One of the most over used adage is the phrase ‘human is to error.’ While this is true, it is also true that the errors made are supposed to be corrected by the same humans. However, the adage is used to try and justify an error that simply fails to meet explanation. Personally, I find myself joining this group from time to time. While I try my level best to operate at maximum production, I often fail to meet some of my set targets. As most people, I also have certain personal goals. A simple example is setting desired grades that I would love to achieve at the end of each semester, in each unit. To reach this, I lay out a study plan that I should I follow. However, sticking to the plan still remains challenging amidst other time consuming activities that find a way to derail me.
The poka yoke approach might be an effective solution to my problem. Using the Poka Yoke I can set checks for my personal goals that should act as reminders of where I should be in relating to attaining my goal. The Poka Yoke’s aspect that would help me the most would be the first aspect; prediction (Evans & Lindsay, 2010a). As part of my plan for achieving set grades, I should have some checks along the plan allowing me to monitor my progress and evaluate the success or failure so far. If I have not been serious enough, the Poka Yoke would help me know that I am set to fail my target or otherwise. This would allow me to increase my level of serious as far as my studies are concerned (Evans & Lindsay, 2010a).
One of the basic principles of total quality management is continuous improvement. This principle ensures that the business remains competitive by ensuring sustainability and productivity. Employers are constantly trying to reduce costs and increase quality products. Scholars have come up with several methodologies to act as pointers of how companies can improve performance and production. Two of these methodologies include the Kaizen approach and the Deming cycle. While the two aim at achieving the same thing, their ways of achieving target goals differ while they hold some similarities.
Firstly, the Kaizen approach is set for implementation over the long run. Originating from a Japanese word, Kaizen means slow and well organized improvement (Evans & Lindsay, 2010b). On the Other hand the Deming cycle is set to fit well into a short plan. Another difference notable from the description of the methodologies is that the Kaizen approach success is based on getting each and every staff on board making the approach tough to implement. On the contrary, the Deming cycle does not necessarily rely on this. Another difference is that the Deming cycle conducts a pilot study before full implementation while the Kaizen study’s or monitors and study’s the solutions after implementation of the solution. Lastly, all methodologies are aimed at improving performance and product quality in any given situation (Evans & Lindsay, 2010b).
On the other hand similarities between the two approaches is also visible. While the Kaizen approach is well positioned for long term implementation, it can be compressed for implementation in a shorter period on emergent situations using a rapid and intense improvement, the Kaizen blitz just like the Deming cycle. Although not stated, the Deming cycle also involves all staff in some situations as noted in some case studies (Evans & Lindsay, 2010b).