Compare initial acceptance and rework without mixing product revisions or counting one item repeatedly in the denominator.
Index
Acceptance after rework can improve the final total while first-pass performance worsens. A quality dashboard must separate those outcomes and retain the product revision applied during each inspection.
The unit of analysis determines the result
Define the counted unit: item, assembly or batch. The same unit passing through several inspections must not multiply the denominator. Its first observed decision and final result answer different questions; neither measure should replace the other without explanation.
A native report can cover counting when identification is stable. A custom layer is needed if inspection and rework use different codes or current records overwrite earlier revisions. Do not attribute poor performance to staff without checking product, criterion and record coverage.
Requirements for comparing BI proposals
- Keep physical identity and applicable revision to locate every unit's first inspection.
- Separate units without recorded initial inspection; missing evidence does not mean acceptance.
- Allow revision-level analysis and inspection of events composing both numerator and denominator.
A check before using the measure
In a hypothetical example, an item fails, returns to production and passes retesting. Final accepted items increase, but that unit's first-pass result remains rejected. Add a product whose revision changed during the period and confirm measures can be analyzed separately before comparisons are made or conclusions about operational improvement are presented.
Reference for assessing scope
Microsoft Learn: facts, dimensions and analytical model grain
Prepare your project with Quantum9
Share linked inspections and the identification used to follow items and revisions with Quantum9.