CI021
Calibrate statistical process control precision and sampling frequency to each process's actual cost of failure, not uniformly across all processes.
CyberTRIZ analysis · Process contradiction CI021 · one of 8,235 worked contradictions published by CyberTRIZ.AI
Regulations
Higher Statistical Process Control Precision vs. Lower Monitoring Cost
Business Context. Precise statistical process control catches process drift earlier, but the sensors, sampling frequency, and analysis required to achieve that precision increase the ongoing cost of monitoring.
Process TRIZ Resolution. Rather than applying maximum monitoring precision everywhere, organizations should apply high-precision statistical control to processes with the highest cost of failure, using lighter-touch monitoring for processes where drift has lower consequences.
Applicable TRIZ Principles
Principle 3 (Local Quality) applies monitoring precision proportional to the cost of failure for each process.
Principle 35 (Parameter Changes) adjusts sampling frequency and precision based on process criticality.
Principle 2 (Taking Out) removes unnecessary monitoring precision from low-consequence processes.
Expected Outcome
Precise control where failure is costly
Lower overall monitoring cost
Efficient allocation of monitoring investment
Sustainable statistical control program
Decision Indicators
Every process is monitored with the same statistical precision regardless of consequence.
Monitoring cost has grown faster than the value of the processes it protects.
Low-consequence processes receive disproportionately expensive monitoring.
No criticality assessment guides monitoring precision decisions.
Budget constraints threaten monitoring even for the most critical processes.
If several of these indicators are present, the contradiction is likely active and the Process TRIZ resolution above should be evaluated.