w ToOrO k t o o @s ww

l o r ok r k
ork
t o o l wL So@ Wrt OokRoKl s t o o l@
s s
ools work
more new twists on traditional quality tools and techniques
D. Lynn Kelley, Ph.D.
QUALITY TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES HAVE BEEN 3. The secondary causes for each primary cause are
developed over the years with specific purposes in discussed. Generally this is facilitated by group members
mind. Many people are familiar with the purposes asking why the cause occurs. These secondary causes are
identified for tools such as control charts, process shown as further branches.
flowcharts, force field analysis, Ishikawa diagrams,
and Pareto charts.
For example, Ishikawa diagrams are used to Cause
determine root causes; force field analysis is used to
determine the positives and negatives of change; and
Cause
so on. Read on for tips using traditional quality tools
in nontraditional applications. Cause
Cause
A different focus on the Ishikawa diagram Cause Problem/
The following present the traditional uses of the Cause Effect
Ishikawa diagram and Pareto chart, followed by a
Cause
nontraditional use.
The Ishikawa diagram was developed by Kaoru Cause
Ishikawa in 1982 and qualitatively determines root
causes of the problem (or effect) being examined. Cause
The steps to construct an Ishikawa diagram are as
follows:

1. A horizontal arrow is drawn on a flipchart, with the The example below illustrates a fishbone diagram
problem or effect written at the tip of the arrow. addressing several causes for a fast food operation’s
dilemma, a long wait at the check-out counter. The
primary cause, “Personnel,” has been identified. The
secondary causes were obtained through a brainstorm-
Problem/ ing session with employees.
Effect

Personnel

2. The primary causes of the effect are discussed and Poor scheduling
branches leading to the arrow are labeled accordingly. Short-staffed
Several frequent primary causes are shown below.
No cross-training
Long wait at
Personnel Equipment Environment check-out
counter
Problem/
Effect

4. As the final step of the Ishikawa diagram, review and

Materials Methods Measurement discuss all the causes identified and determine root or
underlying causes.

30 Association for Quality & Participation www.aqp.org

 Pareto Chart
67.00
57.43 94.03
47.86 82.09
# of errors
38.29
46.27
28.71
19.14
9.57
0.00
Problem B Problem A Problem C
A different focus on the Pareto chart
The Pareto chart, named after Italian economist
Vilfredo Pareto, is a bar chart displaying data that are
graphed in order of magnitude. The Pareto chart
frequently follows the use of an Ishikawa diagram.
Once the root causes are identified on the Ishikawa
diagram (step 4), further data gathering and analysis,
as provided in the Pareto chart, are necessary to verify
the root causes.
The Pareto chart supports the 80/20 rule, which
states that 80 percent of the problems (effects) are
caused by 20 percent of the sources (causes). The
steps to develop a Pareto chart are listed below:
1. Identify a problem and decide how the categories will be
classified.
2. Collect data over a specific time period.
3. Calculate the relative frequency of each category and
display the categories on a bar graph in descending order.
4. Calculate the cumulative percentage of each category and
display them as an arc on the same bar graph (see the
sample chart above).
A review of this particular graph shows that
addressing B and A may eliminate 82 percent of the
problem, while addressing A, B, and C may solve
94 percent of the problem. Without this type of
information, organizations may mistakenly exert effort
to solve minimally-contributing sources (such as C
and D) while ignoring primarily-contributing sources
(such as A and B).
Many quality professionals and authors recommend
100.00
100.00
Cumulative frequency
# of errors
• Cumulative frequency
0.00
Problem D
the simultaneous use of the Ishikawa diagram and the
Pareto chart to help in process improvement. An added
advantage of this combination is that data gathering in
the Pareto chart allows for data-driven decisions on
improvement projects. However, it is sometimes
impossible, difficult, expensive, and/or time-consuming
to gather the data needed to develop the Pareto chart.
In these cases, a nontraditional approach may be
considered. After developing the Ishikawa diagram and
identifying the root causes (the future categories on the
Pareto chart) the team may then discuss the likelihood
of each of these root causes occurring during a specific
time frame.
In the example given on the previous page relating
to the delays at the fast food check-out counter, the
team might ask, “During an average month, how often
are we short-staffed because of poor scheduling?” When
projected numbers are attached to each category, this
information may then be displayed on a Pareto chart.
However, the chart should have a clear explanation that
it is based on estimation rather than actual data
analysis (as expected from a traditional Pareto chart).
Obviously, whenever possible, actual data gathering
should be performed. However, when it is prohibitive or
impossible to do actual data gathering, the team may
estimate using this method.
D. Lynn Kelley, Ph.D. is the author of Measurement Made
Accessible (Sage Publications, 1999), and How to Use
Control Charts in Healthcare (ASQ Press, 1999). You may
reach Kelley at kelley@smtp.munet.edu. See the Jan/Feb 2000
issue of The Journal for Quality and Participation for more
of Kelley’s nontraditional twists on quality tools and techniques.
Fall 2000 The Journal for Quality & Participation 31