Defects: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "{{a|negotiation|}} {{waste|{{Defects}}}} {{sa}} *Seven wastes of negotiation}}" |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a| | {{a|design|}}{{Defects}} | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Seven wastes of negotiation}} | *[[Seven wastes of negotiation]] | ||
{{ref}} | |||
Latest revision as of 14:55, 27 December 2020
|
The design of organisations and products
|
Defects
Headline: If the product doesn’t do what it says on the tin, how it says it will on the tin, you are going to have to waste time and resources fixing it.
Two things to consider here: What factors are most likely to avoid defects in the first place — and if there do have to be defects, what design principles are the key to fixing them as cheaply and quickly — efficiently — as possible?
This won’t come a surprise: the same thing checks both boxes: simplicity of design. The more complex the product is, the more things can go wrong, the more interdependent they are likely to be, and the more of a tangle it will be to sort them out.
Now, it is true: all other things being equal you would prefer the late model Discovery with the electric seat warmers, computer-controlled fuel injection system and keyless entry, but the ’82 Toyota Land Cruiser ... you know?