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

[Jim Howe]

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

 

[Jim Howe]

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

 

[Rob Nix]

...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.

 

[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.

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

 

[Jim Howe]

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

 

[Jim Howe]

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!

 

[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".
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

 

[J Oliphant]

Cause and Effect

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.

 

[Jim Howe]

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!

 

[The Taz!]

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!

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