'Just noticeable differences'
November 20, 2008 By: Carl R. Metzgar, CSP Pit & QuarryMines and quarries are often located miles from a large library. On the other hand, the Internet with its pitfalls and benefits is closer than the water cooler. A city or county public library is more than likely reasonably accessible. Most practicing loss-control professionals, if motivated, at least have access to the county or city public library. In the library, there is a reference librarian, a periodicals librarian, a savvy media specialist, an inter library loan administrator or some combination of these or similar specialty skills. Despite all of the stereotyping and clichés, most librarians live to be helpful.
The lucky loss-control specialists have access to a college or university library. Most of the academic libraries have a budget item for “the public.” That means that wandering loss-control folks, full and part time, can use many of the library resources. The library professionals are one of the resources.
This long preliminary is to ease any trepidation about going to the library for help to find “Controlling ‘just noticeable differences’ in quality” in the November-December 1977 Harvard Business Review.
The first paragraph of the article includes, “In psychophysics ... ‘just noticeable difference’ refers to the smallest detectable physical change in a stimulus. In business, the idea characterizes the way deliberate or inadvertent action and inaction can subtly and gradually alter the character of products and services.” Cost control is the area that insists on adjustments that can lead to changes in products and services. Cost control is an area full of traps for degradation of internal company products and services.
One company successfully made a vigorous effort to improve its product so that it was better than any competitor’s product. The company then discovered it had priced itself out of the market. The company then modified the product “just a bit” to get the price down. From the customers’ point of view, there was no noticeable difference from Superior Product A to Modified Product B. That change was so successful that there was a second-generation change from B to C with no noticeable change from B. You guessed it -- the change from C to D also got by with no noticeable change from C. The change from D to E brought customer observations that E simply was not as good as A used to be.
Loss-control example
Suppose that after thorough investigation and evaluation, it was determined that superintendents and foremen would need quarterly seven-hour loss control/safety training sessions. Follow-up evaluation determined that the training was producing positive results. The region in question had better injury-prevention results than other corresponding regions that didn’t have a training program. The loss-control information and training program seemed to be successful.
Then it became fashionable to combine the loss-control (aka safety), health and environmental staff jobs with the acronym of SHE. The combination looked so natural, convenient and attractive on the organizational chart that it was presumed the combination would be effective in practice. With no investigation or evaluation to determine effect of the time quotient for the loss-control-training success or to determine what the environmental program really needed, the quarterly loss-control training was cut in half and the reduced time was dedicated to environmental-information training.
Success or failure?
Without evaluating the time element before reducing the loss-control training, there was nothing to compare the effect over time of the change. The aesthetics of the organizational chart precipitated an operational change from A to B in loss-control training. Did the “just noticeable difference” make a positive or negative change in the loss-control program? Was “me too” training the right answer to the environmental requirement?
Please send any technical comments or questions to our webmaster.