error-proofing in office & service environments
TRANSCRIPT
Company
LOGO
Error-Proofing Transactional, Service,
Creative, and Analytical Processes
August 12, 2010
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Your Instructor
Early career as a scientist; migrated to
quality & operations design in the mid-80’s.
Launched Karen Martin & Associates in
1993.
Specialize in Lean transformations in non-
manufacturing environments.
Co-author of The Kaizen Event Planner;
co-developer of Metrics-Based Process
Mapping: An Excel-Based Solution.
Instructor in University of California, San
Diego’s Lean Enterprise program.
2
Karen Martin,
Principal
Karen Martin &
Associates
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
You will learn…
Common causes for errors.
The key metric (%C&A) for measuring
quality in office/service settings (review).
Error-proofing prioritization.
Root cause analysis tools.
Countermeasures for improving quality.
How to translate quality improvement into
productivity gains.
3
Building a Lean Enterprise
Jidoka
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Eight Wastes (Muda)
Overproduction
Inventory
Waiting
Over-Processing
Errors ( Defects Rework)
Motion (people)
Transportation (material/data)
Underutilized
people
5
Building a Lean Enterprise
Process
Stabilization
Tools
Building a Lean Enterprise
Poka Yoke;
Error-Proofing
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Potential Impact of Poor Quality
Customer
Death or injury
Slow delivery
Lost market share
Financial
Excessive expenses
Missed performance
bonuses
Cash flow
Legal / Regulatory
Non-compliance
Litigation
Staff
Interpersonal &
interdepartmental
tension
Stress & frustration
Turnover / absenteeism
Poor morale
Inability to attract talent
8
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Cost of Poor Quality (COPQ)
Labor (Process Time)
To fix
To inspect/audit/monitor/approve
Turnover due to frustration & stress
Extended lead times
Cash flow
Material costs (sometimes)
Scrap
Rework
Storage costs (sometimes)
Litigation / regulatory fines 9
Quantify
COPQ to
establish your
current state
baseline from
which to
measure
improvement
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates 10
The 1-10-100 rule states that as work moves
through a process, the cost of correcting an
error increases by a factor of 10.
Order entry example
Activity Cost
Order entered correctly $ 1
Error detected by billing dept $ 10
Error detected by customer $ 100
Cost of customers telling others ???
Prevention
Inspection
Failure
Big Failure
1-10-100 Quality Rule
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Error-Proofing
Recognizes that every human will make errors.
Methodology that is used to strive toward zero defects by either preventing or automatically detecting defects.
Help people do the right thing; prevent them from doing the wrong thing. Key Toyota principle – Respect for people.
Errors become defects that require rework.
11
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Levels of Error-Proofing
1. Prevention Make it impossible to make the error.
Make it difficult to make the error.
2. Detection Make it obvious the error has occurred.
3. No Impact Make it a “no impact” error.
12
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Error-Proofing Tenets
Common tendency (non-Lean mindset) is to blame
people
“If they’d just be more careful…”
“They’re being lazy…”
Errors are not the result of careless or inattentive
employees.
Warning or “be careful” signs are not robust
solutions (and may be insulting)
Errors are evidence of a process design or
environmental problem, not a people problem.
Lean mindset: “We (the organization) have failed you.”
13
14
Quality:
People
aren’t the
problem.
The problem is
generally rooted in:
• Process design
• Technology capabilities
• Environmental conditions
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Poor Input Quality Causes
Unnecessary Tension
Poorly designed processes are typically
behind interpersonal and interdepartmental
tension – not personalities.
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates 16
You can’t
inspect in
quality.
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Inspection in Non-Manufacturing
Reviews
Approvals
Audits
Signatures
Improvement goal: Eliminate the NEED
for inspection.
17
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
State of Quality in Office &
Service Environments
Office & service quality rarely measured.
If measured, typically “end state” quality.
“In process” quality is a far more revealing
analytical tool, in terms of:
Determining how robust your process is
Identifying waste
Rebuilding interpersonal and interdepartmental
relationships
Capturing productivity gains
18
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
The Improvement Process
19
Plan
Do
Check
Act
Gain a deep
understanding
about the
current state
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Measuring Process Quality
20
Customer
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Key Lean Metric: Quality
%Complete and Accurate (%C&A)
% time downstream customer can perform task without
having to “CAC” the incoming work:
Correct information or material that was supplied
Add information that should have been supplied
Clarify information that should or could have been clear
This output metric is measured by the immediate
downstream customer and all subsequent downstream
customers.
If workers further downstream deem the output from a
particular step to be less than 100%, multiply their
assessment of quality with the previous assessments.
21
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Measuring Step-Specific Quality
22
Customer
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4
%C&A =
70%
%C&A = 50%
%C&A =
85%
%C&A =
25%
%C&A =
80%
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Measuring Step-Specific Quality
23
Customer
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4
%C&A =
70%
%C&A = 50%
%C&A =
85%
%C&A =
25%
%C&A =
80%
Rolled First Pass Yield = 6% (.50 x .70 x .85 x .25 x .80) x 100
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Two Ways to Measure
Value Stream Mapping
Holistic, macro view of process
Strategic planning tool
Metrics-Based Process Mapping
Micro view of process
Tactical design tool
24
Mapping Post-it Conventions
# Staff
(if relevant)
Barriers to flow
(if relevant)
PT (process time)
LT (Lead time) % Complete &
Accurate
Step #
Activity
(Verb / Noun) Function that
performs the
task
Source Refrigeration & HVAC, Inc.
Current State Value Stream Map
Serv ice Deliv ery
Created February 11, 2009
CONFIDENTIAL
Customer
Receive
customer call
Call Center
PT = 2 mins.
%C&A = 60%
Review &
Post Invoices
Posting Admin
PT = 3 mins.
%C&A = 98%
Batch: 1x/day
0.0833
hours
2 minutes
2 hours
5 minutes
1.5
hours
90 minutes
1.25 hours
75 minutes
2 hours
120 minutes
4 hours
5 minutes
10.7
hours
10 minutes
48
hours
25 minutes
4 hours
3 minutes
10.7
hours
10 minutes
2 hours
4 minutes
480
hours Lead Time = 572 hours
Process Time = 349 minutes
Select &
Dispatch Tech
Dispatcher &
Service
Manager
PT = 5 mins.
%C&A = 60%
Make Repair;
Call to raise
the NTE
Tech
PT = 120 mins.
%C&A = 40%
Complete Call
in GP
Dispatcher
PT = 5 mins.
%C&A = 80%
Review
Service Call
Data
Service
Manager
PT = 10 mins.
%C&A = 50%
Batch: 2x/day
Review Open
Ticket Report
Billing Admin
PT = 25 mins.
%C&A = 75%
Upload time
card
Tech
PT = 0 mins.
%C&A = 70%
Batch: 1x/day
Close call in
Verisae
Account
Manager
(West)
PT = 1 mins.
%C&A = 90%
Batch: 1x/day
Process Time
Cards
Payroll Admin
PT = 10 mins.
%C&A = 90%
Batch: 1x/day
Process A/P
A/P Admin
PT = 15 mins.
%C&A = 85%
Batch: 1x/day
Tech
Assess
Problem
PT = 90 mins.
%C&A = 90%
Tech
Special Order
Part
Tech
Pick up Part
at Parts Store
PT = 75 mins.
%C&A = 95%
Tech
Get Part from
Truck
PT = 0 mins.
120 m.
Great
Plains
Verisae
(Customer)
Review
Invoices;
Close in
Verisae (Pac)
Account
Manager
PT = 10 mins.
%C&A = 85%
Batch: 3-5x per wk
Enter Invoices
into Verisae &
Excel; Mail
Invoices
Billing Admin
PT = 4 mins.
%C&A = 95%
Batch: 1x/week
Excel
Spreadsheet
(Customer)
40%
Receive
Cash; Post
Payment
Collections
75 m. 120 m. 240 m. 640 m. 6 days 240 mins. 640 m. 120 m. 60 days90 m.5 m.
?%
?%
Supplier
%C&A %Complete and Accurate
AR Activity Ratio
FTE Full Time Equivalent
LT Lead Time
PT Process Time
RFPY Rolled First Pass Yield
Acronym Key
Lead Time to invoice = 86.2 hrs
Process Time =5.9 hrs.
NOTE: Business hours
Activity Ratio = 6.8%
RFPY = 1.1%
Lead time to cash = ? days
Current State Value Stream Map
Service Delivery – Call to Cash
RFPY = 1.1%
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Summary Quality Metric
Rolled First Pass Yield (RFPY)
The percentage of occurrences where work
passes through the process “clean,” with no
“hiccups,” no rework (CAC) required.
RFPY = %C&A x %C&A x %C&A…
Common finding = 0-15%
Multiply ALL %C&A’s, even if parallel processes
(concurrent activities).
27
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Metric Current State Projected
Future State
Projected %
Improvement
Lead Time (LT) 86.2 hours
Process Time (PT) 5.9 hours
% Activity 6.8%
Rolled First Pass
Yield (RFPY) 1.1%
# Handoffs 10
Service Delivery Value Stream
Call to Cash
Future State Value Stream Map
Source Refrigeration & HVAC, Inc.
Service Delivery
T&M Target example, refrigeration component repair, non-peak season (35 work orders per day)
Created February 13, 2009
CONFIDENTIAL
Customer%C&A = 99%
Dispatcher
Create W.O.
Dispatch Tech
PT = 7 mins.
%C&A = 85%
Supplier
Tech
Assess
Problem
PT = 75 mins.
%C&A = 90%
Billing Admin
Review W.O.,
payroll, AP &
invoice; post
immediately
PT = 25 mins.
%C&A = 95%
Billing Admin
Compare
invoice
register to
invoices and
mail invoices
PT = 5 mins.
%C&A = 99%
1x daily
Collections
Receive
Cash; Post
Payment
2 hrs.
0.117 hrs.
1.25 hrs.
1.25 hrs.
1.25 hrs.
1.25 hrs.
2 hrs.
2 hrs.
24 hrs.
0.417 hrs.
4 hrs.
0.0833 hrs.
480 hrs. Lead Time = 520 hrs.
Process Time = 5.12 hrs.
Tech
Make Repair;
Complete call
on handheld
PT = 120 mins.
%C&A = 75%
Verisae
(Customer)
Great
Plains
Tech
Pick up Part
at Parts Store
PT = 75 mins.
%C&A = 95%
Lead Time to invoice = 34.5 hrs
NOTE: Business hours
Process Time = 5.1 hrs.
Activity Ratio = 14.8%
RFPY = 45.4%
Lead time to cash = 67 days
`
%C&A %Complete and Accurate
AR Activity Ratio
FTE Full Time Equivalent
LT Lead Time
PT Process Time
RFPY Rolled First Pass Yield
Acronym Key
Excel
Spreadsheet
(Customer)
Billing Admin
Enter data
into Verisae
and Excel
from Daily
Report
PT = 5 mins.
%C&A = 99%
1x daily
Tech
Special Order
Part
10%
?
Tech
Contact Tech
Support As
Needed
Tech
Get Part from
Truck
PT = 0 mins.
?
EDI Interf ace
No EDI
120 mins. 75 mins. 75 mins. 2 hrs. 24 hrs. 4 hrs. 60 days
Create Tech
Support Center
Create EDI
Interface w/
Customers
Centralize
Dispatch
Improve Tech
Onboarding
Standardize
Truck Inventory
Improve Tech
Training; Create
Sub-levels
Install kanban
on trucks
Create
Customer Billing
Teams
Create stnd work
for invoicing
Create invoice
exception report
Explore flat rate
pricing
Create Tech
performance
report
Implement
GPS
Create Source
preferred T & C's
Separate labor
& payroll
Create EDI
Interface w/
Verisae
Establish
parameters for time
& parts by
service type
Future State Value Stream Map
Service Delivery – Call to Cash
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Metric
Current State
Projected
Future State
(10 months)
Projected %
Improvement
Lead Time (LT) 86.2 hours 34.5 hours 60.0%
Process Time (PT) 5.9 hours 5.1 hours 13.6%
% Activity 6.8% 14.8% 45.9%
Rolled First Pass
Yield (RFPY) 1.1% 45.4% 3,990%
# Handoffs 10 5 50%
Service Delivery Value Stream
Call to Invoice Segment
Projected Improvement
0.8 hrs/service call x 75,000 calls/yr Freed
Capacity = 1,875 hrs/year
= 32 FTEs
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
What do you do with freed capacity?
Absorb additional work without increasing staff
Reduce paid overtime
Better work/life balance
Slow down & think
Innovate – create new revenue streams
Conduct ongoing continuous improvement activities
Do a better job with fewer errors and higher safety
Get to know your customers; build stronger supplier relationships
Mentor staff to create career growth opportunities
Provide additional workforce development; cross-training
Do the things you haven’t been able to get to; get caught up
Collaborate with other areas
Reduce payroll through natural attrition
31
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Reasons for Errors
Lack of effective training
Non-standardized work
Excessive complexity
Time delays between input
and output (holding info in
one’s head too long)
Multi-tasking
Rushing
Poor knowledge re: internal
customer requirements
Hardware / software issues
Similarities
Environmental
Interruptions/ distractions
Noise, odor, lighting
Ambiguous information
Unclear instruction
Poor handwriting
Blurry images (technology-
related
32
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Root Cause Analysis
33
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Root Cause Analysis (RCA)
RCA is necessary to:
Avoid jumping to conclusions.
Avoid creating “band-aid” fixes (addressing only the symptoms).
Select proper countermeasures.
Design and implement lasting solutions that truly eliminate the problem.
34
Root Cause Analysis: 4 Key Tools
CauseCause--andand--Effect DiagramEffect Diagram
Machine Measurement Environment
People Material / Info Method
Budgets
Submitted Late
Lack of experience
Time availability
No sense of import
No stnd spread sheet
Email vs. FedEx
No standard work
Input rec’d late
Forecast in other system
Manual vs. PC
System avail.
No milestones
$ vs. units
Weather delays
Dispersed sales force
Changing schedule
Machine Measurement Environment
People Material / Info Method
Budgets
Submitted Late
Lack of experience
Time availability
No sense of import
No stnd spread sheet
Email vs. FedEx
No standard work
Input rec’d late
Forecast in other system
Manual vs. PC
System avail.
No milestones
$ vs. units
Weather delays
Dispersed sales force
Changing schedule
5 Why’s
Why?
Why?
Why?
Why?
Why?
Check Sheets Quantify Occurrences
|Equipment failure
|||||||||||||Changing customer
requirements w/ no
adjustment to expected
delivery
||||||||||Order entry error
|||Staffing/absenteeism
|||||Quality issue requiring
rework
|||||||Material shortage
Tally Reason
|Equipment failure
|||||||||||||Changing customer
requirements w/ no
adjustment to expected
delivery
||||||||||Order entry error
|||Staffing/absenteeism
|||||Quality issue requiring
rework
|||||||Material shortage
Tally Reason
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Root Cause Analysis Tools
Simple problems
Five Why’s
Problem Analysis Tree
More complex problems
Brainstorm causes (fishbone)
Tally frequency of most likely causes
(check sheet)
Identify relevant few (Pareto analysis)
for countermeasure development
36
If
necessary
Five Why’s Example
1. Why is the error report being prepared?
My supervisor told me to.
2. Supervisor – Why are you asking for this report?
One of the standard reports to be prepared per my
predecessor – I have yet to determine its usage.
3. Predecessor – Why did you initiate this report?
Report was required in the past because personnel in
order entry were making data input errors.
4. Data entry – Why were orders being input with errors?
Orders received via fax were blurry and hard to read.
5. Data entry - Why were the fax orders hard to read?
Fax machine was old and of low quality. It was replaced
10 months ago and errors no longer are occurring.
Problem: Report is taking too much of an employee’s time;
team questions whether the report is needed
Problem Analysis Tree Problem: Documents are not being translated well and on time
Late or poorly
translated
documents
Translation
problems**
Lost docs*
In physical transit
In cyberspace
In in-basket
In out-basket
* Lost and found = 40%; lost & never found = 5%; stuck in system = 55%
** Rework on over 50% of documents
Translator doesn’t
understand original
Translator
understands
original, but still
poor translation
Poor
original
Translator
skills
Wrong
technical
vocabulary
Poorly
expressed
No tracking
Large batches
Confusing
formats
Faxed / poor
resolution
Random
vocabulary
Lack of training
No standard
Selection
Unclear
expectations
Training
Poor editing
Uneven
workload
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Cause-and-Effect Diagram (aka Fishbone, Ishikawa)
Brainstorming tool used to identify all possible causes for an undesirable effect in 6 categories: People (“Man”)
Material/Information - Inputs used in the process
Method - Procedures, work instructions, processes
Machine - Equipment, computers, tools, supplies
Measurement - Techniques used for assessing the quality/quantity of work, including inspection
Environment (“Mother Nature”) - External & internal
Use other categories if appropriate
39
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Cause-and-Effect Diagram (continued)
Decreases the likelihood that something is being
overlooked
Shows us the possible causes, but not how
much each contributes, if at all, to the problem
Does not provide solutions / countermeasures
40
Call back cause-and-effect diagram.igx
Call Backs
PeopleMaterial
Substitute part
Environment
Unplanned conditions
Measurement
Poor data
Method
Machine
Equipment variety
Inherent problem in case
Repeat failure
Wrong part
Bad part
No help available
Not reaching out for help
Tech training
Tech ambition
No criteria for calling for help
Wrong tech sent
Lack of defined metrics
Rushing
Circled items indicate likely highest volume root causes
Cause and Effect Diagram – Call Backs
Cause-and-Effect Diagram
Medication Administration Errors
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Check Sheets
Help collect and record process data in an organized way (how often are certain events occurring?)
Provides factual data to help analyze process (transition from subjective to objective)
Detects patterns
Includes “likely candidates” from Cause-and-Effect Diagram (the relevant few)
Basis for Pareto Analysis
NOTE: Make it easy & collect data for limited period of time only
43
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Check Sheets Quantify Occurrences
Reason Tally
Material shortage ||||| ||
Quality issue requiring
rework |||||
Staffing/absenteeism |||
Order entry error ||||| |||||
Changing customer
requirements w/ no
adjustment to expected
delivery
||||| ||||| |||
Equipment failure |
44
Root Cause Analysis: Late Shipments
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Pareto Analysis
Named after Wilfredo Pareto (18th century Italian economist/statistician) who discovered the 80-20 principle. 20% of the people held 80% of the wealth
Focuses our attention on the VITAL FEW issues that have the greatest impact to avoid spending energy on the TRIVIAL MANY.
A type of bar graph that displays information/data in order of significance.
A visual aid for defining & prioritizing problems.
45
Pareto Chart
Credit Application Delays
2909
627561
242180
2493
41%
77%86%
100%97%
94%
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
No Signature Insufficient Bank
Info
No prior address Current
Customer
No Credit History Other
Reason for Delay
Occu
rren
ces
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Error-Proofing Process Design
Priorities
Goals:
First, avoid making the error. (Lean priority)
Second, avoid passing errors to downstream internal customer.
Third, avoid passing errors to external customer. (Traditional priority)
Typical non-Lean solution – Inspection!
47
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Priorities for Designing Error-
Proofing into the Process
1. Make it impossible to make the error.
2. Make it harder to make the error.
3. Make it obvious the error has occurred.
4. Make the system robust so it tolerates the error.
48
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Error Proofing Priorities
Goals:
Make it impossible to make the error.
Make it harder to make the error.
Make it obvious the error has occurred.
Make the system robust so it tolerates the error.
49
Impossible to make the error –
mechanical/physical solutions
typically needed.
Error-Proofing (Poka Yoke) Data Entry
Error Proofing Priorities
Goals:
Make it impossible to make the error.
Make it harder to make the error.
Make it obvious the error has occurred.
Make the system robust so it tolerates the error.
52
Make It Harder to Make Errors
© 2009 Karen Martin & Associates 53
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Error Proofing Priorities
Goals:
Make it impossible to make the error.
Make it harder to make the error.
Make it obvious the error has occurred. Sight – spell check, grammar check
Sound – beeps at the checkout stand
Smell – additive to natural gas
Touch – ?
Make the system robust so it tolerates the error.
54
55
Make It Obvious That
an Error Has Occurred
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Error Proofing Priorities
Goals:
Make it impossible to make the error.
Make it harder to make the error.
Make it obvious the error has occurred.
Make the system robust so it tolerates the error.
56
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates 57
“No Impact” Error
Mistake Proofing
Goals: First, avoid making errors.
Second, avoid passing errors to downstream internal customer.
Third, avoid passing errors to external customer.
Design robust processes with: No errors
No “impact errors” if errors occur at all
We have a tendency to be less diligent when we know a downstream inspection will occur.
58
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Establishing a Quality Culture
Remove all obstacles to an employee’s success
Adequate time for quality work
Pressure-free
Effective training
Robust processes
Automation
Make problems visible
Stop “the line” / fix problems immediately
Honesty is honored; Blame-free
Improvement-oriented
Inspection is a last resort, not the first solution. 59
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Types of Inspection
Self-inspection (point of
origin inspection) – most
desirable
Downstream inspection –
less desirable (we’re less
diligent)
3rd party inspection before it
reaches an external
customer – adds excess cost
3rd party inspection after the
fact – NO!
60
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Ways to Error-Proof Data Entry
Technology
Correct data to begin with
Process
Simplify! (Why multiple
fixes for the same
problem?)
People
Effective training!
Grouping data / cadence
Reading aloud
Time for self-inspection
61
Environment
Information
enhancement
Audible or visual
warnings
Physical workspace
Reduce noise, smells,
interruptions
Adequate breaks
Rethink production
standards
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Ways to Error-Proof Data Entry
(continued)
System-related
Software
Drop-down menus instead of
free text field
Required fields
Pop-up warnings
Programming / macros
Hardware
Dual monitors
Ergonomic considerations
Process-related
Standardized work Proper sequencing
(logical order of work)
Job aids & visual
reminders
Checklists
Verbalize information
Repeat orders
Measurement &
feedback
62
Error-Proofing
Help people do the right thing; prevent them from doing the wrong thing (e.g. automation, physical restrictions, warnings)
Create easy standard work tools (e.g. checklists)
Provide adequate training & retraining
Visual work instructions
See one, do one, teach one
Send work back upstream for completion and/or correction and follow-up with add’l training
Have customer requirements discussions with upstream suppliers
63
Quality-at-the-Source
Make problems visual
The work stops immediately when an error
is detected!
Cross-trained workers are better at
detecting errors
DO NOT RELY ON INSPECTION!!!
64
Reasons for Errors
Lack of training
Lack of standardization
Overly complicated processes
Time delays between input and output
Multi-tasking
Interruptions
Rushing
Ambiguous information
Unclear instruction
Poor handwriting
Blurry images (technology-related)
65
Ambiguous Information
66
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Standardized Work
A tool for maintaining quality, safety,
productivity, and employee morale
at the highest possible levels.
67
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Review: Elements of Quality-at-
the-Source
Standardize work.
Make problems visual.
The work stops immediately when an error
is detected!
Cross-trained workers are better at
detecting errors.
Eliminate or minimize reliance on
inspection.
68
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates 69
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
You will learn…
Common causes for errors.
The key metric (%C&A) for measuring
quality in office/service settings (review).
Error-proofing prioritization.
Root cause analysis tools.
Countermeasures for improving quality.
How to translate quality improvement into
productivity gains.
70
Resources
71
Chapter 8 Chapter 11
© 2010 Karen Martin & Associates
Karen Martin, Principal
7770 Regents Road #635
San Diego, CA 92122
858.677.6799
Subscribe to monthly newsletter:
www.ksmartin.com/subscribe
72
For Further Questions