Lecture 9

Acceptance Sampling
Introduction

Michelle V. Mancenido
2007.09.25
Storytelling Time
Once upon an afternoon, I was feeling lazy. So I asked my
students to exchange papers and grade their seatmate’s problem
set.

I was very well aware of the risks associated with this method
but because my laziness outweighed my usual passion for
fair grading, I found myself relenting to my laziness.

Later on, I decided to check if my students did not betray the

trust that I had so generously awarded to them.
Storytelling Time
I realized I had better things to do with my time. I couldn’t
spend the whole day re-checking the papers and convincing
myself that my 4th year Engineering students are truly
trustworthy.

Being an industrial engineer, I had to balance efficiency

with effectiveness. I am also teaching Statistical Quality
Control, and it would be a shame if I couldn’t practice what I
preach.

But before coming up with a solution, I had to develop a

focused problem statement, so it would be clear to me what I
would be solving.
Storytelling Time
And so I wrote down my focused problem statement:

Minimize the number of papers re-checked given that:

(1) “My students” has a given level of “untrustworthiness”
(2) Assuming this level of “untrustworthiness” is true, based on the
number of papers I re-checked, I want a lower probability of
concluding that the students are truly trustworthy.

I realize that this can be treated as an OR problem. But I

decided not to treat it as such because my students are
already having enough trouble with Statistics.
Storytelling Time
My problem is to determine the number of papers to re-check per
class. The decision factor is this: because I am not certain what
the level of untrustworthiness is, I want a lower probability of
concluding that my students are trustworthy, given different
levels of untrustworthiness
So here is what I did:
 For each section, I counted the number of graded papers = N
 I defined several n = samples taken = rechecked papers
 I defined several x = number of papers in a sample where there was at
least one error (intentional or unintentional) in checking
 I defined several p’s = level of untrustworthiness in a class, estimated to
be the fraction of students who has the gall to cheat
 I computed the probability P for each combination. P is the probability
that there will be at least x papers in the sample n, given that there is an
untrustworthiness level p.
Storytelling Time
To compute for the probability Pa is easy. Now is the time to ask
my students: how do I compute the probability that there will be at
least x papers with checking errors in them, in n number of papers
that I recheck for each class, given that there is a certain
untrustworthiness level p in that class?
 Storytelling Time
I set these criteria:
(1) if there are no papers with errors in the samples that I
rechecked, I will assume that there are no errors in the rest of
the papers
(2) if there is at most one paper with errors in the sample(s) that I
rechecked, I will still assume that there are no errors in the rest
of the papers.
(3) If the two papers I rechecked have errors in checking, then I will
make sure everyone suffers for this dishonesty.

Problem is, I’m not also sure how discriminating these criteria are.
Storytelling Time
 So I came up with the table of probabilities in Microsoft Excel, one table for each criterion,
assuming different number of papers re-checked.
 I am interested in these probabilities because they tell me the chance that I will conclude that
my students are honest at a given level of dishonesty

When x = 0 P (x=0) When x<=1 P (x<=1)

p d n=2 n=3 n=4 p d n=2 n=3 n=4
0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00
0.1 2 0.81 0.72 0.63 0.1 2 0.99 0.98 0.97
0.2 4 0.63 0.49 0.38 0.2 4 0.97 0.91 0.84
0.3 6 0.48 0.32 0.21 0.3 6 0.92 0.80 0.66
0.4 8 0.35 0.19 0.10 0.4 8 0.85 0.66 0.47
0.5 10 0.24 0.11 0.04 0.5 10 0.76 0.50 0.29
0.6 12 0.15 0.05 0.01 0.6 12 0.65 0.34 0.15
0.7 14 0.08 0.02 0.00 0.7 14 0.52 0.20 0.06
0.8 16 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.8 16 0.37 0.09 0.01
0.9 18 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.9 18 0.19 0.02 0.00
1 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 20 0.00 0.00 0.00
Storytelling Time
My students love pictures, so I drew these curves for them.

n=2
n=3

n=4
Storytelling Time
My students love pictures, so I drew these curves for them.

n=2
n=3
n=4
Storytelling Time
Assuming that there are approximately 6 dishonest students in a
class of 20, using the hypergeometric function:

p = 0.30, d = 6 n=2 n=3 n=4

x=0 0.48 0.32 0.21
x≤1 0.92 0.80 0.66

If the level of untrustworthiness is truly this bad, I can stomach a 32%

chance that I will conclude that the class is completely honest when
there are about 6 bad seeds. And anyway, I have enough faith in
my students, to believe that the rampancy of dishonesty is not even
30%, 20%, 0r 10%. It’s probably 5% or less. I will therefore re-check
about 3 papers per class.
Acceptance Sampling

 Refers to the application of specific sampling plans

to a designated lot or sequence of lots

 Concerned with inspection and decision-making

regarding products - involved with randomly picking
samples and “judging” whether the rest of the lot
conform to specifications based on the samples
Acceptance Sampling

1. Emphasis on lot sentencing, not estimation of lot

quality
2. Does not provide a direct form of quality control
3. Most effective use - as audit tool
Types of Sampling

According to Purpose

Type A Sampling to accept or reject immediate

lot of product at hand

Type B Sampling to determine if the process

which produced the product at hand was
within acceptable limits
Uses of Acceptance Sampling

 Testing is destructive
 Cost of 100% inspection high
 100% inspection not feasible
 Supplier with excellent quality history
 Potentially serious product liability risk
Advantages of Acceptance Sampling

 Less expensive
 Less material/product handling
 Applicable to destructive testing
 Increased productivity (fewer personnel)
 Reduces inspection error
 Increased motivation to improve (rejection of lots)
Disadvantages of Acceptance Sampling

 Risks of rejecting “good lots” and accepting “bad

lots”
 Less information about the product or process
 Requires planning and documentation of the
sampling schemes or systems
Progression from Assurance to Control

Zero Inspection

Audit Inspection
Supplier Certification

Process Control

Reduced
Inspection Acceptance Sampling

100% inspection
 Definition of Terms
Terms commonly used in acceptance sampling:

N Number of units in a given lot or batch

n Number of units in a sample
D Number of defective or nonconforming units in a given lot size N
x Number of defective or nonconforming units in a given sample size n
c Acceptance number, the maximum allowable number of defective pieces in a sample of size n
p Fraction defective (D/N) or (x/n)
µp True process average fraction defective of a product submitted for inspection
p Average fraction defective in observed samples
Pa Probability of acceptance
β Consumer’s risk
!
α Producer’s risk
Definition of Terms

 Sampling Plan
a specific plan which states the sample size(s) to be used and the
associated criteria for accepting the lot

 Sampling Scheme
a combination of acceptance sampling plans with rules for changing
from one plan to another

 Sampling System
unified collection of sampling schemes, together with criteria by
which appropriate schemes may be chosen
Forms of Sampling Plans

 Attributes Plans
 samples taken from the lot classified as conforming and
nonconforming
 number nonconforming compared with acceptance number

 Variables Plans
 Samples taken measured on a specified characteristic
 Measurements summarized into a simple statistic and observed
value compared with specifications
 percent defective based on conformance to measured
specifications
Attributes vs. Variables Plans

Feature Attributes Variables

Inspection Defective or nondefective Item measured. More sophisticated.
Higher inspection cost.
Distribution of individual Need not be known Must be known (normality assumption
measurements ideal)
Type of defect Any number of defect types in one plan Separate plan for each quality
characteristic
Sample size Depends on protection required Smaller size for same protection provided
by attributes (at least 30%)
Process Info Percent defective % defective + valuable information on
average & variability
Severity Weighs all defectives of a given kind Weighs each unit against proximity to
equally specifications
Evidence to supplier Defectives available as evidence Possible to reject lots without defectives
Types of Sampling Plans

Type Samples Decision

Single Number of samples = 1 Accept or reject lot based on single
Sample size = defined subgroup

Double Number of samples = 2 (1) Accept or reject lot based on #

Sample size = 1st smaller than 2nd defectives in 1st sample
(2) Take a second sample
Multiple Number of samples = more than 2 but (1) Accept or reject lot based on #
defined and truncated defectives in (m-1) sample
Sample size = becomes smaller (2) Take m samples
Sequential Number of samples = theoretically (1) Accept or reject lot based on #
unlimited until a decision is reached defectives in (m-1) sample
Sample size = depends on results (2) Take m samples
previous samples
Published Schemes
Inspection Procedures
 Lot formation
 Lots should be homogenous
 Large lots over small ones
 Material handling efficiency
 Random Samples
 Samples should be representative of the lot
 One technique: stratification