STATGRAPHICS – Rev.

9/16/2013

Pareto Analysis

Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 1
Data Input........................................................................................................................................ 2
Analysis Summary .......................................................................................................................... 3
Frequency Table.............................................................................................................................. 3
Pareto Chart .................................................................................................................................... 4
Cumulative Pareto Chart ................................................................................................................. 5
Analysis Options ............................................................................................................................. 5

Summary
Pareto Analysis is a statistical procedure that seeks to discover from an analysis of defect
reports or customer complaints which “vital few” causes are responsible for most of the reported
problems. The old adage states that 80% of reported problems can usually be traced to 20% of
the various underlying causes. By concentrating one’s efforts on rectifying the vital 20%, you
can have the greatest immediate impact on product quality.

STATGRAPHICS supports two basic types of Pareto analysis: weighted and unweighted. In an
unweighted analysis, only the frequency of each problem is considered in determining the vital
few causes. In a weighted analysis, the cost or impact of each problem is also considered.

Sample StatFolio: paretochart.sgp

Sample Data
The file checksheet.sf6 contains information on n = 166 defects discovered in a manufacturing
process. This data, from Montgomery (2005), is shown below:

Defect Frequency
Parts damaged 34
Machining problems 29
Supplied parts rusted 13
Masking insufficient 17
Misaligned weld 2
Processing out of order 4
Wrong part issued 3
Unfinished fairing 3
Adhesive failure 6
Powdery adoline 1
Paint out of limits 2
Paint damaged by etching 1
Film on parts 5
Primer cans damaged 1
Voids in casting 2
Delaminated composite 2
Incorrect dimensions 36
Improper test procedure 1
Salt-spray failure 4

Notice that the data above has already been tabulated, i.e., the number of defects attributable to
each type of problem has been identified. Alternatively, the file could have been structured with
 2013 by StatPoint Technologies, Inc. Pareto Analysis - 1
 STATGRAPHICS – Rev. 9/16/2013
166 rows, each identifying the cause of a single problem, and STATGRAPHICS could have been
asked to count the occurrence of each unique cause.

Data Input
The data input dialog box allows the user to specify how the data is structured.

 Data: If the data is Untabulated, with each row corresponding to a single defect, then the
name of the column identifying the type of defect should be entered. If the frequency of each
type of defect has already been calculated, then a column containing the count for each type
should be entered.

 Labels: a column with labels, one for each unique type of defect. This field is primarily used
for tabulated data, in which case the order of the labels should correspond to the frequencies
in the data field. For untabulated data, labels are usually automatically generated from the
Data entries, so that this field may be left blank. However, if labels are entered here for
untabulated data, they will be assigned to the types of defects in the Data column in numeric
or alphabetic order, depending upon the type of the Data column.

 Weights: when creating a weighted or “exposure” Pareto chart, the weight to be assigned to
each type of defect. Weights should be entered in the same order as described for Labels.

 Select: subset selection.

 2013 by StatPoint Technologies, Inc. Pareto Analysis - 2

 STATGRAPHICS – Rev. 9/16/2013

Analysis Summary
The Analysis Summary shows the total number of defects and the number of different types.

Pareto Analysis - Frequency

Data variable: Frequency

Total counts: 166.0

Number of classes: 19

In the sample data, there are n = 166 defects of k = 19 different types.

Frequency Table
This table shows each of the different types of defects, ordered from most frequent to least
frequent:

Pareto Chart with Cumulative Frequencies

Class Weighted Cum. Cum.
Label Rank Count Weight Score Score Percent Percent
Incorrect dimensions 1 36 1 36 36 21.69 21.69
Parts damaged 2 34 1 34 70 20.48 42.17
Machining problems 3 29 1 29 99 17.47 59.64
Masking insufficient 4 17 1 17 116 10.24 69.88
Supplied parts ruste 5 13 1 13 129 7.83 77.71
Adhesive failure 6 6 1 6 135 3.61 81.33
Film on parts 7 5 1 5 140 3.01 84.34
Salt-spray failure 8 4 1 4 144 2.41 86.75
Processing out of or 9 4 1 4 148 2.41 89.16
Unfinished fairing 10 3 1 3 151 1.81 90.96
Wrong part issued 11 3 1 3 154 1.81 92.77
Delaminated composit 12 2 1 2 156 1.20 93.98
Voids in casting 13 2 1 2 158 1.20 95.18
Paint out of limits 14 2 1 2 160 1.20 96.39
Misaligned weld 15 2 1 2 162 1.20 97.59
Improper test proced 16 1 1 1 163 0.60 98.19
Primer cans damaged 17 1 1 1 164 0.60 98.80
Paint damaged by etc 18 1 1 1 165 0.60 99.40
Powdery adoline 19 1 1 1 166 0.60 100.00
Total 166 166

The table displays the following information for each type of “class” or defect:

 Rank - the ranking of each class j from 1 through k.

 Count - the frequency or number of times each defect type occurred f j .

 Weight - the weight w j associated with each class j. If weights were not specified on
the data input dialog box, then w j  1 for all j.

 Weighted score - the score associated with each class:

s j  wj f j (1)

 2013 by StatPoint Technologies, Inc. Pareto Analysis - 3

 STATGRAPHICS – Rev. 9/16/2013
 Cumulative score - the sum of all weighted scores from class 1 through the current
class.

 Percent - the percent of the total weighted score represented by each class:

100s j
pj  % (2)
W

where

k
W   wi f i (3)
i 1

 Cumulative percent - the sum of the percentages from class 1 through the current
class.

In the example, the 3 most common types of defects were Incorrect dimensions, Parts damaged,
and Machining problems. Together, these 3 types of problems accounted for nearly 60% of all
defects.

Pareto Chart
The Pareto chart shows the frequency of defects in graphical form:
Pareto Chart for Frequency
180 163 164 165 166
158 160 162
151 154 156
144 148
150 135
140
129
116
120
frequency

99

90 70

60
36

30

0
Processing out of or
Film on parts
Machining problems

Paint out of limits

Incorrect dimensions

Paint damaged by etc

Delaminated composit
Masking insufficient

Misaligned weld
Parts damaged

Adhesive failure

Voids in casting

Powdery adoline
Salt-spray failure

Unfinished fairing
Wrong part issued

Primer cans damaged

Supplied parts ruste

Improper test proced

Each type of defect is represented by a vertical bar. Defect types have been sorted from most
frequent to least frequent. Above the bars, a line has been drawn representing the cumulative
number of defects from left to right. For example, the leftmost 3 types of defects accounted for
99 of the total 166 defects observed.

Note: The X-Axis tab on the Graphical Options dialog box allows you to rotate the labels for
each bar and to reduce the font size if necessary. You can also use your mouse to drag the x-axis
away from the bottom of the screen if the labels are cut off.

 2013 by StatPoint Technologies, Inc. Pareto Analysis - 4

 STATGRAPHICS – Rev. 9/16/2013
Pane Options

Display: the value to be placed above each bar. Either the percentage of the total weighted score,
the score, or no label.

Cumulative Pareto Chart

This form of the Pareto chart uses the bars to create the cumulative curve.
Pareto Chart for Frequency
180 166
160 162 163 164 165
156 158
151 154
144 148
150 135
140
129
116
120
frequency

99
90
70

60
36
30

0
Misaligned weld
Parts damaged

Adhesive failure

Salt-spray failure

Unfinished fairing

Powdery adoline
Wrong part issued

Voids in casting

Improper test proced

Primer cans damaged

Supplied parts ruste

Processing out of or
Film on parts
Machining problems

Paint out of limits

Delaminated composit
Incorrect dimensions

Masking insufficient

Paint damaged by etc

Analysis Options
If there are many types of defects that occur infrequently, the least frequent defects may be
combined into a single “Other” class using Analysis Options.

Combine Classes: the method to be used to combine the least frequent classes:

 2013 by StatPoint Technologies, Inc. Pareto Analysis - 5

 STATGRAPHICS – Rev. 9/16/2013
 None: do not combine any classes.

 Counts Less Than: combine all classes with scores less than that specified.

 Percentages Less Than: combine all classes accounting for less than the specified
percentage of the total weighted score.

 Smallest Classes: combine the specified number of classes that have the smallest
scores.

Example: Combining Classes with Less Than 2% of All Defects

Pareto Chart for Frequency
180 166

144 148
150 135
140
129
116
120
frequency

99

90 70

60
36

30

0 Other
Processing out of or
Film on parts
Machining problems
Incorrect dimensions

Masking insufficient
Parts damaged

Adhesive failure

Salt-spray failure
Supplied parts ruste

 2013 by StatPoint Technologies, Inc. Pareto Analysis - 6