Attempting to mitigate human error can negatively impact manufacturing efficiency, and inefficiencies can be almost as expensive and frustrating as the human errors themselves.
In the last issue, we looked at just how many errors are caused every day by rushing, frustration, fatigue and complacency. Although, usually it’s a combination of these states, with complacency either leading the way or lurking in the background.
In the last article we looked at two aspects of deliberate risk and error. The first was that most people do not realize that risk that depends on error or not making any mistakes will grow over time.
For all the COVID-19 safety guidelines circulating, some hundreds of pages long, basic best practices are straightforward and known by most Americans. Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984, recently recounted them in an interview with the Journal of the American Medical Association.
: In the last issue, we looked at why normal people make decisions that can be compromised or negatively influenced by rushing, frustration, fatigue and complacency, or, more likely, a combination of these states.
If you really think about it, you’ll realize that you have most likely experienced accidental pain in almost any activity you’ve ever done. So, if you can accept that the “what” isn’t really where the pattern is because we’ve all been hurt, a little or a lot.
I think that it’s interesting how the neuroscience and the critical error reduction techniques are aligned or how the neuroscience supports or validates the critical error reduction techniques.
This article is really about putting all of the concepts in the previous articles together to come up with what will hopefully be the most significant change in thinking so far.
