We're all embarrassed, mortified, etc. Yet, I can understand how it happened.
We try to push the creative envelope each issue to make the magazine work hard to get noticed. The August issue's cover carried a post-it note that violated the name of the book, changing it from Healthcare Packaging to Healthcare Processing and Packaging.
That was to reflect recent research where readers told us their most significant challenge was combining processing and packaging into one smooth operation.
At the last minute, the U.S. Post Office rejected our idea because it covered up too much of the logo. We appealed.
In the meantime, we finalized a whitewashed version B we knew the Postmaster would approve.
But our appeal was approved, and version A was used—before it was proofed and finalized. We encountered an anomaly in our process that caused a human to make a mistake.
That's how a major pharmaceutical company with an elaborate system of checks and balances launches a drug with the wrong directions, or lot number, or expiration date.
I guess an engineer would institute a change in workflow that accommodated rejections and appeals from the post office.
The problem is, this anomaly is so rare we might never encounter it again.
We've recommitted ourselves to quality control. But agree we cannot stop pushing the creative envelope to rise above the static in the marketplace.
An important lesson to remember, there is a cost to innovation.
Sincerely, Jim Chrzan, Publisher
We try to push the creative envelope each issue to make the magazine work hard to get noticed. The August issue's cover carried a post-it note that violated the name of the book, changing it from Healthcare Packaging to Healthcare Processing and Packaging.
That was to reflect recent research where readers told us their most significant challenge was combining processing and packaging into one smooth operation.
At the last minute, the U.S. Post Office rejected our idea because it covered up too much of the logo. We appealed.
In the meantime, we finalized a whitewashed version B we knew the Postmaster would approve.
But our appeal was approved, and version A was used—before it was proofed and finalized. We encountered an anomaly in our process that caused a human to make a mistake.
That's how a major pharmaceutical company with an elaborate system of checks and balances launches a drug with the wrong directions, or lot number, or expiration date.
I guess an engineer would institute a change in workflow that accommodated rejections and appeals from the post office.
The problem is, this anomaly is so rare we might never encounter it again.
We've recommitted ourselves to quality control. But agree we cannot stop pushing the creative envelope to rise above the static in the marketplace.
An important lesson to remember, there is a cost to innovation.
Sincerely, Jim Chrzan, Publisher
