Browse Prior Art Database

SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR COSTING AND PRIORITIZING DEFECTS

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000246313D
Publication Date: 2016-May-27
Document File: 4 page(s) / 145K

Publishing Venue

The IP.com Prior Art Database

Abstract

The invention proposes a system and method for costing and prioritizing defects. In the first step, the method involves creating a database comprising all reported defects. In the second step, experts are used to assign a value in dollars to each defect in the database. In the third step, the valued defects are placed into categories and analyzed for similarities and clustering. The clustered defects are aggregated to have a common problem statement formulated for root cause investigation. The problem statement associated with the targeted defects is recorded in the database. In a further step, the problem statements for various clusters are queued for an estimate of cost to address the root cause of the defects. Defects to be addressed are selected on the basis of an electronic poll by a review board based on associated costs. The system and method increase reliability by providing a robust solution for handling defects.

This text was extracted from a PDF file.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 46% of the total text.

Page 01 of 4

 

SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR COSTING AND PRIORITIZING DEFECTS

BACKGROUND

The invention relates in general to process optimization and in particular to a method for costing and prioritizing defects to lower cost of ownership. Productive utilization of manpower and expense in reducing cost of failure in a process or operation is often misdirected by the lack of objective data. It may be further misdirected when several people are compelled to explain the same issue. It is often difficult to separate assumed data from objective data. If corrective action is based on potentially faulty data it will not be effective. There is a need for a method for providing contextual information on every defect relating to multiple components or devices in a system, so that analysis and rectification decisions can be prioritized.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

The invention discloses a method for costing and prioritizing defects, wherein:

FIG. 1 shows a method for costing and prioritizing defects in a system.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

The invention proposes a system and method for costing and prioritizing defects in a system where defects are encountered. The method for costing and prioritizing defects using a database and process interaction is indicated in FIG. 1. In step 1, a database comprising all reported defects is created. The database would allow monitoring the defects through the various phases of the process. In step 2, the system entrusts to a specific expert the task of assigning a value in dollars to each defect and records these values. In step 3, the valued defects are placed into categories by the assigned experts. In step 4, the categories are analyzed for similarities and patterns and high accumulated assigned values, or clustering. In step 5, the defects of similar patterns are aggregated to have a common problem statement formulated to focus root cause investigation. The problem statement associated with the targeted defects is recorded in the database. In step 6, these problem statements for various clusters are moved in queues to the root cause investigators who make a rough order of magnitude estimate of cost to address the root cause of the defects. Entry of this estimate then initiates an electronic poll by a review board for a go/no-go/hold decision, based on the value or payback ratio.

In step 7, the approved highest valued payback ratio defects are further queued for a designated investigation team to determine the true root cause of the defects. Root causes are validated by the representatives of the team and action is transferred to the implementation queue for an estimate to implement the corrective action solution. In step 8, entry of this estimate into the database triggers an electronic poll by the review board for a go/no-go/hold decision. In step 9, the solution is designed and validated in accordance to the poll result and released for roll out. This release is

 


Page 02 of 4

 

recorded in the database and moves the ta...