I visited Got Boondoggle? yesterday and found a link to shmula blog. It’s a good find because I found a mountain of information there. Now, I have another good reading in hand.
One of the posts there is rather interesting. Pete Abila of shmula wrote about Zero Defects and it being statistically impossible. He says:
The “Zero Defects” movement has an implicit assumption that all defects are equal. This is not true. In fact, for most firms and products, defects must be identified and prioritized, and attacked and treated from most important to least important. For the defects at the bottom of that prioritized list, it might even make sense to move on and not eliminate or reduce those. The point here is an attitude toward perfection, but fully understanding that perfection is not possible. The attitude and efforts are valuable and the customer will feel and appreciate it. Shareholders will benefit, and the firm will be better for it.
A long time ago, back when TQM was the order of the day, I read an article—which I photocopied but forgot to write down the source—about the Zero Defect Concept. Since the discussion came with real-life examples, it somehow drove an important point. The article highlights the importance of working toward a Zero Defects situation:
The concept of Zero Defects plays an significant role in this analogy. Peole are conditioned to believe that error is inevitable; thus they do not only accept error, they anticipate it. It does not bother us to make a few errors in our work, whether we are writing memos, setting up a machine, tagging bags, typing letters, or giving information…
If we do not maintain some standards, we should expect to be shortchanged every now and then when we cash our paycheck; we should expect our nanny to drop the newborn baby a constant percentage of the time; and would allow doctors to prescribe the wrong medicine…
Most human errors are caused by lack of attention rather than lack of knowledge… If we consider our tasks carefully, and pledge to make a constant conscious effort to do our jobs right the first time, we will take a giant step toward eliminating the waste of rework, scrap, and repair that increases costs and reduces individual opportunity…
ZD is a performance standard with the theme “do it right the first time.”
Both observations above raise valid points. I tend to believe that statistically ZD is not achievable. On the other hand, I also believe that when we consciously do things right the first time then we avoid making mistakes.
What is your take on this?
*Photo from Stock.Xchng
