Module 10 · Lesson 3 of 18
Cutting defects and bundle accuracy
Learning objectives
- Operationally define cutting defects and bundle-accuracy failures.
- Use MSA and Pareto to find the vital few causes before changing method.
- Design bundle-identity controls that survive urgent recut.
Problem and CTQ
Recut, mismatched components, missed notches, shade mixing, ply slippage and bundle-identity errors disrupt sewing and quality. Define defect and opportunity crisply so the same event is counted the same way by every inspector.
DMAIC path
- Attribute MSA for defect classification and measurement.
- Pareto by table, cutter, fabric, lay height, tool, shift, component and lot.
- Map the numbering, bundling and reconciliation flow end-to-end.
Improvement choices
- Lay-height standards, blade/tool control and first/last ply checks.
- Templates, barcode bundle identity and shade barriers.
- Component counting and poka-yoke on mixed-size operations.
Control plan
- Cutting DHU, recut %, bundle accuracy % and downstream missing-part incidents with owner and trigger.
- Audit compliance and response time for a bundle-identity failure.
Garment-factory example
A shirt line reports 3.1% bundle-accuracy failures. Attribute MSA reveals two inspectors disagree on 'missing back-yoke' vs 'wrong shade barrier'. A single-page defect library and a barcode reconciliation cut the failure to 0.6% within three weeks.
Common mistakes
- Adding a final sort instead of controlling the source.
- Losing traceability during urgent recut.
Knowledge check
Pick one answer per question. Explanations appear after you submit.
1. Before Pareto-charting cutting defects, the team should:
2. During an urgent recut, bundle identity must:
Author: Sanjeewa Dehiwalage · Last reviewed: 2026-07-21