IET 410 Practice Problems:

Fishbone Diagram & Pareto Analysis

Fish Diagram (Cause and Effect Diagram)

1. Pick a problem that you have encountered, it could be work related but it does not have to be. Example: submitting a late
assignment, car won’t start.
2. Enter the title of the problem in the fish head in the diagram (This is the effect).
3. Select several categories to use when brainstorming potential causes (Method, Material, Human, Machine…whatever fits your
situation…)
4. Enter potential causes on a fish diagram.
5. There are no “right” and “wrong” answers in this process. Just get some practice thinking critically. This tool helps you explore
potential causes and is especially effective in a group setting.
 IET 410 Practice Problems:
Fishbone Diagram & Pareto Analysis

Pareto Analysis and Diagram

1). From the raw data provided, create a pareto analysis. The data represents defects associated with product barcode labels.

Type of Defect Number of Occasions

Label was missing 27
Label was off center 38
Print was smeared 231
Label was torn 34
Print was too light to read 42
Wrong label attached 14
Label attached to wrong 14
location
Barcode printed in wrong 168
format
Duplicate serial number 42
Date of manufacture missing 91

2.) Determine the % contribution of each issue as well as the cumulative impact (from largest to smallest impact)

3.) What ratio relationship are you observing in the data between the causes and effects? Is it close to the “80-20” rule that we often
observe?

SPOILER ALERT, SOLUTIONS BEGIN ON NEXT PAGE

 IET 410 Practice Problems:
Fishbone Diagram & Pareto Analysis

The first thing we would do is calculate the % of total defects for each of our defect types.
Our total number of defects are 701. So the first defect type (Label was missing) would be 27/701 = 3.9%. The second one
(label as off center) would be 5.4% from 38 / 702.

Type of Defect Number of Occasions Percentage

Label was missing 27 3.9%
Label was off center 38 5.4%
Print was smeared 231 33.0%
Label was torn 34 4.9%
Print was too light to read 42 6.0%
Wrong label attached 14 2.0%
Label attached to wrong 14 2.0%
location
Barcode printed in wrong 168 24.0%
format
Duplicate serial number 42 6.0%
Date of manufactuer missing 91 13.0%
Total 701 100.0%

Next we would sort the data (with the percentages we just calculated) from largest to smallest, descending down the column.
You can sort by the frequency/number of occurrences or by the individual percentage. Sorting by either will give you the same
result.
 IET 410 Practice Problems:
Fishbone Diagram & Pareto Analysis

Here is the same data table above, but sorted (largest to smallest).

Type of Defect Number of Occasions Percentage

Print was smeared 231 33%
Barcode printed in wrong 168 24%
format
Date of manufactuer missing 91 13%
Print was too light to read 42 6%
Duplicate serial number 42 6%
Label was off center 38 5%
Label was torn 34 5%
Label was missing 27 4%
Wrong label attached 14 2%
Label attached to wrong 14 2%
location

Lastly, we can add a cumulative % column, starting our calculation at the top.
 IET 410 Practice Problems:
Fishbone Diagram & Pareto Analysis

The first defect (print was smeared) was equal to 33% of the total, so our cumulative % starting at the top is 33%.
Then we add the next one (bar code printed in wrong format) which is 24%...now we are at 57% cumulatively.

Its important to calculate the cumulative after you sort, otherwise you aren’t really identifying the top defects (pareto
relationship).

Type of Defect Number of Occasions Percentage Cumulative calculation

Print was smeared 231 33% 33% = 33%
Barcode printed in wrong 168 24% 57% =33%+24%
format
Date of manufactuer missing 91 13% 70% =57%+13%
Print was too light to read 42 6% 76% =70%+6%
Duplicate serial number 42 6% 82% =76%+6%
Label was off center 38 5% 87% =82%+5%
Label was torn 34 5% 92% =87%+5%
Label was missing 27 4% 96% =92%+4%
Wrong label attached 14 2% 98% 96%+2%
Label attached to wrong 14 2% 100% =98%+2%
location

If you notice, the top 3 defects contribute to 70% of the total defects. Since there are 10 defects, 3 / 10 = 30%. So in other
words 30% of the defect categories are responsible for 70% of our problem. Not quite an 80-20 relationship, but one that is
very common when studying problem causes.

In this example the data is very simple and it’s easy to immediately look and see which defects we should focus on
improving/eliminating. But in the real world your dataset may be more complex and the practice of sorting and assigning
cumulative %’s in a Pareto is necessary to identify where your priorities should be in process improvement.

If we put it into a chart, it would look like this:

 IET 410 Practice Problems:
Fishbone Diagram & Pareto Analysis