In many factories in Indonesia, QCC groups are evaluated based on how well they follow the "eight steps." Problems arise when two members refer to different sources: one finds eight steps, while the other finds seven. The debate then shifts from production issues to formatting concerns.
In short, the number of steps is not fixed. What is fixed is the underlying logic, and that logic determines whether your improvements will last or return three months later.
Where the list comes from
The first quality circle was established in Japan in 1962. Kaoru Ishikawa promoted the formation of QC Circles through the Japanese Union of Scientists and Engineers, and the magazine Genba To QC was first published in April of that year as the basis of his movement.
Its spread to Indonesia occurred through the Asian Productivity Organization, an intergovernmental organization headquartered in Tokyo that was established in 1961. Indonesia is one of its member countries, along with South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, India, Thailand, and several others.
Since this method spread through training, conventions, and training materials from each country, rather than through a single standard manuscript, each organization polished its own numbering. This is where the numerical differences originated.
Seven steps, four of which are still planning
The QCC Handbook published by APO outlines the QC Story in seven steps, mapping it to the PDCA cycle as follows:
| PDCA Phase | Step |
|---|---|
| Plan | 1. Theme selection |
| Plan | 2. Understanding current conditions and setting objectives |
| Plan | 3. Developing an action plan |
| Plan | 4. Cause analysis |
| Do | 5. Determining and implementing countermeasures |
| Check | 6. Assessing effectiveness |
| Act | 7. Standardization and prevention of recurrence |
Note the distribution. Four out of the seven steps are in the Plan phase, and only one step actually involves action on the production floor.
This is not a coincidence, and it is the most frequently violated part. Groups that jump straight to step 5 because the causes seem clear are skipping more than half of their method. The commonly used eight-step version in Indonesian industry generally just splits the second step into two parts, namely understanding conditions and setting objectives separately. The content is the same; only the numbering differs.
So if your team uses eight steps and another reference uses seven, neither is wrong. What needs to be ensured is not the number, but whether those four planning activities are truly carried out with data, not skipped with assumptions.
The list of tools is more uniform than expected
For the seven tools, it is reportedly more reassuring. Three credible references agree on the same core: cause-and-effect diagram, check sheet, control chart, histogram, Pareto diagram, scatter diagram, and stratification.
The differences lie at the margins, and that is all:
| Reference | Difference |
|---|---|
| ASQ | uses the classic list above but notes that more recent lists often replace stratification with flowcharts, sometimes run charts |
| APO Handbook | contains the entire classic list, plus graphs as a separate item, and combines control charts with complementary tools |
| Indonesian Industry Journal | uses the classic list as is, including stratification |
This means that if you master those seven classic tools, you are safe in any forum. The only changes among references are additions at the end of the list.
What really needs to be maintained
The reason this method uses procedures is not about administrative neatness. The APO Handbook states the reason clearly: in problem-solving, assessments must be based on evidence collected from observations, not solely on experience and intuition. Operators are asked to observe conditions, collect data, and then analyze with that data.
This is where the tools find their place. Tools serve the steps, not the other way around. The Pareto diagram is useful when you are prioritizing in the early steps. The cause-and-effect diagram is useful when you are analyzing causes. The control chart is useful when you are ensuring results persist after standardization. Using all seven in one presentation does not make the analysis stronger, just longer.
The measure of success for quality circles is not the completeness of their presentation format, but whether the same problems reappear in the next period.
Sources
- Union of Japanese Scientists and Engineers (JUSE), Prof. Ishikawa and Quality Control, official JUSE archive: https://www.juse.or.jp/english/archives/pdf/Ch08_Ver2a_150803.pdf
- Asian Productivity Organization, Handbook for TQM and QCC, Volume II: http://artoflean.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Handbook-for-TQC-and-QCC-Volume-II-copy.pdf
- American Society for Quality (ASQ), Seven Basic Quality Tools, reviewed December 2024: https://asq.org/quality-resources/seven-basic-quality-tools
- Tarihoran, N., Siregar, K., Ishak, A., "Analysis of Quality Control in the Boiling Process by Implementing QCC at PT. XYZ", Journal of Industrial Engineering USU, vol. 3 no. 1, 2013: https://www.neliti.com/publications/219366/