Problem 1

Sl. No. Description Frequency1 Soiled and dirty 232 Cuts and discontinuities 123 Improper specifications 194 Weight loss 315 Defective packing 21

(a) The histogram is given below:

Soiled

and d

irty

Cuts an

d disc

ontin

uities

Impr

oper

spec

ificati

ons

Weig

ht los

s

Defecti

ve pa

cking

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Analysis of Cotton Dressing

Freq

uenc

y

(b) The data is rearranged here to draw the Pareto Diagram:

Sl.No. Description Frequency Cumulative %1 Weight Loss 31 29.25%2 Soiled and dirty 23 50.94%3 Defective packing 21 70.75%4 Improper specifications 19 88.68%5 Cuts & discontinuities 12 100.00%

The recommended course of action would be to tackle the weight loss issue first. The weight loss issue could be subject to analysis to determine the cause of this defect. The issue of soiled and dirty dressings also needs to be taken up concurrently because these two issues cover more than 50% of the defective items.

Weight Loss Soiled and dirty

Defective packing

Improper specifications

Cuts & discontinu-

ities

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

Analysis of Cotton Dressing

Freq

uenc

y

Cum

ulat

ive

%

The data is rearranged here to draw the Pareto Diagram:

The recommended course of action would be to tackle the weight loss issue first. The weight loss issue could be subject to analysis to determine the cause of this defect. The issue of soiled and dirty dressings also needs to be taken up concurrently because these two issues cover more

Weight Loss Soiled and dirty

Defective packing

Improper specifications

Cuts & discontinu-

ities

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

Analysis of Cotton Dressing

Freq

uenc

y

Cum

ulat

ive

%

Problem 2

CAUSE

Unrealistic expectations by customers

Number of accounts handled

is escess of capacity Too much variation

in service offerings

Inequitable workload

Employees unaware of customer waiting time

Space constraint

Level of technology low

Manpower shortage

Lack of training

Lack of motivation

Absenteeism

Delay in Customer

Service Time

EFFECT

Procedural delays

Inequitable workload

Employees unaware of customer waiting time

Lack of standardisation of

service

Problem 4

Sl. No Description of item of cost 2002 2003 2004

1 Warranty costs 12,532.00 11,540.00 12,320.00

2 Cost of rework 9,348.00 18,540.00 17,439.00

3 Training costs 234.00 567.00 893.00

4 Supplier Development costs 1,238.00 2,345.00 3,459.00

5 On-site repair of products 8,345.00 7,934.00 7,839.00

6 Cost of testing 4,567.00 5,672.00 5,789.00

7 Loss from Product returns 4,562.00 4,234.00 2,389.00

8 Inspection costs 7,812.00 12,127.00 17,283.00

9 Calibration of testing devices 1,678.00 1,482.00 2,093.00

10 Scrap 2,568.00 4,298.00 6,238.00

(a) The quality costing is given as follows:

External Failure 25,439.00 23,708.00 22,548.00

Internal Failure 11,916.00 22,838.00 23,677.00

Appraisal 12,379.00 17,799.00 23,072.00

Prevention 3,150.00 4,394.00 6,445.00

Sum 52,884.00 68,739.00 75,742.00

(b)

2002 2003 2004Annual Turnover 200,000.00 240,000.00 300,000.00 Rupees (in '000s)

External Failure 13% 10% 8%

Internal Failure 6% 10% 8%

Appraisal 6% 7% 8%

Prevention 2% 2% 2%

COQ (%) 26% 29% 25%

The cost of quality as a percentage of the total turnover is given in the following table, the contribution of individual quality cost components are also shown:

(c)

Significant trends observed from the chart (above) are: 1. Steady decline total quality cost2. Amongst the components, prevention cost shows no variation, however as the external failure cost goes significantly down, internal failure costs and appraisal costs go up

1 2 30%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Quality Cost Components

External Failure Internal Failure Appraisal Prevention

Perc

enta

ge v

alue

s

External Failure Internal Failure

Prevention Prevention

External Failure Appraisal

External Failure Appraisal

Prevention Internal Failure

Category of Quality Cost

Significant trends observed from the chart (above) are:

2. Amongst the components, prevention cost shows no variation, however as the external failure cost goes significantly down, internal failure costs

1 2 30%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Quality Cost Components

External Failure Internal Failure Appraisal Prevention

Perc

enta

ge v

alue

s