Johnson & Johnson says pallets to blame

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) – More than a week after a big recall of tainted Tylenol and other non-prescription drugs, a battle has erupted between drugmaker Johnson & Johnson and makers of a shipping component the company blames for the problem.

An undisclosed number of containers of Tylenol, Motrin and other over-the-counter drugs were recalled earlier this month after consumers complained of feeling sick from an “unusual” odor.

Johnson & Johnson officials are now saying that the problem was caused by the wooden pallets used to ship the products. Pallet manufacturers take exception to this. National Wooden Pallet and Container Association (NWPCA) president Bruce Scholnick points out that there are 1.2 billion pallets used each day in the USA and that industry experts have no knowledge of pallets ever being responsible for release of either of the two chemicals that Johnson & Johnson blame for the problem.

“We also insist that you provide technical and scientific theory as to how this chemical could spread from a tertiary packaging component to a primary packaging component through various layers of cardboard and plastic packaging surrounding the primary product,” said Scholnick.

Regardless, it is obvious that the incident is causing image problems for the company. The Christian Science monitor reports that, unlike the proactive approach taken by the company in its voluntary 1982 recall of tainted Tylenol, Johnson & Johnson dragged its feet in the current episode. According to a FDA spokesman, McNeil Consumer Healthcare, the business unit responsible for the products, didn’t respond to the problem quickly. “While McNeil has cooperated with FDA in recent weeks, their initial response was unsatisfactory,” says Christopher Kelly, an FDA press officer. “We repeatedly pressed them.”

Slow to respond. Quick to point fingers at others. A root cause that sounds a bit far-fetched and which is, according to NWPCA spokespersons, “factually unsupported.” This doesn’t sound like the same company that we all came to know and admire in 1982. I hope subsequent actions by Johnson & Johnson prove me wrong.

Will Toyota's Image Suffer Permanent Damage?

One Wall Street Journal headline shouts Toyota Sales Halt Raises Quality Questions and a WSJ blogger opines that this incident could be a crippling blow to Toyota’s mystique. Certainly this episode is one of the darkest in Toyota’s history. The scope of the shutdown is staggering and includes suspending sales of eight of its most popular models in the U.S. due to potential accelerator problems. The extraordinary step follows a recall last week of 2.3 million vehicles in the U.S. and an earlier recall of 4.2 million vehicles — both due to similar issues. Clearly, it is hard times for Toyota, which has lost more than $7.1 billion in the past two years. In addition to the immediate financial impact there is a concern that Toyota’s reputation for quality will suffer long-term damage.

It is well known that a reputation for quality allows companies to charge premium prices. High quality also leads to lower costs and greater efficiency, both of which are negatively impacted by quality problems. In addition, a reputation for quality means lower advertising and marketing costs and free word of mouth promotion. In terms of customer loyalty, Toyota was No. 1 last year in the U.S., according to R. L. Polk & Co. It remains to be seen where Toyota will come in this year. It’s doubtful that they will remain on top.

This being said, I am unwilling to write Toyota off as dead. Their action demonstrates a commitment to quality that is sharp contrast to other automobile manufacturers, who often fight prolonged legal battles before agreeing to recalls. And keep in mind that Toyota’s production shut down is voluntary and unprecedented. It shows that Toyota leadership is willing to sacrifice short-term profitability (and even to take huge short-term losses,) to defend the integrity of their brand. It just may be that the current crisis will be viewed in retrospect as yet another boost to Toyota’s reputation. Only time will tell.

Public and private universities have largely failed to implement the aims and objectives of higher education, the University Grants Commission (UGC) has observed. The problem may be due to the fact that the term “quality” hasn’t been defined for education. In the quality profession a thing hasn’t been operationally defined unless it includes an objective method of measuring it. The UGC, and The Daily Star article, presume that everyone understands the meaning of “quality education” as they discuss the failure to achieve it. However, those of us working in quality in business have learned that unless an operational definition has been developed, different people have different ideas of what a term such as quality education means. After reading and re-reading the Star article, I must admit that I don’t have a clue as to what the UGC is using as their operating definition. The authors talk about the distribution of the universities and a “concern over the standard of eduction in both public and private universities.

After failing to define just what quality is, and how it hasn’t been achieved, the UGC goes on to identify the root causes. “The reasons for the failure include influence of partisan politics on student bodies, session jam, lack of transparency and accountability in the activities of teachers and students, uncontrolled consultancy and part time jobs of teachers, it said.” They also offer a variety of solutions, such as “Practical steps should be taken on an emergency basis to build a national consensus taking opinion of all political parties. Students and teachers’ politics aimed at protecting their collective interests can be encouraged.”

The poor quality of education has been a political issue since at least the time I became an adult, which was a very long time ago. If analysis such as that in the UGC report is the best we can do it will be an issue for some time to come. I suggest that concerned individuals would do well to take a lesson from the community of quality professionals and define precisely what is meant by the term “quality education.” This will then become what they are solving for, the Y, the response variable, the metric which tells them if they are making progress. Until this step is taken we will continue to see the kind of rambling, pointless analysis

Despite TSA Assurances, their watchlist has its problems

We’ve all heard about the terrorist with high explosives in his pants who got through airport security despite being on the TSA’s watchlist. If the null hypothesis is that the passenger is not a terrorist (innocent until proven guilty,) then this is a case of failing to reject the null hypothesis when it is actually false, a Type II error. As you might suspect,  the other type of error occurs as well, non-terrorists are subjected to additional security. The situation is summarized in the table.

More than one list is involved here. One is the well-known “no fly list,” which includes about 2,500 names, 90 percent of which are not US Citizens. The other is the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) “automatic selectee” list — its list of about 13,500 names of people who are not permitted to board an aircraft without being given the once-over by the agency’s machines and uniformed, latex-gloved personnel — is based on people’s names, not on physical factors like age. One such automatic selectee, 8-year old Cub Scout Mickey Hicks, has been on the list, apparently, since birth.  For the Hicks family, which travels a lot, this is something of a hassle.

Statistical risk is unavoidable. Whenever decisions are made there is a chance that the wrong decision will be made. The questions involved are extremely difficult, and extremely important. In this case the question is about the tradeoff between liberty and safety. However, according to the NY Times,

For every person on the lists, hundreds of others may get caught up simply because they share the same name; a quick scan through a national phone directory unearthed 1,600 Michael Hickses. Over the past three years, 81,793 frustrated travelers have formally asked that they be struck from the watch list through the Department of Homeland Security; more than 25,000 of their cases are still pending. Others have taken more drastic measures.

It is one thing to err on the side of safety when adding names to a secret list, but there is room for debate about the correct error rate. Hundreds to one seems a bit excessive, to me anyway.

The problem is exacerbated by the extreme difficulties encountered in getting one’s name off of the automatic selectee list. Thousands of people who aren’t terrorists cannot prevent the list from misidentifying them, causing them delays and embarrassment when trying to board commercial aircraft. In a free country it is incumbent on the authorities to make every effort to correct their errors once they have become known.

Another issue is that the TSA’s list is also used for purposes other than airport security. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), encouraged by New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, wants to prohibit anyone on the FBI’s terrorist watchlist from possessing a firearm. Yet, the list and its criteria are secret, and Lautenberg’s bill would criminalize the exercise of a constitutionally protected right while denying a person the opportunity to clear himself of accusations in a fair and open hearing before a court of law. Besides that, one can argue that the tolerable error rates for the purpose of airport security would be different.

Also, it makes me very nervous to hear about lists of citizens being kept by governments. These are not people who have been accused of any crime. They are not being sought to be brought in for questioning or for trial. There are no warrants out for these people. History tells us that such lists will inevitably be misused by those in power, often to terrible ends.

The TSA’s process for doing this is obviously broken and in need of quick and drastic improvement. Six Sigma can help the TSA do this. One can only hope that they take advantage of it soon. Our safety and liberty depends on it.