Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | Last revisionBoth sides next 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 21:01] – [Why "Zero Defects" is a flawed concept] rrandall |
|---|
| 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 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, 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! |
