A Reasonable Percentage

Recently, I was a participant in a conversation online where one person was loudly criticizing what he perceived as a large number of problems with a company’s recently shipped new product line.  At first glance, he seemed to have a point - a fairly large number of people had reported significant problems with their orders.

But when the rest of the forum started analyzing the numbers of how many units were ordered vs the actual number of publicly reported problems, the problem didn’t seem too bad anymore - to most of us anyway. This large number of reports only translated to less than a single percentage point of the total number of orders shipped.

I’ve talked about numbers before, and the perception of them, but now I want to talk specifically about percentages, and our perception of them.

First and foremost, think about what you consider as an acceptable percentage of performance for yourself.  Are you a perfectionist that demands 100% performance from yourself and others?  or are you a little more relaxed, and recognize no one is perfect, thus finding yourself more comfortable with a lower number, like 99%, even 98% or 97% performance? Or are you more casual, and find no problem with a 90% or 85% performance rate?  Do you set higher standards for yourself than you do others?  If you expect 98% out of yourself, are you willing to accept less from others?

If you’re like most people, your expectations are probably pretty variable, depending on circumstance.  You might be an excellent cook who expects perfection in the kitchen, but you don’t have a green thumb, and are perfectly happy if you simply manage to keep the plant in your window mostly alive for another week.

It’s hard to put an actual number to things like that, but it’s a good mental exercise to do so, simply because trying to put a number to your own performance makes it easier to manage your expectations of others.  Because, quite frankly, in almost every circumstance out there involving other people, it’s difficult to expect 100% perfection, and even more difficult to actually get it.

A case in point - many years ago, I ran the warranty & repair department for a manufacturer of musical accessories. Part of my job was keeping the numbers that assessed the performance of the manufacturing line - they were expected to have no more than a 3% return rate on any piece of equipment they manufactured. Considering the manufacturing line was running anywhere from 500 to 1000 units a day, it meant the company expected to see no more than 15 to 30 units a day being returned for warranty issues.  For the most part, the production line was pretty good, usually keeping their return rate at just under 2%, a couple of times even dipping almost as low as 1%.  Even with those low error rates, the repair department still saw around 2000 units a year for warranty repairs, a number that always alarmed management until the percentages of production numbers helped put it in perspective.

Even though I was quite aware of the percentage of return from the production line, I was blissfully unaware of the return rate of my department and the standards it was going to be held to until one day my boss and I were hauled in front of the plant manager and ripped a new one for a warranty repair that had come back a second time for yet another problem.  We were the repair department, therefore something sent in for repair should never come back for repair again - that was completely unacceptable to the plant manager, and more importantly, to me.

That is, until my boss put it in perspective for both me and the plant manager.  You see, at that point, my department had processed over 500 repairs, and this was the first failure since I had taken charge.  That meant we had a 99.8% rate of success with our repairs. The plant manager still wasn’t happy about it, but it was pointed out that since there was no set performance standard for my department, it would thus be reasonable to assume that the standard should be the same as that for production - no more than a 3% return rate.

Ultimately, it was determined that the repair department should be held to a higher standard than production, and that standard was set at no more than a 1% return rate.  This first return was well within that rate, and the matter was dropped. Until, of course, another warranty repair came back a second time a few months later, and we were ripped a new one again, despite still being well below the previously established 1% return rate standard.  By the end of my three year stint there, the standard had finally become accepted, and when I moved on, the department had a less than 0.5% return rate for my entire employment there. Or, in other words, a 99.5% success rate.

We truly strived for perfection, but despite our best efforts, we couldn’t do it. But we did do pretty damn good, setting a new standard for the guy who took over from me.

The entire experience put success rates in perspective for me. While I may hold myself to a higher standard in the areas I am experienced in, I’ve come to realize that in most areas of life, anything from a 95% on up is pretty damn good.  Consider this - in most grading systems - an A grade is typically 90% or better. So even straight A students are given a 10% cushion for error.

The bottom line, and the whole point I’m trying to make here is that while striving for 100% perfection is worthy goal for an individual and even a company, it’s also an impossible task for a society.  We are not a society of straight A students.

If a law or policy is serving the needs of 95% or more of the population, it’s typically not reasonable to go to draconian lengths to try and reach that last 5% or less. It almost always puts an undue burden on the rest of society to achieve a goal that is almost never actually achievable. This is not to say we should never try to reach 100%, but I am pointing out that inevitably, we reach a point of diminishing returns, and as individuals and a society, we need to begin to recognize when we hit that point, no matter if it’s a law involving national security,  taxes or even children’s safety.

Think about it...

A Fearsome Tool

Given the current political climate, and my past blog posts, there is a good chance that the title of this post brings guns to mind first. After all, there is an intense national debate on what to do about guns, particular those most fierce looking ones, the so called assault rifles.

A fearsome tool indeed, yet in the hands of a responsible citizen, it is merely a tool.  A deadly one, true, dangerous in the hands of an irresponsible person, and doubly so in the hands of someone with evil intent.  A tool that requires great personal responsibility to wield properly

But that is not the fearsome tool I’m thinking of today. No, there is another tool that many of use, some of us daily, that is also dangerous, that has also led to unwanted deaths, that also causes fear and distress among many of our citizens.

The automobile?

Nope - another tool that requires personal responsibility to use, but still not the one I’m thinking of.

I’m thinking of the internet.  Yes, the internet.

The internet is a wonderful tool that has allowed some profound changes in the world. But it has a darker side, a side that requires personal responsibility. A shadowy side to it that we ignore at our own peril.   I’m not referring to the dark underbelly of the internet where porn and piracy sites reside, nor the cybercrooks and spammers.

To paraphrase Caveat Emptor -

“Let the user beware.”

Most of us adults are quite aware of the dark underbelly, and take appropriate precautions.   But the shadowy side I’m referring to is not typically part of the dark underbelly, it sits boldy in the light, sometimes even unaware of it’s own darkness.

I am referring to misinformation.

The internet makes it so easy to spread misinformation in the guise of facts and truth. Much of it is done without ill intent - that is, people pass on information because they think it is helpful, without taking the time to check it.  Things like fake stories of children missing, or the supposed trick of using your ATM PIN backwards to call police.

But some of it is deliberate, too, particularly among teens - the internet has become the new home of nasty rumors and bullying.

Bottom line, when you think about it, the internet - for all the good it’s brought us - can be used in many, many different ways to hurt, and yes, even kill people.

Like any dangerous tool, using it demands personal responsibility.

Perhaps we should put the same onus of responsibility on using the internet that we do on things like automobiles and firearms?

You can do it. No you can't.

Earlier this week, Defense Distributed announced they had finally achieved their goal of a 3d printable gun, called the Liberator, and revealed it on their website, defcad.org. The political backlash of this act is only just starting.

New York Representative Chuck Schumer - “Now anyone, a terrorist, someone who is mentally ill, a spousal abuser, a felon, can essentially open a gun factory in their garage. It must be stopped.”

New York Representative Steve Israel is pushing to update the current Undetectable Firearms Act to include the Liberator and other like weapons.

California State Senator Leland Yee is proposing legislation to ban 3D Printing in California.

Gun control advocates in Australia like Sam Lee have already begun pressuring the state and federal governments there to regulate 3D printers. 

Similar statements can be found across the world, in Canada, Britain, Europe and beyond. Overall, the general reaction is “You can’t do this!” and “We have to stop this!”    It is a predictable reaction - to clamp down when faced with an apparent threat. 

And in between the time I started writing this and before I got to post it, the US Department of Defense has pressured Defense Distributed to remove the files under its International Trade of Arms Regulations. 

No matter your viewpoint on this situation, it serves to illustrate something vital to understanding and coping with the future.

Many of our technological developments, particularly those of the last 50 years, are serving a far grander purpose of empowering the individual.  This is something that our founding fathers understood about firearms - they empowered the individual - and empowered individuals is something they tried to embody in the form the government they established.

The United States has constantly been on the forefront of technological change that empowers the individual, particularly in the last 50 years.  The computer, the laser printer, and the celphone are just a few of the technologies we have that empower the individual. And none more so than the internet. These developments have allowed the individuals to interact on an unprecedented global level. A perfect example is this blog - even as little as twenty years ago, my ability to make my voice heard would have required great personal expense, and most likely would have reached a much smaller audience than the small audience I’m reaching now.

At this point in history we can share knowledge more freely than before. Knowledge empowers the individual. And the more empowered we are as individuals, the better life should be, right?

Then why is it that government and society tend to be moving in the opposite direction, and attempting to contain the individual? Seatbelt laws, Helmet Laws, Drug Laws, Anti- Smoking laws, Gun bans, even soda bans all attempt to contain the individual in some manner.

These two things are completely at odds with each other.  Technology empowers us, while government and society attempts to contain us.  You cannot give a man more power, then tell him you don’t trust him with it. The natural human reaction to such a situation is to lash out.

In an era with empowered individuals, the emphasis needs to be on personal responsibility. Because only those capable of personal responsibility and entrusted with it can truly be entrusted with the technology that empowers them.

Increasingly, though, our government is moving in directions that actively discourage personal responsibility.  This is not a good situation - we cannot continue to punish those who are practicing personal responsibility by decreasing their liberties while at the same time rewarding those who practice irresponsibility by “taking care of them.”  Especially not in an era of technological change that empowers individuals. 

Empowered individuals have the capability to strike back at government and society, and there is little that can be done about it. At least not without imposing draconian and tyrannical measures of control on everyone. And the more you do that, the more people you have with reason to strike out and government and society.  

If we really want to see the utopian ideal of a world of peace and harmony, the path lies with personal empowerment, personal responsibility and trust, not down the path of control, restriction and distrust.

Just something else to think about.