Human error rates propagating long tail super-oscillation in supply chain.

NEURAL Thesis:Excerpt

As part of the NEURAL CORP open sourcing. We are sharing portions of our findings.

Research: Notes,

During common business activities where human workers are tasked with data entry of any type. Excel, Word, CRM, ERP, MRP there becomes a curve of “acceptable” errors. These errors cannot be that of pure human-error as seen in studies as listed below. However these are viewed by the participant as acceptable tolerances inside business data.

We tracked these occurrences at onset in several studies and track there effects through the business process until it reaches some point. The points can vary however it seems that the majority of errors reach a causality point where a fiscal remediation is required.

At this point the error caused damage to a financial outcome.

The social inter-business psychology is to not react but to protect the error thus causing super-oscillation which are then propagated forward and forever. Dissipation occurs at the point in which an entity absorbed the impact (excess stored on balance sheets)

Study

Detail

Error Rate

Baddeley & Longman [1973]

Entering mail codes. Errors after correction. Per mail code.

0.5%

Chedru & Geschwind [1972]

Grammatical errors per word

1.1%

Dhillon [1986]

Reading a gauge incorrectly. Per read.

0.5%

Dremen and Berry [1995]

Percentage error in security analysts' earnings forecasts for reporting earnings. 1980 / 1985 / 1990. That is, size of error rather than frequency of error.

30%

52%65%

Edmondson [1996]

Errors per medication in hospital, based on data presented in the paper. Per dose.

1.6%

Grudin [1983]

Error rate per keystroke for six expert typists. Told not to correct errors, although some did. Per keystroke.

1%

Hotopf [1980]

S sample (speech errors). Per word

0.2%

Hotopf [1980]

W sample (written exam). Per word

0.9%

Hotopf [1980]

10 undergraduates write for 30 minutes, grammatical and spelling errors per word

1.6%

Klemmer [1962]

Keypunch machine operators, errors per character

0.02% to 0.06%

Klemmer [1962]

Bank machine operators, errors per check

0.03%

Kukich [1992]

Nonword spelling errors in uses of telecommunication devices for the deaf. 40,000 words (strings). Per string.

6%

Mathias, MacKenzie & Buxton [1996]

10 touch typists averaging 58 words per minute. No error correction. In last session. Per keystroke.

4%

Mattson & Baars [1992]

Typing study with secretaries and clerks. Nonsense words. Per nonsense word.

7.4%

Melchers & Harrington [1982]

Students performing calculator tasks and table lookup tasks. Per multipart calculation. Per table lookup. Etc.

1%-2%

Mitton [1987]

Study of 170,016 errors in high-school essays, spelling errors. Per word. 

2.4%

Potter [1995]

Errors in making entries in an aircraft flight management system. Per keystroke. Higher if heavy workload.

10.0%

Rabbit [1990]

Flash one of two letters on display screen. Subject hits one of two keys in response. After correction. Per choice.

0.6%

Schoonard & Boies [1975]

Line-oriented text editor. Error rate per word. Without correction /  with error correction.

3.4% / 0.52%

Shaffer & Hardwick [1968]

Residual typing errors per character. Subjects with error rates higher than 2.5% were excluded. All qualified touch typists, including excluded. 20 subjects finally used.

0.63%

Swain & Guttman [1983]

Interpreting indicator on an indicator lamp. Per interpretation.

0.1%

Swain & Guttman [1983]

Error reading an analog meter. Per read.

0.3%

Swain & Guttman [1983]

Choosing an incorrect panel control control from a number of similar controls. Per choice.

0.3%

Swain & Guttman [1983]

Error reading chart recorder. Per read.

0.6%

Swain & Guttman [1983]

Error reading a graph. Per read.

1%

Swain & Guttman [1983]

Turning control in wrong direction under extreme stress. Per turn.

50%

Tsao [1990]

Nonword spelling errors in uses of TDD (telecommunication devices for the deaf) 130,000 strings. Per string.

5%

Van Nes [1971]

Hand-written text, grammatical errors. Per word assuming 5 letters per word

0.3%-3.0%

Wing & Baddeley [1980]

Grammatical errors in examination at Cambridge. Per word.

0.5%