I realise this is beginning to sound like the Lean Method of Writing, but don’t worry.  Even if I’d like to try, it’s not really possible to apply the principles of 5S and 7-Wastes to the actual plotting and writing process.  Although if any writers out there have applied 5S to their workspaces and work practices, I’d be interested to hear from you.

This time, we’re covering the PDCA cycle – Plan, Do, Check, Act*.  Some people call it the Deming Cycle, although W. Edwards Deming himself referred to it as the Shewhart Cycle (it’s all right, the geekery stops here).

It sounds incredibly simple.  Plan what you’re going to do; do it; check it meets your requirements; act to rectify things if they don’t; and so on.

In essence, this is the whole plot, write, read, revise cycle we go through every time we amend a draft of our manuscript.  After all, writing a novel, much like engineering a product, is an iterative process.  Continuous Improvement is something we should aim for, whether we’re writers or engineers.

Sounds simple, doesn’t it?  If it were that simple, then I suspect Quality Consultants (and probably Quality Engineers) would be either out of a job or bored.  And that isn’t the case for most of the ones I know.

So, let’s cover each element as I’ve considered it.

PLAN: this works on two levels for me.  As I explained a little in #1, plan can be analogous to the plot, as well as attacking faults found earlier (using last week’s tool of the 5-Whys).  However, planning also covers scheduling in writing time (… which I’m rubbish at) as well as deciding which bits of the book to focus on in turn, and so on.  So it’s both product and process.

DO: I think this is straightforward.  This is the actual act of writing, of getting stuff done, however we choose to do it.  You can’t move on to the next step unless something actually gets written.

CHECK: this is twofold.  Have the correct parts been written, and do they do the job?  Do they move the plot on, reflect character development, embody conflict, and all that stuff scenes are supposed to do?  Do they fit neatly in, without causing issues elsewhere?  Or, alternately, if the new scenes flag up issues elsewhere, are those issues fundamental?  For example, have I introduced continuity errors, or given alternate backstories for the same character?  The second part rests on the how I’ve written: is the phrasing correct, have I captured each character’s voice accurately, is the pacing right, and so on.  I have a very unscientific method for this last one: if it feels right, I leave it.  Sometimes, it won’t feel right, but I can’t put a finger on why – these scenes either get left to one side, or I’ll use the 5-Whys to try to pin it down.   Sometimes, the best thing to do is just ignore that scene for a bit, then go back to it with fresh eyes.

ACT: ah, this sounds simple.  If the revisions made above failed, work out why they failed, and what needs to be done to make them successful.  If they were successful, aim to understand what made them successful, and apply that learning … by planning what to do next.  So the cycle starts again.

If this seems to be putting me at arm’s length from my book, or from the image many people have of writers as tortured geniuses, sweating for their art, awaiting inspiration’s strike … that’s kind of the point.  I’m not an artist, at least in the traditional sense.  Sure, inspiration still strikes me – usually at inconvenient times – but blind inspiration by itself won’t create a novel.

My near-publication experience last year showed me that at the time, I was far too close to FT to be able to see it properly; and while I’m not sure I’d want to go through all that again, at least I can look back and say that it was an intensely valuable experience which taught me lots.

One of the key things I’m trying to achieve while working on FT this time around is objectivity: objectivity about its structure, its plot, the characters, and my standard of writing.  These tools are useful for me, because they allow me to align my fiction writing mindset with my technical writing mindset.  Both types of writing have goals; they require structure, clarity and consideration; so it makes sense to me to approach both the same way.

*Just be glad I never got Six-Sigma trained, otherwise you’d be hearing about DMAIC instead.