You are on page 1of 8

Combining Taguchi and Response Surface

Philosophies: A Dual Response Approach

0niversityofHorida, Cainesvi//e, Horida 32611
lirginiaPo/ytechnicInstitateandState 0niversity, B/acks/arg, lirginia24061
G. Taguchi and his school have made signifcant advances in the use of experimental design and
analysis in industry. Of particular signifcance is their promotion of the use of statistical methods to
achieve certain objectives in a mean response while simultaneously minimizing the variance. Unfor
tunately, many statisticians criticize the Taguchi techniques of analysis, particularly those based on
the signal-to-noise ratio. This paper shows how the dual response approach of optimizing a "primary
response" function while satisfying conditions on a "secondary response" function can be used to
achieve the goals of the Taguchi philosophy within a more rigorous statistical methodology. An example
illustrates this point.
uu industrial statisticians have encoun-
tered a need to develop experimental strategies
to achieve some target condition for a characteristic
of interest while simultaneously minimizing its vari
ance. Too often the classical experimental design
techniques have been found lacking since they tend
to focus solely on the mean of the characteristic. With
the current push for quality improvement, the engi
neer must be more ambitious than to merely fnd op
erating conditions that achieve a target condition on
the mean. There must also be an efort to achieve
conditions where variability around the target is low.
Taguchi (Taguchi [1986], Taguchi and Phadke
[1984], Taguchi and Wu [1985]) has highlighted the
need for considering both the mean and the variance
of the characteristic of interest. Through the param
eter design method and the use of signal-to-noise ra
tios, Taguchi has developed a total package for ap
proaching this problem. Unfortunately, his approach
has drawn much criticism, some of which we shall
discuss in the next section.
Dr. Vining is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sta
tistics. He is a Member of ASQC.
Dr. Myers is a Professor in the Department of Statistics and
Director of the Statistical Consulting Laboratory.
Joural of Qualit Technology 38
This paper seeks to establish that one can achieve
the primary goal of the Taguchi philosophy, to obtain
a target condition on the mean while minimizing the
variance, within a response surface methodologies
(RSM) framework. Essentially, this paper views both
the mean and the variance as responses of interest.
In such a perspective, the dual response approach de
veloped by Myers and Carter (1973) provides a more
rigorous method for achieving some target for the
mean while also achieving some target for the vari
ance. The experimenter thus can remain true to the
basic intent of the Taguchi method while avoiding
many of the problems inherent to parameter design
and signal-to-noise ratios.
Review of the Taguchi Approach
Kackar (1985) ofers an excellent summary of the
basic Taguchi method. This section is largely based
upon Kackar's article as well as the discussion which
follows. Principally, Taguchi advocates the application
of experimental strategies to minimize the mean
squared error of the characteristic of interest. He con
siders three basic situations:
1. "the target is best," where one tries to minimize
the mean squared error around a specifc target
2. "the larger, the better," where one seeks to maxi
mize the characteristic of interest; and
Vol. 22, No. 1, Januar 1990
3. "the smaller, the better," where one tries to mini-
mize the characteristic.
Fundamental to Taguchi's approach is the "signal-to
noise ratio," which he uses as his measure of perfor
mance relative to the desired objective. Assume that
a process depends upon k variables and assume that
the settings of these variables are fxed at particular
levels. Let Y1,
, ,
represent a random sample
of m observations taken at these conditions. Taguchi
has defned over 60 diferent signal-to-noise ratios,
with three of the most important being:
1. -10 IOg
l for the smaller is better case;
] 2. -10 loglO L 2 , for the larger is better case;
m i1
3. 10 log
[ !], for the target is best case.
In this last expression, f is the sample mean and 8
the sample variance.
The Taguchi method seeks to minimize the appro
priate signal-to-noise ratio by using experimental de
signs based upon what he calls the inner and outer
arrays. The inner array represents a design involving
the k variables under the experimenter's control. Each
point of the inner array is replicated according to the
outer array, which is another design based upon q
noise variables for which the experimenter either
cannot control directly or chooses not to control. Ta
guchi relies heavily upon saturated or near saturated
orthogonal arrays for both his inner and outer arrays.
Box (1985) points out that the Taguchi approach
represents a signifcant advance in the application of
experimental designs to the improvement of product
quality. However, he also points out several short
comings to the Taguchi procedure. Among these crit
icisms are the following:
1. the Taguchi method does not exploit a sequential
nature of investigation,
2. the designs advocated are rather limited and fail
to deal adequately with interactions,
3. more efcient and simpler methods of analysis are
available, and
4. the arguments for the universal use of the signal-
to-noise ratio are unconvincing.
The answer to these criticisms requires that the Tagu
chi philosophy be blended with a data analysis strat
egy in which the mean and variance of the quality
characteristic are both empirically modeled to a con-
Vol. 22, No. J, Januar 1990
siderably greater degree than practiced by Taguchi.
In this way the engineer and scientist can achieve the
basic goal of the Taguchi method while addressing
Box's criticisms.
Revew of te Dual Response Problem
In order to achieve our objective, we shall borrow
a technique developed by Myers and Carter (1973).
Let x represent a k X 1 vector of independent variables
under the experimenter's control. Suppose that the
experimenter seeks to optimize two responses for x
E R where R is a region of interest. Let 'p represent
the response of primary interest, and let 's represent
the response of secondary interest. Assume that these
responses may be modelled by
k k k
'p =
.+ .. + ..-+ ,., + fp (1)
. . .
k k k
's - 'o + ~..+ ~..-+ ~.,.,+ fs
.- . .
where the {'s and the ''s represent the unknown coef
fcients, and fp and fs are the random errors.
Assume that an appropriate second order response
surface experiment is conducted. Let wp and Ws rep
resent the observed primary and secondary responses,
respectively. The resulting ftted response surfaces
may be represented by
Wp = bo + x'b + x'Bx
Ws - Co + x'c + x'Cx
where bo =
i0, Co - .o,
b = (i1,, ik)', C
, .k
)', and
B = -
We note that bo, Co, b, c, B, and C are the appropriate
vectors and matrices of the estimates for the coef
The dual response problem deals with the deter
mination of the set of conditions, x* E R, which op
timize wp subject to the constraint that Ws = (, where
( is some acceptable value for the secondary response.
Journal of Qualify Technology
The details for the solution to this problem are found
in Myers and Carter (1973). They establish that a
solution can always be found given the additional
constraint that x
x = p
. A summary of this technique
is given in the Appendix.
Applying the Dual Response Results to the
Taguchi Problem
Let f represent the mean of the characteristic of
interest and let (
represent the variance. Assume that
these characteristics may be adequately modeled by
(1) and (2). Suppose that the experimenter has se
lected an n-point design appropriate for these models,
and that this design is replicated such that each design
point is run a total of m 2 times. Ideally, the repli
cation will follow Taguchi's outer array, but any
scheme for proper randomization will be adequate for
our basic purposes. Let
be the )"response at the
design point where j = 1, . . . , m and u = 1,
... , n. We note that
1 m
2 _

S u - -
uj -
- j
are the point estimators of f and (
, respectively, at
the u
design point. We also note that f
and sform
a dual response system which may be analyzed by
the techniques developed by Myers and Carter (1973).
Recall that the objective of the dual response ap
proach is to optimize the primary response subject to
an appropriate constraint on the value of the second
ary response. The decision whether to make the mean
the primary or secondary response depends upon the
ultimate purpose of the experiment. We shall consider
Taguchi 's three basic situations in the following man
1. "target value is best," which means keeping f at a
specifed target value, fo, while minimizing (
2. "the larger the better," which means making f as
large as possible, while controlling (
; and
3. "the smaller the better," which means making f
as small as possible, while controlling (
The dual response approach seems ideal for the frst
situation. We simply make f the secondary response
and minimize an appropriate function of (
to the constraint that f = fo. The second and third
situations both appear to call for f to be the primary
response. We then may establish several possible val
ues for the variance, fnd the resulting optimum values
Joural of Qualify Technology
for f subject to these constraints on the variance, and
select the best compromise combination.
Several comments are in order. First, several articles
(Bechhofer [1960], Box and Meyer [1986], Nair and
Pregibon [1988]) have suggested the use of standard
response surface models for the variance. In general,
these authors suggest using the natural logarithm of
s(In s,as the dependent response, following in the
spirit of Bartlett and Kendall (1946). However, in their
article, Bartlett and Kendall do not recommend using
this transformation for m < 5, while for 5 . m . 9,
they only marginally recommend it. Thus, for m <
any reasonable variance stabilizing transformation
may be appropriate, for example the square root
transformation which would use Su
as the dependent
response. Second, throughout this analysis, we have
made no specifc assumptions about how the estimates
of the appropriate coefcients were obtained.
Two procedures are of particular interest. Let the
elements of the mn X [
+ k(k + 3)/2] matrix X defne
the k coordinates of the design points plus the squares
and crossproducts of the design point coordinates as
defned by the models ( 1 ) and (2). Thus X represents
the design used expanded in terms of the assumed
model. Let w
and w" represent the vectors of the
observed sample means and sample variances, re
spectively. The usual least squares estimators of { and
l are
l = (X'X)-
In many cases, these estimates should be adequate.
However, if we wish to take into account the heter
ogeneity of the variances of the sample mean values,
we should pursue weighted least squares to estimate
{. In this case we would let V represent the variance
covariance matrix of the responses obtained in the
design. We observe that this matrix can be readily
estimated since each design point has been replicated.
The appropriate weighted least squares estimate of {
then is
8 = (X'V-1X)-
These are two reasonable estimates of V. Assume that
the random errors are independent from design point
to design point, in which case, V is diagonal. The frst
approach uses the point estimates of the variances as
the diagonal elements of V. A second approach uses
the predicted values obtained through (4) to estimate
these diagonal elements. Of the two approaches, we
fnd the latter more attractive.
Vol. 22, No.1, Januar 1990
Proposed Methodolog
We now have the tools necessary to develop an RSM
approach to the basic Taguchi problem. Suppose that
appropriate screening experiments have been per
formed which suggest an appropriate region of inter
est. These screening experiments could follow a Ta
guchi-like parameter design followed by an appro
priate region seeking procedure such as the method
of steepest ascent on the primary response (see Myers
[1976], Box and Draper [1987], and Khuri and Cornell
[1987]). Such an approach is commonly pursued in
SM during the preliminary phases of experimenta
Once the appropriate region is defned, we then
propose using any of the classical second-order re
sponse surface designs, for ftting the primary re
sponse and at whose points an outer array is set up.
Such a strategy will place a premium upon using as
small a basic design as possible. We recommend using
such designs as the Box-Behnken (1960), the hybrid
(Roquemore [1976]), and the Box-Draper (1974). The
results of the experiment should then be analyzed
through the dual response techniques developed by
Myers and Carter (1973). Once a proposed set of op
timal conditions is determined, we then recommend
at least one confrmatory run at this location. Ideally,
a small experiment should be conducted in this vi
This approach answers several of Box's objections
enumerated earlier. In particular, this methodology
1. allows a sequential investigation;
2. allows the use of a broad array of designs which
do reflect the impact of interactions;
2. uses an efcient, rigorous statistical technique for
the analysis; and
4. models the mean and variance while avoiding the
use of the signal-to-noise ratio.
In addition, since the proposed approach fts separate
models to the mean and variance of the characteristic
of interest, it allows the user to see directly which
factors primarily influence the mean and which fac
tors primarily influence the variance.
The Relationship to PerMIA
In the "target is best" situation, it is natural to com
pare the proposed procedure to the Per MIA procedure
proposed by Leon, Shoemaker, and Kacker (1987).
PerMIA, which stands for "performance measures in
dependent of adjustment," assumes that some vari
ables afect the mean of the characteristic of interest
Vol. 22, No. I, January 1990
but do not afect the variance. Thus, one can minimize
the variance and then use the "adjustment" variables
to attain the target condition for the mean.
Of course in many applications, the variables do
not neatly separate into these two classes: those that
infuence the variance, and those that only influence
the mean. Thus, in these cases, the PerMIA method
ology cannot be applied. As a referee pointed out, in
"the larger the better" and "the smaller the better"
cases, the dual response approach may be more in
sensitive to outliers than Taguchi's signal-to-noise ra
The methodology which we propose eliminates
these problems by attacking the basic problem directly
and in a manner which many engineers fnd natural.
Since the proposed procedure does not rely upon the
existence of adjustment variables, it will hold for a
more general setting of the problem. In fact, under
the assumption of an additive error model, the pro
posed procedure can be used to suggest possible ad
justment factors since it develops separate models for
the mean and variance.
The following example comes from an exercise in
Box and Draper (1987). Although it is not a perfect
example for illustrating this technique, it is the best
we have been able to locate in the statistical literature.
Typically, the examples used in traditional RSM do
not replicate enough points to ft a model for the vari
ance. Similarly, the examples used by the Taguchi
proponents do not allow a full second-order model to
be ft. This particular exercise from Box and Draper
(1987) at least allows us to illustrate our proposed
methodology. We hope that in the future more ex
periments will be conducted which will better illus
trate this technique.
The purpose of the experiment was to study the
efect of speed (Xl ) , pressure (X2), and distance (X3)
upon a printing machine's ability to apply coloring
inks upon package labels. The experiment is a 3
= 27) factorial with three runs (m = 3) at each design
point. We have assumed that the region of interest
for this design reflects either preliminary experimen
tation or sufcient prior information to justify using
a second-order model. Table 1 summarizes the data.
The following analysis utilized the MURSAC software
package. Unfortunately, MURSAC is not set up to per
form the appropriate weighted least squares estima
tion. Consequently, we have used the ordinary least
squares estimates, which should be slightly less ef-
Joural of Qualify Technology
TABLE 1. The Printing Study Data
u x, x, x,
Y., Y . y. Y. s.
1 -1 -1 -1 34 10 28 24.0 12.5
2 0 -1 -1 115 116 130 120.3 8.4
3 -1 -1 192 186 263 213.7 42.8
4 -1 0 -1 82 88 88 86.0 3.7
5 0 0 -1 44 178 188 136.7 80.4
6 1 0 -1 322 350 350 340.7 16.2
7 -1 1 -1 141 110 86 112.3 27.6
8 0 1 -1 259 251 259 256.3 4.6
9 1 -1 290 280 245 271.7 23.6
10 -1 -1 0 81 81 81 81.0 0.0
11 0 -1 0 90 122 93 101.7 17.7
12 1 -1 0 319 376 376 357.0 32.9
13 -1 0 0 180 180 154 171.3 15.0
14 0 0 0 372 372 372 372.0 0.0
15 1 0 0 541 568 396 501.7 92.5
16 -1 0 288 192 312 264.0 63.5
17 0 1 0 432 336 513 427.0 88.6
18 1 1 0 713 725 754 730.7 21.1
19 -1 -1 1 364 99 199 220.7 133.8
20 0 -1 1 232 221 266 239.7 23.5
21 1 -1 408 415 443 422.0 18.5
22 -1 0 182 233 182 199.0 29.4
23 0 0 1 507 515 434 485.3 44.6
24 0 1 846 535 640 673.7 158.2
25 -1 236 126 168 176.7 55.5
26 0 1 660 440 403 501.0 138.9
27 1 878 991 1161 1010.0 142.5
cient. The ftted response surface for the mean of the
characteristic of interest was
w" = 327.6 + 177. 0Xl + 109.4x
+ 131. 5x
+ 32. 0xr
+ 75. 5xlX
+ 43.6x
3 .
Table 2 summarizes the corresponding analysis of
variance. Of some concern was the size of the F sta
tistic for the lack of ft test. Neither a log nor a square
root transformation improved this value. As a r
a second order model with all linear X quadratic terms
(XiX]) was analyzed. The resulting overall F value
(55. 512) , R2 (0. 8848), and F for the lack of fit test
(4.98) did not justify the use of this model. Of all the
linear X quadratic terms, only the x
x5 term waS of
any concern. Consequently a second-order model with
this single
term added was ft. The resulting overall F
value (83. 098),
2 (0. 8830) , and F for the lack of ft
test (3.53) again did not justify the addition of this
term in light of the resulting mathematical complex
ities in then applying the dual response methodology.
Ultimately, one may argue that the size of the lack of
ft test was purely due to the extremely large power
Joural of Quality Technology
available due to the total numbers of replications.
Thus, while the lack of ft may be statistically signif
icant, ultimately we felt that it was not practically
We chose to model the standard deviation rather
than the more commonly used log (2 for several rea
sons. First, since w= 3 < 5, then Bartlett and Kendall's
(1946) work ofers
little argument in favor of log (2.
Second, design runs 10 and 14 both have sample vari
ances of zero, which does introduce some complexity
for using the log transformation. Finally, the standard
deviation is an important characteristic in its own
right. As a result, the engineer can easily and directly
interpret the results of this model. The ftted model
for the standard deviation was
w" = 34.9 + 11. 5xl + 15.3x
+ 29.2x
3 + 4.2xI
Table 3 gives the resulting analysis of variance. Since
the claim of a second-order model is somewhat ten
uous, a frst-order model was ft. The resulting F sta
tistic ( 4.445) was clearly stronger, but its R2 (0. 3670)
was quite weak. When applying the dual response
methodology, the model's ability to predict is most
important. In light of this concern, the greater R2 pro
vided by the second order model justifed its use.
This last situation also points out the need to develop
a dual response methodology which: (1) takes directly
into account the prediction ability of the model; and
(2) allows the use of a frst-order model for the vari
ance. Such a methodology will require a signifcant
extension to the methodology proposed by Myers and
TABLE 2. Analysis of Variance for the Mean
Source df SS MS F 9'
Model 9 3744658 416073 92.005 0.8741
Lack of Fit 17 295314 17371.4 3.841
Pure 54 244203.6 4552.2
Variable Partial t
19.342 0.0001
11.958 0.0001
X3 14.365 0.0001
xf 2.018 0.0486
-1.413 0.1634
x -1.833 0.0723
XlX2 5.892 0.0001
XlX3 6.734 0.0001
X2X3 3.889 0.0003
Vol. 22, No. J, January J 990
TABLE 3. Analysis of Variance for the
Standard Deviation
Source df SS MS F R'
Model 9 27168.5 3018.7 1.572 0.4542
Error 17 32652.0 1920.7
Variable Partial t
Xl 1.116 0.2800
1.483 0.1563
X3 2.826 0.0001
X 0.235 0.8171
X -0.074 0.9426
0.938 0.3615
0.610 0.5498
XlX3 0.404 0.6914
X2X3 1.113 0.2812
Carter (1973). As a result, it will be pursued in a later
Our frst example will consider the "target value is
best" situation. Suppose we wish to minimize the
population standard deviation while achieving a target
for the mean of 500.0. In this case, we let ( be our
primary response and let f be our secondary response
with the constraint that / = 500.0. Table 4 summa
rizes the resulting MURSAC output. In this table, A8
represents the appropriate Lagrangian multiplier for
the dual response analysis. These results suggest that
the settings Xl = 0.614, X2 - 0.228, and X3 = 0.100
achieve the condition / -500.0 with a predicted pop
ulation standard deviation of 51.778.
Next, we shall consider the "larger the better" case.
We now let f be the primary response and let ( be
the secondary response. Suppose that d
sired target
values for the population standard deviation are 60.0,
75.0, and 90.0. Tables 5-7 summarize the resulting
MURSAC output. Again, A8 is the appropriate Lagran
gian multiplier. Table 5 indicates that the optimal set-
TABLE 4. Locations of Minimum Variance
for [ = 500. 0
A i XI x, x,
-3.00 57.360 0.465 0.260 0.285
-2.00 57.147 0.470 0.259 Q.278
-1.00 56.482 0.485 0.256 0.258
-0.75 56.017 0.495 0.254 0.244
-0.50 55.041 0.519 0.249 0.213
-0.25 51.778 0.614 0.228 0.100
Vol. 22, No. I, Januar 1990
TABLE 5. Locations of Maximum Mean for u =60.0
A ; XI x, x,
-3.00 494.8 0.386 0.264 0.372
-2.00 500.4 0.414 0.269 0.359
-1.00 507.3 0.449 0.275 0.341
-0.75 509.3 0.459 0.276 0.336
-0.50 511.4 0.470 0.278 0.331
-0.25 513.6 0.482 0.280 0.325
0.00 516.0 0.494 0.282 0.319
0.25 518.5 0.507 0.284 0.313
0.50 521.2 0.521 0.286 0.306
0.75 524.0 0.536 0.288 0.299
1.00 527.0 0.552 0.290 0.291
2.00 540.8 0.627 0.299 0.253
3.00 557.9 0.722 0.307 0.204
ting for u = 60.0, is Xl = 0.772, X2 = 0.307, and X3
-0.204, which produces a predicted value of 557.9 for
f. Table 6 indicates that the bst setting for u = 75.0
is Xl = 1.048, X2 = 0.442, and X3 = 0.292. This setting
results in a predicted value for f of 687.5. From Table
7 we observe that for u - 90.0 the optimal setting
Xl = 1.333, X2 - 0.558, and X3 = 0.368. Such a setting
produces a
redicted value for f of 813.9. Ultimately,
the user must decide which of these settings ofers
the best compromise.
. .
In conclusion, we see that the dual response ap
proached developed by Myers and Carter (1973) pro
vides a reasonable basis for applying RSM techni
to achieve the basic goals of the Taguchi philosophy
of experimentation. Finally, we have seen that the
proposed methodology is a more general and more
natural approach for the "target is best" situation.
TABE 6. Locations of Maximum Mean for u = 75. 0
A ;
x, x, x,
-3.00 585.0 0.567 0.381 0.536
-2.00 594.9 0.610 0.389 0.515
-1.00 606.9 0.664 0.398 0.489
-0.75 610.4 0.679 0.400 0.481
-0.50 614.0 0.695 0.403 0.473
-0.25 617.8 0.712 0.405 0.465
0.00 621.8 0.731 0.408 0.456
0.25 626.0 0.750 O.4ll 0.446
0.50 630.4 0.770 0.414 0.436
0.75 636.1 0.792 0.417 0.425
1.00 640.0 0.815 0.420 0.413
2.00 662.0 0.920 0.431 0.359
3.00 687.5 1.048 0.442 0.292
Journal of Quality Technology
TABLE 7. Locations of Maximum Mean for u = 90.0
A ; x, x, x,
-3.00 671.7 0.728 0.483 0.679
-2.00 686.1 0.785 0.493 0.651
-1.00 703.7 0.854 0.505 0.617
-0.75 708.6 0.874 0.508 0.607
-0.50 713.8 0.895 0.511 0.596
-0.25 719.2 0.918 0.515 0.585
0.00 724.9 0.941 0.518 0.573
0.25 730.9 0.966 0.522 0.561
0.50 737.2 0.992 0.525 0.548
0.75 743.7 1.019 0.529 0.534
1.00 750.5 1.048 0.533 0.519
2.00 780.4 1.118 0.547 0.451
3.00 813.9 1.333 0.558 0.368
The authors thank the Editor and the referees for
their suggestions and comments which signifcantly
improved this paper.
The dual response methodology developed by Myers
and Carter (1973) is an extension of ridge analysis
(Hoerl [1959] and Draper [1963], see also Myers [1976],
Box and Draper [1987], and Khuri and Cornell [1987]).
Let R be a spherical region of interest with radius p.
The dual response problem concerns fnding the set
of conditions, x* E R, which optimize the primary
response wp subject to the constraint that the second
ary response Ws = (, where ( is some acceptable value
for this response, and where wp and Ws are given by
(3) and (4), respectively.
Just as in the case of ridge analysis, it is quite likely
that x* lies on the boundary of R. In such a situation,
Myers and Carter employ Lagrangian multipliers to
fnd x*. Assume that R is a hypersphere of radius p.
Let A8 be the Lagrangian multiplier associated with
the constraint Ws = (, and let Ap be the Lagrangian
multiplier associated with the constraint x'x = p
. To
optimize wp given these two constraints, one must
The resulting stationary point, XL, is the x which sat
Joural of Quality Technology
Thus, XL must satisfy
For A8 = 0, the dual response problem reduces to ridge
Myers and Carter suggest solving this system by
frst fxing a value for A8 and then choosing Ap to be
either larger than the largest eigenvalue or smaller
than the smallest eigenvalue, whichever is appropri
ate, of B. - A8C. The procedure can be repeated for
various values of A8 within the interval ( -7 A8 7) .
The particular choice of A8 basically defnes the di
n taken as one moves away from x = O.
BARTLETT, M. S. and KENDALL, D. G. (1946). "The Statistical
Analysis of Variance-Heterogeneity and the Logarithmic
Transformation." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B8, pp.
BECHHOFER, R. E. (1960). "A Multiplicative Model for Analyzing
Variances Which Are Afected by Several Factors." Joural
of the American Statistical Association 55, pp. 245-264.
Box, G. E. P. (1985). "Discussion of 'Of-Line Quality Control,
Parameter Design, and the Taguchi Method' by R. N. Kackar."
Joural of Quality Technology 17, pp. 189-190.
Box, G. E. P. and BEHNKEN, D. W. (1960). "Some New Three
Level Designs for the Study of Quantitative Variables." Tech
nometrics 2, pp. 455-475.
Box, G. E. P. and DRAPER, N. R. (1987). Empirical Model Building
and Response Surfaces. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Box, G. E. P. and MEYER, R. D. (1986). "Dispersion Efects from
Fractional Designs." Technometrics 28, pp. 19-27.
Box, M. J. and DRAPER, N. R. (1974). "On Minimum Point Second
Order Designs." Technometrics 16, pp. 613-616.
DRAPER, N. R. (1963). "Ridge Analysis of Response Surfaces."
Technometrics 5, pp. 469-479.
HOERL, A. E. (1959). "Optimum Solution of Many Variables
Equations." Chemical Engineering Progress 55, pp. 69.
KACKAR, R. N. (1985). "Of-Line Quality Control, Parameter De
sign, and the Taguchi Method (with discussion)." Journal of
Quality Technology 17, pp. 176-209.
KHURI, A. I. and CORNELL, J. A. (1987). Response Surfaces: Design
and Analyses. Marcel Dekker, New York, NY.
LEON, R. V.; SHOEMAKER, A. C.; and KACKER, R. N. (1987). "Per
formance Measures Independent of Adjustment." Technometrics
29, pp. 253-265.
MURSAC. For information contact the Department of Statistics,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacks
burg, VA.
MYERS, R. H. (1976). Response Surface Methodology. Department
of Statistics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univer
sity, Blacksburg, VA.
Vol. 22, No. 1, January 1990
MYERS, R. H. and CARTER, W. H., JR . (1973). "Response Surface
Techniques for Dual Response Systems." Technometrics 15, pp.
NAIR, V. N. and PREGIBON, D. (1988). "Analyzing Dispersion
Efects from Replicated Factorial Experiments." Technometrics
30, pp. 247-257.
ROQUEMORE, K. G. (1976). "Hybrid Designs for Quadratic Re
sponse Surfaces." Technometrics 18, pp. 419-423.
TAGUCHI, G. (1986). Introduction to Quality Engineering: Designing
Quality into Products and Processes. Kraus International Publi
cations, White Plains, NY.
Vol. 22, No. 1, Januar 1990
TAGUCHI, G. and PHADKE, M. S. (1984). "Quality Engineering
Through Design Optimization." Conference Record (Vol. 3, IEEE
Globecom Conference). Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, New York, NY, pp. 1106-1113.
TAGUCHI, G. and Wu, Y. (1985). Introduction to OfLine Quality
Control. Central Japan Quality Control Association, Nagaya,
Japan (available from the American Supplier Institute, Dear
born, MI).
Key Words: 0ous|rcIued0|IwI:c|Iou,ResouseSur|cce
Journal of Quality Technology