LWW

Feedback Report
Version
00

June 23, 2016

Prepared by:

Submitted to:

Marianne R. Nazaire
Business Process Analyst
Spi Content Solutions - Quality
Quality

Ramil Delos Reyes

Senior Manager
SPi Content Solutions -

LWW Feedback Report

Page 2

I. Background
On June 2, 2012 Mr. Ron Villones the Account Manager had a meeting with Mr. Elliot Ellis,
the Senior Production Manager of LWW regarding the errors of typesetting and language
editing that caused the whole issue of not to achieve the threshold. Based in their discussion,
there will be 5% penalty on the lateness in delivery.
The investigations are focus on the following:
Validity of corrections and EPP
CE Error Analysis
o CE Error Category
o Correlation between CE error category vs error type vs doc part
o Valid CE per Employee
Production Error Analysis
Verbatim email from LWW

II. Analysis
Figure 1
JGS 23-2, is composed of 11 articles with 91 typeset pages of which 5 of them found
with corrections. These are: JGS20224, JGS20226, JGS20230, JGS20232 and
JGS20262

LWW Feedback Report

Page 3

A total of
121 error counts were found in the involved
articles which 25 error counts are classified
as valid, which yield to 0.27 EPP rate. This
is within the set threshold of 0.33 EPP rate.
It is worth to mention that 79% or 96
corrections were actually classified as
invalid errors.
CE ERROR ANALYSIS
o CE Error Category
Figure 2
Copyediting EPP was 0.24 rate. This is
over the threshold target of 0.20.
J
G
S2
02
24

was the highest contributor in Copyediting of 10

error counts among articles.
CEI has significant of 11 counts or 50% among
copyediting errors.

o Correlation between CE error category vs error type vs doc part

Figure 3
Figure 4

LWW Feedback Report

Page 4

Shown in figure 3, CEI was the highest contributor in Copyediting. It covers the error
type of punctuation (4), incorrect data (3), front style(2), added data (1) and
misplaced (1).
The most affected doc type error was the body part (9). Dominantly, the punctuation
error has the most occurrences in doc type and commonly found in Authors Name
(4), Abstract (3), Body (2) and Enunciation (1).

Valid CE per Employee

The
most
erroneous
employee was EE54 having
and error count of 6 and
these are all relating to
punctuation error.
Next erroneous employee
EE56 in Copyediting only.

Production Error Analysis

was

Although EE56 have the same

error count with XX01 but the 2
error counts was Typesetting.

LWW Feedback Report

Page 5

Typesetting process error consists of punctuation

and incorrect data which found in article JGS20232,
made by XX01. Then, Pre-editing error was missing
data which made by EE54, found in article
JGS20230. Significantly the occurrences of
punctuation errors found in production and
copyediting process.
Conclusion:
Thus, Mr. Ellis was correct in his statement regarding errors in language editing that
caused not to achieve the threshold however only CE EPP threshold was above the
threshold. Though there were errors in production such as in typesetting but the highest
impact was more on punctuation errors.
III. Recommendation for Improvement

Root cause

Action Plan

Erroneous
Employee
EE54

Monthly Team Leaders Assembly

- Presentations,
sharing
and
recording of initiative on best
practice.
- Posting of team photos in the TV
screen in the lobby.

Punctuation
Errors
(Competency)
(Tools)

Responsible
Person

Timeline

Team Leader =
Ms. Clara

July 1, 2016
(records)

Group Head = Mr.

Ibarra

1.Accuracy learning Program

(Regular Employees)

Account Manager
= Mr. Villones

July 5, 2016

2. Strengthening of calibration in
desktop. (Use of poke yoke system)

IT Sr Manager =
Mr. Raf Ellis

July 1, 2016