ZERO DEFECTS:

The definition for Six Sigma was clear from the beginning – 3.4 defects per million
opportunities (DPMO), allowing for a 1.5-sigma process shift. But the definition for zero
defects is not so clear. Perhaps zero defects refers to the domain beyond 3.4 DPMO. Or perhaps
it refers to designing defects out of the process or product, so that – theoretically at least – a
company can consistently manufacture a defect-free product.

Quality guru W. Edwards Deming believed that slogans and programs such as zero defects
are usually counterproductive. D.C. Montgomery, author of the book Introduction to Statistical
Quality Control, agrees, commenting that these programs typically do not drive the “use of
proper statistical and engineering tools into the right places of the organization,” and they
“devote far too little attention to variability reduction.” In other words, the use of slogans such
as zero defects to spur quality may lead to a de-emphasis of the tried-and-true tools and culture
associated with successful continuous improvement.

Literally zero defects correspond to a defect level of infinity sigma, which most practitioners
will admit is not possible. And yet an enthusiastically institutionalized zero defects program
may unfortunately promote the belief and expectation that true zero can and should be
achieved. This is evidenced by several phrases that quality professionals may have heard
spoken – or at least heavily implied – by business strategists:

 “All defects are the same, since all defects are bad…”
 “There is no such thing as a benign defect.”
 “If we can get rid of the defects, then we can get rid of the testing.”
These expectations are worth examination.

In fact, all defects are not equal. Defects, depending on their size and type, have different
probabilities of impacting the finished product. And these probabilities depend on the
technology. In fact, the impact probability of a particular defect may vary within the
technology – that is, at the stage or layer in which it occurs. When it comes to the practical
definition of a defect, “bad” is a relative term. Many defects are simply neutral. They are never
good, but – again, depending on the technology – they may cause no harm either. If all defects
are considered bad, then prioritization is difficult.

The statement that if fewer defects are produced, then less inspection will be required is
incorrect. Actually, the opposite is true. A higher level and sophistication of testing is required
to detect a smaller level of defects. The plot in Figure 1, derived from a cumulative binomial
distribution (pass/fail inspection) shows how the sample size increases exponentially as the
prevalence of a defective unit decreases. The particular curve in Figure 1 corresponds to a
probability of detection of 95 percent. In other words, if a defect is present at the indicated level
(x-axis), there is a 95 percent probability that at least one failed unit will be detected using the
sample size indicated on the y-axis.
 Figure 1: Sample Size Versus Probability of Failure

A more intuitive example is: If a shoebox full of needles is mixed into a haystack, only a portion
of the haystack will have to be moved before the presence of needles is detected. If there is
only one needle in the haystack, every straw may have to be moved before it is found, assuming
it is not missed entirely.

This is really the misunderstanding that drives the inappropriate application of a zero defects
policy to multiple points along the supply chain (Figure 2). It may be thought that producing
zero or near-zero defects at each point will lead to reduced or eliminated inspection/testing
prior to shipment to the end-customer. But for zero defects to approach reality, the
inspection/testing must remain the same or increase at the final inspection point. If zero is truly
the goal, then 100 percent sampling at the “escape” point is required, regardless of defect levels.
This implies, then, that any zero defect inspections prior to the escape point may be non-value-
added.
 Figure 2: A High-level Flow of Serial Product Manufacture, Across Supplier and Customer Boundaries

Ideally suppliers need to produce the highest quality output possible, in order to maximize yield
and minimize costs which ultimately benefits both the supplier and the customer. But a zero
defects policy does not provide this motivation to suppliers. When the goal of zero defects is
applied to multiple interim points along the supply chain, the undesired effects of increased
costs and lower yields are encouraged. The increased costs come from increased tests,
inspections and cycle time. The lower yields are likely because of a higher rate of “false fails”
(type 1 errors) as the suppliers apply increasingly stringent criteria in an attempt to eliminate
potential failures at the customer’s incoming test/inspection. In other words, in an effort to
eliminate even the smallest possibility of customer incoming test failures, good product may
be scrapped to overly stringent criteria.

A focus on zero defects may be stifling to a discussion of continuous improvement, and may
lead to frustration and non-productivity. To the general workforce, it may be a demoralizing
concept. While everyone understands that continuous defect reduction is critical and necessary,
most people understand, intuitively at least, that true zero is unachievable. Always striving for
 an unachievable goal may eventually de-motivate even the most optimistic of employees,
particularly if they are frequently told that their defect level is unacceptable – because it is not
zero.

For a company’s suppliers, continuing to add tests and inspections in an effort to comply with
zero defects (perhaps at their customer’s demand) may eventually drive them out of business.
Thus, while continuous improvement is applicable to everyone, zero defects can or should only
be applied to the final supplier, rather than at interim points along the supply chain. Attempting
to do the latter may eventually put one or more of the suppliers in jeopardy. If a supplier critical
to the company were to fail, the company’s supply chain might collapse, which might
eventually put the company out of business too

Finally, it should be realized that the inspections and tests themselves (however careful and
precise they are) have a finite probability of actually causing a defect. This concept is somewhat
akin to the uncertainty principle: “We may significantly modify what we are trying to measure
simply by making the measurement.”

Conclusion:

Since the slogan zero defects implies immediate compliance to a defect-free standard, it may
not leave time for the continuous improvement process to occur. In fact, it may even slow down
the continuous improvement process because of the massive resources that inspected-in quality
entails.

Zero defects is a message that can carry with it confusion and misinterpretation, mixed with
technical impracticality. It may be appropriate that the idea of zero defects be replaced with a
policy of zero escapes, since the latter has limited interpretation. As a company is doing all it
can to improve the product and business using continuous improvement techniques, it also
needs to consider what it can do to prevent a random, low-level defect from reaching the final
customer. In this regard, zero escapes of defects may be a complimentary activity to continuous
improvement.

A logical strategy is to employ continuous improvement methodologies everywhere in the

business and manufacturing process to improve quality and yield, and reduce cycle time and
costs. Then, at the point of shipping the final product to the final customer, employ a zero
escapes methodology to help ensure that a randomly defective unit does not reach its final
application. The tools and techniques developed and employed at this final gate should be
arrived at through a team effort of the various suppliers and interim customers. Expecting
individual suppliers in the supply chain to produce zero defects, in an effort to eliminate or
minimize the final gate, is likely to be an impractical strategy.

Quality professionals already have specific, descriptive methodologies that are aimed at
achieving the same goals as zero defects. Here are but some of the methodologies already in
use and being developed to minimize the defects in the end product:

 Design for manufacturability (DFM)

 Design for yield (DFY)
 Design for test (DFT)