Zero Defects: What Does It Achieve?

What
Does It Mean?
Phillip H. Williams 2
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.
There is value in trying to understand the meaning and purpose of this oft-used term, and
whether its use is the best approach in a Six Sigma environment of continuous improvement.

Possible Pitfalls of Pushing Zero Defects

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.
But can a mere slogan actually discourage the successful implementation of proven Six Sigma
continuous improvement methodologies? This can best be answered by considering the
expectations, the conflicts and the different levels of understanding surrounding the term zero
defects.
Literally zero defects corresponds 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.

Statements That Do Not Align with Facts

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.
It is the role of statistically minded scientists and engineers to classify defects and their potential
impact, based on data and engineering judgment. This allows them to systematically reduce
defect levels in a prioritized fashion, starting with the worst and progressing toward the more
benign. Without this kind of problem-solving prioritization, progress may be slow and
confused perhaps even at a standstill. The ability to prioritize is absolutely necessary in the
continuous improvement process.
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 customers 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.

Negative Impact on Workforce and Supply Chain

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 companys suppliers, continuing to add tests and inspections in an effort to comply with
zero defects (perhaps at their customers 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 companys 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: Strive to Be Better and Better, Not Perfect

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) DFM: Worlds Collide, Then Cooperate by L. Peters in
Semiconductor International, June 1, 2005.

Robust design

It is probably best to not encourage the use of somewhat ambiguous terminology in the place of
well-defined and meaningful methodologies such as these.
The concept of continuous improvement is intuitive. It makes sense to always strive for a better
process or product, to reduce costs, satisfy customers and gain market share. Absolute perfection
can never be achieved, but an organization can move closer and closer with good statistical and
engineering practices.

Featured Product Root Cause Analysis Course

With this course you will be able to train anyone in your company on the proper techniques for achieving proper
resolution of any type of problem, whether it be a transactional process, manufacturing issue, medical procedure, or
personnel issue.

If You Loved This Article, You Might Also Love

1. Using Weighted-DPMO to Calculate an Overall Sigma Level
2. Importance of Tolerance Design for Six Sigma Projects
3. How to Avoid Common Mistakes When Measuring Performance

4. Sigma Performance Levels One to Six Sigma