Quality & Performance Dashboard: Project Defect Rate Analysis
Explore a detailed analysis of project defect rates, workload distribution, and quality metrics across 10 projects. Learn about process volume and efficiency.
Quality & Performance Dashboard
Project Defect Rate & Workload Analysis | 10 Projects
April 2026
Total Reviewed Parts
10,603,380
Total Corrected Cells
451,060
Avg Defect Rate
11.46%
excl. Internal Test: 2.16%
⚠ Highest Defect Rate
100.0%
Internal Test
✓ Lowest Defect Rate
0.2%
Agilent
Data Source: Internal QA Systems | Frequency: Daily / Weekly / Monthly / Quarterly
Defect Rate by Project
Chart A — Identifying quality outliers across all projects
Defect Rate (%)
Internal Test
100.0% ⚠ CRITICAL
Top Issued Product Lines
6.0% ⚠ HIGH
GPV
1.9%
Veiston
1.4%
HIMA
1.2%
Honeywell
1.1%
QA Audit
1.2%
Subscriber Corrective Actions
0.9%
Proactive Plans
0.7%
Agilent
0.2% ✓ BEST
⚠ Internal Test: 100% defect rate
— critical issue requiring immediate attention
✓ Agilent: 0.2%
— best performing project
Workload Distribution by Project
Chart B — Reviewed Parts volume per project
Reviewed Parts (log scale)
Project Name
7M
2M
819K
715K
45K
9.5K
7K
3.7K
2.9K
1.8K
Top Issued Prod. Lines
Proactive Plans
Subscriber CA
QA Audit
GPV
HIMA
Veiston
Honeywell
Agilent
Internal Test
Volume Dominance
Top 2 projects account for 85% of total reviewed volume.
Critical Alert
Internal Test: lowest volume but 100% defect rate.
Note: Scale is logarithmic to show low-volume projects clearly
Volume vs. Defect Rate — Scatter Plot
Chart C — Does high review volume lead to higher defect rates?
Reviewed Parts (Log Scale)
Defect Rate (%)
Internal Test ⚠ 100%
Top Issued PL ⚠ 6%
GPV 1.9%
Veiston 1.4%
HIMA 1.2%
QA Audit 1.2%
Honeywell 1.1%
Sub. CA 0.9%
Proactive Plans ✓ 0.7%
Agilent ✓ 0.2%
⚠ Critical Outlier: Internal Test
Tiny volume (1,826 parts) but 100% defect rate. Isolated test environment.
✓ Performance Leader: Proactive Plans
2M parts reviewed at only 0.7% defect rate.
📊 Key Finding: No strong positive correlation. High volume ≠ poor quality.
Focus Area & Frequency Analysis
Chart D — Stacked Bar by Focus | Chart E — Distribution by Frequency
Data Source: Active Review Workflows | Time Period: Last 30 Days
Key Business Insights & Recommendations
Strategic findings from Quality & Performance Analysis
🔴 CRITICAL
Internal Test — 100% Defect Rate
All 1,826 reviewed parts were incorrect. This is not a data quality process — it appears to be a test environment with deliberately faulty data. Requires immediate investigation and isolation.
🟠 HIGH RISK
Top Issued Product Lines — Highest Volume + High Defect
7,000,000 reviewed parts with 6.0% defect rate = 420,374 corrections. This is the most business-critical area. High impact on operations.
🟢 STRONG PERFORMER
Proactive Plans — Efficiency at Scale
2,000,000 reviewed parts with only 0.7% defect rate. Demonstrates that high-volume review can maintain quality. Best practice candidate.
🔵 CONTROLLED
Subscriber Corrective Actions
819,000 parts reviewed with <1% defect rate (0.9%). Large workload managed effectively. Process appears well-controlled.
🟢 HIGH QUALITY
Low-Volume Projects: Agilent & Honeywell
Agilent (0.2%) and Honeywell (1.1%) maintain top quality with smaller volumes. Dedicated focus enables precision.
📊 INSIGHT
No Volume-Defect Correlation
High review volume does NOT lead to higher defect rates. Quality depends on process maturity, not just scale. Proactive Plans proves this.
Recommendation: Prioritize Internal Test remediation and Top Issued Product Lines quality improvement immediately.
- quality-assurance
- data-analysis
- project-management
- dashboard
- performance-metrics
- defect-rate
- business-intelligence