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

[Craig H.]

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

 

[6MARINE]

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.

 

[Al Dyer]

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...

 

[johnnybegood]

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?

 

[Al Dyer]

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...

 

[howste]

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...

 

[Andrei Viorel - 2009]

Pareto, Trend Check & Pareto from 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

 

[noboxwine]

Cha Ching !

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.

 

[Jim Howe]

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.

 

[ralphsulser]

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.