PG007
Tier quality assurance review depth by change risk so minor low-risk changes pass through expedited review while major changes receive full scrutiny, cutting overall cycle time.
CyberTRIZ analysis · Process contradiction PG007 · one of 8,235 worked contradictions published by CyberTRIZ.AI
Regulations
Higher Quality Assurance Rigor vs. Lower Review Cycle Time
Business Context. Rigorous quality assurance review catches more defects before a process change is released, but thorough review extends the cycle time between identifying an improvement and putting it into production.
Process TRIZ Resolution. Rather than applying maximum review rigor uniformly, organizations should scale review depth to the size and risk of the change, allowing small, low-risk changes to pass through an expedited review while major changes receive full scrutiny.
Applicable TRIZ Principles
Principle 3 (Local Quality) scales review depth according to the size and risk of each change.
Principle 1 (Segmentation) separates expedited review from full review pathways.
Principle 35 (Parameter Changes) adjusts review intensity proportionally to change risk.
Expected Outcome
High rigor for significant changes
Fast cycles for minor changes
Reduced overall review backlog
Proportionate quality assurance
Decision Indicators
Minor changes wait in the same review queue as major redesigns.
Review cycle time has become a primary bottleneck for improvement.
No risk-based tiering exists for quality assurance review.
Small fixes are delayed for weeks awaiting full review.
Review rigor does not correlate with the actual risk of the change.
If several of these indicators are present, the contradiction is likely active and the Process TRIZ resolution above should be evaluated.