Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision |
| articles:crosbys_church_of_zero_defects [2023/03/16 18:00] – [Why "Zero Defects" is a flawed concept] rrandall | articles:crosbys_church_of_zero_defects [2024/02/05 21:05] (current) – [Why "Zero Defects" is a flawed concept] rrandall |
|---|
| </blockquote> | </blockquote> |
| {{ :articles:tree_branches_and_roots_01.svg.med.png?direct&260|Source: http://www.clker.com/clipart-2525.html}} | {{ :articles:tree_branches_and_roots_01.svg.med.png?direct&260|Source: http://www.clker.com/clipart-2525.html}} |
| When performing "Cause & Effect" analysis, we must be able to identify and link an “assignable cause” to a problem in order to have a “root cause”. “Assignable Causes” can potentially be eliminated (e.g., through corrective action). However, when unable to identify and clearly link an “assignable cause” to a problem, we must recognize and acknowledge that those variations are most likely inherent to the process and cannot be eliminated; without completely re-engineering that process. And re-engineering a process may be cost-prohibitive… or impossible (e.g., due to technological constraints/limitations or even "technical contradictions"). However, there are usually risk controls we can institute to mitigate the likelihood/probability and/or consequences/impacts of these problems to an acceptable risk tolerance level. | When performing "Cause & Effect" analysis, we must be able to identify and link an “assignable cause” to the event (nonconformity). “Assignable Causes” can potentially be eliminated (e.g., through corrective action). However, when unable to identify and clearly link an “assignable cause” to a problem, we must recognize and acknowledge that those variations are most likely inherent to the process and cannot be eliminated; without completely re-engineering that process. And re-engineering a process may be cost-prohibitive… or impossible (e.g., due to technological constraints/limitations or even "technical contradictions"). However, there are usually risk controls we can institute to mitigate the likelihood/probability and/or consequences/impacts of these problems to an acceptable risk tolerance level. |
| |
| Ultimately, no amount of "cheerleading" or impassioned motivational speeches will ever eliminate human error. Human error is and always has been "//a normal byproduct of personal effort//" (aka a "common cause" variation with NO assignable cause). However, there are steps that companies __can__ take, such as "error-proofing" (Poka Yoke) or removing the human component from a process through a redesign (aka ReEngineering) of the Process. | Ultimately, no amount of "cheerleading" or impassioned motivational speeches will ever eliminate human error. Human error is and always has been "//a normal byproduct of personal effort//". However, there are steps that companies __can__ take, such as "error-proofing" (Poka Yoke) or removing the human component from a process through a redesign (aka ReEngineering) of the Process OR taking steps to "//mitigate//" the potential for human errors (e.g., rotating personnel to avoid fatigue). |
| |
| Delusional attempts to "eliminate" human error through motivational efforts only serve to exacerbate the problem. It is a truly poor reflection on the Quality Profession that such an obviously flawed concept has persisted well into the 21<sup>st</sup> century! | Delusional attempts to "eliminate" human error through motivational efforts only serve to exacerbate the problem. It is a truly poor reflection on the Quality Profession that such an obviously flawed concept has persisted well into the 21<sup>st</sup> century! |
