Manufacturing Error Rates
Contents |
across studies. However only fairly simple actions are used in the denominator. The Klemmer and Snyder acceptable human error rate study shows that much lower error rates are possible--in this case for
Human Error Rate In Data Entry
people whose job consisted almost entirely of data entry. The error rate for more complex logic errors
Human Error Rate Prediction
is about 5%, based primarily on data on other pages, especially the program development page. Study Detail Error Rate Baddeley & Longman [1973] Entering mail codes.
Human Error Probability Table
Errors after correction. Per mail code. 0.5% Chedru & Geschwind [1972] Grammatical errors per word 1.1% Dhillon [1986] Reading a gauge incorrectly. Per read. 0.5% Dremen and Berry [1995] Percentage error in security analysts' earnings forecasts for reporting earnings. 1980 / 1985 / 1990. That is, size of error rather than frequency of error. 30% 52% acceptable error rate six sigma 65% Edmondson [1996] Errors per medication in hospital, based on data presented in the paper. Per dose. 1.6% Grudin [1983] Error rate per keystroke for six expert typists. Told not to correct errors, although some did. Per keystroke. 1% Hotopf [1980] S sample (speech errors). Per word 0.2% Hotopf [1980] W sample (written exam). Per word 0.9% Hotopf [1980] 10 undergraduates write for 30 minutes, grammatical and spelling errors per word 1.6% Klemmer [1962] Keypunch machine operators, errors per character 0.02% to 0.06% Klemmer [1962] Bank machine operators, errors per check 0.03% Kukich [1992] Nonword spelling errors in uses of telecommunication devices for the deaf. 40,000 words (strings). Per string. 6% Mathias, MacKenzie & Buxton [1996] 10 touch typists averaging 58 words per minute. No error correction. In last session. Per keystroke. 4% Mattson & Baars [1992] Typing study with secretaries and clerks. Nonsense words. Per nonsense word. 7.4% Melchers & Harrington [1982] Students performing calculator tasks and table lookup tasks. Per multipart calculation. Per table lookup. Et
Unemployment Employment Pay & Benefits Productivity Workplace Injuries International Demographics Industries Business Costs Occupations how to calculate human error percent Geography Resources For » Business Leaders Consumers Developers Economists Investors Jobseekers Media typical data entry error rates Public Policymakers Students & Teachers Survey Respondents At a Glance Tables » U.S. Economy Regions, States, & Areas acceptable error rate manufacturing Industries MORE » Announcements BLS Speakers Available Commissioner's Corner Research Spotlight on Statistics Students' Pages Errata Other Statistical Sites Subjects Inflation & Prices » Consumer Price Index Producer Price Indexes http://panko.shidler.hawaii.edu/HumanErr/Basic.htm Import/Export Price Indexes Employment Cost Index Contract Escalation Price Index Research Inflation & Prices Overview Pay & Benefits » Employment Costs National Compensation Data Wages by Area & Occupation Earnings by Demographics Earnings by Industry County Wages Benefits Compensation Research Strikes & Lockouts Pay & Benefits Overview Spending & Time Use » Consumer Expenditures How Americans Spend Time http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesvarpe.htm Unemployment » National Unemployment Rate State & Local Unemployment Rates Unemployment Research Unemployment Overview Employment » National Employment State & Local Employment State & County Employment Worker Characteristics Employment Projections Job Openings & Labor Turnover Employment by Occupation Work Experience Over Time Business Employment Dynamics Employment Research Employment Overview Workplace Injuries » Occupational Requirements » Productivity » Labor Productivity & Costs Multifactor Productivity Productivity Research Productivity Overview International » International Technical Cooperation Import/Export Price Indexes International Overview REGIONAL OFFICES » New England (Boston) New York-New Jersey (NY City) Mid-Atlantic (Philadelphia) Southeast (Atlanta) Midwest (Chicago) Southwest (Dallas) Mountain-Plains (Kansas City) West (San Francisco) Regional Overview Data Tools Data Retrieval Tools » Top Picks Series Report One Screen Multi-Screen Maps Calculators Public Data API CUSTOMIZED TABLES » Text Files News Release Tables More Sources of Data » Restricted Data Access Discontinued Databases FAQs Special Notices More Sources of Data Publications Latest Publications » The Economics Daily Monthly Labor Review Beyond the Numbers Spotlight on Statistics Reports & Bulletins Commissioner's Corner Career Outlook Occup
SixSigmaTraining.Com Our Team Accreditations Training and Certifications Lean Six Sigma Lean Six Sigma Black Belt Lean Six Sigma Green Belt Lean Six Sigma Yellow Belt Lean Six Sigma White Belt Six Sigma Six Sigma Black Belt http://sixsigmatraining.com/leading-six-sigma/what-is-an-acceptable-error-rate-in-contact-centers.html Six Sigma Green Belt Lean Lean Expert Lean Overview Lean Healthcare Lean Healthcare Overview Lean Healthcare http://asq.org/manufacturing/why-quality/medrad.html Expert Upgrades Lean Overview to Lean Expert Lean Overview to Lean Six Sigma White Belt Lean Expert to Lean Six Sigma Yellow Belt Lean Six Sigma White Belt to Lean Six Sigma Yellow Belt Lean Six Sigma Green Belt to Lean Six Sigma Black Belt Lean Six Sigma Yellow Belt to Lean Six Sigma Green Belt Extensions Lean Expert Extension Six Sigma error rate Green Belt Extension Six Sigma Black Belt Extension Lean Six Sigma Yellow Belt Extension Lean Six Sigma Green Belt Extension Lean Six Sigma Black Belt Extension Coached Training Katsuhiko Sakamoto Kevin Ryan Peter L. Bersbach David Greco Miscellaneous Certification Exam Retake Resources What is Six Sigma? What You Must Know Podcasts Webinars Useful Links Subscriptions Monthly Subscription Annual Subscription Reviews Customer Reviews Third Party Reviews Pyzdek Institute Vs. “Low Cost” Alternatives Blog Payment Plans FAQs Contact Us human error rate What is an Acceptable Error Rate in Contact Centers? There are two diametrically opposed answers to the question posed in the title. Here is the first one: a jaw-dropping number of calls completely riddled with errors is totally acceptable in call centers today. Preposterous, you say. Please keep reading. First, the big picture. In contact centers no one talks about Six Sigma or Five-9s, or Taguchi's "on target with minimum variation." Those ideas are constantly being discussed in manufacturing, but are laughable notions in call centers. No one talks about it. No one aspires to it. No one even thinks anything remotely close is even possible. Further, no one does any benchmarking to see what "world class" companies do so that "stretch goals" can be established around even a "tolerable" level of agent errors. OK, fine you say, so contact centers don't set their sites very high. What if we just went from center to center and determined the error rate and called the average across those centers "acceptable?" You wouldn't even be able to do that. In manufacturing, specs are sine qua non and performance against those specs is constantly measured. But for some reason, contact centers rarely even define, by call type, specs or Required Call Components…exactly what the agent is supposed to do in their systems and exactly what information needs to be provided to the customer, le
the paper trails required in a government-regulated environment. The manual record-keeping processes related to product history records for each medical device assembled by the company were not only time consuming, but also prone to high error rates. In 2004, routine floor audits uncovered that up to 20 percent of all in-process device history record (DHR) packets contained an error. The data captured the attention of company leaders in the compliance and manufacturing areas and led to a continuous improvement project to reduce the error rates. Quality Solutions By following the company’s IMAGES Lean Six Sigma continuous improvement methodology, a process improvement team focused on reducing errors while supporting production growth and reducing manual effort. The acronym represents the key stages in the company’s quality improvement process: Identify the problem. Measure the current state. Analyze the root causes. Generate potential solutions. Experiment and then execute proven solutions. Sustain improvements over time. When identifying possible root causes for the high error rates, the team used analysis tools like cause and effect diagramming, brainstorming with cross-functional teams, failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA), and Pareto analysis. The team developed a two-year plan for reducing errors, focusing on three areas for improvement: Technology: to eliminate human error. Process: to standardize and simplify DHR travelers. People: to implement systems to enable, measure, and reward performance. Results MEDRAD realized an impressive 26-percent reduction in overall record errors. Within just six months of implementing the people-focused solutions, the error rate fell below 5 percent and the project team achieved its goal. Performance improvement continued throughout 2007, and the error rate stood at a mere 2.2 percent for 2008. Tangible benefits of the improvement project were significant as MEDRAD saved $40,000 while reducing its overall DHR error rate to less th