Stats
Examples of Pareto charts (April 5, 2006)
The Pareto chart is a graphical display of categorical data that is
intended to show the relative frequency of different events that all impact
the quality of a process. The graph is typically drawn to examine the Pareto
principle, also known as the 80-20 principle. The Pareto principle, which
does not always work in the real world, but occurs often enough to merit its
own name, says that 80% of the problems in a system can be attributed to 20%
of the causes. There are applications in other areas as well (80% of the
wealth in a country might be held by the richest 20% of the population, for
example). The 80-20 split might actually be closer to 90-10 in some
situations, or perhaps closer to 70-30 in other situations. Still it is worth
remembering the a very few things in your workplace are responsible for most
of your quality problems.
Here's an example of a Pareto chart.

Figure taken from
Quality Improvement in the Construction Industry: Three Systematic Approaches
[PDF]. Il'as Ortega, Soren Bisgaard, published February 2000 in
Quality Management and Technology Report No. 10, February 2000. Accessed on
2006-04-05. www.domica.ch/pubs/report10.pdf
The vertical axis on the chart represents percentage of construction
failure cases. The categories on this chart are
- Insufficient knowledge,
- Underestimating influences,
- Ignorance, carelessness, negligence,
- Forgetfulness, errors,
- Relying on others,
- Objectively unknown situations,
- Unclear definition of responsibilities, communication errors,
- Selection of low quality because of lower costs,
- Others.
A pair of Paerto charts shown below have an interesting story.

This Pareto chart shows defects on components of a circuit board. The
categories are U20, U215, U225, U16, U17, R114, U23, L214, and Other.

This Pareto chart focuses just on component U20 and examines pin defects.
The categories are 61, 62, 67, 68, 64, 65, 58, 74, and Other.
The paper describes the investigative process
After sorting by board type, defect type and component reference
designator, defects on U20, a .020' pitch QFP64 package on the top of the
board were found to be much higher than on any other part. Setting up
another quick series of Pareto charts indicated that the vast majority of
defects were solder bridges. The next Pareto showed that they were on pins
61 and 62. (Figures 5 and 6) The process engineer took this information to
this to the stencil print step, where a minute 'dimple' was found in the
stencil material between the apertures for pins 61 and 62. This allowed
paste to be squeezed onto the board between the pins, causing a high
occurrence of bridging. As this example demonstrates, performing a Pareto
analysis usually requires several ad hoc queries to drill down to the root
of the problem. A tool that allows quick and easy resorting and charting
makes this process is needed to make the Pareto process efficient for the
troubleshooter. quoted in
Using Production
Defect Data to Improve an SMT Assembly Process Glen Leinbach,
published in the Proceeding of SMTA International, 2000. Accessed on
2006-04-06. www.smta.org/files/SMTAI00-Leinbach.PDF
A final Pareto chart is found in a study of chest xrays.

Figure taken from Quality assurance in radiotherapy of breast
cancer--variability in planning target volume delineation. M. A. Pitkanen,
K. A. Holli, A. T. Ojala, P. Laippala. Acta Oncol 2001: 40(1); 50-5.
[Medline]
[PDF]
This chart showed reading failures by physicians. I do not like this chart
very well as it tends to place the focus of quality improvement on the
individual doctors rather than in the work environment itself.
Further reading
-
http://management.about.com/cs/generalmanagement/a/Pareto081202.htm
07/14/2008.
Category: Quality control