{domain:"www.qualitydigest.com",server:"169.47.211.87"} Skip to main content

User account menu
Main navigation
  • Topics
    • Customer Care
    • FDA Compliance
    • Healthcare
    • Innovation
    • Lean
    • Management
    • Metrology
    • Operations
    • Risk Management
    • Six Sigma
    • Standards
    • Statistics
    • Supply Chain
    • Sustainability
    • Training
  • Videos/Webinars
    • All videos
    • Product Demos
    • Webinars
  • Advertise
    • Advertise
    • Submit B2B Press Release
    • Write for us
  • Metrology Hub
  • Training
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
Mobile Menu
  • Home
  • Topics
    • 3D Metrology-CMSC
    • Customer Care
    • FDA Compliance
    • Healthcare
    • Innovation
    • Lean
    • Management
    • Metrology
    • Operations
    • Risk Management
    • Six Sigma
    • Standards
    • Statistics
    • Supply Chain
    • Sustainability
    • Training
  • Login / Subscribe
  • More...
    • All Features
    • All News
    • All Videos
    • Contact
    • Training

A Cost-Effective Definition of Quality: Fewer Back Injuries

‘Avoiding one work-related injury claim would offset the costs of a fleet of electric hand trucks’

Thomas R. Cutler
Tue, 12/13/2011 - 12:52
  • Comment
  • RSS

Social Sharing block

  • Print
Body

In production, “zero defects” is a frequent quality metric, but zero worker injuries, while a stated goal of most manufacturing plants and distribution centers, has not made it to the gold standard. There is no disputing that defective product costs companies millions of dollars in repairs, reshipments, and bad customer relations. Ironically though, cost containment through fewer workers’ compensation claims, litigation, absenteeism, and employer reputation has a more significant impact on the bottom line than all other quality initiatives combined.

ADVERTISEMENT

All employers will agree in principle that workforce health and safety is paramount and affects quality. Yet the documented physical labor processes in most companies continue to reveal that that repetitive lifting, lowering, and moving injuries cost businesses millions of dollars each year. Automating those tasks significantly reduces the potential for injuries and downtime. No approach has been found for totally eliminating back injuries caused by lifting, though effective safety control programs and ergonomic design of work tasks can be greatly improved.

 …

Want to continue?
Log in or create a FREE account.
Enter your username or email address
Enter the password that accompanies your username.
By logging in you agree to receive communication from Quality Digest. Privacy Policy.
Create a FREE account
Forgot My Password

Comments

Submitted by fernando j. grijalva on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 17:10

Zero Accidents

Mr. Cutler,

Thank you for your interesting article on Safety and Quality. I just would like to make an addition that may provide additional knowledge to the readers of your fine article.

You state that, "In production, “zero defects” is a frequent quality metric, but zero worker injuries, while a stated goal of most manufacturing plants and distribution centers, has not made it to the gold standard.” On this subject Dr W. Edwards Deming stated that, “No system, whatever be the effort put into it, be it manufacturing, maintenance, operation, or service, will be free of accidents.” That was probably the main reason for his rejection of the concept of "zero defects" or "zero accidents."

Regards,

Fernando J. Grijalva

  • Reply

Add new comment

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
Please login to comment.
      

© 2025 Quality Digest. Copyright on content held by Quality Digest or by individual authors. Contact Quality Digest for reprint information.
“Quality Digest" is a trademark owned by Quality Circle Institute Inc.

footer
  • Home
  • Print QD: 1995-2008
  • Print QD: 2008-2009
  • Videos
  • Privacy Policy
  • Write for us
footer second menu
  • Subscribe to Quality Digest
  • About Us
  • Contact Us