Mistake-Proofing Training

John R. Grout
Campbell School of Business
Berry College

Each must be managed
to improve
quality and reliability.

Non-Conformances come
from many sources including:
Variation
Culture
Complexity
Mistakes
Where does mistake-proofing
fit in your quality tool box?
Culture Complexity

Variation

Mistakes
Todays presentation:
Individually errors are rare. However,
as a group they are a major cause of
failures
Parts and processes can be controlled
in ways that dramatically reduce the
occurrence of failures due to mistakes.
Definition
Mistake
The execution of a prohibited action,
the failure to correctly perform a required action
or the misinterpretation of information essential
to the correct execution of an action
Mistake proofing
the use of process or design features to prevent
manufacture of non-conforming product.
Everyday Examples
New lawn mowers are required to have a
safety bar on the handle that must be pulled
back in order to start the engine. If you let go
of the safety bar, the mower blade stops in 3
seconds or less.
Fueling area of car has three error-proofing devices:
1. insert keeps leaded-fuel nozzle from being inserted
2. tether does not allow loss of gas cap
3. gas cap has ratchet to signal proper tightness and
prevent overtightening.
3.5 inch diskettes cannot be inserted unless diskette
is oriented correctly. This is as far as a disk can be
inserted upside-down. The beveled corner of the
diskette along with the fact that the diskette is not
square, prohibit incorrect orientation.

Why use mistake-proofing?
You can make more
money

It works where other
techniques dont
evidence of
effectiveness


the difficulties
with human error








The final user deserves it.
Evidence of the
Effectiveness







Source: Productivity Inc. and Shingo prize profiles
AT&T Power Systems is first US manufacturer
to win the Deming prize. Average outgoing
defects reduced by 70%
A washing machine drain pipe assembly line
produced 180,000 units without a single
defect (6 months).
TRW reduced customer PPMs from 288 to 2.
Evidence of the
Effectiveness







Source: Productivity Inc. and Shingo prize profiles
Cooper Automotive:
95% less defects than nearest competitor
75% less injuries
99.6% less customer defects (13 ppm)
88% in-plant defect reduction
70% less warranty cost
89% scrap reduction (0.7%)
60% productivity increase
Devices Tend to be Inexpensive...
Cost of Poka-Yoke Devices
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
$
2
5

o
r

l
e
s
s

$
1
0
0

t
o
$
2
5
0


$
1
0
0
0

o
r

m
o
r
e

Cost
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

Frequency of Occurrence
Cumulative Probability
$
2
5

t
o

$
1
0
0

$
2
5
0

t
o

$
1
0
0
0


Evidence of the Effectiveness
and Very Effective
The 10:1, 100:1, even 1000:1 rates of return referred
to by Bhote above are not unreasonable in practice.

Dana corporation has reported a $500,000 savings
resulting from a $6 device. (83,000:1)
AT&T Power Systems (Lucent Technologies) reported
net saving of $2545 per device (3300 devices)
[Marchwinsky, 1997]. (25:1*)
Weber Aircraft reports saving $350,000 during their
first year of implementation of approximately 300
devices. (11:1*)
*Assumes and average devise cost $100
Common Mistake-proofing Devices
Guide Pins
Blinking lights and alarms
Limit switches
Proximity switches
Counters
Checklists
The difficulties with human error
Why existing tools are not enough
Motorola findings:

...it became evident early in the project that
achieving a C
p
greater than 2 would go only
part of the way. Mistake-proofing the design
would also be required ... Mistake-proofing
the design is an essential factor in achieving
the [total number of defects per unit] goal.

Smith, B. IEEE Spectrum 30(9) 43-47
Errors are difficult to manage
using statistics.
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

Slot width
omitted
operation
normal
variation
Poka-yoke & SPC
X-bar chart
(measurement data)
p-chart
(attribute data)
Successive-
checks
or
Self-checks
use to sort out
defects, will not
improve the process
special case of np-
chart,
ad hoc design,
will also sort out
defects
Source-
Inspection
use as corrective
action for special
causes
use to eliminate
specific
types of defects
Error-proofing & SPC
SPC is good at detecting shifts in the process
mean or variance. Changes to the process
must be ongoing to be readily detected.
Human errors tend to be rare, intermittent
events. They are not readily detected by
control charts.
Use error-proofing (not SPC) to reduce
defects caused by human error
Motorola got an order of magnitude closer to their goal
using a combination of SPC and error-proofing.
Task Type Probability
Detection of deviation or inspection 0.07
Alpha input per character 0.008
Numeric input per character 0.003
Assembly per task element 0.00007
As a group they are common
Research study #1 (Harris) >0.80
Research study #2 (Rook) 0.82
Research study #3 (Voegtlen) 0.60
Research study #4 (Headlamps) >0.70
NASA mishaps >0.50
FAA Maintenance problems >0.94
Individually mistakes are rare
Data from Human Reliability Data - The State of the Art and the Possibilities
Jeremy C. Williams, 1989 CEGB
To err is human
Have you ever done the following:

Driven to work and not remembered it?
Driven from work to home when you
meant to stop at a store?
It happens to workers too.

Workers finish the shift and dont
remember what they have done.
After building green widgets all morning,
the workers put green parts on the red
widgets in the afternoon.
Corrective action
I recently polled the Quality newsgroup
on the internet. A majority reported at
least 20-30% of corrective actions were
worker reprimanded and retrained.
The admonition to be more careful or
pay attention are not effective for
humans, especially in repetitive
environments.
Be more careful not effective
The old way of dealing with human error was to scold people,
retrain them, and tell them to be more careful My view is that
you cant do much to change human nature, and people are
going to make mistakes. If you cant tolerate them ... you
should remove the opportunities for error.
Training and motivation work best when the physical part of
the system is well-designed. If you train people to use poorly
designed systems, theyll be OK for awhile. Eventually, theyll
go back to what theyre used to or whats easy, instead of
whats safe.
Youre not going to become world class through just training,
you have to improve the system so that the easy way to do a
job is also the safe, right way. The potential for human error
can be dramatically reduced.

Chappell, L. 1996. The Pokayoke Solution. Automotive News Insights, (August 5): 24i.
LaBar, G. 1996. Can Ergonomics Cure Human Error? Occupational Hazards 58(4): 48-51.

A new attitude
toward preventing errors:
Think of an objects user as attempting to
do a task, getting there by imperfect
approximations. Dont think of the user as
making errors; think of the actions as
approximations of what is desired.*
*Source: Norman
A New Attitude toward
Preventing Errors
Make wrong actions more difficult
Make it possible to reverse actions to undo
themor make it harder to do what cannot be
reversed.
Make it easier to discover the errors that
occur.
Make incorrect actions correct.
Judgment Inspection
Involves sorting the defects out of the
acceptable product, sometimes referred to as
inspecting in quality.
The consensus in modern quality control is that
inspecting in quality is not an effective quality
management approach.
Judgment inspection does not improve process
and should be used only in the short term.
Successive checks & Self-check
(post-production product inspection)
Corrected
Product
Attribute
Incorrect
Process
Parameters
Correct
Product
Attribute
Rework
or
Scrap
Setting
Function
Correct
Process
Parameter
Cue
Incorrect
Product
Attribute
Search &
Discover
Causes
Rework only
Source Inspection
(preemptive process inspection)
Setting
Function
Cue
Remedial
Action
Incorrect
Process
Parameters
Correct
Process
Parameter
Correct
Product
Attribute
Source Inspection
Self-Correcting Process Setting
Function
Remedial
Reaction
Incorrect
Process
Parameters
Correct
Process
Parameter
Correct
Product
Attribute
Redesigned
Inconsequential
Process
Parameter
Corrected
Product
Attribute
Error opportunity elimination (Mistake-Proof Design)
Inspection techniques
Inspection Techniques Description
Judgment Assesses quality of production outputs or sorts
out defects from good product.
Informative Assesses process by inspecting outputs and
using information gained to control the process
(a feedback loop).
Source Assesses beforehand whether the conditions
necessary for high quality production to exist.
Setting Functions
Setting function Description
Physical
(Shingos contact),
Checks to insure the physical attributes of the
product or process are correct and error-free.
Sequencing
(Shingos motion step),
Checks the precedence relationship of the
process to insure steps are conducted in the
correct order.
Grouping or Counting
(Shingos fixed value
methods),
Facilitate checking that matched sets of
resources are available when needed or that the
correct number of repetitions has occurred.
Information
enhancement
(Chase and Stewart)
Determines and ensures that information
required in the process is available at the correct
time and place, and that it stands out against a
noisy background.
Setting Functions

The real question you need to ask:
How are you going to detect an error?
automatic, not dependent on human
attention
fail in detect mode
simple & low cost if possible

Regulatory Function (Cues)
Regulatory
Function
Description
Warnings Signals mistake but allows process to continue.
Gagging System shuts down. Some resetting action required to
correct the mistake.
Nonresponse Action leads to no response. The process does not crash nor
does it proceed.
Self-correct Process stops. System proposes correction to mistake.
Lets talk about it Process seeks information about what was really intended.
Teach me Process associates correct outcomes with incorrect actions.
C
o
n
t
r
o
l

M
e
t
h
o
d
s

Regulatory Function (Cues)
The real questions you need to ask:
How are you going to stop the process?
the worker needs to get the message?
By audible or visible warning
By prohibiting further processing
How are you going to eliminate the
possibility of error?
The Contrapositive of Murphys Law
Simplicity
Symmetry

Examples
Company Inspection
Technique
Setting
Function
Control
Method
Binney and
Smith
Trinity
Industries
Mail-order
computer
Hierarchy of Techniques
Source inspection
Self-checks
successive-checks
Judgment inspection

Control methods
Warning methods
Informative
inspection
Where it works
& where it does not
Both Self-Checks
& Source Inspection Self-Checks only Source Inspection only
Works well
1. Manual operations
& worker
vigilance
2. Training cost and
turnover high
3. SPC ineffective
5. Attribute data
6. External exceed
internal failure
cost
9. Adjustment & mis-
positioning
possible
10. Blamed for
customer mistakes
11. Special causes
reoccur
Does not
work well 4. Very high-speed
production
7. X-bar & R charts
are effective
8. Destructive tests

Put Knowledge in the World
provide clues about what to do:
natural mappings
affordances
visibility
feedback
constraints
Precise outcomes without precise knowledge or action?
Which dial turns on the burner?
Natural Mappings:
Stove A
Stove B
How would you operate these doors?

B
A C
Affordances
Push or pull? left side or right? How did you know?
visibility and feedback
Visibility means making relevant parts
visible, and effectively displaying system
status
Feedback means providing an immediate
and obvious effect for each action taken.
Lego exercise
The contents of the bag will make a toy.
Engineers and designers spent months
designing, fine-tuning this product. It is
intended for use by 5-10 year olds. Please try
to put them together CORRECTLY. You should
use all the parts.
Constraints
"The first sign of an intelligent tinkerer
is to save all the parts."
Aldo Leopold
Here is what your
bag should contain.
24 pieces total
Answer revealed here

Constraint Description Application
Physical Shape and size of objects Front vs rear
control their relationship hub
Semantic Relies on clues from Face oriented
meaning of the situation correctly
Cultural Adheres to known Front & rear
convention lights
Logical Based on making sense of Assembly by the
relationships process of
elimination
Constraints?
Source: The Design of Everyday Things, by D.A. Norman, 1988, Doubleday