Oct 30, 2021

The Children and the Donuts

Researchers placed young children in a room and gave each of them a doughnut, and a promise:" We'll be back in 30 minutes. If you don't eat your donut, we'll give you another donut." The researchers observed the children and followed their life for the next 40 years.

Some children didn't touch their donut, and waited for the researchers to come back. They led safe lives with moderate success.

Some children ate their donuts before the researchers even finished explaining. They became visionaries who refused to be bound by rules. Some became criminals.

Some children ate their donuts after 15 minutes of waiting.  They led happy lives.

Some children offered to buy other kids donuts. They became consumers.

Some offered their donuts to other kids. They became social workers.

Some children sold their donut to other kids. They became small business entrepreneurs.

Some children ate other children's donuts but not their own. They became politicians.

Some children took donuts from those who didn't want donuts and gave them to those who really wanted the donuts. They became socialists.

Some children sold their donut to other kids, and argued with the researchers that they are still entitled to another donut since they literally didn't eat their donuts. They became defense lawyers.

Some children bought donuts from other kids, and argued that *they* are the ones entitled to the future donuts, since the future donuts are contingent on who owned the donuts. They became derivatives traders.

Some children observed the researchers and tried to figure out what they were researching. They became sociologists and joined the team of researchers for the next 40 years.

Some children analysed their donut instead of eating them. They became scientists.

Some children ate their donut and claimed another child ate it. They also became politicians.

Some children wrote about the event. They became writers.

Some children forgot about eating the donut and wondered why the hole made donuts more fun. They becme philosophers.

PDCA Shouldn't Always Lead to Improvement

 PDCA (Plan, Do, Check, Act), and its alternative PDSA (Plan, Do, Study, Act), are popular quality improvement frameworks. The truth is, they shouldn't always lead to improvement. If every single PDCA cycle you implement leads to improvement, I'd suggest you take a deeper look. Maybe you're not doing PDCA properly.

Briefly, PDCA is about the following 4 steps:

  • P - Plan an improvement experiment. Plan how to test if this proposed improvement really brings about an improvement.
  • D - Do the experiment.
  • C - Check / Study the results of the experiment.
  • A - Act on the results of the study. Implement the change or perform another cycle. 

The 3rd step in PDCA, Check, requires you to check the results of what you did in the 'Do' step. The output of performing Check can result in one of the following conclusions:

  •  The proposed improvement works, let's implement it.
  • The proposed improvement actually makes things worse, let's not implement it.
  • The proposed improvement is not an improvement, or not enough of an improvement, let's not implement it.
The point of C (or S) is to serve as a control gate so we don't implement changes that are not worthwhile improvements.