The survey information on this page relates to the issues outlined in the 4-part series listed below.
The 1st Article: Continuous Improvement for Cable/Harness assembly.
The 2nd Article: Divide and Conquer your BAD Cables/Harnesses
The 3rd Article: Getting Quality Right the First Time
The 4th Article: Measuring Success: Why Put a Dollar figure on Quality Improvement?

You can sign up for our e-Newsletter to keep up to date with this topic.

In May 2009 (see the article here), we asked our customers about the metric used to track their test results. We wanted to know what was most popular and how pervasive the uses of such quality metrics were. In addition, with the influence of Six Sigma quality, we were curious what was an opportunity used as a divisor in their quality calculations. Here is what we learned.

Do you gather (track) yield data or failure rates when testing?

• 50% Yes
• 21% Sometimes
• 17% No
• 12% Test during the assemby to eliminate failures.

If you get a failure during test, how is such a failure counted?

• 69% Counted as a BAD
• 31% Promptly fixed and not counted as BAD
• One company (medical) scraped all failing assemblies. (rework not allowed)

How do you present the data? (Multiple selections OK)

• 81% First Pass Yield (% bad over total assemblies tested)
• 32% Other

Of those that track yield data: Do you use

• 89% Same metrics for all cables
• 11% Different Metrics

What is an opportunity?

If you use selected "defects per some kind of opportunity", what represents an opportunity? Of those reporting something other than 1 opportunity per cable (Such as used for FPY) Most people reported using the number of terminations as the number of opportunities per defect.