Error Proofing

2019 ◽  
pp. 123-142
Author(s):  
Cameron Stark ◽  
Gavin Hookway
Keyword(s):  
Error Proofing

Design Process Error-Proofing: Project Quality Function Deployment

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence P. Chao ◽  
Kosuke Ishii
Keyword(s):  
Design Process ◽  
Quality Function Deployment ◽  
Time To Market ◽  
Quality Function ◽  
Product Features ◽  
Process Error ◽  
Catastrophic Failures ◽  
Practical Design ◽  
Product Definition ◽  
Error Proofing

This paper presents an advanced application of Quality Function Deployment (QFD) for product development projects. Design process error-proofing not only seeks to prevent catastrophic failures but also addresses product definition problems that compromise product features, time-to-market, or cost. Project QFD helps identify the organization requirements and flow them down to the activities, tools, and other solution elements for the project. This approach aids both product definition and resource allocation to clarify and strategically align project goals. The paper explains the method, illustrates it with an example, and discusses its effectiveness through a survey in industry and practical design projects at Stanford. The paper concludes with the proposed work to further disseminate this method.

Error Proofing, Healthcare

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takeshi Nakajo ◽  
Timothy G. Clapp ◽  
A. Blanton Godfrey
Keyword(s):  
Error Proofing

Design Process Error-Proofing: Engineering Peer Review Lessons From NASA

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence P. Chao ◽  
Irem Tumer ◽  
Kosuke Ishii
Keyword(s):  
Design Process ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Design Review ◽  
Support Teams ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Structured Design ◽  
Critical Design ◽  
Process Error ◽  
Error Proofing

This report describes the state of design reviews observed at NASA and research into improving review practices. There are many types of reviews at NASA. Formal, programmatic project reviews such as the Preliminary Design Review and Critical Design Review are a required part of every project and mission development. However, the informal and technical engineering peer reviews that support teams’ work on such projects are informal, ad hoc, and inconsistent across the organization. The goal of this work is to identify best practices and lessons learned from NASA’s review experience, benchmark against industry techniques, and develop methodologies to improve the process. Thus far, the research has determined that the organization, composition, scope, and execution, including the use of information technology and structured design methodologies, of reviews all impact the technical, engineering peer reviews to help NASA work towards error-proofing the design process.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document