Introduction to Affinity

Diagrams and Pareto Charts

1
 80/20 Rule (Pareto’s Law) “Vital few and trivial many”
 20% of effort is responsible for 80% of the results, which means that a
few (20%) efforts are vital and many are trivial

 Focuses on what typically happens, not the multitude of exceptions

20% EFFORT
80%
RESULTS

Source: F. John Reh, “Pareto's Principle—The 80-20 Rule,” About.com,

http://management.about.com/cs/generalmanagement/a/Pareto081202.htm
(accessed December 12, 2012).
2
 Examples of 80/20 Rule

 20% of people owned 80% of the wealth (Pareto’s original observation)

 20% of defects cause 80% of the problems (Juran’s observation)

 20% of customers cause 80% of the complaints

 20% of customers generate 80% of the revenue

 20% of the product range generates 80% of the profit

 20% of the sales force generates 80% of the sales

 20% of the staff accounts for 80% of the lost work days (absences)

3
 Pareto Chart (1 of 3)
Description
A bar graph in which:
 The lengths of the bars represent frequency.
 They are arranged with the longest bars on the left and the shortest to the
right.
300 100%

90%
250 244
80%

70%
200 187
60%

150 50%

40%
100 92
30%

45 20%
50
10%
7
0 0%
Blue Black Red Green Yellow

4
 Pareto Chart (2 of 3)

 The “Other” Bar

 Represents a number of items with a small number of occurrences
 aka “the trivial many”

300 100%

90%
250 244
80%

70%
200 187
60%

150 50%

40%
100 92
30%

45 20%
50 33
10%
7
0 0%
Blue Black Red Green Yellow Other

5
 Pareto Chart Example (Negative Attribute #1)

Customer Complaints 100%

250 90%

80%

200 70%

Cumulative Percent
60%
150
Number

50%
Vital few Trivial many
40%
100
30%

20%
50

10%

0 0%
Parking difficult Rude sales rep Poor lighting Confusing layout Limited sizes Clothing fadedClothing shrank

Count Cumulative Percent

Source: Based on “Pareto chart (Pareto distribution diagram),” WhatIs.com,

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/Pareto-chart-Pareto-distribution-diagram (accessed December 11, 2012).

6
Pareto Chart Example (Negative Attribute #2)

7
 Pareto Chart Example (Positive Attribute)
Pareto Analysis - POSITIVE Comments (n=43) total: 43
30 100% Category Frequency/Quantity Cumulative %
Friendly Tech 27 62.79%
90% Explained Procedure 6 76.74%
25 One Stop Visit 4 86.05%
80% Walked to Lobby 2 90.70%
Courtesy Call 2 95.35%
70%
20 CD of Exam 1 97.67%
60% Tech Gender Preference 1 100.00%

15 50%

40%
10
30%

20%
5
10%

0 0%
Gender …
Exam
CD of
Courtesy
Friendly

Procedure

Walked to
One Stop
Explained

Tech
Tech

Lobby
Visit

Call

8
 Pareto Chart (3 of 3)
When to Use a Pareto Chart
 When analyzing data about the frequency of problems or causes in a
process
 When there are many problems or causes and you want to focus on the
most significant (80/20 rule)
 When analyzing broad causes by looking at their specific components
 When communicating with others about your data

9
 Affinity Mapping
 Logical Grouping of Ideas
 Helps to synthesize large amounts of data by finding relationships between ideas
 More art than science

 When to Use
 Brainstorming causes or solutions
 Analyzing qualitative “voice of the customer” feedback (survey/interview)
 Fishbone diagrams

Random Ideas Affinity Diagram

  Theme Theme Theme

1 2 3

Source: Based on “Affinity Diagrams: Organizing Ideas Into Common Themes,”

MindTools, http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/ newTMC_86.htm
(accessed December 11, 2012).
10

Cause
Drop Down Coding Error
Training
Too Many People Entering Analysis
Common Language (Terminology)
Process Not Clear
Drop Downs Too Complex
UI Not Intuitive
Outdated Drop Downs (Maintenance)
Affinity Mapping – Example
Post-It Notes
Wrong option selected
(1) Wrong info Why was there
(2) Wrong people
(3) Wrong people info (not enough review)
an incorrect coding
Lack of knowledge (options available) of the engineering analysis?
(1) Not everyone is familiar with FFRP tool
(2) Not enough info about new tool development
Several groups entering data
Inconsistent definition of codes
Multiple people entering data, each with their own interpretation of the data they have been given
Different names for different components (MA's)
Similar choices for same failure mode
Material "root cause" may have different definitions from different sources (vendors / external or
internal groups)
Incorrect info from engineer
Root cause not clear
Process not widely communicated & understood
Choppy work flow
No one method of communication
Hardware should follow system assignment flow
Too many ways to log the same thing
Items in drop downs do not make sense
Too much detail required
Too many choices per field
Too many fields to fill out
User Interface not intuitive
Hard to understand -- no easy flow of entering failed parts / root cause
Lack of appropriate drop down selections to identify the issue
Drop down not maintained - (a) very little SW categories & (b) some do not make sense
Outdated drop downs
Incorrect drop down menus available
Option for root cause not available
Only shows what is currently available -- people use "best fit" 11
 Affinity Mapping – Example (cont’d)
Group Cause Post-It Notes
People Drop Down Coding Error Wrong option selected
(1) Wrong info
(2) Wrong people
Why was there
(3) Wrong people info (not enough review) an incorrect coding
People Training Lack of knowledge (options available) of the engineering analysis?
(1) Not everyone is familiar with FFRP tool
(2) Not enough info about new tool development
People Too Many People Entering Analysis Several groups entering data
People Common Language (Terminology) Inconsistent definition of codes
Multiple people entering data, each with their own interpretation of the data they have been given
Different names for different components (MA's)
Similar choices for same failure mode
Material "root cause" may have different definitions from different sources (vendors / external or
internal groups)
Incorrect info from engineer
Root cause not clear
FFRP Process Process Not Clear Process not widely communicated & understood
Choppy work flow
No one method of communication
Hardware should follow system assignment flow
FFRP SW Tool Drop Downs Too Complex Too many ways to log the same thing
Items in drop downs do not make sense
Too much detail required
Too many choices per field
Too many fields to fill out
FFRP SW Tool UI Not Intuitive User Interface not intuitive
Hard to understand -- no easy flow of entering failed parts / root cause
FFRP SW Tool Outdated Drop Downs (Maintenance) Lack of appropriate drop down selections to identify the issue
Drop down not maintained - (a) very little SW categories & (b) some do not make sense
Outdated drop downs
Incorrect drop down menus available
Option for root cause not available
Only shows what is currently available -- people use "best fit"
12
 Affinity Mapping – Manager’s Meeting Example
Expectations of Manager's Meeting total: 80
25 100% Category # Cum %
Informational 22 27.5%
90% Priorities 14 45.0%
Financial Health 10 57.5%
20 80% Informational - System 6 65.0%
Share Best Practices 6 72.5%
70%
Networking 6 80.0%
15 60% Safety 5 86.3%
Motivational 4 91.3%
50% Q&A 4 96.3%
Interactive Feedback 3 100.0%
10 40%

30%

5 20%

10%

0 0%
Share Best …
Informatio…

Informatio…
Financial…

Interactive…
Safety
Priorities

Q&A
Motivational
Networking

Blue – Top 3 Green – 80 / 20 Rule

13
 Samsung Electronics
Solution to “Samsung Electronics: Analyzing
Qualitative Complaint Data” case

14
 Q1 - Create an affinity diagram from the complaints (Pass #1).

Frequency
32 5 2 1 1
Category
Customer
Service
(Rep
Issue Product Knowledge) Safety Repairs Recall
1 X
2 X
3 X
4 X
5 X
6… 30
31 X
32 X X
33 X

 First pass at grouping the data

 Results are clear that the majority of complaints are with the product
 Proceed to make second pass at grouping data

15
 Q1 - Create an affinity diagram from the complaints (Pass #2).

Frequency
19 11 7 4 2 2 1 1
Category
Main Unknown
Issue Screen Power On Board Clicking Power Off (Recall) Audio LCD Panel
1 X X
2 X
3
4 X
5 X
6… 30
31 X X X
32 X
33 X

 Second pass at grouping the data

 Results form basis for Pareto

16
 Q2 - Create a Pareto chart from the results of the affinity diagram.

20 100%
total: 47
18 90%
Frequency/
Category Cumulative %
16 80% Quantity
Screen 19 40%
14 70% Power On 11 64%
12 60% Main Board 7 79%
Clicking 4 87%
10 50% Power Off 2 91%
Unknown (Recall) 2 96%
8 40%
Audio 1 98%
6 30% LCD Panel 1 100%

4 20%

2 10%

0 0%
Unknown

LCD Panel
Screen

Power On

Main Board

Clicking

Audio
Power Off

(Recall)

17
 Q3 – What items (if any) need immediate attention?

 Safety Issues
 Choking Hazard?
• “The placement of side connectors creates a great safety hazard. To use such
connectors with HDMI cables, one has to loop the cable outside the TV unit, creating
an area where a baby/small child can be caught in the loop, causing severe damage
or strangulation to the child.” (Row 3)
• Evaluating the validity of this complaint would be most important for limiting liability.
Findings should be documented carefully and appropriate action should be taken if
warranted.

 Burning TV?
• “My Samsung T240 HDTV, which is a little over three months out of warranty blanked
out a couple of mornings ago. I am an electrician by trade and recognized the burning
smell and isolated it to my TV, which resulted in no picture but still has sound.” (Row
32)
• That unit should be tested thoroughly to understand root causes.

 Attention to detail

18
Q4 – What next steps would you recommend for the near term (4-8 weeks)?

 Screens
 Root cause analysis

 Failed Parts
 Do the problems stem from the same or multiple suppliers?
• Are these problems from the same batch?
• Do we need to make changes in how we certify suppliers?
• Did we specify the part incorrectly from the beginning?

 Design
 Can Samsung make its TV design more robust and fault-tolerant?
• How was this overlooked in our design process?
• What changes can be made to catch these types of problems earlier?
• If Samsung does not employ HALT (highly accelerated life test) and HASS
(highly accelerated stress screening), can it begin to do so?

 Test / QA
Lean Waste (muda)  Overprocessing
 What type of final and assembly tests can it develop to catch these
problems?
19
 Q5 – What other insights (if any) can you offer?

 Crisis Management
 Based on the frequency and emotion of the complaints, Samsung may want to
consider engaging in some “crisis management” contingency planning.
 Example of good crisis management?

 Example of poor crisis management?

20