JFAPBC (2006) 3:35-38
DOI: 10.1361/154770206X107280
F•A•I •L•U•R•E
Lessons from Sudoku
F
ailure analysis requires a work-
ing knowledge of physics,
technology, materials, manu-
facturing practices, analytical tech-
niques, and more. It is difficult to
imagine what failure analysis would
be like if all the laws of physics were
perfectly apparent and all the chal-
lenges of sample preparation and
testing were removed. Elimi-
nating those considerations, fail-
ure analysis would be more like
Sudoku. Sudoku is a simple
number puzzle enjoyed by
children and adults. The sim-
plicity of Sudoku compared to
failure analysis is the point. Al-
though Sudoku is starkly simple,
the process is challenging to the
best of us. Good and bad prob-
lem-solving practices are clearly
exposed by the experience of solv-
ing a few Sudoku puzzles. Some
insights that are brilliantly clear
in Sudoku are equally true in fail-
ure analysis. Fig. 1
The Sudoku universe is a nine-
by-nine array of squares. The
array is divided into nine three-
by-three mini-grids, as shown in
Fig. 1. At the start of a puzzle,
some of the squares contain a
number between 1 and 9. The
object of the puzzle is to fill in
the blank squares with numbers
1 through 9. Labels are attached
to the puzzle in Fig. 1 to identify
columns and rows for discussion.
There are only three rules.
• Every row must include each
number 1 through 9.
• Every column must include
each number 1 through 9. Fig. 2
This article is adapted from an article of the same name that originally appeared in Electronic Device Failure Analysis, ASM International, 2006, 8(1),
pp. 25-28.
Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention
P•U•Z •Z•L•E•S
• Each of the nine mini-grids must
include each number 1 through 9.
There are no more rules.
One possible way of starting a
Sudoku puzzle is to check each set of
three columns to identify those that
contain a given number in two of the
three columns. That number must
© ASM International
1547-7029 / $19.00
by David L. Burgess
also be placed in the third column,
and no more than three squares are
possible sites. Note in the puzzle in
Fig. 1 that columns A and C each
contain an 8. Column B contains
only a 4 and a 1. An 8 must be placed
in column B. Where is an 8 possible
in column B? Not in the top left
mini-grid; not in the middle left
mini-grid. An 8 in column B is
possible only within the bottom
mini-grid. B9 is occupied by the
number 1. Row 7 already has an
8 at G7; so the only possible
square for an 8 is B8. Similar
reasoning allows unique place-
ment of a 4 in A3. Repeatedly
testing each number and each set
of columns and rows results in
filling in more squares. However,
that tactic eventually stops
producing results. The diagram in
Fig. 2 shows the puzzle pro-
gressed to that situation. The
question “Where in row x is the
number y possible?” is no longer
effective. A new question, or at
least a new twist, is required.
A search for fertile squares does
reveal new possibilities. For
example, the middle right mini-
grid has five empty squares. The
unassigned numbers are 1, 2, 3,
4, and 7. Row 6 contains a 3 at
C6. Column G contains a 3 at
G2. That eliminates row 6 and
column G as possible squares for
a 3. An 8 and a 5 occupy two of
the remaining squares, leaving
only squares H4 and I5 as
possibilities for a 3 in the middle
right mini-grid. Is there any way
to reduce the possibilities to one?
Volume 6(3) June 2006 35
 Lessons from Sudoku (continued)
Yes; consider row 5 on its own. Row
5 must accept a 3 somewhere. Where,
if not I5? C5 is not possible, because
column C contains a 3 at C6. (Be-
sides, that 3 satisfies the quota for
threes in the middle left mini-grid.)
E5 is not possible because of the 3 in
E8. Column G was previously
eliminated because of G2. If there is
going to be a 3 in row 5, it must be
in column I. Column I, row 5 is a 3.
Note: It does not matter that other
numbers might fit in I5. If I5 is the
only possibility for a 3 in row 5,
then I5 is necessarily a 3. No
more data is required.
Continuing still from the
diagram in Fig. 2, look at the
lower middle mini-grid. One of
the numbers required in that
mini-grid is a 4. All three squares
in column F are filled and not
available. Row 9 is not possible
because of C9. Column D is not
possible because of D2. Therefore,
the 4 goes in the only remaining
possibility, E7.
Now, with E7 filled, the only
square in the lower middle mini-
grid for a 9 is E9. Still using the Fig. 3
diagram in Fig. 3, the only square
for a 6 in the lower left mini-grid
is A9. That leads to placing a 6
in B4. Therefore, a 6 must go in
C1. That brings us to the diagram
in Fig. 3.
Column C needs only a 1 and
a 2 to be complete. The lower left
mini-grid contains a 1, so the 1
in column C must be at C5. C5
is a 1. The only remaining square
in column C—C7—must be a 2.
Square D8 is also a 2. All the
entries to this point are shown in
Fig. 4.
Enough about Sudoku. We
have followed through this one Fig. 4
36 Volume 6(3) June 2006
Sudoku puzzle far enough to see
what it is all about.
What are the lessons for failure
analysts? Let us start at the beginning:
• In Sudoku there’s no need to verify
the initial data provided, as there is
in failure analysis. But beyond that,
Sudoku puzzles and failure analyses
start in the same way: Survey the
information provided to get a feel
for the problem at hand. Initially,
in failure analysis, the cause of the
problem could be anything and
anywhere. Simply using available
information to state the problem as
precisely as possible eliminates a
few possibilities. In a process similar
to Sudoku, extend initial data with
additional observations that sharpen
the problem definition. Some pro-
gress will come quickly. Restate the
problem using the new information
to better define the “when,” “what,”
and “where” associated with the
failure.
• Continue to refine the problem
definition by contrasting the
“when,” “what,” and “where”
associated with “not the prob-
lem.” Surprises in the “not the
problem” category can change the
direction of the analysis. The
universe will now fall into one of
three categories: “the problem,”
“not the problem,” and “unclassi-
fied, could be or not, don’t know.”
The task of the failure analyst is
to bring the problem into clear
focus by reducing the unknown
areas separating “problem is” from
“problem is not.” Reclassifying
things in the “don’t know” cate-
gory into “part of the problem”
or “not part of the problem” auto-
matically sharpens the problem
definition. One step at a time, the
initial nebulous problem that
defied solution will be trans-
formed into a more defined prob-
lem with a solid solution.
• Depending on the problem,
physically isolating an anomaly,
characterizing a failure mode, or
statistically correlating a cause
with a failure mode may be the
key to simplifying the problem.
In every case, enjoy the problem
and be attentive to all its details.
Push back thoughts of the final
conclusion. Just concentrate on
Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention
 defining the problem from dif- ther. He may also question the
ferent points of view. interpretation of obser vations
• Just as in Sudoku, there will be already made. Progress is built
times when progress stalls and data upon all the facts developed during
seems insufficient to proceed. The the analysis. A colleague (or you, for
first impulse should be to pause, that matter) must believe each
have a cup of tea, then take a fresh observation to commit full energy
to solving the problem from that
foundation. You are
“Forcing the analysis in a predetermined asking for total trust in
direction will take longer than a more logical your discoveries to that
step. Forcing the analysis to a conclusion before point. You should
the problem is sufficiently defined is pointless.” therefore expect and
welcome detailed
questions to support
look at the data. Enjoy the chal-
your characterization of the prob-
lenge of finding valuable infor-
lem thus far. Simply reviewing the
mation in the data. Failing that,
steps can be an enlightening
look for an answerable question in
exercise. Good notes will be
the data—then do what must be
essential. Your failure analysis
done to obtain the answer. In
colleague may believe what you say,
Sudoku, many questions are
but by nature, he trusts data more
fruitless at any given stage, but the
than opinion. Where possible,
answer to the right question is there
provide direct evidence, not only a
for the picking. The data will
conclusion or interpretation. (This
dictate the direction of the analysis.
is especially important when
Forcing the analysis in a predeter-
analysis is a shared effort among
mined direction will take longer
different labs and companies.)
than a more logical step. Forcing the
analysis to a conclusion before the • In Sudoku, a square filled in
problem is sufficiently defined is incorrectly will go unnoticed. The
pointless. Just as the puzzle solver process will continue nicely,
concentrates on each next number, happily building on false infor-
one at a time, an analyst should look mation. More erroneous numbers
for one more defining fact. That will be derived from the first.
fact will lead to another. The puzzle Erroneous numbers will be consis-
and the failure analysis problem tent with one another, creating a
each will reveal its secrets in turn, false confidence that all is well.
one possible step after the last. Even Only at the very end will it become
if the boss and others are pressing obvious that a mistake was made.
for a conclusion, the next answer- If a mistake is found, it may be
able question is the quickest path necessary to start over, reverifying
to that conclusion. every number. Failure analysis must
• A different pair of eyes may see comply with a more complex reality,
possibilities in the data that you do and one error may lead to erroneous
not. A colleague looking from a conclusions. The mistake may not
fresh point of view may move the be obvious, even at the very end. So
problem along by recognizing be careful with each step. Avoid
patterns that can be developed fur- reading unwarranted significance
Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention
into an observation that supports a
desired output. On the other hand,
do not discount an observation that
does not fit an otherwise satisfying
conclusion. Trust that all the facts
will fit and make sense when the
problem is understood. An analyst
with an above-average grasp of
physics and tools will very likely be
able to sell, in good faith, a faulty
conclusion. (Even the most gifted
analysts can come to believe a false-
hood.) Recognizing and correcting
a mistaken conclusion may take a
great deal of time and money.
• In Sudoku and failure analysis, for
the reason above, it is wise neither
to guess nor assume. Every piece of
data is important and must be
accurate. However, failure analysis
is not a game. Statistics are not part
of Sudoku, but statistical character-
istics are important, real, and useful
in failure analysis. Statistical aspects
of a failure analysis problem should
not be overlooked.
• Because the Sudoku world is small
and defined, it may be correct to
say, “This square cannot be a 4, so
it must be an 8.” The real world is
fuzzier. It may be a slight exaggera-
tion to say that you don’t know
what it isn’t until you know what it
is. But be very careful. Being asked
to comment on a photo of an inte-
grated circuit with massive amounts
of melted metal and silicon, some
analysts offered the comment, “I
don’t know what it is, but it defi-
nitely is not ESD.” (Electrostatic
discharge, or ESD, was in fact the
initiating cause.)
• Even though Sudoku rules are
extremely simple, puzzle-solving
skill can be enhanced by studying
a book such as Carol Vorderman’s
How to Do Sudoku. This book, and
others like it, discusses how to look
Volume 6(3) June 2006 37
 Lessons from Sudoku (continued)
at available data in different
ways. It discusses how to rec-
ognize patterns. Technical
papers focused on the failure
analysis process are few and may
not be identified as such.
Check, for example, “Failure
Analysis of Steel Bearing
Plates” in the December 2005
issue of this journal. This paper
does not discuss how to perform
any of the failure analysis tests.
It does demonstrate critical
thinking about specifications
and how to make conclusions
from test data. It shows how a Fig. 5
meaningful conclusion can be
made with less data than necessary
to determine root cause. The paper
is about how to get everything pos-
sible (but no more) from the data.
• All the questions involved in
solving a Sudoku puzzle are varia-
tions of “where” and “where not.”
Defining a failure mechanism
includes “what,” “when,” “where,”
38 Volume 6(3) June 2006
“how much,” and their associated
“nots.” The thought process for
problem solving in general and fail-
ure analysis specifically is a learned
skill deserving recognition and
more attention.
• New tools are important in failure
analysis. Do not let the lure of
magical new tools distract you from
Who do you want to reach today?
Advertising information on page 28.
fully using the tools and data
already available. Even though
Sudoku is so simple, it is hum-
bling to realize that progress from
a seemingly impossible situation
usually does not involve a new,
sophisticated way of reasoning.
More likely, the key is using
information already available and
finding the right question. Both
Sudoku and failure analysis are
about the questions.
Just for the record, the com-
pleted puzzle is shown in Fig. 5.
Free Sudoku puzzles are
available online at http://
www.websudoku.com.
David L. Burgess, Accelerated
Analysis, PMB Q-310, 80 N.
Cabrillo Highway, Half Moon
Bay, CA 94019. Contact e-mail:
davidburgess@att.net.
Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention