Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revisionLast revisionBoth sides next revision |
articles:crosbys_church_of_zero_defects [2023/01/22 17:01] – [Why "Zero Defects" is a flawed concept] rrandall | articles:crosbys_church_of_zero_defects [2024/02/05 21:01] – [Why "Zero Defects" is a flawed concept] rrandall |
---|
===== Crosby's Church of "Zero Defects" ===== | ===== Crosby's Church of "Zero Defects" ===== |
~~NOTOC~~ | ~~NOTOC~~ |
It is surprising that a common topic of debate among quality professionals today is whether the "Zero Defects" concept is valid. | It is shocking that a common topic of debate among quality professionals today is whether the "Zero Defects" concept is valid. |
| |
==== What is "Zero Defects" ==== | ==== What is "Zero Defects" ==== |
</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 causal 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 often 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 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. |
| |
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, companies __can__ "error-proof" (Poka Yoke) or remove 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 only serve to exacerbate the problem through denial. 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! | |
| |
Only through accepting that human error is a "//common cause//" variation can we address the problem for what it truly is. Whenever there is a "common cause" variation in a process, we have two options. We can either change the process OR we can implement risk controls (e.g., to mitigate the risk). For example, changing the process to include "error-proofing" (poke yoke) can eliminate human error by eliminating the possibility of an error being introduced. Alternatively, we can greatly reduce the risk of human error being introduced through: | Only through accepting that human error is a "//common cause//" variation can we address the problem for what it truly is. Whenever there is a "common cause" variation in a process, we have two options. We can either change the process OR we can implement risk controls (e.g., to mitigate the risk). For example, changing the process to include "error-proofing" (poke yoke) can eliminate human error by eliminating the possibility of an error being introduced. Alternatively, we can greatly reduce the risk of human error being introduced through: |
* Reducing the number of times that people "touch" or move a product (as every instance that a product is touched or moved increases the risk of a defect error being introduced). | * Reducing the number of times that people "touch" or move a product (as every instance that a product is touched or moved increases the risk of a defect error being introduced). |
| |
| The above list is not intended to be all-inclusive. |
==== "How "Zero Defects" followers view "risk" ==== | ==== "How "Zero Defects" followers view "risk" ==== |
| |