ZERO DEFECT SAMPLING

E.F. "Bud" Gookins

Executive Vice President
General Plug & Manufacturing Company
Grafton, Ohio 44044
SUMMARY
This paper presents an alternative method to the now obsolete Mil Std 105E sampling scheme previously
used to accept or reject products, and the remaining ANSI Z1.4-1993 which is still very much active.
Although the plan is designed to closely follow the operating characteristic curve of the military standard,
it is based totally on an acceptance of "0" defects and a reject on "I" defect model; providing the process
is controlled to a "cp" > or = to 1.67 and a "cpk" > or = 1.33.
KEYWORDS
lot size, operating characteristic curve, random selection, sampling scheme
The sampling of products is not a new concept of appraisal determination. In fact, it has been around
since mid evil times when kings would employ individuals called inspectors to check the carts of grain to
insure that the grain was of consistent quality upon entering the castle.
However, as we have moved down through the ages we have developed method of sampling that pro-
vided a more regulated and consistent appraisal assurance. But before the acceptance and use of the mil-
itary standard 105, many inspectors often used a non statistical method of product evaluation. This method
was primarily structured to inspect product that had a history of being conformant and reliable by taking
a small sample of any two or three parts and making a decision to accept or reject. However, from a source
or process that the inspector felt was unreliable and had a history of generating defective products the
inspector might give a more critical exantination and take several parts to inspect.
Although the informal system was ostensibly effective for determining the arbitrary sample size base
primarily on the judgement of the inspector, it had obvious limitations. The inspectors history of the sup-
plier or inhouse process performance could often times be biased or inaccurate. Moreover, if the inspec-
tors resigned, were transferred, or simple retired the quality history went with them. Even in the short run,
if an inspector was on vacation or sick for a few days the informal system was degraded.
These limitations suggest the need of a method of consistent and regulated assurance for product eval-
uation and quality protection. Thus the sampling schemes were developed using the statistically based
model of probability principles.
This subsequently lead to a governmental document called military standard 105. This document was
used not only in governmental receiving depots, sub contractors to the government, but in non govern-
mental regulated organizations as well. Clearly it was the most widely used statistically based model in
worldwide industrial systems for appraising of products.
580
ASQC 50th Annual Quality Congress Proceedings 581
From a simplicity viewpoint it was based on a relationship between the probability of acceptance and
the percent defective, whereas an operational characteristic curve is plotted based on an acceptance qual-
ity level (AQL). This statistical plotation has a 100% inspection relationship when the lot size is relative-
ly small but as the lot size increases the sample size became a lower percent proportionally in that rela-
tionship. This statistical technique has been a "god sent" for appraising of products. Particularly when the
lot is extremely large. It presents a cost efficient quality monitoring process, providing the sample is taken
randomly and unbiasedly, which allows each part an equally likely chance of being selected. This homo-
geneity is essential if we are to achieve a reliable determination of our products.
The only "short fall" to Mil Std 105E, as the writer see's it, is that the plan was designed to accept lots
that were based on knowingly finding the nonconforming product of a specified "AQL" and still be able
to accept the lot if it fell below the reject criteria.
In the passed several years however, the sampling concept changed and the percent defective criteria
for accepting or rejecting lots was becoming less popular. This was driven primarily by the new criteria
established calling for part per million "ppm" quality performance requirements, which forced many com-
panies to reexamine the AQL sampling methodology and to employ other statistical applications.
Motivated by this more demanding performance requirement and the trend towards proactive controls,
such as process improvement, employee training, and integrated process appraisal, has created this zero
defect sampling scheme.
The very first salient point is that this plan is based on only a single sample structure. That is to say
there are no double or multiple and sequential plans, and there is no need for anything other than a single
sampling plan.
The primary reason for double or multiple schemes is to defer the decision based on more often than
not, a psychological reasoning of giving a second change to doubtful lots or in cases were the pressure of
a rejected lot may impair our production output, and would take to much time to 100% inspect. We know
as a point of information that 100% inspection is fatiguing, monotonous, and simply not reliable, and
besides the customer is really hot for these parts.
In my 40 years of quality work I have never heard anyone say "let's take another sample even though
the first one was accepted, just to make sure they are good." So in counterpoint this zero defect sampling
scheme is based on taking a single sample.
This paper will deal with lot-by-lot acceptance sampling by attributes and will not address acceptance
inspection for continuous production.
582 ASQC 50th Annual Qualiry Congress Proceedings
There are a few premises to the zero defect sampling plan that are identical to the Mil Std 105E
schemes:
*

*

*



The part needs to be evaluated as to those characteristics that are classified as critical, major, and
minor in nature.
The "A" classification of the zero defect model represents the most serious defects and will be in
parity with the .65% AQL equivalent of mil std 105E.
The "B" classification of the zero defect model represents the less critical characteristic but one
that can cause the product to be inoperative earlier than predicted and will be in parity with the
1.5% AQL equivalent of Mil Sid 105E.
The "e" classification of the zero defect model would be usually of a minor defect characteristic
and would normally not effect the fit, form, or function of the end use or not caused the unit to be
inoperative, and will be on parity with the 4.0% AQL equivalent of Mil Std lOSE.
The "0" classification of the zero defect model is designed to serve two purposes; first a charac-
teristic not warranting any major variance such as tool or die wear and of a very stable process, or
secondly a characteristic requiring a destructive type test be performed. This classification will be
in parity with the 10% AQL equivalent of Mil Std 105E.
It maintains the same switching procedure as Mil Std 105E; IE. Normal, Tightened, and Reduced.
It uses the same lot size windows as Mil Std lOSE.
Lastly, it's calculation of the sample size is based on the same mathematical formuli
What has changed, however, is the elimination of the general inspection levels and the special inspec-
tion levels for this specific zero defects plan, and the design to always accept "0" defects and reject on "I"
defect. These two criteria are essentially the only main difference.
The AQL equivalent still defines the acceptance quality level as the "nominal value expressed in terms
of percent defective or defects per hundred units whichever is applicable, specified for a given group of
defects of a prnduct."
Because our "zero defect sampling" is based on a process statistically controlled to a cp > or = to 1.67
And a cpk > or = to 1.33 For all critical (controlled item) characteristics and major characteristics, we can
productively feel assured that under a stable process we can only rise the confidence of our inspection
judgement.
Since Mil Std lOSE is predicated on a producers (I-a) risk of some specified value, and a consumers
risk ( ~ ) of some specified value. they both encourage the selection of two points on an operating charac-
teristic curve which would define a quality between both and separated by the probability of accepting
defective lots, or rejecting good lots for any AQL assignment.
The following tables I, II, and III represents Normal, Tightened, and Reduced zero defect sampling
plans respectively.
ASQC 50th Annual Quality Congress Proceedings 583
. ~ . CLISIJFJCAYIOI
-.- CIoU.lrJcalIDI -c'" CIoU'I'Ic:&t'JOil -.a- CLAA1rlCA7I011
.IS\ AQL 1.,. aoL
".0' ~
10' _
IQUIV&.I.ZIft"
""IYas.ar7
-,-
IQQnaLD'!'
SAMPLE lICe IW .....u ace IW -..a ace ....
_ ...
ace ...
LOT IIZI SUI 110. 10. aUIE 110. 10. IIU 110. 10. Inl 110.
'0.
2""

ALL

1 ALL

1


1 1

1
. ...,
U ALL 0 1

0 1

0 1 1 0 1
U...,
,.
2. 0 1

1

0 1 1

1
2' TO 50 2.

1

1

1 1

1
51 1'0 '0
2.

1

1

1 1

1
U TO 150 2.

1 15

1
,

1 1

1
lSI TO 210
,.

1 15

1 10

1

1
211 1'0 soo
"

1 21

1 11

1

1
501 1'0 uoo
.,

1
'7
0 1 IS

1


1
1201 TO noo ..

1 .. I 1 11

1

I 1
3201 1'0 10000 ..

1 SO

1
,.

1

1
IOOal TO 35000 77

1

I 1 ..

1

1
UOOI '1'0 lSOooo to

1

0 1 .. 0 1


1
150001 TO 500000 11.

1 .. I 1 ..

1

0 1
SOOOOI AIm ova 1 .. 0 1

0 1 ..

1 11 0 1
-A- CLIIIJ'Ie&'IOI
... CIoAUlnCM'ZGII
-c:- CIoUIiI"CU'IOil .... CIoUIIPlCU'IOil
.... -
1 ... _
.. "-
I.M agio
-.-...-
_1-
IQVI- IODIYaa.an
.....u JU:C ....
-""
...,
11&7 -...
...,
.... -.... &c:C OJ
LOt 112:1
'UI
10. 10. .UI 110. 10. .111 10. 110. IIU 110. 110.
, to ALL 0 1 ALL I 1 ALL

1

0 1
t 1'0 15 ....

1 ....

1

0 1

0 1
U TO 21 ALL

1 11

1

0 1

0 1
21 TO S'

I 1 11

1 10

1

I 1
UfO"
..

1 11 0 1 10

1

1
U TO 1S0 .. 0 1 27 I 1 1. I 1

1
lSI TO ZIO .. I 1 27

1 11

1

1
211 '1'0 SOD II

1 27 I 1 IS

1

1
501 '10 1200 .1

1 .. 0 1 11 I 1


1
1201 TO noo II

1 .. I 1 .. I 1

I 1
3201 TO 10000 77 I 1

0 1
"
I 1 I 0 1
10001 TO 3S000 .. 0 1 .. I 1

0 1


1
35001 TO 150000 III 0 1 O. 0 1

1 IS

1
110001 TO 500000
14'

1 72

1 IS I 1 IS

1
500001 UD O'Ig lit

1 71

1 IS

1 to

1
584
LOT lID
2 ...
, t'O 15
11 '1'0 25
21 TO 50
51 t'O 10
t1 '1'0 150
151 'to 210
211 'fO SOD
501 '1'0 1200
1201 '10 noo
3201 '10 10000
10001 '10 35000
3'001 TO 150000
150001 TO 500000
500001 I8D OYZI
ASQC 50th Annual Quality Congress Proceedings
CLAalIPlcaTlaI
.15' AQt.
IlIOInLEft
........ ace: au
nu 10. 10.
ALL

1
1

1
1

1
1 0 1
1

1
1

1
,

1
,.

1
"

1
12

1
14 0 1
10

1
..

1
3.

1
3. 0 1
'I'ULK UI
UDDCZD IUHC'I'Ia.
ZDO DDSC'f AllPLIJIG
.... CLU8lPIClna.
1." aor.
IlIOrnLIIT
........
-=
au
lUI 10. 10.
$

1
$

1

0 1
$

1
$

1
,

1
,

1

0 1
,.

1
12

1
12

1
U

1
2.

1
2.

1
20 0 1
.C- CLaallPJCA!'IOI'
4..010 AOL
1IIUl .......
........ aco ow
1111 10. 10.
3

1
3

1

1
$

1

1
,
0 1
,

1
,

1


1
"

1
,.
0 1
U

1
12

1
12

1
12

1
n CLlaSIWIC&!'JOB
la' Agio
EQOJV&IoDI"Z'
........ ace
g,
lUI 10. ID.
1

1
1

1
1

1
1

1
1

1
1

1
2 0 1
2 0 1

0 1

1

1
$

1

1

1
13

1
Now recognizing that the OC curves of the Mil Sid lOSE single sample plan and the zero defects plan
are reasonably significant, the Mil Std lOSE however does prescribe a larger sample size as the lot size
increases. Although this increase in sample size gives a better discrimination between lots that are some-
what better than the assigned AQL value or equivalent, a choice between the two plans requires balancing
the extra inspection costs of larger samples, usually 3 or 4 times larger, against the advantage of better assur-
ance that a lot meeting the quality standard will be accepted, and one failing to meet it will be rejected.
In order to visible demonstrate this concept, let us select an AQL of 0.65%, I.S%, And 4.0% All on a
normal inspection with lot sizes of 1,201-3,200, 281-S00, and 91-ISO respectively and compare the mil sid
lOSE with the zero defect plan. (See fignres 1-3) clearly the plotations are reasonably significant, but in
all three examples the sample size of the zero defect plan is significantly less than the mil std lOSE. In all
examples we have not endorsed going beyond the "0" defects criteria for the zero defect plan. But in all
three examples we have, with the mil sid lOSE, accepted lots that exhibited up to 2 defects in the same
sample size and still accepted the lots. For example in the 4% AQL Mil Std we would accept lots that the
sample size, would be as much as 10% defective. That is to say lout of 10 parts produced could be defec-
tive and still accept the lot. Even at the I.S% AQL, which would be considered a major characteristic, we
would still accept a lot based on up to 4% defective. Recognizing these percent defective criteria's repre-
sent statistically a maximum condition, they still must be considered unacceptable as we strive for higher
quality expectations now and in the future.
CONCLUSION
We as global competitors must think of our finish goods and products in Parts Per Million, "PPM", in order
to survive as we go forward into the next millennium, and I think we must at least consider the zero defect
sampling scheme as a tool to accomplish this objective.
1.0
0.8
0.8
~
00.5
"
~
: D .
..,
o
..,
o
Ii: 0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
,
,
,
\
o
\
\
\
1\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\ \
\
2
ASQC 50th Annual Quality Congress Proceedings
Norma I I nsoec t i on
AQL = 0 . ~ 5 %
N = \201 - ~ O O
\
\
\
~
~
~ '-
~ ~ ~
3

1 8 8
Plrclnt Derlctlvo
Figure 1
10
L 9 d
lI-i( Ull Sid I O ~
" \25
c "" 2
~ Zlro Dol c t
53
c .0
585
586
.. "
...
I.'
1.2
1.1
:
I 1.0
iOo.
.t
.... 0.1
0
::0.7
i 0.'

..
0.'
0.'
0.2
0.1
0.0

0
,
,
ASQC 50rh Annual Quality Congress Proceedings
Normal Inspection
.0.01. -
N - 281 - 500
-.. --
2 3 .. a I 7 I 10 11 12 13 .4 15
Pllte .. ' 0.'"''''''
Normal Insoection
.0.01. - 4. bo:I:
N 91 - 150
1.5.,...-,.--.-.---.--,.--.-,.-,.-.,.--.-.-,.-.,.--.--.
I .
I .
1 . -1--1--1--1-1--.\--1--1--1--1:..-1--.\--1--1--1--1
O.I++-+-I-f-+-++-+-I-f-+-++-+-I
0.0+-+-l-l--+-+-l-l--++-+---J1-++-+-1
o 2 l 15 I 7 10 II 12 13 '4 II
P.r h'.cllv.
.. II Std 105r0
IIW
t
...... Z." D.tf.c t
21
00
Figure 2
L ,
.... it UI, .. IOU>
20
. ,
...... Ze,. hleat.
7

Figure 3