The Springville Herald Case
The Springville Herald Case
SH2.1 Type of Error Total Percent Copy Error 54 16.9 Layout 7 2.2 Omits 13 4.1 Paste-up 11 3.4 Poor reproduction 8 2.5 Ran-in error 30 9.4 Rate quote 13 4.1 Space not needed 7 2.2 Typesetting 53 16.6 Velox 28 8.8 Wrong ad 25 7.8 Wrong date 14 4.4 Wrong position 45 14.1 Wrong manual paste-up 5 1.6 Wrong size 6 1.9 Total 319 100.0
SH2.2 (a, b) If we are focusing on quality improvement, we would want to determine the categories which a responsible for the highest proportion of errors. Thus, a Pareto diagram would be most appropriate.
SH 2.2 (a, b) cont. Type of Error Total Percent Cumulative Percent Copy Error 54 16.9 16.9 Typesetting 53 16.6 33.5 Wrong position 45 14.1 47.6 Ran-in error 30 9.4 57.0 Velox 28 8.8 65.8 Wrong ad 25 7.8 73.6 Wrong date 14 4.4 78.0 Omits 13 4.1 82.1 Rate quote 13 4.1 86.2 Paste-up 11 3.4 89.6 Poor reproduction 8 2.5 92.1 Layout 7 2.2 94.3 Space not needed 7 2.2 96.5 Wrong size 6 1.9 98.4 Wrong manual paste-up 5 1.6 100.0
(c) Almost half the errors are accounted for by copy error, typesetting, and wrong position. If we also include ran-in error and velox, almost two-third of the errors are included. We would suggest that reduction of these errors be focused upon if our goal is improvement in the number of errors committed.
SH 2.3 The information in Table SH2.1 represents only the frequency of the different types of errors, and does not indicate the importance of each error. Thus, it would be useful to obtain information about the cost of each type of error.
SH 2.4 Type of
SH2.1 Type of Error Total Percent Copy Error 54 16.9 Layout 7 2.2 Omits 13 4.1 Paste-up 11 3.4 Poor reproduction 8 2.5 Ran-in error 30 9.4 Rate quote 13 4.1 Space not needed 7 2.2 Typesetting 53 16.6 Velox 28 8.8 Wrong ad 25 7.8 Wrong date 14 4.4 Wrong position 45 14.1 Wrong manual paste-up 5 1.6 Wrong size 6 1.9 Total 319 100.0
SH2.2 (a, b) If we are focusing on quality improvement, we would want to determine the categories which a responsible for the highest proportion of errors. Thus, a Pareto diagram would be most appropriate.
SH 2.2 (a, b) cont. Type of Error Total Percent Cumulative Percent Copy Error 54 16.9 16.9 Typesetting 53 16.6 33.5 Wrong position 45 14.1 47.6 Ran-in error 30 9.4 57.0 Velox 28 8.8 65.8 Wrong ad 25 7.8 73.6 Wrong date 14 4.4 78.0 Omits 13 4.1 82.1 Rate quote 13 4.1 86.2 Paste-up 11 3.4 89.6 Poor reproduction 8 2.5 92.1 Layout 7 2.2 94.3 Space not needed 7 2.2 96.5 Wrong size 6 1.9 98.4 Wrong manual paste-up 5 1.6 100.0
(c) Almost half the errors are accounted for by copy error, typesetting, and wrong position. If we also include ran-in error and velox, almost two-third of the errors are included. We would suggest that reduction of these errors be focused upon if our goal is improvement in the number of errors committed.
SH 2.3 The information in Table SH2.1 represents only the frequency of the different types of errors, and does not indicate the importance of each error. Thus, it would be useful to obtain information about the cost of each type of error.
SH 2.4 Type of