Comments on: Everyday Poka-Yoke: Cost of Poor Quality

By: Bill Wilson

Bill Wilson — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 05:18:58 +0000

I really don’t disagree with anything you’ve said here, but I would like to point out that another interpretation of “zero defects” is possible. If you take into account Crosby’s definition of quality as “conformance to requirements”, and if your requirements are stated statistically, then “zero defects” essentially equates to a performance standard of “no special cause variation”. Of course, Crosby probably didn’t mean “zero defects” in exactly that sense, but in my opinion, his overall sentiment was not so different from that of the other big quality pioneers: establish meaningful standards of performance, monitor that performance, take corrective action when required, and seek overall improvement where-ever (and whenever) possible.

By: Rob

Rob — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:59:44 +0000

Zero defects makes no sense to me, in fact I posted a couple of articles about it
here and here

By: John

John — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 01:34:24 +0000

Good article. Utah DOT has had a campaign “Zero Fatalities” yet in the last year fatalities have gone up. Nationwide, 45,000 died on the highways last year – to go to zero is certainly unlikely in the near future. I think too large a goal has the inverse effect of overlooking small, but continuous improvement.