Change.
PDF link
Gupta, P. (2006). Beyond PDCA – A New Process Management Model. Quality Progress, 39(7), 45–52.
ResearchGate link
Reed, J. E., & Card, A. J. (2016). The problem with Plan–Do–Study–Act cycles. BMJ Quality & Safety, 25(3), 147–152.
DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-005076

This article aims to explore the boundaries of PDCA’s applicability, not to completely negate its value. In appropriate contexts, PDCA remains a reliable management tool.