0 Up votes0 Down votes

20 views17 pagesJan 26, 2016

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

© All Rights Reserved

20 views

© All Rights Reserved

- History of Normal Curve and Normal Distribution
- CI problem.doc
- Session 5 PostWork(1)
- 0306004
- quantitative methods
- Probability Distributions
- MGM 561-Exercise 2
- F.jones-Confidence Intervals (1)
- Describing and Exploring Data
- Heat Tr Manual
- Estimation
- random distributed data
- cps330c
- Comparison of Void Fraction Correlations
- Estimation
- 90-27
- 2006EA-1
- digital unit plan
- Normal Entropy
- SSN

You are on page 1of 17

Michael Greenwich Betty L. Jahr-Schaffrath

Article information:

To cite this document:

Michael Greenwich Betty L. Jahr-Schaffrath, (1995),"A process incapability index", International Journal of Quality &

Reliability Management, Vol. 12 Iss 4 pp. 58 - 71

Permanent link to this document:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656719510087328

References: this document contains references to 9 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 432 times since 2006*

Mats Deleryd, (1998),"On the gap between theory and practice of process capability studies", International Journal of Quality

& Reliability Management, Vol. 15 Iss 2 pp. 178-191 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656719810204892

Jann-Pygn Chen, Cherng G. Ding, (2001),"A new process capability index for non-normal distributions", International Journal

of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 18 Iss 7 pp. 762-770 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656710110396076

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:581774 []

For Authors

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service

information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please

visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of

more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online

products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication

Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

IJQRM

12,4

Michael Greenwich and Betty L. Jahr-Schaffrath

58

Received July 1993

Revised April 1994

University Calumet, Hammond, Indiana, USA

Introduction

There have been a number of process capability indices proposed over the years

for the purpose of assessing the capability of a process to meet certain

specifications. Kane[l] investigated comprehensively the Cp and Cpk indices and

their estimators. Generally, the C pk index takes into account the process

variation as well as the location of the process mean relative to the specification

limits while the Cp index reflects only the magnitude of the process variation.

Chan et al.[2] developed the C pm index in order to take into account the

departure of the process mean from the target (nominal) value. The Cpm index is

defined mathematically as

C pm =

USL LSL

6

where

= E [( X T )2 ],

USL is the upper specification limit, LSL is the lower specification limit and T

is the target (nominal) value such that LSL < T < USL.

A general form of Cpm is C*pm which was defined by Chan et al.[2] as

C *pm =

where

D = min[(USL T)/3, (T LSL)/3].

In this article, C*pm is used for both Cpm and C*pm (except in those instances

where Cpm needs to be specified) since Cpm is merely a special case of C*pm where

USL T = T LSL. Unfortunately, the statistical properties of the estimator,

D

,

C *pm =

2

2

+ ( T )

for C*pm are analytically intractable, regardless of the choices for the variation

estimator, 2, and the mean estimator, . This process capability index is also

International Journal of Quality

& Reliability Management,

Vol. 12 No. 4, 1995, pp. 58-71,

MCB University Press,

0265-671X

The research for this article was supported partially by the School of Liberal Arts and Sciences,

Purdue University Calumet. The authors also wish to thank Mr R.J. Whittaker and his Integrated

Process Control Group, LTV Steel Co., for their support.

discussed in Spirings article[3]. Boyles[4] pointed out that the index C*pm is

identical to the process capability index proposed by Taguchi[5]. A table which

gives the critical values that C pm must exceed in order to conclude that Cpm > 1

at various significance levels was provided by Boyles[4].

A simple transformation of the C*pm index, Cpp, will be introduced in this

article. This Cpp index can be regarded as a process capability index or more

precisely as a process incapability index. Since the transformation is bijective,

the Cpp index contains the same information as that of C*pm; namely, inaccuracy

(the departure of the process mean, , from the target value, T) and imprecision

(the magnitude of the process variation, 2). Moreover, the Cpp index provides

an uncontaminated separation between information concerning the process

accuracy and precision while this kind of information separation is not

available with the C*pm index. Often, C*pm is employed to assess process

capability because the process accuracy is of significance. Therefore, this

information separation is highly beneficial because it indicates to what degree

the process inaccuracy contributes to the process being incapable of meeting

the specifications.

Recently, Pearn et al.[6] introduced a new (so-called third generation)

process capability index, Cpmk, in an attempt to detect a smaller departure of the

process mean from the target value. However, the degree of this process

inaccuracy (large or small) is indicated explicitly with Cpp as a result of the

information separation by the transformation. Moreover, since the Cpmk index is

sensitive to the process inaccuracy, it may produce a small value for a process,

indicating that the process is not capable of meeting the specification although

the process has a high proportion (for instance, greater than 99.73 per cent) of

conforming output. The same is true for Cpm and Cpp (but to a lesser extent

since they are less sensitive to process inaccuracy). The separated information

can be used to segregate processes (which are indicated to be less capable by a

process capability index) between those with a high proportion of conforming

output and those with a low proportion of conforming output.

The process incapability index, Cpp

Let Cpp be defined as

2

C pp

1

.

=

C*

pm

That is,

2

C pp

= ,

D

(1)

A process

incapability

index

59

IJQRM

12,4

60

C pp

T

=

+ ,

D D

(2 )

where is the process mean and 2 is the process variance. Due to the relation

(1), C pp assumes a smaller value for a process more capable of meeting its

specifications and a larger value for a less capable process. A process is most

capable when Cpp = 0. For this, the process mean must be at the process target

( = T ) and the process variance must be zero (2 = 0). Any non-zero value of

Cpp indicates some degree of incapability of the process. Thus, Cpp is a process

incapability index.

A (, ) plot can be constructed for Cpp by plotting the contours of Cpp = k for

various k values. They are a set of (, ) values satisfying the equation,

( T )2 + 2 = kD2.

at = T with radius k D, which are the

same as those of Cpm = c = 1/(k D) plotted in Boyles[4, Figure 5]. The more

capable the process, the smaller the semicircle is. This geometric interpretation

of Cpp is immediate from the transformation (1).

The first and second terms of the right-hand side of (2) exclusively and

respectively reflect the process inaccuracy (departure of the process mean from

the process target) and the process imprecision (process variation). This

decomposition (non-contaminated information separation) is not available with

C*pm. If the process variation is negligible (that is, the second term is close to

zero), then Cpp provides a concrete measure of process centring.

For instance, if Cpp = 1, the process mean, , is located within one-third of the

distance between the target, T, and the nearest specification limit. The righthand side of (2) also shows that if the process shifts away from its target, then

Cpp increases. If the process variance increases, then Cpp increases. When the

process mean and variance both change, Cpp reflects these changes additively.

This indicates that C pp has the necessary properties for assessing process

capability, using both the departure from the target value and the magnitude of

the process variation.

Let ( T ) 2/D 2 be denoted by C ia (inaccuracy index) and ( /D) 2 by C ip

(imprecision index), then

Cpp = Cia + Cip.

The inaccuracy index is the squared ratio of the distance between the process

mean and the process target to one-third of the distance between the process

target and the nearest specification limit. The imprecision index is the squared

ratio of the process standard deviation to one-third of the distance between the

process target and the nearest specification limit. Since the denominators are

identical, these subindices provide the relative magnitudes of the contributions

to the process in capability indicated by Cpp. In fact,

100C ia

C pp

and

A process

incapability

index

100C ip

C pp

departure of the process mean from the target and by the process variation,

respectively.

An example of three processes with LSL = 10, T = 13 and USL = 16 is given

in Pearn et al.[6, Figure 2] and is used to illustrate that Cpm fails to distinguish

between on-target and off-target processes. The three processes are A

distributed as N(13.00, 1.00), B distributed as N(13.50, 0.87) and C distributed as

N(13.87, 0.50) where N(, ) stands for a normal distribution with mean and

standard deviation . The value of Cpp is one for each of A, B and C and, hence,

C pp also fails to distinguish between on-target and off-target processes.

However, the values of (Cia , Cip ) are (0, 1) for A, (0.25, 0.75) for B and (0.75, 0.25)

for C. These processes are clearly distinguished by the separated information.

The values of the indices for the three processes are summarized in Table I.

One disadvantage that C pmk has failed to overcome is that it cannot

distinguish processes of high conforming output proportions from those of low

conforming output proportions. For instance, the value of 0.83 for Cpmk can

occur from B, which has high conforming output, as well as from a process

distributed as N(13, 1.20) with the same LSL, USL and T, which has low

conforming output.

All three processes given in Pearn et al.[6, Figure 2] are capable because their

conforming output proportions (COP) are higher than or equal to 99.73 per cent.

The new process capability index, Cpmk, produces a value of 1.00 for A, a value

of 0.83 for B and a value of 0.71 for C although the conforming output

proportion of C is higher than that of B, which is, in turn, higher than that of A.

The same result happens to Cpm, but to a lesser degree, with a larger departure

(| T | > D) of the process mean from the target value. This is illustrated by

Pearn et al.[6, Figure 1]. In the figure, three processes (A of N(14.00, 4/3), B of

N(16.00, 2/3) and C of N(13.87, 1/2)) are presented with LSL = 10, T = 14 and

USL = 18. The values of Cpmk are respectively 1.00, 0.32 and 0.11 for A, B and C.

Those of C pm (C pp ) are 1.00 (1.00), 0.63 (2.50) and 0.44 (5.13) for the three

processes respectively. With these values, all three indices indicate that B and C

are not capable. However, they are highly capable of turning out a high

proportion of products that meet the specifications. The values of the indices for

the three processes are summarized in Table II.

A

B

C

Cpkm

Cpp

Cia

Cip

Ccop

1.00

0.83

0.71

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.00

0.25

0.75

1.00

0.75

0.25

1.00

1.00

1.00

61

Table I.

Values of various

indices for processes,

A, B and C

IJQRM

12,4

The two subindices can be used to identify processes with high conforming

output proportions by computing

C cop =

62

3 C ip

3 C ia

If Ccop 1, then the process has a conforming output proportion of at least 99.73

per cent (assuming normality). The values of Ccop for the three processes in

Pearn et al.[6, Figure 2] are all identical to 1, indicating that these three

processes are indeed capable of producing at least 99.73 per cent of the time

products which meet the specifications. If another process is distributed as

N(17, 1/4), then Cpm = 0.44 and Cpp = 5.10 (Cia = 81/16 and Cip = 9/256) for the

same process target and specification limits as in Pearn et al.[6, Figure 2].

However, Ccop is 0.75, indicating a very high (far greater than 99.73 per cent,

assuming normality) conforming output proportion.

Confidence intervals for Cpp based on a small sample

Let X be the normally distributed process quality characteristic of interest, and

X1,, Xn be a random sample of n observations of X taken while the process is

in control. It is assumed that such a normal sample of a relatively small sample

size n is available for inference on Cpp in this section. Let X and s2 denote the

usual sample mean and variance respectively.

Kushler and Hurley[7] compared the performances of a variety of confidence

bounds (intervals) for C pm using the actual miss rates of the different

confidence intervals. The miss rate is the probability of a confidence interval

missing the true value of Cpm. If the method (and the approximation used in the

method) of constructing a confidence interval is good, then the miss rate is

close to the nominal rate of in the 100(1 ) confidence. According to the

miss rates comparisons, the method suggested by Boyles[4] performs better

overall than other methods such as the central 2 method, the Bonferroni

method and the method suggested by Chan et al.[2].

The unbiased estimator for 2,

n

Xi T

2 =

Table II.

Values of various

indices for processes,

A, B and C

A

B

C

i =1

(3 )

Cpkm

Cpm

Cpp

Ccop

1.00

0.32

0.11

1.00

2.50

5.13

1.00

0.63

0.44

1.00

1.00

1.00

Taguchi[5] and used by Boyles[4]. The variance of the estimator is smaller than

the mean squared error of the biased estimator proposed by Chan et al.[2].

Under normality, the estimator is also the maximum likelihood estimator

(MLE) for . Using (3), an unbiased and consistent point estimator for Cpp can be

obtained as

2

C pp =

.

D2

Intervals with 100(1 ) per cent confidence for C pp will be obtained by

approximating a non-central 2 distribution with a scaled 2 distribution by

equating the first two moments of the distributions. This is the same

approximation method used by Boyles[4] in obtaining confidence intervals for

Cpm.

The quantity 2/2 is approximately distributed as 2m /m where

m=

2

T

n 1 +

T

1 + 2

since

C pp 2

=

.

C pp 2

Then, an approximate 100 (1 ) confidence interval for C pp is given as

pp

pp

mC

mC

,

,

cup( / 2 ; m

cup

1

2

)

(

/

;

m

)

(4 )

degrees of freedom, m

is the MLE for m given as

=

m

X T

n 1 +

*

s

X T

1 + 2

s*

A process

incapability

index

63

IJQRM

12,4

64

and s* = (n 1)s 2 / n . The lower and upper 100(1 ) confidence bounds (intervals) for C pp are respectively

mC

pp

pp

mC

.

, and 0,

cup(1 ; m

cup( ; m

)

)

(5 )

An unbiased and consistent point estimator for Cip can be defined obtained as

s2

C ip =

.

2

D

An unbiased and consistent point estimator for C ia can be obtained as

C ia = C pp C ip

=

2

2

D

The quantity

s2

D

( X T )2

D2

can be used to estimate C ia but it is biased by the factor

2

nD 2

This bias factor shows that the quantity is asymptotically unbiased but could

be considerably biased for a small sample size, n, and a large standard

deviation, .

Table III shows 30 computer-generated observations (rounded to three

decimal places) using a normal distribution with mean 13.50 and standard

deviation 13/15. Using a process target of 13 and upper and lower specification

limits of 16 and 10, respectively, Cpp = 1.00 results. Using the same USL, LSL, T

and the observations in Table III, confidence intervals for Cpp and estimates for

the sub-indices will be determined as an example. A 95 per cent confidence level

will be used.

Table III.

Computer-generated

normal observations

12.921

14.281

13.588

14.528

11.951

13.409

13.363

13.626

14.656

12.417

14.639

14.807

14.632

13.468

13.556

13.906

12.852

12.874

15.270

12.664

11.920

14.497

13.367

13.705

12.727

13.040

13.117

12.453

11.901

13.275

The point estimate of Cpp is 1.01 with the two-sided 95 per cent confidence

interval of [0.65, 1.75] by (4). This interval is equivalent to the 95 per cent

confidence interval of [0.76, 1.24] for Cpm. The one-sided 95 per cent confidence

intervals for C pp are [0.69, ) and (0, 1.60] by (5). These are equivalent

respectively to the one-sided 95 per cent confidence intervals, (0, 1.20] and [0.79,

), for Cpm. The estimate, 1.01, is close to the true value, 1.00, of Cpp and these

95 per cent confidence intervals contain the true Cpp.

^

The point estimate of Cip is 0.83, slightly higher than the true Cip of 0.75. The

^

point estimate Cia for Cia is 0.18 (1.01 0.83), determined by subtracting the

point estimate for Cip from that of Cpp. Thus, the estimated proportion of the

process incapability due to inaccuracy is 17.8 per cent which is determined by

^

^

dividing Cia by Cpp. The estimated proportion of the process incapability due to

the imprecision is 82.2 per cent. Both estimates are close to the true proportions.

These relative proportions suggest that the imprecision contributes more to the

incapability of the process and that, in order to improve the process, the process

variation should be reduced before attempting to adjust the process to the

target.

Boyles[4] conducted simulation studies to assess the accuracy of the

approximate lower confidence bounds for Cpm by the procedure based on the

same approximation. The accuracy of approximation was reported to be

satisfactory. This is expected to hold for the approximate confidence intervals

for Cpp introduced in this section since Cpp and its confidence intervals are a

bijective transformation of Cpm and its confidence bounds.

Confidence intervals for Cpp based on a large sample

Using a large sample sample (n 80), the confidence intervals both for Cpp

and for its subindices are developed in this section. It is assumed that

the process quality characteristic of interest X has the fourth moment (that is,

E(X4) < ), and that a large random sample of n observations of X was taken

while the process was in control and is available for determining confidence

intervals.

The estimators, developed in this section, for the indices are functions of the

first four sample moments and hence they are asymptotically normally

distributed due to a special case of Theorem B by Serfling[8] and corollary

[8, p. 124] to Theorem A by Serfling[8].

Chan et al.[9] used the theorems and corollary to show that the well-known

point estimators for Cp, Cpk and Cpm are asymptotically normally distributed.

The procedure used in this section is based on the asymptotic normality of the

point estimators for Cpp and for its subindices. This extends the construction of

confidence intervals for the indices of non-normal processes. However, one

needs to be careful about application of a process capability index for a nonnormal process because an index loses such a practical interpretation as the

conforming output percentage of the process.

A process

incapability

index

65

IJQRM

12,4

66

2 ( X T )2 s*2

C pp =

=

+

D2

D2

D2

2

is asymptotically normally distributed with mean C pp and variance pp

/n where

2

=

pp

4 ( T )2 2

4 3 ( T )

4 4

D4

D4

D4

3 = E [( X )3 ] and 4 = E [( X )4 ].

By substituting the sample moments,

n

Xi X

X , s*2 , M3 =

i =1

Xi X

and M 4 =

i =1

,

n

n

2

for , 2 , 3 and 4 , an estimator for pp

is obtained as

2

pp

=

4 ( X T ) 2 s *2

D4

4 M3(X T )

D4

M 4 s *4

D4

Using this estimator, a 100(1) per cent confidence interval for Cpp can be

constructed as

C pp z / 2 pp / n , Cpp + z / 2 pp / n ,

(6)

where generally zp represents the upper 100p per cent point of the standard

normal distribution. One-sided 100(1 ) per cent confidence intervals are

respectively,

C pp z pp / n , and 0 , C pp + z pp / n .

An estimator for C ia ,

(7 )

( X T )2

C ia =

,

D2

is asymptotically normally distributed with mean Cia and variance ia2 /n where

2

ia

=

4( T )2 2

.

D4

2

ia

=

4( X T )2 s*2

D4

Using this estimator, a 100(1 ) per cent confidence interval for Cia can be

constructed as

C ia z / 2 ia / n , C ia + z / 2 ia / n .

One-sided 100(1 ) per cent confidence intervals are respectively,

C ia z ia / n , and 0 , C ia + z ia / n .

(8 )

67

(9 )

s2

C ip =

,

D2

is asymptotically normally distributed with mean Cip and variance ip2 /n where

2

ip

=

4 4

.

D4

By substituting s*4 and M4 for 4 and 4, an estimator for ip2 is obtained as

2

ip

=

M 4 s*4

D

Using this estimator, a 100(1 ) per cent confidence interval for Cia can be

constructed as

[C

ip

z / 2 ip / n , C ip + z / 2 ip / n .

(10 )

(11)

C ip z ip / n , and 0 , C ip + z ip / n .

2 , 2 and 2 , the two subindices, C

and C , are uncorrelated if

According to pp

ia

ip

ia

ip

the underlying distribution is symmetric (and hence 3 = 0). If the process

distribution is normal, then these estimators are independent as expected.

An estimator for Ccop,

C cop =

3 C ip

A process

incapability

index

3 C ia

where C ia and C ip are estimators for Cia and Cip defined earlier in this section, is

2 /n where

asymptotically normally distributed with mean Ccop and variance cop

IJQRM

12,4

2

=

cop

9 4

(3 D + T ) 4

9 3

(3 D + T )3

9( 4 4 )

4 2 (3 D + T )2

2

By using the same substitution with the sample moments, an estimator for cop

is obtained as

68

2

=

cop

9 s*4

(3 D X + T )

9 M3

(3 D X + T )

9( M 4 s*4 )

4 s (3 D X + T )

*2

Using this estimator, a 100(1 ) per cent confidence interval for Cia can be

constructed as

(12 )

(13 )

C cop z cop / n , and 0 , C cop + z cop / n .

In order to assess the accuracy of the approximate confidence intervals for Cpp,

Cia, Cip and Ccop, simulation studies were conducted for 95 per cent and 99 per

cent confidence levels. A simulation study consisted of taking 10,000 random

samples from a process and constructing a confidence interval (based on each

of the 10,000 samples) for every one of the four indices.

The ratio of the number of confidence intervals that contain the index to

10,000 (the total number of intervals) is the observed coverage rate. The

accuracy of the approximation can be measured by how close the observed

coverage rate is to the significance level preset for the intervals. This simulation

study was conducted for normal and non-normal processes using various

sample sizes.

The results of the simulation studies generally indicate that the observed

coverage rates tend to be lower than the preset significance level but the

approximation accuracy seems to be satisfactory for a sample size of 200 or

greater. A typical result of one such study is given in Table IV. The observed

coverage rates of 95 per cent two-sided confidence intervals for the indices of

the same normal process used as a numerical example in the last section are

given. As expected, the accuracy is lower for a smaller sample size. Incidentally,

Table IV.

The observed coverage

rates

100

200

300

400

500

Cpp

Cia

Cip

Ccop

93.57

94.16

94.51

94.60

94.59

93.60

94.10

94.47

94.21

94.64

92.51

93.95

95.25

94.18

94.13

93.35

94.26

94.28

94.66

94.45

the width of a confidence interval for a given significance level becomes wider

as the sample size gets smaller.

Since the observed coverage rates are indicated to be generally lower than the

confidence level, the approximation accuracy of the confidence intervals can be

improved by using in nk instead of n as the denominator in (6), (7), (8), (9),

(10), (11), (12) and (13). For instance, further simulation studies indicate that the

denominator of n 16 seems to work well for normal processes in general.

Table V shows the observed coverage rates of the same confidence intervals

Cpp

Cia

Cip

Ccop

50

60

70

80

90

100

200

300

400

500

95.56

95.39

95.15

95.01

95.06

95.24

94.84

95.20

95.00

94.99

95.21

95.00

95.19

95.07

94.69

95.26

95.10

95.08

94.64

94.99

94.60

94.48

94.82

94.20

94.24

94.51

94.67

94.58

94.67

94.50

95.49

95.25

94.89

94.88

94.91

95.25

94.88

95.10

95.10

94.77

12.740

15.386

14.971

14.383

12.490

13.467

12.702

13.056

12.505

12.594

13.020

14.015

12.661

12.211

14.068

12.369

15.258

13.971

12.447

13.375

14.345

11.968

12.053

14.664

13.030

14.135

13.362

13.346

15.090

13.418

14.084

12.765

13.452

12.276

12.197

13.883

13.544

13.341

12.505

12.315

14.156

13.228

13.933

13.193

14.095

13.548

14.194

12.925

Cpp

Cia

Cip

Ccop

13.312

13.158

13.973

13.188

13.316

13.938

11.487

13.765

14.592

12.656

13.895

13.952

12.686

13.090

14.144

14.928

13.122

14.473

11.938

14.450

14.144

13.003

13.982

13.852

14.254

13.680

13.321

15.123

14.633

13.780

12.866

12.074

Two-sided

One-sided

One-sided

[0.68, 1.28]

[0.02, 0.42]

[0.54, 0.98]

[0.86, 1.21]

[0.72, )

[0.05, )

[0.58, )

[0.89, )

(0, 1.23]

(0, 0.39]

(0, 0.94]

(0, 1.18]

A process

incapability

index

69

Table V.

The observed coverage

rates with n 16

Table VI.

Computer-generated

normal observations

Table VII.

95 per cent confidence

intervals

IJQRM

12,4

70

for the identical normal process as those listed in Table IV. However, this time,

n 16 is used with various sample size n.

With the correction factor k = 16, the accuracy seems to be satisfactory for a

sample size as small as 50. However, the confidence interval, using n 16 for

the denominator, is wider than a confidence interval using n.

Table VI shows 80 computer-generated observations (rounded to three

decimal places) from the same normal distribution used to generate the 30

observations in Table III. Using these 80 observations with the same target and

specification limits used in the example given in Table III, confidence intervals

for Cpp and its subindices will be constructed as an example of the large sample

method introduced at the beginning of this section. The confidence level used is

95 per cent.

The point estimate of C pp is 0.98 with the two-sided 95 per cent confidence

interval of [0.68, 1.28] by (6) while the one-sided 95 per cent confidence intervals

for Cpp are [0.72, ) and (0, 1.23] by (7). This estimate is close to the true value,

1.00, of Cpp and these 95 per cent confidence intervals contain the true Cpp.

The point estimate of C ia is 0.22 with the two-sided 95 per cent confidence

interval of [0.02, 0.42] by (8) while the one-sided 95 per cent confidence intervals

for Cia are [0.05, ) and (0, 0.39] by (9). This estimate is close to the true value,

0.25, of Cia and these 95 per cent confidence intervals contain the true Cia.

The point estimate of C ip is 0.76 with the two-sided 95 per cent confidence

interval of [0.54, 0.98] by (10) while the one-sided 95 per cent confidence

intervals for Cip are [0.58, ) and (0, 0.94] by (11). This estimate is close to the

true value, 0.75, of Cip and these 95 per cent confidence intervals contain the

true Cip.

Similarly, the point estimate of C cop is 1.04 with the two-sided 95 per cent

confidence interval of [0.86, 1.21] by (12) while the one-sided 95 per cent

confidence intervals for Ccop are [0.89, ) and (0, 1.18] by (13). This estimate is

close to the true value, 1.03, of Ccop and these 95 per cent confidence intervals

contain the true Ccop. These confidence intervals are summarized in Table VII.

Using the confidence intervals developed in this section, a sample size of 80

provides practical confidence intervals for Cpp and its subindices with adequate

accuracy as demonstrated with the simulation studies and numerical example

given in Table VI. If a subgroup of size 5 is used for an X-chart to monitor a

process, 80 observations constitute 16 points on the chart. The number of

observations, 80, is not prohibitively large for many processes.

References

1. Kane, V.E., Process capability indices, Journal of Quality Technology, Vol. 18, 1986,

pp. 41-52.

2. Chan, L.K., Cheng, S.W. and Spiring, F.A., A new measure of process capability: Cpm,

Journal of Quality Technology, Vol. 20, 1988, pp. 162-75.

3. Spiring, F.A., The Cpm index, Quality Progress, Vol. 24 No. 2, 1991, pp. 57-61.

4. Boyles, R.A., The Taguchi capability index, Journal of Quality Technology, Vol. 23, 1991,

pp. 17-26.

5. Taguchi, G., A tutorial on quality and assurance: the Taguchi methods, ASA Annual

Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, 1985.

6. Pearn, W.L., Kotz, S. and Johnson, N.L., Distributional and inferential properties of process

capability indices, Journal of Quality Technology, Vol. 24, 1992, pp. 216-31.

7. Kushler, R.H. and Hurley, P., Confidence bounds for capability indices, Journal of Quality

Technology, Vol. 24, 1992, pp. 188-95.

8. Serfling, R.J., Approximation Theorems of Mathematical Statistics, John Wiley & Sons,

New York, NY, 1980.

9. Chan, L.K., Xiong, Z. and Zhang, D., On the asymptotic distributions of some process

capability indices, Communications in Statistics Theory and Methods, Vol. 19, 1990,

pp. 11-18.

A process

incapability

index

71

1. Mou-Yuan Liao, Chien-Wei Wu, Chien-Hua Lin. 2015. Assessing True TFT-LCD Process Quality in the Presence of

Unavoidable Measurement Errors. Journal of Testing and Evaluation 43, 20140103. [CrossRef]

2. Mou-Yuan Liao. 2015. Assessing process incapability when collecting data from multiple batches. International Journal of

Production Research 53, 2041-2054. [CrossRef]

3. Mou-Yuan Liao, Chien-Hua Lin, Chien-Wei Wu, Chien-Hui Yang. 2015. Reliable Confidence Intervals for Assessing Normal

Process Incapability. Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation 00-00. [CrossRef]

4. Sajid Ali, Muhammad Riaz. 2014. On the generalized process capability under simple and mixture models. Journal of Applied

Statistics 41, 832-852. [CrossRef]

5. hsan Kaya. 2014. The process incapability index under fuzziness with an application for decision making. International Journal

of Computational Intelligence Systems 7, 114-128. [CrossRef]

6. Young Dae Lee, Seok Jae Chu. 2013. Development of Program for Predicting GBD to Improve Canning Process Capability

for Catalytic Converter. Transactions of the Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers A 37, 419-427. [CrossRef]

7. Kwang-Ki Lee, Chan-Kyoung Park, Seung-Ho Han. 2009. Six Sigma Robust Design for Railway Vehicle Suspension.

Transactions of the Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers A 33, 1132-1138. [CrossRef]

8. J.-C. Ke, Y.-K. Chu, Y.-T. Chung, P. C. Lin. 2009. Assessing non-normally distributed processes by interval estimation of

the incapability index C pp. Quality and Reliability Engineering International 25:10.1002/qre.v25:4, 427-437. [CrossRef]

9. Jeh-Nan Pan, Chun-Yi Lee. 2009. Development of a New Process Incapability Index with an Application to the Evaluation

of Manufacturing Risk. Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods 38, 1133-1153. [CrossRef]

10. Daniel Grau. 2009. Moments of the unbalanced non-central chi-square distribution. Statistics & Probability Letters 79,

361-367. [CrossRef]

11. Gu-Hong Lin. 2009. A research note on the estimated incapability index. Yugoslav Journal of Operations Research 19, 215-223.

[CrossRef]

12. Jau-Chuan Ke, Yunn-Kuang Chu, Jer-Yan Lin. 2008. Comparing confidence limits for short-run process incapability index

Cpp. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 387, 3227-3238. [CrossRef]

13. K.S. Chen, T.W. Chen. 2008. Multi-process capability plot and fuzzy inference evaluation. International Journal of Production

Economics 111, 70-79. [CrossRef]

14. Gu-Hong Lin. 2007. A Bayesian approach based on multiple samples for measuring process performance with incapability

index. International Journal of Production Economics 106, 506-512. [CrossRef]

15. Gu-Hong Lin, Wern-Kueir Jehng, Kuang-Han Hsieh, Lai-Wang Wang, Shun-Te Lai. 2007. A Bayesian approach on

monitoring process capability. Journal of Statistics and Management Systems 10, 241-252. [CrossRef]

16. K. S. Chen, M. L. Huang, P. L. Chang. 2006. Performance evaluation on manufacturing times. The International Journal

of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 31, 335-341. [CrossRef]

17. Gu-Hong Lin. 2006. A hypothesis testing procedure on assessing process performance. Journal of Statistics and Management

Systems 9, 319-339. [CrossRef]

18. Chao-Yu Chou, Yu-Chang Lin, Chun-Lang Chang, Chung-Ho Chen. 2006. On the bootstrap confidence intervals of the

process incapability index Cpp. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 91, 452-459. [CrossRef]

19. K. S. Chen, K. L. Chen. 2006. Supplier selection by testing the process incapability index. International Journal of Production

Research 44, 589-600. [CrossRef]

20. K.L. Chen, K.S. Chen, R.K. Li. 2005. Suppliers capability and price analysis chart. International Journal of Production

Economics 98, 315-327. [CrossRef]

21. M. L. Huang, K. S. Chen, R. K. Li. 2005. Graphical Analysis of Capability of a Process Producing a Product Family. Quality

& Quantity 39, 643-657. [CrossRef]

22. K.S. Chen, K.L. Chen, R.K. Li. 2005. Contract manufacturer selection by using the process incapability index C pp. The

International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 26, 686-692. [CrossRef]

23. Hung-Chin Lin, Gwo-Ji Sheen. 2005. Practical Implementation of the Capability Index C pk Based on the Control Chart

Data. Quality Engineering 17, 371-390. [CrossRef]

24. Daniel Grau. 2005. Algebraic Relationship Between Symmetrical and Asymmetrical Capability Indices. Quality Engineering

17, 359-370. [CrossRef]

25. G.H. Lin. 2005. Process reliability assessment with a Bayesian approach. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing

Technology 25, 392-395. [CrossRef]

26. Wen-Pei Sung, Ming-Hsiang Shih, Kuen-Suan Chen. 2005. Evaluation method for the optimum seismic energy dissipation

performance of displacement dependent seismic-active hydraulic damper. Journal of Statistics and Management Systems 8,

261-273. [CrossRef]

27. Gu Hong Lin. 2004. Upper limits of the estimated incapability index: a practical application on the reliability assessment of

printed circuit boards. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 24, 841-846. [CrossRef]

28. C.C. Wu, H.L. Kuo, K.S. Chen. 2004. Implementing process capability indices for a complete product. The International

Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 24, 891-898. [CrossRef]

29. Wen-Pei Sung, Kuen-Suan Chen. 2004. Evaluation model for multi-process capabilities of stranded wire. The International

Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 24, 425-432. [CrossRef]

30. Wen-Pei Sung, Ming-Hsiang Shih, Kuen-Suan Chen. 2003. Analytical method for promoting process capability of shock

absorption steel. Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE A 4, 388-392. [CrossRef]

31. Michael Perakis, Evdokia Xekalaki. 2003. On a Process Capability Index for Asymmetric Specifications. Communications in

Statistics - Theory and Methods 32, 1459-1492. [CrossRef]

32. P. C. Lin, W. L. Pearn, K. S. Chen. 2003. Distributional Properties and Implications of the Estimated Process Incapability

Index n pp. American Journal of Mathematical and Management Sciences 23, 75-92. [CrossRef]

33. W.L Pearn, C.H Ko, K.H Wang. 2002. A multiprocess performance analysis chart based on the incapability index Cpp: an

application to the chip resistors. Microelectronics Reliability 42, 1121-1125. [CrossRef]

34. W. L. Pearn, G. H. Lin. 2002. Estimated incapability index: reliability and decision making with sample information. Quality

and Reliability Engineering International 18:10.1002/qre.v18:2, 141-147. [CrossRef]

35. Chung-Ho Chen, Chao-Yu Chou. 2002. A Note on Selecting Target and Process Capability Index Based on Fuzzy

Optimization. Economic Quality Control 17. . [CrossRef]

36. W. L. Pearn, G. H. Lin. 2001. On the reliability of the estimated incapability index. Quality and Reliability Engineering

International 17:10.1002/qre.v17:4, 279-290. [CrossRef]

37. Kuen Suan Chen, ShengLung Kuo. 2000. An effective method for the activities of environmental analysis. Journal of the

Chinese Institute of Engineers 23, 575-581. [CrossRef]

38. K. S. CHEN, W. L. PEARN, P. C. LIN. 1999. A NEW GENERALIZATION OF C pm FOR PROCESSES WITH

ASYMMETRIC TOLERANCES. International Journal of Reliability, Quality and Safety Engineering 06, 383-398. [CrossRef]

39. W. L. Pearn, K. L. Chen, C. H. Ko. 1999. C pp T T. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Industrial

Engineers 16, 519-531. [CrossRef]

40. K.S. Chen. 1998. Estimation of the process incapability index. Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods 27,

1263-1274. [CrossRef]

41. Michael Greenwich, Hwa Nien Chen. 1997. The Cpk index and its confidence intervals. International Journal of Quality &

Reliability Management 14:7, 731-741. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

- History of Normal Curve and Normal DistributionUploaded byLentoOt EksDii
- CI problem.docUploaded byTamil Selvan
- Session 5 PostWork(1)Uploaded byvjpopines
- 0306004Uploaded byAqeela Fatima
- quantitative methodsUploaded bypramodh kumar
- Probability DistributionsUploaded bypennylanephotographs
- MGM 561-Exercise 2Uploaded byNur Zahidah
- F.jones-Confidence Intervals (1)Uploaded byyefri9227
- Describing and Exploring DataUploaded bytarun gehlot
- Heat Tr ManualUploaded byjonnychad1
- EstimationUploaded byyashbhardwaj
- random distributed dataUploaded byTenis Vijesti
- cps330cUploaded byIrwandi Irwandi
- Comparison of Void Fraction CorrelationsUploaded byHoustonAbductee
- EstimationUploaded byKen Ditchon
- 90-27Uploaded byمحمد
- 2006EA-1Uploaded byjaved765
- digital unit planUploaded byapi-259884525
- Normal EntropyUploaded byJorge Gonzalez
- SSNUploaded byFaouzi Bouali
- Ch9_06Uploaded byAamir Mukhtar
- Lecture 05 - Linear regressionUploaded byRamona Cirstian
- ASTM D 2013-2007Uploaded byAhmad Ali Syafi'i
- The Normal Distribution IBUploaded byfreddie
- 76197240 Ken Black QA 5th Chapter 7 SolutionUploaded byJennifer Clement
- A Bayesian Approach to Problems in Stochastic Estimation & ControlUploaded byMichael
- 191127 Homework Probstat PreuasUploaded byTsabita fidinillah
- Normality Tests in SASUploaded bydkanand86
- rcbdexampleslides.pdfUploaded byJoan DeLa Cruz Velasco
- Lecture 7Uploaded byCrystal Eshraghi

- Targeted KillingsUploaded byHamidiqbal
- Custidian FacilitiesUploaded byHamidiqbal
- Design and Fabrication of High Temperature Creep Testing MachineUploaded byHamidiqbal
- A Process Incapability IndexUploaded byHamidiqbal
- A study on the exchange coupling of NdFeB-type nanocomposites using Henkel plotsUploaded byHamidiqbal
- TI-95Uploaded byHamidiqbal
- 12.2 Review GillUploaded byHamidiqbal
- Five Year CalendarUploaded byHamidiqbal
- FPSC Advertisement 02 2013Uploaded byHamidiqbal
- CultusUploaded byHamidiqbal
- New Scheme Technique to face Fading in Wireless CommunicationUploaded bytrixidisk
- effects of tribulus terrestricUploaded byHamidiqbal
- Computer GraphicsUploaded byHamidiqbal
- Lucky NumberUploaded byapi-3713257

- Effects of Cell Phone RF Signal Exposure on Brain Glucose MetabolismUploaded bykarlmalatesta
- Actuarial CT3 Probability & Mathematical Statistics Sample Paper 2011 by ActuarialAnswersUploaded byActuarialAnswers
- Cc 18-80 Dropping Point (1)Uploaded byMiguel Bautista
- Estimating Population VarianceUploaded byThesis Group- Coronado Reyes Zapata UST ChE
- Thermo HWUploaded byIvalinov Kolev
- The HIV Epidemic in ZambiaUploaded byAnonymous oosaFdHz7
- Guidance No 19 - Surface Water Chemical MonitoringUploaded byÖzlem Fedai Korçak
- Econ3120 Spr 14 Prelim1 Final Solution v2Uploaded byDouglas Bourdett
- ARDL Bounds Tests and Robust Inference for the Long Run Relationship Between Real Stock Returns and Inflation in AustraliaUploaded bycrstnandreea
- Master of CommereceUploaded byjoyapatel
- Trolle e Kery 2003 - Estimation of Ocelot Density in Pantanal Using Captura-recapture Analisys of Camera-trapping DataUploaded bycazucco
- Final Review QuestionsUploaded byJeremy Pearson
- Review 3 (STA)Untitled1Uploaded byjacobdjwilson
- MGMT 222 Ch. IVUploaded byzedingel
- Modeling the anaerobic digestion of canemolasses vinasse: Extension of the Anaerobic Digestion Model No. 1 (ADM1) with sulfate reduction for a very high strength and sulfate rich wastewaterUploaded byRoberto Emmanuel Bolaños-Rosales
- Shales Leaching Modelling for Prediction of Flowback Fluid Composition_Energies-12-01404.pdfUploaded byMiguel Angel Vidal Arango
- Organizing Engineering Research Papers(14)Uploaded by柯泰德 (Ted Knoy)
- Anindita Kusuma Ardiani G2A009148 BabVIIIKTIUploaded byAulia Rohmawati Fitrianingsih
- Chapter 09Uploaded byAdityaPutriWibowo
- MCQS Statistics CourseUploaded byAnkit Yadav
- Career Benefits Associated With Mentoring for Protege's: A Meta-AnalysisUploaded byChris E Yin
- New Mexico Forest ReportUploaded byBob Berwyn
- PAPER - Validacion Grasa en LecheUploaded byJuliet Romero
- Acupuncture for Restless Legs SyndromeUploaded byTomas Mascaro
- Exam 2 Practice QuestionsUploaded byvuduyduc
- Robust PID Controllers by Taguchi's MethodUploaded byAndresinho Sievchenko
- FECO1Uploaded byChinh Xuan
- shiftsUploaded byViet Quoc Hoang
- Chapter 10:Uploaded by03435013877
- Master Data HasilUploaded byOnga Iki

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.