February 5, 200917 yr FOLLOWING TOPIC PASTED FROM YAHOO GROUPSORIGINATOR: Suresh SubramaniDATE: Mon Oct 27, 2008Dear All,Objective: To identify Vital X (Critical Area).I have a far most clarification on driving the result through Pareto rule. We all knew that 80% of the problem were due to 20% of the real cause (Vital X) in the process i.e identifying vital few from Trivial many. As per our ISO Task force implementation/QMS representative we have introduced Pareto Analysis in our process. He taught us to plot a chart through excel but I am not convinced with the result we have driven because 80% critical areas are not occurred due to just 20% , it lies in the range of 40% or 50% of the total error category. I have planned out to eliminate the ripple factors by conducting the defect Analysis. Kindly find the attached file. This is the internal audit error count taken out from Health Care (Medical Billing) project. Our SLA is defined as 98% but we have achieved only 95% for last month. I am in a position to take hard course of action against the people who were in Critical areas. Query: Through Pareto I got 14 vital Xs (80%) out of total 34 error category which are not really 20% of the error category. It would be great if someone can review the file and confirm whether we are approaching the right path. If not kindly address the area we were moved out and find a solution. Best Regards,Suresh Subramani
February 5, 200917 yr Author FOLLOWING REPLIES PASTED FROM YAHOO GROUPS Hi, If the data categroization doesn't show "pareto" behavior, suggest to --re-look at the way the classification is done, whether it can be changed through combining or splitting the existing onenormalize if possiblereclassify with a different set of classificationapply weightagesPractical importance point of view, consider 80/20 as you rightly said vital few from trivial many ( now called as "useful many") rather than exactly trying to match 80 to 20. I don't think neither the wealth nor the number of rich people were exactly measured / counted to exactly macth 80 to 20! Best Regards,Kulkarni ________________ Hi, Suresh subramani, My two cents of suggestions. It is very true that 80 : 20 rule of the Pareto is honestly valid and a powerful tool for the SIX SIGMA projects for the continual improvement programs on a lean way. I would advise you to have not more than 8 error categories for the Main Pareto which covers your entire error findings. ( The categories should be such that it has a comprehensive coverage of critical, major, severe & minor issues ) The individual categories could have sub categories if desired. Once you have the Pareto listed, you could either do a Bubble analysis or the FMEA analysis to evaluate RISK, for the team to review and arrive at a logical conclusion. Use CAPA for eradication of issues governed by Audit validation to support the project or the workflow. Regards, Sathyanarayan Venkatesh TSDO : Quality Program Manager HP MBB / E1 - LSS & Certified LA - BS ISO/IEC 27001 : 2005 ISMS __________________ Hi, My veiw points on are Pareto chart helps to find out the ‘VITAL FEWâ€TM from the ‘USEFUL MANYâ€TM for problem selection Following steps should be followed for Pareto chart. 1. Identify few contributors from the diagram which account for about 80 % of the total defect. 2. If more than 50% categories account for 60% of total defect than do further stratification. If stratification is not possible than team can decide vital factors. 3 Represent these as 'Vital Few' and proceed towards solving these problems through RCA or FMEA. 4. Once they are solved or satisfactorily attended, collect data on present situation on the defect status and draw pareto chart. 5. The present position maybe, that those defects which were not in priority earlier are now occupying prime position and hence to be taken up for solving. RegardsSunil R.WankhadeMBB_____________________ Dear Suresh, The 80/20 rule is not a law of nature but is based on observation that most things in life are NOT linear. Hence, it is not necessary that it should be exactly 80/20 for all situations. It could be 90/10 or 90/30 (not that these numbers don't have to add up to 100) or any other combination. The jist of the 80/20 rule is that we should focus on the trival few rather than all the things that could go wrong. The trivial few could be 20% of the causes or maybe they are 40% as you indicate. Your math seems to be okay. SJ.__________________
November 15, 200916 yr SJ has suggest correctly pareto is a principle not a law. It may be applicable in your data or it may not be applicable in data. We need to do proper statification for x's if pareto principle fails RegardsNavin RohillaBB
December 19, 200916 yr Hi all,As for as any process is concerned, we try to acheive "Zero defects". The number of categories & the % of Vital fews taken depends on the size of the project (ie) no of persons working on the project, investment on the project, immediate benefits after the project etc....I can even take 1 amoung the 34 categories as each problem has an effect (may be with just 20%). Pareto is for prioritising the projects.... If i fail in solving the highest vital few, it doesnt mean that i should not attempt the second highest...Pareto shows the relativity of the problems to Vital few... there may or may not be any relation ship to each invidual problems... some times solving the second highest may reduce the first due to relative parameters...Regards,Ramabadran
Create an account or sign in to comment