Reference no: EM133343360
Case Problem
The online reviews had a familiar ring, and it was not pleasant. "Great book, too many errors."
"The errors distracted from the story."
"Was I missing something? Like spelcheck?" "Who published this? A bunch of pre-schoolers?"
"I think you are missing a line on page 123, or else it belongs on page 231." "itt wuz VeRy harrd to reaed ..."
"Yikes, takes me back to my days as an English teacher!"
"Okay," Stephane said, to the project team assembled, "I guess we shouldn't have used a compositor from Russia for this one."
"I personally think it's the copy editor," Chris replied.
"But doesn't the author have some responsibility for submitting a readable manuscript?" piped up Yuhong.
"It's the number of steps in the process, and lack of accountability,"
George said as he paced back and forth. Milad was making a list of all the stages and people along the way who handled the manuscript, and thinking about reliability and redundancy.
Where were errors introduced? Where were errors caught?
1-Author: 70%-more concerned about content 2-Copy editor: 90%-usually does a good job
3- Compositor: 60%-can introduce errors
4- Proofreader: 80%-works with both copies
5- Author proof: 75%-mostly answers queries from proofreader 6-Production: 80%-could ignore/misplace corrections
7-Final proof: 50%-time-constrained; skims
a. Assume that each step in Milad's list is performed in sequence. What is the reliability of the process?
b. Assume steps 1, 3, and 6 are the components of the process, and 2, 4, 5, and 7 are backups to catch errors. What is the reliability of the process?
c. What suggestions do you have for improving the reliability of the publishing process and final product?