In resolving quality issue, we use Pareto chart. Our team have mix opinion as to which issue should be address first. ....the highest in the Pareto (normally take longer time to resolve) or the vital few (which can be resolve much shorter time). Let say the highest in the Pareto cause 20 dpku and this takes time to resolve versus 5 vital few which add-up 15 dpku and take much shorter time to resolve. Question is which issue should be the priority? In generall people will for for the highest Pareto but if we go for the vital few will ISO auditor question why we choose the vital few and not the highest in the Pareto?

I see your point Johnny...

...and if you can explain it to me, you ought to be able to explain it to the auditor as well.

I think it must be considered reasonable to do a few easy fixes when you see the opportunity. I know I do. (besides, one mustn't overlook the internal PR issue: A few easy and quick victories every now and then work wonders for the old morale and pave the way for more work intensive tasks).

Bottom line: By all means, go for your the things that can be resolved in a short time, but don't forget the more time consuming tasks.

/Claes

Yes, Claes, when starting with a team, getting the "low hanging fruit", the easy quick successes, can set the tone for getting the more difficult gains. A little confidence in the team goes a long way, and getting familiar wih team members is easier without worrying about a difficult, drawn out project.

Craig

Knowing only what I know now, I agree, I'd go after the 5 "easy ones", get some quick successes, build confidence, save some money, and then go after the Pareto #1 as a big challenge, well publicized, and well rewarded when accomplished. JMO.

Dr. Kano (I believe) coined the phrase “Inch deep, mile wide thinking vs. mile deep, inch wide thinking.”

Where do you have the opportunity to leverage your efforts? Where will you get the most (mile deep, inch wide)? I believe Dr. Kano has it right.

The Vital Few (top 20%) over the trivial many (the remaining 80%) generally are the most complex problems to solve. However, if most of your long-term costs are there, then this is where you need to strike. I will say this though: if you need a small success as a team, picking one of the Trivial Many is probably the thing to do. However, move on to the Vital Few as soon as possible.

Regards,

Kevin

I would like to make a correction. What I meant was should I address the Top Pareto or Trivial many? From the various feedback received it's as though we should resolve the Top Pareto and Trivial many in parallel. But what is the 'right' approach? One colleague of mine say that we should address the Top Pareto as in doing so it will indirectly resolve some of the Trivial many.

johnnybegood said:
---X---
One colleague of mine say that we should address the Top Pareto as in doing so it will indirectly resolve some of the Trivial many.

He is quite correct. However, the opposite is usually also true. Fixing what apperes to be a trivial problem often affects a major one in a positive way.

Every business has its share of problems - small ones, big ones and in some cases real whoppers. Combined, they create a load to pull. Every time you solve a problem you will decrease that combined load to some extent.

There will also be some kind of spin off effect - If nothing else, an increased ability to focus on the remaining issues, but often more than that.

The bottom line is: As long as you keep fixing things you can't be too far off track. Of course, you will botch the priorities some times, but every improvement does count.

/Claes

Claes Gefvenberg said:

The bottom line is: As long as you keep fixing things you can't be too far off track. Of course, you will botch the priorities some times, but every improvement does count.


Right!

And another thing. Don't agonise too much. If in doubt what to fix first, just pick something you can handle.

As Tom Peters (a more useful quality guru than all your Jemmings amd Duran Durans put together) says --

"The small-win principle, or get on with it factor, remains at the head of my change-management list. In other words, to begin, begin. Start experimenting now. Start nudging people to rack up small wins"

Tom:

That was my approach to this thread, but I also think we always need to remember that pareto is nothing more than just another tool. It is up to us to decide how to use it, and what to do with the results, depending on the situation at hand.

That's why we are all paid the embarassingly large salaries!!!

Craig

......and if you want to fiddle the figures such that your easy wins come out on top of your Pareto simply include a multiplying factor based on simplicity of correction - maybe.

But isnt our Pareto principle that 80% of the problems are the result of 20% of the causes, hence we should focus on the top 20% of causes I guess with equal gusto. Does the pareto principle extend to say that hit the top 20% of causes must be hit in descending order ? Dont think it does ??

So you have some latitude in your top 20% of causes to hit the easy gains first.

If you are saying that easier gains exist outside of the top 20% of causes then you are only at best hitting a percentage of 20% of the problems, hence you activity will have little overall perceived effect on improvement.

Martin:

Certainly you have been around long enough to know that blindly using any tool, blindly following any quality philosophy, in any situation, can get you in trouble. All of this stuff is just a tool. If we want to remove a nail, a crowbar might be best, but a screwdriver can sometimes be made to work...

What I am saying is that the Pareto principal should be used as a guide, to avoid putting a lot of work into solving a problem with little impact that happens once a decade or so (as an extreme example), taking into account the makeup of the team and the corporate culture.

My sarcastic remark about the big salaries was in no way meant to be construed that any of these techniques ought to take the place of THOUGHT. Mr. (Dr?) Pareto isn't at our factory.

Craig

johnnybegood said:

I would like to make a correction. What I meant was should I address the Top Pareto or Trivial many? From the various feedback received it's as though we should resolve the Top Pareto and Trivial many in parallel. But what is the 'right' approach? One colleague of mine say that we should address the Top Pareto as in doing so it will indirectly resolve some of the Trivial many.

Very Interesting !!

So if that's the case then why not start with the 5 bottom ones and indirectly resolve part of the Top one.

That way you will not over look anything.

For example in the old ISO you can not have a compliant 4.2 Quality System without all the other elements being completed.

How about splitting the team in two with one handling the trivial many and the other handling the vital few?

This way there would be some positive movement on the trivial many and a good start in the process of handling those big items that might mean Big Buck Return????

Al...

If we have the resources, it will be good to have 2 team working in parallel but not at this point of economy situation. I agreed that every improvement does count but will the ISO auditor ask why we are focusing the Trivial many instead of Vital few?

Answer that you handle both with a prioritized list that is in line with customer satisfaction and internal needs. Up to you as to how you currently define there acticities. What is tour current procedure for prioritization?

Al...

The priority you put on resolving the issues probably depends on how you collected/analyzed the data. Often the highest on the Pareto might be there only because we've lumped several similar problems together. Also, is the actual cost to the organization considered (weighting the values)? I like to use FMEA to do the real prioritization. It considers the severity, frequency of occurrence, and likelihood of detection of the problem. In a nutshell, it shows how much the problem is really hurting us.

That being said, you've also got to get some quick wins so people can see that their actions can be effective. Many have already stated the benefits of this. If the problem solving team is new to this, let them attack a few easy problems, then divide & conquer a big one.

As far as your auditors, they'll only know the vital few and the trivial many if you show them the Pareto...

80/20 rule, as initiated by Pareto, it is proved to be a general rule in our days.

We initiated this tool 3 years ago for visual defects monthly monitoring in shop floor. In there is some interest, I can send a short presentation.

Steps for problem solving (used by our modular groups and quality circles) are:
Analyzing Pareto diagram;
Confirm “problem” by trend analysis from a run diagram. (If trend it is ascending, item must be retained for advanced analysis);
Build next levels of Pareto;
Confirm for each Pareto item his ascending trend;
Build a “Causes MATRIX”;
Calculate weight contribution;
Establish priority list for items to be solved by team;
Solve retained items.

On request I can send a short description of this process.

Vio

Originally posted by Craig H.
Yes, Claes, when starting with a team, getting the "low hanging fruit", the easy quick successes, can set the tone for getting the more difficult gains. A little confidence in the team goes a long way, and getting familiar wih team members is easier without worrying about a difficult, drawn out project.

Craig

Well said, Craig. :smokin:

The trick to using Pareto is two fold. Anybody can do a sort by quantity and claim Pareto but it really isn't. I have found over the years that first, every effort must be made to put the pareto into dollars and then look for the higest dollars. Also be sure and track the "CUME", after all this is the gist of performing Pareto;i.e. find the high rollers that will reduce the "CUME" quickest. The reason for performing Pareto is to find where the most bang for the buck is. After finding it, why would you not pursue it. Secondly, the effort must be made to properly code the data so that it readily yields to a second pareto. The first pareto tells you where to look. The second, or even third, in some cases, tells you why.

Example: A recent pareto shows that dollars spent on scrap fall into two major categories. lets call them cat-A and cat-B. then when second pareto is performed on cat-A data and then on cat-B data we found a common denominator of obsolete materials causing the largest expenditure of scrap dollars. We send the team to study why there is so much obsolete material.

just my two cents worth.

The trick to using Pareto is two fold. Anybody can do a sort by quantity and claim Pareto but it really isn't. I have found over the years that first, every effort must be made to put the pareto into dollars and then look for the higest dollars. Also be sure and track the "CUME", after all this is the gist of performing Pareto;i.e. find the high rollers that will reduce the "CUME" quickest. The reason for performing Pareto is to find where the most bang for the buck is. After finding it, why would you not pursue it. Secondly, the effort must be made to properly code the data so that it readily yields to a second pareto. The first pareto tells you where to look. The second, or even third, in some cases, tells you why.

Example: A recent pareto shows that dollars spent on scrap fall into two major categories. lets call them cat-A and cat-B. then when second pareto is performed on cat-A data and then on cat-B data we found a common denominator of obsolete materials causing the largest expenditure of scrap dollars. We send the team to study why there is so much obsolete material.

just my two cents worth.

I concurr-look at the dollars...always gets management attention. I have always said go for the biggest "bang for the buck". May not even be the most expensive solution and correctable without spending any money.
One place I worked--the biggest dollar amount was for sample scrap. Technicial wrote a spec to take 5 samples per shift. Nobody questioned it. We discussed the need and reasons and decided to reduce it to 3 times per shift. Saved a lot of money and downtime because the equipment had to be shutdown to take a sample. Then you had start up scrap again. Also implemented crews to relieve normal crews to keep from shutting down for breaks and lunches. Saved a lot of money that started with a Pareto for dollars.

If my aging and fleeting memory serves me correctly, Villfredo Pareto WAS an economist. . . enough said

If my aging and fleeting memory serves me correctly, Villfredo Pareto WAS an economist. . . enough said
I believe you are correct, he was an economist. Did I read somewhere that it was Juran who first applied the Pareto principles to Quality?

The concept of the 80/20 Rule was developed by the Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923) and was later popularized by Joseph Juran. Pareto developed the rule based on his observation that 80% of the wealth in Italy was controlled by 20% of the population. He then went on to develop logarithmic mathematical models to describe the non-distribution of wealth. A mathematician by the name of M.O. Lorenz developed the graphs to illustrate it.

Others began to notice how universal the principle was and how it applied to many areas outside the field of economics. Juran started applying the principle to problems of quality in the 1950's. Juran used the terms "vital few" and "useful many" when describing the 80/20 split.

The source for this information is from Pareto Analysis, Juran Institute, 1989.

This trivia may be vital to a few and not useful to many but I thought I would pass it on.

Bill Pflanz
The Finance Guy

The concept of the 80/20 Rule was developed by the Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923) and was later popularized by Joseph Juran. Pareto developed the rule based on his observation that 80% of the wealth in Italy was controlled by 20% of the population. He then went on to develop logarithmic mathematical models to describe the non-distribution of wealth. A mathematician by the name of M.O. Lorenz developed the graphs to illustrate it.

Others began to notice how universal the principle was and how it applied to many areas outside the field of economics. Juran started applying the principle to problems of quality in the 1950's. Juran used the terms "vital few" and "useful many" when describing the 80/20 split.

The source for this information is from Pareto Analysis, Juran Institute, 1989.

This trivia may be vital to a few and not useful to many but I thought I would pass it on.

Bill Pflanz
The Finance Guy
Thanks Bill, I am not much on trivia but I love history! I also love Maps!I recall a seminar to improve memory where the instructor divided the class into two groups. He excused group #2 from the class room and told the story of Custers last stand to the first group. then he dismissed the first group and told the same story to the second group. finally both groupd were reunited and given a test on Custer's last stand. Surprisingly the second group scored considerably higher than the first group. WHY? When the instructor told the story to the second group he used a MAP! :magic:
Jim

Juran's article on Non-Pareto Principle:
Dr. Juran´s Non-Pareto Principle Article published in 1975 (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=38960&postcount=12)

I concurr-look at the dollars...always gets management attention. I have always said go for the biggest "bang for the buck". May not even be the most expensive solution and correctable without spending any money.
One place I worked--the biggest dollar amount was for sample scrap. Technicial wrote a spec to take 5 samples per shift. Nobody questioned it. We discussed the need and reasons and decided to reduce it to 3 times per shift. Saved a lot of money and downtime because the equipment had to be shutdown to take a sample. Then you had start up scrap again. Also implemented crews to relieve normal crews to keep from shutting down for breaks and lunches. Saved a lot of money that started with a Pareto for dollars.

Good input Ralph, I must admit that I first submitted my pareto on scrap based on % of incident, "what did I know about dollars?" :confused: It was the VP of Operations who approached me with the report and said:"Jim, somehow you have got to put this in terms of dollars." I must admit it was a struggle, after all, as long as I knew what the charts were saying, what else mattered. But I contacted accounting and we went at it. Several weeks later (you should all know that accounting data seldom aligns with QA data) we produced the COST pareto's for scrap dollars covering the last three years. :) These Pareto's caught the attention of the Executive V.P. Enough said!

Jim

Jim, Thank you.
One other suggestion regarding costs. Initially we used dollars based on selling price. This can be skewed due to the differences in margin. Changed to standard costs of goods manufactured to level the field. This is the actual cost for you company to manufacture the product. Usually costed at various process stages. But finished cost is used mostly. Accounting has this data as I'm sure you found out during your assigning costs to your Pareto's.
Glad you got the attention of the right people to do something to improve the scrap. Reduction of scrap usually drops directly to the bottom line profit.

One thing I don't see discussed too often is that a Pareto Analsyis over a time interval of data can be dangerous if the process is unstable or otherwise is in the middle of a process change. I try to suggest to folks to first make a control chart of the data to see if it is stable and in control. You see, you are using the Pareto data as a prediction of what will happen in the future if you don't do anything. If the leading cost in a 12 month Pareto chart relates to something you fixed 6 months ago and hasn't happened since, then you will not get any useful further improvement.

Now, I am not saying you cannot do a Pareto chart if the data are unstable, but I am saying that you ought to do the Pareto chart over a time interval that contains stable data. Pareto chart the months with special cause variation separate from those with common cause variation.

the highest in the Pareto (normally take longer time to resolve) or the vital few (which can be resolve much shorter time). Let say the highest in the Pareto cause 20 dpku and this takes time to resolve versus 5 vital few which add-up 15 dpku and take much shorter time to resolve. Question is which issue should be the priority? In generall people will for for the highest Pareto but if we go for the vital few will ISO auditor question why we choose the vital few and not the highest in the Pareto?

What is dpku??

Nevertheless a fascinating subject. Even personally. Do I want to stop smoking (major effort /major reward) or just send suits to the dry cleaners (minor effort / minor reward)?

Seems like such a question will be answered by a review of management support... Will the boss support a 10 member team, 10,000$ project to solve some truly significant quality problem or are the little issues challenging enough. Also what is his goals?

whichever way to go; Personally, I'd be certain that its doable. If you faill to truly fix the problem, perhaps your job will be on the line.

Just my thoughts.

What is dpku??


Defects per 1,000 units, I believe.

In resolving quality issue, we use Pareto chart. Our team have mix opinion as to which issue should be address first. ....the highest in the Pareto (normally take longer time to resolve) or the vital few (which can be resolve much shorter time). Let say the highest in the Pareto cause 20 dpku and this takes time to resolve versus 5 vital few which add-up 15 dpku and take much shorter time to resolve. Question is which issue should be the priority? In generall people will for for the highest Pareto but if we go for the vital few will ISO auditor question why we choose the vital few and not the highest in the Pareto?

I wish to take a moment and go back to johnnybegoods original post. Johnny, after all these remarks do you still contend that the vital few are easier to resolve? Or have you been convinced that what Juran is saying is that the vital few are the highest in the Pareto? Its the trivial many that are usually easier to resolve.

Jim

Juran's article on Non-Pareto Principle:
Thanks Atul, its nice to go the the source and get the message straight from the author.
Jim

...or the vital few (which can be resolve much shorter time).

Its the trivial many that are usually easier to resolve.

The above assumptions cannot be made. There is no correlation whatsoever. The Vital Few are generally chosen to work on simply because their ultimate impact will be the greatest, not because they are easy or hard. There is no way of knowing how much effort will be involved until you get deeper into the issues.

The above assumptions cannot be made. There is no correlation whatsoever. The Vital Few are generally chosen to work on simply because their ultimate impact will be the greatest, not because they are easy or hard. There is no way of knowing how much effort will be involved until you get deeper into the issues.

When I provided the information about Vifredo Pareto, I should have commented on Juran's terminology. In the past, I have always talked about the vital few and the "trivial" many. The terminology that Juran actually uses is the vital few and "useful" many.

I agree with Rob on his interpretation of the Pareto principle. Juran's intent was not to discard the 80% that were part of the useful many but to get everyone focused on working on something that would have the greatest impact.

According to Juran's Quality Control Handbook, the Pareto principle is used for diagnosis of a problem to find the vital few defects, to find the vital few symptoms of a defect and to find the vital few causes of one symptom. Juran also applied the Pareto principle to the cost of quality by observing that a few contributors to the cost are responsible for most of the total cost.

By collecting data and applying a series of Pareto charts, the quality improvements can be prioritized. It is not surprising that Juran would adopt this strategy since he is well recognized for his works on Quality Planning. I would also add that Steve Prevette is correct in noting that the data needs to be collected wisely since an unstable process or not collecting the data consecutively could influence the Pareto results.

When teaching the use of quality tools, I always try to show how the various tools can be used with each other throughout the entire improvement process. I have done projects before where I started with one Pareto chart, broke the problem down into other Pareto charts, and eventually progressed to trend charts, histograms and control charts. Individually, the various tools would not have been as powerful as when used collectively.

For all the talk about Six Sigma, FMEA, DOE, TRIZ and other sophisticated methods, the simplest and most well known tools can still be the most powerful way to identify a problem, determine its root causes and show how it was improved.

Bill Pflanz

Rob, of course you are correct. In fact I have found some of the vital few (highest on the Pareto) to be resolved quite quickly with huge payoff as a result. The point I am trying to resolve with johnnybegood is that in his post (which I placed in bold) he seemed to be saying that the vital few were the lowest on the pareto. Or am I misreading! It is my hope that he can relate the vital few to the highest on the pareto.
Thanks
Jim

When I provided the information about Vifredo Pareto, I should have commented on Juran's terminology. In the past, I have always talked about the vital few and the "trivial" many. The terminology that Juran actually uses is the vital few and "useful" many.

I agree with Rob on his interpretation of the Pareto principle. Juran's intent was not to discard the 80% that were part of the useful many but to get everyone focused on working on something that would have the greatest impact.

According to Juran's Quality Control Handbook, the Pareto principle is used for diagnosis of a problem to find the vital few defects, to find the vital few symptoms of a defect and to find the vital few causes of one symptom. Juran also applied the Pareto principle to the cost of quality by observing that a few contributors to the cost are responsible for most of the total cost.

By collecting data and applying a series of Pareto charts, the quality improvements can be prioritized. It is not surprising that Juran would adopt this strategy since he is well recognized for his works on Quality Planning. I would also add that Steve Prevette is correct in noting that the data needs to be collected wisely since an unstable process or not collecting the data consecutively could influence the Pareto results.

When teaching the use of quality tools, I always try to show how the various tools can be used with each other throughout the entire improvement process. I have done projects before where I started with one Pareto chart, broke the problem down into other Pareto charts, and eventually progressed to trend charts, histograms and control charts. Individually, the various tools would not have been as powerful as when used collectively.

For all the talk about Six Sigma, FMEA, DOE, TRIZ and other sophisticated methods, the simplest and most well known tools can still be the most powerful way to identify a problem, determine its root causes and show how it was improved.

Bill Pflanz
Thanks Bill, I like your explanation but I do take exception to the lanquage "useful". As I read Jurans article "CULPA" that was submitted by Atul, I find Juran plainly states "vital few and trivial many". Perhaps he used both terms at some some point over the last 100 years.
I do like your use of more than one tool but I do favor starting with the Pareto even though I fully understand Steve's caution.
thanks
Jim

PS. I find that as the vital few are resolved the trivial many rise to the top or something else occurs to steal their thunder!

Thanks Bill, I like your explanation but I do take exception to the lanquage "useful". As I read Jurans article "CULPA" that was submitted by Atul, I find Juran plainly states "vital few and trivial many".
PS. I find that as the vital few are resolved the trivial many rise to the top or something else occurs to steal their thunder!


Jim,

Over the years, I am sure I must have used the term "trivial many" because I saw it used in the literature and maybe even by Juran. Your PS is really a good description of why useful many is also a good term. The "many" may become useful or more important over time and become one of the vital few.

Trivial can imply a negative meaning when in reality it is just something that has not had time to ripen into a vital issue.

Bill Pflanz

The above assumptions cannot be made. There is no correlation whatsoever. The Vital Few are generally chosen to work on simply because their ultimate impact will be the greatest, not because they are easy or hard. There is no way of knowing how much effort will be involved until you get deeper into the issues.

I also think it is important to note that the 'paretto' principle as explained by Juran was a universal characteristic and not merely about defective product. Paretto himself was mathematically describing wealthy people. so then you can analyze any number of things a see that there are vital few and the trivial many and see the paretto principle.

80% of the complaints come from 20% of the customer
80% of the quality failures come from 20% of process flaws

I think Juran is pointing out the universal tendency of most of our problems to come from just a few root causes.

I think Rob is right here to point out, when we make statements using the paretto principle, we must be dealing with cause and effect.

ex. complaints come from customers.
ex. quality failures come from process flaws.

Difficult to solve problems do not always create large amounts of failures.
This is not a good cause and effect.

so we cannot really deduce that 80% defects come from top 20% hardest projects. Juran seems to be advocating dealing with the most significant problems and you really do not know from the paretto principle that they are the hardest.

From my experience, one of the easiest problems we dealt with in a couple years of 6 sigma had one of the highest cost savings.

I also wanted to point out something Jonny said at the beginning post. ISO auditors require you to deal with each quality complaint. thus if you have a significant issue that is creating defective product AND leaving the shop floor- I would expect you (as an auditor) to be in the process of investigating its cause and correcting it. That is what the corrective action clauses in ISO are all about. Most places make the sensible rule somewhere that the most significant causes of defective product are handled with the greater urgency and with the most resources.

some have answered in regards to problems. But problems are not Defective product or customer complaints. Auditors expect you to address ALL customer complaints, and identify / remove defective product even if there are not high on a paretto chart. that said, you pick and choose to a point. you address ALL corrective actions but Fix those Problems that are the most important (the Trivial few) and that you can succeed with. You find out usually that defects are caused by many problems (issues in inspection, issues with processes). So as you fix your quality problems; complaints and defects become rarer and easier to address.

ISO auditors are now supposed to expect continual improvement (fixing some of your problems on a regular basis). But they cannot expect you to fix all problems. ONly to address all known defects and complaints.

thanks for the article; there's nothing like hearing things strait from the source.

Excellent remarks! Our Customer Service department tracks each and every customer complaint. Our product improvement committee examines these complaints looking for improvement area. I believe they are even beginning to chart them but I do not believe they even thought of using the parteo tool at this point in time. Ah, you just got to love it, don't you! :cool:

I believe they are even beginning to chart them but I do not believe they even thought of using the parteo tool at this point in time. Ah, you just got to love it, don't you! :cool:

Show them. . . you'll be the new Messiah! I could just about hear the Oooo'ing and Ahhhh'ing now!

Now that you are tracking the complaints for corrective actions, I suggest another track I used to use. Document all the verbal gripes not enterd as a complaint. "Don't likes", and "We had some problems with", and "Your competitor offers, or supplies", or "Can you do or provide ".
At one time I was promoted from Quality Manager to Sales Manager, helps find out customer wants versus needs, and expectations. But it also helps to act on these area identifed by your customers. Preventive actions if you will.
Make yourselves the market leaders.

At one time I was promoted from Quality Manager to Sales Manager,

You calll that a promotion?? You went from minding the coop to being the fox! :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

You calll that a promotion?? You went from minding the coop to being the fox! :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
Taz, if you think that was funny...31/2 years after that I was promoted to Plant Manager, taught the Safety Manager how to use Pareto,...then 2 years after that they sold the plant, and I went somewhere else and became a Quality Manager again. :yes:
Always found ways to use Pareto analysis no matter the job or industry. :agree1:

Thanks Ralph, Believe it or not we have just completed our marketing policy and quess what? You got it! most of what you suggest will be gathered by our sales reps and then inputed to engineering and new product development. maybe after we get some inputs we can track them. Also part of system is tracking these sort of things by our Customer Service department. Feels good to see others who think along the same lines.