Abstract:
A computer-implemented method of optimizing at least one of a design, production and testing process in a mass manufacturing process includes steps of: collecting error data relating to a product; classifying the error data into categories of symptoms; mapping the symptom to a revealing condition of the product; mapping the revealing condition to a test type; mapping a scope of a fix to phases of error injection mapping; and recommending modifications to an end user for at least one of the design, production, delivery, and testing process based on the scope of the fix.

Description:
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS 
     This application is a division of, and claims priority from, commonly-owned, U.S. application Ser. No. 11/926,556, filed on Oct. 29, 2007, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,729,883, which is a division of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/330,823 filed Jan. 12, 2006, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,305,325. 
    
    
     STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED-RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT 
     None. 
     INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A COMPACT DISC 
     None. 
     FIELD OF THE INVENTION 
     The invention relates generally to the use of information technology in industrial processes and more specifically to mass manufacturing processes. 
     BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
     Minimizing costs and improving product quality is a goal of any product development company. To the manufacturer one of the most costly aspects in a product&#39;s life cycle is servicing product defects after the product has left manufacturing. Present methods use quality control tests on a manufactured item that are done by a single department such as a quality control department. Such tests are expensive to perform and it is also expensive and difficult to use the results. One present technology is Orthogonal Defect Classification (ODC) which addresses software defects found during development and by customers, but only software, not hardware and only defects found during development. Another known method is Orthogonal Problem Classification (OPC), which addresses software problems reported by customers, but does not address mass manufacturing industry, it only addresses software. 
     Another technology, Warranty Management Solutions (WMS) facilitates handling by management of warranty related data but provides no feedback to modify production. Quality Control testing products before product release provide no feedback mechanism back to production and design facilities. 
     Therefore, there is a need for a solution that overcomes the deficiencies of the prior art. 
     SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
     Briefly, according to an embodiment of the invention, a computer-implemented method of optimizing at least one of a design, production and testing process in a mass manufacturing process includes steps of: collecting error data relating to a product at a plurality of points along its design, production, and distribution chain; classifying the error data into categories of errors to provide classifier error data; analyzing relationships among the classified error data; producing an analysis report; and recommending modifications to an end user for at least one of the design, production, delivery, and testing process based on the analysis report. 
    
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
       To describe the foregoing and other exemplary purposes, aspects, and advantages, we use the following detailed description of an exemplary embodiment of the invention with reference to the drawings, in which: 
         FIG. 1  is a simplified illustrative block diagram of a mass-manufactured product handled by a method according to one embodiment of the invention; 
         FIG. 2  is an illustrative flow diagram of the mass manufacturing industry&#39;s production, testing, and delivery processes according to one embodiment of the invention; 
         FIG. 3  is an illustrative schematic diagram of a network architecture for one embodiment of the invention; 
         FIG. 4  is an illustrative block diagram of a PSEC Server according to one embodiment of the invention; 
         FIG. 5  is an illustrative flow diagram of the operation of a PSEC Server according to one embodiment of the invention; and 
         FIG. 6  is an illustrative flow diagram of the operation of the PSEC Method according to one embodiment of the invention. 
     
    
    
     While the invention as claimed can be modified into alternative forms, specific embodiments thereof are shown by way of example in the drawings and will herein be described in detail. It should be understood, however, that the drawings and detailed description thereto are not intended to limit the invention to the particular form disclosed, but on the contrary, the intention is to cover all modifications, equivalents and alternatives falling within the scope of the present invention. 
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION 
     We describe a computer-implemented method for optimizing the production and testing of products produced by a mass manufacturer, i.e. where many (virtually) identical copies of a given product are produced in exactly the same way. This is in contrast to cases where heroic, unique methods are used each time. The preferred embodiment will describe how the current invention is used to optimize the production and testing processes of a mass manufacturing plant  3010 , whose products  1000  are sold by a product dealer  3020  and repaired by a product service provider  3030  (as will be described in detail with references to  FIGS. 1-5 ). 
       FIG. 1  is a component block diagram of an example of the product  1000  produced, sold and serviced in the preferred embodiment. As shown, the product  1000  includes a subsystem  1010 , which includes a part  1020 . Although only a single subsystem  1010  and a single part  1020  are shown, the current invention is also applicable to products  1000  that include two or more subsystems  1010  and subsystems  1010  that include two or more parts  1020 . An example of such a product is a personal computer (product), a communication subsystem (the subsystem), and a chipset (port) according to a protocol such as the Ethernet. 
       FIG. 2  is an illustrative flow diagram of the mass manufacturing industry&#39;s production, testing, and delivery processes  2000  according to an embodiment of the invention. As shown, the overall process  2000  begins at step  2010  where the design of the product  1000  is created. Next, in step  2020 , the design is reviewed, and, if any errors (defects) are identified, control continues at step  2010 , where the identified design error is corrected. Otherwise, in step  2030 , an instance of the part  1020  is built, followed by step  2040  where the instance of the part  1020  is tested. If an error is identified, then step  2050  checks whether it is a part error. If so, control continues at step  2030  where the error is corrected. 
     If the error is not a part error, then it must be a design error and so control continues at step  2010  where the design is corrected to overcome the error. If no part error is found in step  2040 , then control continues at step  2060  where an instance of the subsystem  1010  is built. Next, the instance of the subsystem  1010  is tested in step  2070 . If an error is detected, then in step  2080  the error is checked to determine if it is an error with the subsystem. If so, control continues at step  2060  where the subsystem error is corrected. If the detected error is not an error with the subsystem, then control continues at step  2050 , which determines how the detected error, either a part or design error, is handled, as described above. 
     If step  2070  does not detect any errors, then step  2090  is executed, where an instance of the product  1000  is built, following which the product  1000  instance is tested in step  2100 . If an error is detected, then in step  2110  the error is checked to determine if it one with the product. If so, control continues at step  2090  where the product error is corrected. If the detected error is not one with the product, then control continues at step  2080 , which determines how the detected error, either a subsystem, part or design error, is handled, as described above. 
     If step  2100  does not detect any errors, then step  2120  is executed, where an instance of the mass manufactured product  1000  is created using the mass manufacturing process (e.g., including but not limited to an assembly line, and robotics), following which the mass manufactured product  1000  instance is tested in step  2130 . If an error is detected, then in step  2140  the error is checked to determine if it is an error within the mass manufacturing process (e.g., the bolts that attach the wheels are not being sufficiently tightened). If so, control continues at step  2120  where the mass manufacturing process error is corrected (e.g., wheel bolts are screwed on more tightly). If the detected error is not an error within the mass manufacturing process, then control continues at step  2110 , which determines how the detected error, either a product, subsystem, part or design error, is handled, as described above. 
     If step  2130  does not detect any errors, then step  2120  is executed, where the instance of the mass manufactured product  1000  is transported to the Product Dealer  3020  (described in detail with reference to  FIG. 3 ). Once delivered, mass manufactured product  1000  instance is tested in step  2160 . If an error is detected, then in step  2170  the error is checked to determine if it one with the transportation process (e.g., the product&#39;s paint scratched by the vehicles that carry the product to the Product Dealer  3020 ). If the error is one with the transportation process, control continues at step  2150  where the transportation process error is corrected (e.g., the products are covered with a protective wrap before being shipped). If the detected error is not one with the transportation process, then control continues at step  2140 , which determines how the detected error, whether it is a mass manufacturing process, product, subsystem, part or design error is handled, as described above. 
     Skilled artisans will appreciate that any of test processes other than Design Review  2020  (i.e., Part Test  2040 , Subsystem Test  2070 , Product Test  2100 , Mass Manufacturing Test  2130  and Transportation Test  2160 ) could include stress testing (i.e., operating a given component [i.e., part, subsystem or product] up to or beyond one or more of its specified maximum limits) and environmental testing (i.e., testing a given component in one or more of is specified maximally adverse conditions). So, for example, the Part Test  2040  for tires could include running the inflated tires repeatedly of a series of bumps (for stress testing). Similarly for environmental testing, the Manufacturing Test  2130  could include driving each car (cars being the product) through 110 degree (Fahrenheit) heat. 
       FIG. 3  depicts a network topology  3000  providing an execution environment implementing the functionality of a system for the current embodiment. The network topology  3000  includes: a Mass Manufacturing Plant  3010 ; a Product Dealer  3020 ; a Product Service Provider  3080 ; a Client D  3130 , and a PSEC Server  3050 . The Mass Manufacturing Plant  3010  comprises a location, including, but not limited to a building, or set of buildings, co-located or geographically distributed, wherein a Client A  3100  and an instance of mass manufactured product  1000  (MMP 1   3060 ) is located. This location  3010  is where instances of the mass manufactured product  1000  are created. 
     The Product Dealer  3020  comprises a location, including, but not limited to a building, or set of buildings, co-located or geographically distributed, wherein a Client B  3110  and an instance of mass manufactured product  1000  (MMP 2   3070 ) is located. This location  3020  is where instances of the mass manufactured product  1000  are sold. 
     The Product Service Provider  3030  depicts a location, including, but not limited to a building, or set of buildings, co-located or geographically distributed, wherein a Client C  3120  and an instance of mass manufactured product  1000 , MMP 3   3080  are located. This location  3030  is where instances of the mass manufactured product  1000  are repaired or serviced. 
     Each of Clients A-D  3100 - 3130  and the PSEC Server  3050  are able to communicate with each other via a network  3090 . The network  3090  comprises: the Internet, an internal intranet, or a public or private wireless or wired telecommunication network. 
     Skilled artisans will appreciate that although only one each of the Mass Manufacturing Plant  3010 , the Product Dealer  3020  and the Product Service Provider  3030  are depicted in  FIG. 2 , other embodiments are also applicable to cases where there are a greater number of one or more of these entities  3010 - 1030 . Skilled artisans will also appreciate that other embodiments are also applicable to cases where the three entities  3010 - 3030  are co-located. 
     Each of Clients A-D  3100 - 3130  enable an authorized user to interact with the PSEC Server  3050  (as will be discussed in further detail below) with reference to  FIGS. 3-5 . An example of a platform that supports the Clients A-D  3100 - 3130  includes any computing node that can act as web client (i.e., runs a web browser application and can communicate with the PSEC Server  3050  via the network  3090 ). Such software comprises Microsoft&#39;s Internet Explorer™. Still another example of a platform that supports the Clients A-D  3100 - 3130  includes, but is not limited to: an IBM ThinkPad™ running on a Windows based operating system such as Windows XP, or like operating system. Other contemplated operating systems include Linux, UNIX, and the like. 
     Clients A-D  3100 - 3130  may also include network-connectable mobile (i.e., portable) devices such as some cellular telephones (i.e., devices which function as a cellular telephone and execute network applications, like web browsers). 
     Although only four Clients A-D  3100 - 3130  are shown in  FIG. 1 , the current invention is also applicable to any number of client nodes greater than or equal to 1. 
     Further, while the preferred embodiment includes a Web-based (i.e., HTTP) client  3100 - 3130 , other forms of network communication are also applicable, such as a sockets-based client/server architecture, e.g., implementing secure sockets layer (SSL) or like network communications protocols. 
     Skilled artisans will appreciate that the current invention is also applicable to cases where there is only a single client node, which resides on the same machine as the PSEC Server  3050 , thereby eliminating the need for any network communication at all. 
       FIG. 4  is a block diagram of the PSEC Server  4050 . The PSEC Server  4050  is a computing node that acts as an HTTP server. The PSEC Server  4050  includes a CPU  4000 , a network interface  4010 , and a storage device  4020  such as a disk or data access storage device (DASD), and memory  4030 , such as RAM. The network interface  4010  allows the PSEC Server  4050  to communicate with other network connected nodes via the network  4090 . Such interfaces include, but are limited to: Ethernet, and wireless IP (Internet Protocol, e.g., LEAP, CDMA or WAP). 
     In the present embodiment, the PSEC Server  4050  also includes PSEC Server logic  4040 , which is embodied as computer executable code that is loaded into memory  4030  (for execution by CPU  4000 ) from a remote source (e.g., over the network  4090  via the network interface  4010 ), local permanent optical (CD-ROM), or from the storage device  4020  (e.g. disk or DASD). 
     The PSEC Server logic  4040  stored in the memory  4030  includes an HTTP Server Handler  4050 , which includes a PSEC Client Applet  4060  and a PSEC Client Interface Servlet  4070 . The PSEC Server logic  4040  further includes a Defect Data Collection Handler  4080 , a Defect Data Classification Handler  4090 , an Analysis Handler  4100 , a Suggested Actions Report Handler  4110 , and a PSEC Server Database  3120 . 
     The HTTP Server Handler  4050  is an application that can respond to HTTP communications, comprising: the WebSphere™ product sold by IBM. 
     The PSEC Client Applet  4060  and PSEC Client Interface Servlet  4070  together enable an authorized end-user to communicate with the Defect Data Collection Handler  4080 , Defect Data Classification Handler  4090 , Analysis Handler  4100 , and Suggested Actions Report Handler  4110 . When the end-user wants to interact with the PSEC Server  4050 , the end-user first downloads the PSEC Client Applet  4060  to a web browser running on their client, Clients A-D  4100 - 4130 . To download the PSEC Client Applet  4060 , the end-user must provide sufficient credentials (e.g., user ID and password). 
     After the PSEC Client Applet  4060  has been downloaded and enabled, the PSEC Client Applet  4060  communicates directly with the PSEC Client Interface Servlet  4070 , which is executing in the HTTP Server Handler  4050 . The HTTP Server Handler  4050 , in turn, communicates locally with the other handlers  4090 - 4110  executing on the server  4050 . Skilled artisans will recognize that this applet/servlet paring is well known in the art (e.g., see Jason Hunter with William Crawford, Java Servlet Programming (Sebastopol, Calif.: O&#39;Reilly &amp; Associates, Inc., 1988), pp. 277-337). Skilled artisans will also appreciate that the communication between the Clients A-D  4100 - 4130  and the handlers  4090 - 4110 , in other embodiments can be implemented using other socket-based applications. 
     The PSEC Server Database  4120  allows the PSEC Server  4050  to store, modify, and delete data related to misinformation, usage patterns, users, and online community servers. A detailed description of the information maintained by the PSEC Server Database  4120  is given below. The PSEC Server Database  4120  can be implemented using database tools such as the DB/2 product sold by IBM, and like database platforms. One with skill in the art will appreciate that in other embodiments, the PSEC Server Database  4120  can be a service that runs on another server and is accessed by the PSEC Server  4050  via the network  4090 . 
     The Defect Data Collection Handler  4080  enables the current invention to gather a set of defect data regarding the mass manufactured product  1000  and the processes of its production, testing and delivery  2000 . This data includes but is not limited to: Defects founds during product  1000  development, such as design defects discovered during the design review  2020 , Defects found in instances of the product  1000  after manufacturing  2110 , but before delivery, such as cases where the mass manufacturing process  2120  has failed to tighten the bolts that hold the wheels on. Defects that occur as a result of the transportation process  2150 , such as paint being chipped during shipping due insufficient secure restraints in the delivery vehicle, and Defects found at the Product Service Provider  3030 , such as a case where an unreliable tire is identified by the fact that many instances of the product  1000  are brought in where one or more of the tires has burst during operation. Note that this data comes from in-process and post delivery. All such data is stored in the PSEC Server Database  4120 . 
     The Defect Data Classification Handler  4090  takes all of the stored defects and either types or adds types to each defect, storing results in the PSEC Server Database  4120 . This set of attributes categories and associated values is called the PSEC scheme. It is it uses some of the categories and values of the ODC scheme, as well as adding new categories and new values. 
     In the current invention there are two types of defect attributes: opener data, that which is known when the defect is first discovered, and closer data, which is only available after a given defect has been resolved. In the current invention, the opener data associated with each that is stored in the PSEC Server Database  4120  comprises: 
     Unique ID, which can be used to distinguish one defect from all others. 
     VIN (Vehicle Identification Number), which, in the preferred embodiment is the unique encoded alphanumeric string that every automobile has assigned to, this string not only including a unique ID (serial number) for the car, but also indication the car&#39;s make, model, and manufacturing plant (for details, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VIN). 
     Ownership Duration indicates long the product was owned before the defect occurred. In one embodiment of the current invention these revealing conditions include, but are not limited to (note that they are listed in order of shortest to longest):
         Short—Year or less,   Medium—1 to 5 years,   Long—5 years to disposal.       

     One skilled in the art will appreciate that the current invention also includes embodiments in which the Ownership Duration attribute has more or less than 3 values, and in which the values differ from those above (values applicable for the automotive industry). Such alternatives are needed for other mass manufacturing industries, such as the aeronautics industry, whose product: planes are owned and used for well over 5 years, on average. Thus the Long value would have to be greater than 5. Such values are also necessary because different industries have warranty periods of different length. 
     In the current embodiment, the closer data associated with each that is stored in the PSEC Server Database  4120 . In addition to openers and closers, there are mapped attributes whose values for a given defect are computed from other attributes for the given defects. There are also derived attributes whose values for a given defect can only be computed when all of the defects and all other attributes have been computed # Units Affected, indicates the total number of product instances that have suffered from this same defect. It is derived by counting the number of defects that identical part # and corrective action value. 
     Every defect is classified with each of the attributes above with all of the data stored in the PSEC Server Database  4120 . Note that the PSEC Scheme includes data concerning not only software, but hardware and electronics as well (e.g., in the Parts Hierarchy). Further, note that the PSEC Scheme also includes data and analysis techniques targeting mass manufacturing production processes (e.g., Test Type: Manufacturing Test and Phase of Defect Injection: Manufacturing). 
     As is described in detail with reference to  FIG. 6 , the Analysis Handler  4100  uses the classified defect data stored in the PSEC Server Database  4120  to provide data for and answers to questions related to the production and testing process of the mass manufacturer. 
     As is described in detail with reference to  FIG. 6 , the Suggested Actions Reports handler  4110  compiles the charts and text results stored in the PSEC Server Database  4120  to generate a report containing suggested modification to one or more production or testing processes in the mass manufacturing industry&#39;s production, testing, and delivery processes. Such suggestions can include, but are not limited to the addition of a new test phase, or an indication of whether or not a given product is ready for public sale. In addition to textually described suggestions, the report can also include graphical charts justifying the given suggestions, often more than two or more such graphical charts per suggestion. 
     A skilled artisan will appreciate that the current invention also includes a PSEC scheme that includes the service context in which a given defect was found as an attribute, with values including but not limited to: scheduled maintenance, nonscheduled maintenance, and product recall. 
     A skilled artisan will further appreciate that the current invention also includes a PSEC scheme that includes the attributes that indicate the complexity level—e.g., indicated numerically—of other attributes. Examples include, but not limited to Condition Revealing Defect Complexity: 1 for Single Function 2 for Single Function with Option 3 for Interaction and Sequencing 4 for Workload/Stress, Recovery/Exception, Startup/Restart, Environmental, and Stress. 
       FIG. 5  is a detailed flow diagram of the operation of the PSEC Server logic  4040 . In step  5010 , the HTTP Server Handler  4050  awaits an HTTP request. When such a request arrives, step  5020  checks whether it is a request for the Defect Data Collection Handler  4080 . If so, this handler  4080  is invoked following which control continues at step  5010 . 
     If the request is not for the Defect Data Collection Handler  4080 , then step  5040  checks whether it is a request for the Defect Data Classification Handler  4090 . If so, this handler  4090  is invoked following which control continues at step  5010 . If the request is not for the Defect Data Classification Handler  4090 , then step  5050  checks whether it is a request for the Analysis Handler  4100 . If so, this handler  4100  is invoked following which control continues at step  5010 . If the request is not for the Analysis Handler  4100 , then step  5040  checks whether it is a request for the Suggested Actions Report Handler  4110 . If so, this handler  4110  is invoked following which control continues at step  5010 . If the request is not for the Actions Report Handler  4110 , then a miscellaneous handler, beyond the scope of the current invention, is called in step  5070 , following which control continues at step  5010 . 
     Referring to  FIG. 6 , a flow diagram  5000  of the operation of the current embodiment is shown. In particular, a case involving an automobile manufacturer is given. First, in step  6010  all defect data for a particular make (e.g., Ford) and model (e.g., Corvette) of car is collected by the Defect Data Collection Handler  4080  from any of Clients A-D  3100 - 3130  via the PSEC Client Applet  4060 . Skilled artisans will appreciate that any additions could be made manually (i.e. by a human typing information into a computer running the PSEC Client Applet  4060  via a web browser, or by an automatic data collection program, also which communicates with the PSEC server  3050  via the PSEC Client Applet  4060 ). 
     Thus, the current embodiment allows a given mass manufacturing industry to automate its defect data collection. Skilled artisans will appreciate that this defect data includes in-process production data (e.g., data from the Mass Manufacturing Plant  3010 ), as well as post-sales, service data (e.g., from the Product Dealer  3020 , or the Product Service Provider  3030 ). 
     Next, in step  6020 , the defect data is classified using the Defect Data Classification Handler  4090 , again via accesses from Clients A-D  3100 - 3130 . Skilled artisans will appreciate that although the classifications may be made by employees of the manufacturing organization (e.g., Ford), including but not limited to domain experts, a service organization could also provide one or more of the classifications. 
     A skilled artisan will appreciate that if a given mass manufacturing organization obtained its parts  120  or subsystems  1010  from another given component supplier, and if that given component supplier used to current invention to analyze its defects, then the mass manufacturing organization could use the PSEC scheme-based classified defect data for its own defect analysis. 
     Next, in step  6030 , using the Analysis Handler  4100 , relationships amongst the classified data are sought to answer questions relevant to the mass manufacturer (e.g., which production process(es) is(are) producing the defects that drive the majority of the warranty costs?). This research can also provide indications of salient problems. For example, suppose that a chart displaying the number of defects that escape from (i.e., are not caught by) each of the test processes  2020 ,  2040 ,  2070 ,  2100 ,  2130  and  2160  shows that vast majority come from the Part testing phase  2040 . 
     Then, if the goal of the given mass manufacturer is to save money, more attention and/or resources (e.g., time, and personnel) should be spent on Part testing  2040 , so as to keep these defects from escaping to the later stages where they are more expensive to overcome. 
     The Analysis Handler  4100  also includes rules that test the classified data to answer specific questions. Skilled artisans will appreciate that one or more of these rules can be provided when the current invention is first provided to a given organization (e.g., mass manufacturer). An example of such a rule would be one that reviews the Product Impact of the defects and then specifies the given product&#39;s reliability: e.g., “high” returned if none of the defects made the product inoperable, “average” if only a few did, and “low” if most defects did. 
     Finally, in step  6040 , the current invention compiles a chart and results into a report using the Suggested Actions Report Handler  4110 . Skilled artisans will appreciate that the Suggested Actions Report Handler  4110  could implement either of following methods: Automatic compilation of all charts and results generated by the Analysis Handler  4100  and stored in the PSEC Server Database  4120 , or Allowing an end-user to select the charts and results they wish to include and then compiling only entities into the final report. A skilled artisan will appreciate that one or more members of a service organization could provide the chart and result selection described above instead of an employee of the mass manufacturer, 
     A skilled artisan will also appreciate that the current invention could be executed multiple times by a given organization, e.g., periodically, say once a year, or to every new version of a given product. By doing this and comparing the results of each execution (e.g., comparing the reports produced in step  6040 ) the benefits realized by the given organization could include: Verifying that they are overcoming problem indicated in earlier reports, e.g., by checking the previous problems either vanish or are less severe in later reports. Verifying that their product are becoming more stable, reliable, or safe, e.g., by comparing the respective levels of stability, reliability, and safety between reports; or Verifying that are maintaining a sufficient level of production and testing quality, e.g., by verifying that no new or higher severity problems are reported in later reports. 
     A skilled artisan will further appreciate that PSEC analysis reports from different organizations could be compared so as to judge the strengths and weaknesses of the organizations. 
     A skilled artisan will also appreciate that by using the both Charge Type attribute (i.e., whether or not the defect&#39;s repair was covered by warranty) and the Repair Cost attributes, the analysis provided by the Analysis Handler  4100  and reported by the Suggested Actions Report Handler could include consideration of each defect&#39;s warranty cost. Thus, a given organization interested in reducing their warranty-related costs could use the current invention to indicate relevant problems and to suggest corrective modifications to their production and testing processes. 
     A skilled artisan will also appreciate that by comparing and analyzing the classified defects data, especially using the In-Process attribute, the current embodiment can be used to compare defects that escaped (i.e., were created and yet not caught) the product&#39;s development and production to those that occurred out in the field. 
     A skilled artisan will finally appreciate that the current embodiment could be provided as a service by a service organization to the mass manufacturer. This service could include the service organization collecting the defects, classifying the defects, analyzing the classified defects and generating the report summarizing the analysis. This service could be offered on a continuing basis, e.g., the service organization could analyze and provide an analysis report to the mass manufacturer each year. The service could also include modifications and updates to the PSEC scheme used to analyze the given mass manufacturer. 
     A skilled artisan will further appreciate that variations, modifications, and other implementations of what is described herein may occur to those of ordinary skill in the art without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention. Accordingly, the invention is defined by the following claims and not to be defined only by the preceding illustrative description.