Apart from “Cost”, there could be other measures like “Amount of Rework involved”. This would depend on not just the type of error but also the point of time in the process life-cycle, when the error is discovered. Cost could depend on the amount of rework involved. Cost can also involve fines or penalties.
Further, there could be other factors like, “Show-stopper” or “Non-show-stopper”, with the obvious meaning that a “Show Stopper” error brings the entire process to a grinding halt and hence will warrant higher weight. But the problem with this and other error criticality-based weights including “Fatal”, “Critical”, “Non-critical” etc. is that of quantifying the conceptual criticality. This is a tricky question as while it is clear that a fatal error is more serious than a critical error, by how much is the question. Would a fatal error be rated twice as critical as a critical error? If so, why?
In the area of back-office documentation for container shipping process, some voyages involve declaring the contents of the containers in detail to the Customs of the destination country. Only after this declaration is cleared can the container be shipped. After this declaration is cleared if there are any changes to be done in the declaration, this will involve additional costs to be paid. If these changes are done after a certain point of time connected to the time of sailing, there will also be an additional fine involved. In some cases, no changes will be allowed and hence the container will have to be unloaded from the vessel and rolled over to the next voyage resulting in delayed revenue from the customer and perhaps loss of business in future. In this situation an error in documentation that necessitates re-declaration to customs or additional costs and / or fines or worse still rollover will have a higher weight than other errors even if the frequency of occurrence of such “costly” errors are lesser. Where relevant, additional audits for these errors are also justified.