An engineering manager from a company known for lean production once told me about a meeting he held with his staff. He told his engineers, "I am NOT very happy right now. Some of you guys aren't making any mistakes. What's the problem?" Some of the newer engineers looked puzzled. The manager qualified his statement. "And some of you guys are repeating the same mistakes. I'm REALLY not happy with YOU guys."

Mistakes are inevitable, so the attitude at this particularly enlightened company accepts them, no, encourages them. They recognize that no mistakes are a bad sign. It means that risks aren't being taken. Or it means that folks aren't being entirely honest about their work. Both are not acceptable there. Absence of risk is the anti-matter to innovation. Absence of honesty is a barrier to successful collaboration.

Mistakes are okay, product developers need the freedom to fail. However, repeated mistakes are far from acceptable, it allows failure to procreate. While we want to encourage a tolerance for learning-oriented failure, we equally want to employ countermeasures to minimize the reoccurrence of mistakes we've already had the benefit of learning from. Why double dip?

Engineers are very familiar with this subject in terms of product design. Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA), Taguchi methods (design of experiments), Poka Yoke (mistake-proofing), and Design for Manufacturability and Assembly (DFMA) comprise a well researched and practiced school of thought around defect reduction. But while these techniques are superior in eliminating the waste of poor quality, rework, and scrap on the shop floor, they do little to help in the areas of poor quality, rework and scrap in the development process. Or do they?

The number one type of defects that occur in product development are "information defects." Information defects usually come in the form of insufficient or inadequate "meta data," that is, information about information. It might be an unclear due date of a particular task, or the location of a file, or the ramifications and contingencies associated with a particular issue.

REDUCE INFORMATION DEFECT OPPORTUNITIES

Let's consider the application of "Poka Yoke," the Japanese mistake proofing technique for manufacturing. The goal of poka yoke is to minimize the chance for human error in a shop floor operation. For example, if two parts come together in assembly, the poka yoke method would guide you to design those parts so that there is an obvious and intuitive way to fit them together (sometimes they are designed so that it is physically impossible to perform the task incorrectly). Go look at the toner cartridge in your laser printer. Many are now designed with color coded guides and visual cues for installation. This is poka yoke in action.

Why can we not employ similar measures in creative development activity? Why not take a few extra moments to anticipate obvious questions or problems and annotate the answers for your collaborators. Just writing "see me with any questions" is insufficient. Instead of saying "it's on the server", why not provide the full drive path with folder names? Instead of just handing over a marked up drawing, why not also list the changes separately so none are missed? These bits and bytes of meta data can eliminate wasteful steps, increase flow, and only cost you a few moments of extra effort.

I'm sure you can come up with your own examples of instances when just a little bit more or better information could have saved you significant time or effort. "If only I knew that file was the older version." "If only I knew that missing the due date was going to cost us ten days instead of three." If only you spent a little time on limiting information defects.

So let's review. Mistakes are good if you learn from them. Repeated mistakes are unacceptable. Unnecessary mistakes can and should be avoided by minimizing their opportunities. The time you save may be your own.

Management Roundtable Newsletter named recipient of Penton Publishing's
1999 PEER Award; New Editor David Vermette Takes the Helm

We are very proud to announce that the Interactive Edition of Management Roundtable's Best Practices Report Newsletter has been named a 1999 winner of Penton Publishing's inaugural "Penton Engineering Excellence and Recognition (PEER)" Awards. This award has been established to recognize collaborative efforts in the utilization of product development best practices. While little engineering is actually done by the BPR staff, our product was chosen for its valuable role in the dissemination of knowledge about innovations in tools and processes for integrated product development.

This recognition could not have been accomplished without the efforts of Bill Dickinson, BPR Editor for the last 5+ years whose final issue was published in September. Bill's expert flair for case studies and interviews never failed to provide us with provocative and informative reading. Bill steps down as Editor this month and we will truly miss him. Perhaps we can coax occasional contributions out of him in the future.

October marks the premiere BPR issue by new editor David Vermette. Some of you may recognize David as the author of Management Roundtable white papers. We are very excited to add David's analytical expertise and professional writing skills to the BPR staff and look forward to sharing his contributions with our subscribers.

For more information on the BPR newsletter:
http://www.roundtable.com/PDBPR/aboutpdbpr.html

For more information on the PEER Award winning Interactive Edition:
http://www.roundtable.com/PDBPR/BPRinteractive.html

Please feel free to forward this publication to any friends or associates you feel could benefit from its message. We welcome any suggestions, stories or comments that will help us improve the value of this newsletter. Please contact me directly with your input.

This newsletter and archived issues can be retrieved directly from our website at the following url: http://www.roundtable.com/Critical%20Path/Critical-Path-Index.html

SUBSCRIPTION INSTRUCTIONS
To begin or cancel your FREE subscription, please use the automated form on this page or send me an email - gregg@roundtable.com

SPONSORSHIP
The Critical Path is provided free of charge to its readers. Companies that share our objectives of promoting innovative and thought-provoking product development practices may sponsor The Critical Path. There is space for a maximum of two sponsor messages per issue. Please send e-mail to gregg@roundtable.com for a complete list of sponsorship terms and fees, or go to http://www.roundtable.com/Critical%20Path/TCPadrates.html

PERMISSION TO REPOST TCP
Applications for permission to make The Critical Path available within a company or other organization (e.g. by internal mail, corporate Intranet, etc.) are usually accepted. Please send a request for permission to gregg@roundtable.com

For more information on Management Roundtable's events, publications, and services: http://ManagementRoundtable.com