The defect rate in Six Sigma is defined as the number of defects divided by
the number of opportunities to create defects.
(a) Some practitioners define the number of opportunities as the number of
inspections and/or tests. Why is this not a valid way to determine defect
rate? (Hint: the best manufacturers tend to do very little test and
inspection.)
(b) Another school of quality thought defines opportunities as value-added
transformations. That is, a product or service is changed by the process, the
change matters to the customer (i.e., if a step removes scratches from a
previous step, it doesn't count), and only first-time operations count (i.e.,
rework steps are not opportunities). Will this lead to a more reliable measure
of defect rate than the previous definition? How might an unscrupulous
practitioner manipulate the calculation of opportunities to make the defect
rate look better than it actually is?