Skills RevOps
The cost of poor quality
Quality programmes are funded on faith and cut on arithmetic. The counter-argument needs a number, and the number is buildable — but the version that gets built is usually indefensible, because it multiplies a failure rate by an average customer value and presents the result as savings.
npx rulebase-skills install cx-cost-of-poor-qualityWhen to use it
Reach for this when someone says any of these — they are the phrases the skill itself triggers on:
- “what do our quality failures cost”
- “cost of rework in support”
- “business case for improving quality”
- “how much is bad support costing us”
How it works
The method, in the order the skill runs it. The full procedure — tables, worked examples and the edge cases — is in the skill itself.
Four cost layers, in descending order of defensibility
Build them separately. The first two are close to countable; the last is an estimate with wide bounds. Presenting them as one figure means the whole number inherits the weakest layer's credibility.
Do not multiply a failure rate by a customer's value
This is the specific error that discredits these analyses.
Rework is where the argument is actually won
Layer 1 tends to be both the largest countable cost and the easiest to act on, and it is usually absent from these business cases entirely.
The counterfactual is the hard part
"Improving quality would save this" is a causal claim, and the honest position is that observational data does not support it.
Related skills
Free and open source, and vendor-neutral — it reads the conversations from whichever helpdesk you already run. Browse all 149 skills · connect your helpdesk over MCP · source on GitHub
