Vital few or highest pareto? Which issue should be the priority?

[johnnybegood]

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?

[Claes Gefvenberg]

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

[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

[Mike S.]

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.

[Kevin Mader]

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

[johnnybegood]

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.

[Claes Gefvenberg]

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"