You are on page 1of 10


71-79 (1986)


Imperial College, London, U .K .



The City University, Northampton Square, London ECI V OHB, U.K .

The Taguchi methods have recently become popular in the U.S.A following a realization of their
importance in Japanese quality design. This review is an initial attempt to extract the important ideas while
drawing on the ‘Western’ experience with response surface methodology and experimental design.

KEY WORDS Taguchi method Off-line quality control Quality design Experimental design Response surfaces

1. HISTORY subject. The American Statistical Association meet-

In 1981 Yu-in Wu wrote the English translation of An ing in Las Vegas (August 1985) had an entire session
Introductory Text for Design Engineers: Design and devoted to the methods, excluding a talk by Taguchi.
Design of Experiments by Genichi Taguchi.’ This An ‘Institute for Taguchi Methods’ has been formed:
followed nearly thirty years of work on experimental see References for the address. The October 1985
design in quality control which had been carried on, issue of the Journal of Quality Technology4is devoted
largely independently of work in the West on ex- entirely to off-line quality control, parameter design
and the Taguchi method.
perimental design and response surfaces. Towards
The specialized work of Taguchi can be seen as one
the end of this period, in Japan, Taguchi’s two
component of the drive for a ‘new management
textbooks’ had become bibles for proper procedures
climate’ in the U.S.A., a climate in which statistics
in product testing. In the preface to the 1981 English
should have a key role.5 Gamin6pointsout that plants
text Taguchi says:
in the U.S.A with the worst quality record had little or
Japanese engineers’ attitude of using experimental no data on quality. W. E. Deming is identified as
designs is quite different from the USA’s. Most having led the way in proselytizing the U.S.A. to the
English books on experimental designs are written Japanese way of thinking with his ‘14 Points for
from the viewpoints of science, emphasizing the Management’. Point 3 is
importance of mathematical models and statistical
‘Cease dependence on inspection to achieve quality’
Japanese engineers want to find better product
designs which are robust enough against all noise
variables by choosing the level of parameters.

Taguchi and his philosophy is said to be a major factor

in the reliability of Japanese product design. Recog-
nizing the importance of the work, A.T. & T. Bell More than any of the purely mathematical or statistic-
Laboratories organized a conference on the topic in al contributions it is the design philosophy which
May 1984 at which Taguchi joined leading U.S. stands out in the Taguchi methods. Much of the work
workers in the area. Since that time the expansion of is written in a kind of semi-statistical jargon which is
activity in the U.S.A. has been dramatic. Bell Labor- confusing to a first-time reader. The seemingly clear
atories itself has been very active, as have other division of the problems into different categories can
centres, notably G.E.P. Box and co-workers at the quickly get submerged in a statistical analysis which is
University of Wisconsin, Madison. This has been sometimes non-standard.
stimulated also by a fuller explanation of the work by The key idea is to shift the emphasis in quality
Taguchi and Wu3 and various talks and seminars. The control back to the design stage (off-line). If variabil-
National Science Foundation (U.S.A.) ‘Workshop ity can be reduced at this stage, and ‘robustness’
on Efficient Data Collection’ heard talks from M. S. increased, great financial savings can be made over
Phadke (July 1984, Berkeley) and Wu (February more traditional post-production inspection methods
1984, Berkeley) and continues to interest itself in the (on-line). However, production variables creep into

0748-8017/86/0020071-10$05.00 Received 18 October 1985

01986 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Revised 10 January 1986

the analysis in a limited way. The three stages can be However, if the circuit designer chooses a nominal
summarized loosely as follows: gain of x1 then, owing to the non-linearity of re-
sponse, it can be seen that the variation about the
design ->- production ->- use corresponding voltage y , is much reduced.
Suppose now that there is a resistor in the circuit
Corrections of a faulty design at the production which has a linear effect on the voltage at all levels of
phase, or even worse, recall of a product after the transistor gain. Then the resistance of this compo-
distribution, is seen as to be avoided through careful nent can be chosen so that the difference between the
initial design. Mixed in with this idea is a social voltage y , and the desired voltage yo is eliminated.
philosophy which entails minimizing the total cost to The response is then on target and the variability in
society of a product. Thus if a small adjustment to a response is minimized. Thus transistor gain is a
design produces a large decrease in the variability of a control factor and resistance is a signal factor.
product, or a large decrease in cost for little or no In more complicated cases the identification of
increase in variability, then this is of benefit to all. such factors requires the use of experimental design
This general design philosophy is accompanied by methodology and response surface techniques, as
two critical features. discussed in Sections 3 and 4, respectively, and
illustrated, in particular, by Examples 1 and 2, of
Section 5 .
Separation of variables The main ‘response surface’ idea in Taguchi is to
The design variables (factors) are separated into use the control factors to minimize variability and
two main groups: (l),those which affect the variabil- then to correct the mean level (if necessary) to the
ity of a response, called control factors, and (2), those target value by adjusting the signal factors. One might
which affect the (mean) level of a response, called alternatively use the signal factors to maximize or
signal factors. minimize the level.
An example given by Kackar and Phadke’ is a The determination of optimum levels of gain and
simple illustration of the separation of variables. resistance in the power circuit is an application of
Consider an electrical power circuit where the charac- parameter design within the overall design stage. If
teristic of interest is the output voltage, the target the variability of response, following parameter de-
value of this voltage being yo. Assume that the voltage sign, is still too large then tolerance design is advo-
is largely determined by the gain of a transistor in the cated. This would mean retaining the optimum
circuit and that the circuit designer is at liberty to nominal levels for factors, but reducing the variability
choose the nominal value ( x ) of the transistor gain. of individual factors in an optimal way so that the
Suppose that the effect of transistor gain on the overall variability of response is reduced to an
output voltage is non-linear, as shown in Figure 1. acceptable level. This is again an area for the
A transistor with a gain of xo would give the application of response surface techniques and is
required output voltage of yo. The effect of a variation illustrated by Example 2 of Section 5 .
about the nominal value xo on the resulting variation
about yo is indicated by bands straddling the nominal Sources of variation
There is a profound message contained in the work
concerning the sources of variability of a product. A
long debate on controlled versus randomized experi-
mentation has continued in the West for many years
and with renewed vigour in the social sciences where
‘observational studies’ have been singled out as an
area of research. The problem is this: to what extent
does controlled experiment allow determination of
behaviour in a wider environment? For example, in
agriculture special weather conditions may prevent
the extrapolation of the results of a field trial.
Taguchi’s answer is surprisingly simple. Try to pro-
duce variability in the ‘laboratory’ by mimicking the
variability of the production process or the use
environment. Thus Taguchi has a third category of
variables called noise factors. These are variables
which cannot be incorporated into the engineering
design but which, at least roughly, can have levels set
I ”
in an experiment. They are experimental variables
2% H
but not design variables. They are said to produce
‘outer noise’ (‘inner noise’ is taken to mean more
Figure 1 . Effect of transistor gain on output voltage traditional kinds of variability such as deterioration in

components). Thus Taguchi creates a simulated en- +

the form c( 1 E), where c is a mean level of response
vironment to study the variability of a product design. and E is random error.
Then minimizing variability clearly means mini-
mizing it relative to size. In this case the signal-to-
noise ratio would be a legitimate criterion. The
There is no doubt that the design for design (ex- present authors have pondered the existence of a
perimental design for engineering design) is a deliber- strange scale-invariant world inhabited by engineers.
ately forged double-edged sword. It represents a This would be a world in which a commuter travelling
contribution to the use of experimental designs that is 20 miles home and being half an hour late would be
essentially creative. That is to say they are used in a precisely as angry as one travelling 10 miles and being
creative environment rather than the more passive a quarter of an hour late. Joking apart, it seems
way that they are discussed in standard statistical interesting to debate such notions, reminding statisti-
text books. cians, who have no monopoly of error, that scale
A typical experimental design would consist of two invariance also plays a part in theoretical statistics;
parts. First a 2k or 2k x 3‘factorial experiment would witness the F test itself.
describe the treatment combinations for the design Another rationale for something like a signal-to-
factors. Each treatment combination (design point) noise ratio would be a trade-off between attainment
of the first design incorporates another design at of a target value and the variability at the target value,
which the levels of the noise factors would be raised to i.e. between bias and standard deviation. It would be
produce the simulated variability. This second design something closer to the t-test statistic that the ex-
may have a factorial structure or simply consist of pected response equals c, the target value.
replications over different levels of a single noise
factor. Thus in the pre-etched line width experiment
(Example 1 in the present paper) the basic experi-
ment is a 2l x 3 factorial fraction with 18 treatment
combinations. At each of the latter we have 10 Suppose we model the response in the usual way. Let
experiments which consist of 10 observations (except x = (xlr. . ., xk) be a vector of k design variables and
for missing observations): 2 replicates (wafers) at the response at x be given by
each of five levels of a noise factor. Sometimes, it is
true, there are only two or even just one observation Y, = e0 + elxl + . . . + e g k + E,
at each treatment combination of the basic experi-
ment. Here E, is an error with
Thus most of the examples are one experiment
(design factors) crossed with another (noise factors). E(E,) = 0 and var (E,) = d?,
The noise factors themselves are then essentially
ignored in any subsequent analysis as model variables. E, may incorporate variation over noise variables
In the clearest examples (Example 1)a sample meany together with experimental error. The expected re-
and standard deviation s are calculated for each sponse
treatment combination of the basic experiment. Sub-
sequent analysis is then performed on these quanti-
ties. In Section 4 we discuss a standard model to try to
understand this procedure. is often called the response surface, and may be made
An important statistic in the work is the so-called more complex by inclusion of, say, interaction or
signal-to-noise ratio. This is perhaps the most con- quadratic terms. Now a; may also be considered a
troversial element of the theoretical part of the work. response surface, one which summarizes the variabil-
In its simplest expression it is taken as log,,,b/s] and ity in Y , over x. Suppose that pxand &: are estimates
is often multiplied by a constant such as 20. Its use of E(Y,) and d?,, respectively. Then a simplified
seems to stem from its familiarity to engineers and its summary of the method would be as follows: let c be a
quoted utility over a wide range of examples. A target value of E(Y,), then
difficulty with the literature is the varying definitions 1. Identify all those x values C(c) (within the
which appear. Sometimes the s is taken as a global control region) for which
measure of variability such as the usual residual Px= c
sample standard deviation-particularly when there 2. Within C(c) select the x-values to minimize 6;.
is little replication. Alternatively,’ it seems to be a Alternatively instead of (2) one might consider
function of an F-ratio: regression sum of squares1 2’. Within C(c) select the x-values to maximize
error sum of squares. P:l&;.
The lack of a clear definition of the quantity hides In the context of the usual analysis of variance one
what may be an important difference between the may discuss how this might be carried out.
engineer’s and the statistician’s view of the world. In Let there be m observations at each of n x-values
cases in which tolerances on output levels (responses) x(’), . . ., x ( ~ )(recall that each x ( ~ is
) a vector of k
are measured proportional to size, the responses take design variables). Assume that all observations are

uncorrelated. Define Yij as the jth observation at x(~) the model is linear with k + 1 parameters, as
and define described above, we may only use the n - (k + 1)
(i) pias the usual least squares estimate ofE(Yx) degrees of freedom from the first term in (2) to test
at x = ~ ( i ) the underlying model (notwithstanding the possible
heteroscedasticity) .
- l m
(ii) Yi= m ~ C.
Yij as the mean of the This trade-off between modelling the mean and
variance is further highlighted in a two-stage analysis
observations at x ( ~ ) in which we may identify, say, only a few design
factors xi as affecting the mean and then ‘steal’ from
the larger number of degrees of freedom produced by
l m refitting the smaller model, in order to estimate.:a
(iii) s: =
Z (Yii- yi)2as the estimate of
The aliasing between estimation of :u and E(Yx)

when we ignore significant design variables is brought
the variance of the observations at x@. out in work by Box and Meyer.’They give an analysis
in which prior distributions militate against having
The total sum of squares can be split up in the usual more than a few significant design factors. The
way into the regression sum of squares and the trade-off is critical when m = 1 and there are no
residual sum of squares (RSS), namely degrees of freedom to estimate separately each .:a
Even worse is when n < k + 1, so that variances and
means are competing for degrees of freedom. These
over-saturated models are of great theoretical in-
terest and a Bayesian methodology seems the only
The last item in (1) (RSS) can itself be split up as way forward.
n m
RSS = m 2
i= 1
(yi - pi),+ iz= l j=1
C. (Y, - yi)2
Let a:be the variance of E, at x = x ( ~(i) = 1, . . .,n). If In this section we analyse data from three examples to
these are not equal then standard theory shows that the extent required to illustrate the points outlined in
the piare in general suboptimum estimators. Howev- the previous sections. The first two examples use the
er in practice (and certainly if they are almost equal) it L18 orthogonal array which can accommodate up to
is reasonable to use the pi as a good first approxima- eight factors. The array is given in Appendix I. The
tion. The last term in (2) can then be rewritten as design factors are labelled xl, x 2 , . . .,x8 and the rows
(i = 1,2, . . ., 18) give the experimental combinations
for these factors. The factor x1 is at two levels (-1,
+ 1) and all other factors are at three levels (- 1, 0,
Moreover , under normality assumptions this term is
independent of the other terms (as is each s t separ-
Example 1
ately). Note also that if the residuals at x = x ( ~are
This example illustrates the identification of con-
trol and signal factors in parameter design using
response surface methodology. The data given in
then Table I are from Phadke et al.“’ Missing replicates
have been replaced by other replicates in each group
1 to obtain a balanced experiment. The objective was
Z (Yij - Ti), = to obtain a microprocessor window size of 3.5 pm
m-1 j
with minimum variability. It is thus a ‘response on
Z (YV- Ti - P; - Y;
+ Ti)*= &? target’ experiment. The first seven factors in the L18
array were used in a pre-etch experiment and these
were mask dimension (xl), viscosity/bake tempera-
This shows that the analysis is equivalent to an ture (x2), spin speed (x3), bake time (x4) aperture
analysis based on the residuals. ( x 5 ) , exposure time (x6) and developing time (x,).
The ‘degrees of freedom’ in this term, namely nm - The levels of these variables were set after consulta-
n = n(m-l), are available for estimation of u . The
: tion with design engineers and the response variable
independence allows us to go further and model the was ‘line-width’, a variable closely related to window
sit back on the x-variables ‘without interference’ from size. Table I gives the sample means 7; and sample
the modelling of the mean E( Yx). The penalty we pay standard deviations, s;, for the eighteen treatment
for using all the available degrees of freedom to combinations. The means and standard deviations
model the error in this way is only a limited number of were calculated from the ten replicates at each
degrees of freedom for modelling E( Y,J, namely n. If experimental combination.

Table I. Microprocessor line-width data

I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

7, 2.500 2.684 2.660 1.962 1.870 2.584 2.032 3.267 2.829

s, 0.0827 0.1196 0.1722 0.1696 0.1102 0.1106 0.0718 0.2101 0.1516

i 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

7, 2.660 3.166 3.323 2.576 2.306 2.464 2.667 3.156 3.494

Si 0.1912 0.0674 0.1274 0.0850 0.0987 0.0363 0.0706 0.1569 0.0445

Basing analysis on the means in each group (the yi) Table 11. Regression sum of squares
the linear model
Due to ss DF
Yi= eo + elxjl + . . . + e7xi7 + E;, i = 1,2, . . ., 18,
XI 0.6513 1
x2 0.0170 1
was fitted using ordinary least squares (OLS). In the x3 0.7287 1
above model xii denotes the value of factor xi in row i x4 04004 1
and eiis random error. Calculations were carried out XS 0.0091 1
X6 0.5406 1
using the statistical package MINITAB which also X? 0.2214 1
outputs the analysis of variance of regression. In
Table I1 we give the breakdown of the regression sum
of squares from the analysis of variance. This enables ~

the identification of those factors which contribute SS = Sum of squares. DF = Degrees of freedom.
significantly to the response.
Only xl, x3, x6 and x7 contribute significantly to the Table 111. Experimental values for the tempera-
response. Thus a reduced model was fitted by OLS ture controller circuit
using the above four factors only. Dropping the
subscript i we obtain the fitted response surface Levels

In similar fashion a response surface was fitted for log

variance using the values ensi. There are theoretical
reasons for preferring an analysis of ens rather than s
and the reader is referred to papers by Bartlett and
Kendall" and Cox and Hinkley. l 2 Only the factorsx, ,
x4, x s and x6 contribute significantly to the linear tion to the use of this example to demonstrate
regression. circumstances giving rise to the need for tolerance
The fitted surface is design.
A resistor RT is affected by the temperature of an
environment and the particular resistance RT at
which a relay activates a heater is given by

The factors x3 (spin speed) and x7 (developing time)

appear in P, but not in tits,. Thus they are signal
factors and can be used to adjust the response without
significantly affecting the variance. On the other hand where the quantities on the right-hand side are other
factorsx4(bake time) andx5(aperture) appear in 4bsx resistances (kR) and voltages in the circuit. The
but not in I$,and are therefore controlfactors. These experimental values given in Table I11 are different
can be used to reduce variability without significantly from those used by Taguchi and Phadke, but they are
affecting the level of response. more suitable for illustrative purposes. The first six
columns of L18 were used and the correspondence
between the circuit and design factors is also display-
Example 2
ed in Table 111. Simple linear relationships connect
Taguchi and Phadke' have discussed a temperature the two. For example, Eo = x l + 8.5.
controller circuit and this provides a very useful Any given level of resistance or voltage is observed
example for detailed study. Here we limit our atten- with a random error related to its specified tolerance.

This is Taguchi’s inner noise. We have assumed that Denote the functional form of RT-ON, given in ( 4 ) ,
these values are normally distributed with means byf. Also let V ( R , ) = uf, V ( E o ) = u& V(E,) = u,2.
equal to the designated values and standard devia- Then, using a multivariate Taylor series expansion of
tions given by u = ApJ2, where p is the mean fabout the means of the circuit variables, the variance
(designated level) and lOOh is the percentage toler- of the response function, Vf is given to a good
ance. For all variables we have initially used A = 0.05 approximation by
so that approximately 98 per cent of realized values
fall wi hin the tolerance limits for each designated 4

resistarice or voltage. V f - ,C uf(dfldRi)*


Because RT-ON is a known function of the design

factors we can use Monte Carlo methods to generate
this response for any combination of levels selected
from Table 111. Thus both parameter and tolerance
design may be investigated without recourse to Alternatively
experimentation using actual circuits. In practice a
small number of confirmatory experiments with real
circuits should be carried out following design opti-
For each row of the L18 array, using factors x I ,x 2 ,
. . ., x6, twenty values of RT-ONwere generated under
the assumptions given previously. The sample means
( j iand
) standard deviations (si)are given in Table IV. where variances are converted to tolerances by the
Exploratory data analysis revealed a strong relationships given previously. For changes Ahi in
tendency for variance to increase with increasing tolerances the corresponding change in V f is
values of the mean. This dependency is well modelled
by the relation 4
AVf i C AiR? (dfldRi)’ AXi +
i= 1
ens = - 2-45 + 0.75 &ny
A o E ~(df/dE(J2AXO + f h,EI (dfldEJ2 AX,
It follows that minimization of response is accompa-
nied by variance reduction. The opposite is true if
maximization of response is desired. Also, for a When RT-ON = 3kR, taking all tolerances at 5 per
response on target situation in which RT-c>N is not cent, we have
small, the attendant variability may be too large.
Reduction of this variability may be effected by AVf 0.225AX1 + 0.305AAZ + 0.204AX3
tolerance design. Here we would choose tighter
tolerances for the circuit variables in an optimal way, all other coefficients being very small. Thus variance
paying due regard to costs. is effectively reduced by tightening the tolerances on
A simple illustration of this follows. Suppose that the resistors R , , R2 and R3 in keeping with cost
the target for RT-ON is 3kR and that this is to be constraints.
achieved by the values R , = 0 - 9 2 , R2 = 6-0, R3 = 2 . 0 ,
R4 = 48.0, E,, = 9.5, E, = 7.5. All values are entries
Example 3
from Table 111 except that for R , which is a variable
resistor used to adjust the response to the required In this example the data consist of a 3 x 2
level. experiment with eight replications at each treatment

Table IV. Data for temperature controller circuit

i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Y, 2.39 1.23 0.954 1.80 1.49 5.96 2.06 7.88 3.04
S, 0.1804 0.0953 0.1076 0.1550 0.1202 0.6475 0.1310 0.2720 0.1476

I 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

7, 1.71 1.51 2.40 1.28 5.37 2.23 1.95 8.12 8.46

S, 0.0902 0.0870 0.2155 0.1065 0.2447 0.1057 0.2557 0.3538 0.5610

Table V whole experimental configuration, which is masked

by the separate analyses. An analysis of the s,shows a
Factor DF ss very strong effect of B. Table VII shows the analysis
of variance of log si against the various factors.
A 1 13.1
A' 1 586.6
AB 1 15.8
A'B 1 56.3 Several examples in the Taguchi work raise a differ-
Error 42 509.1
ent kind of variation to that mentioned above: see the
example on page 30 of Taguchi and Wu.' This is
Total (corrected) 47 1197.4
closer to the 'errors-in-variables' mentioned which
A* denotes the quadratic component of A and has received some study in the statistical literature. If
A2Bdenotes the quadratic A by linear B interac-
a variable xi affects the model in a non-linear fashion
DF = Degrees of freedom. SS = Sums of the variability in Y arising from either variability in,
squares. or lack of accurate specifications of, a design variable
Table VI xi will affect Y differently at different levels of x. We
can model this as follows using conditional means and
B variances.
1 2

1 0.86 4.59
var (Y,) = var, E(Ylx) + E,var (Y~x)
A 2 1.12 5.00
3 2.18 4.56 If:a is roughly constant in a neighbourhood of the
'true' value of x, say m, then we can interpret
Table VII E,(var( Ylx)) as ax2.The first term on the right-hand
side is what interests us here and this is particularly so
when E(Y(x), the model, is non-linear.
Suppose for example that E( Y,) is quadratic:
A 0.213
A' 0404
B 2.546
AB 0.219
A'B 0.275
written in matrix terms as

E(Y,) = 0,) + brx + X"Ax

combination (Appendix 11). The ANOVA table is Suppose that x is considered random with mean m
shown in Table V. and covariance matrix V, assuming for the moment
The F-value for A (alone) is 24-74 with the that all the parameters O0, b , , . . ., bk and the aii are
quadratic factor giving the largest contribution. known. Under assumptions of multivariate normality
There is a suggestion of an interaction A 2 B .
If we ignore factor A the sample standard devia- var,E( Y,lx) = 2 trace(AV)' + 4m"'AVAm + 4b"'VAm
tions at the two levels of B are + b'rVb
level 1 level 2 (a standard computation).
B: 3.05 6.49 Furthermore, if V = a21(I is the identity matrix),
then the contours of this function (assuming A is
Similarly, ignoring B , the sample standard deviations non-negative definite) are elliptical with centre and
at the three levels of A are axes the same as for the original model with x = m. In
other words a third response surface is obtained with a
level 1 level 2 level 3 minimum at the minimum of the 'true' model.
A: 3.26 3-62 4-02 It is not altogether clear from Taguchi's work how
to combine the two error surfaces, one for ax7and the
For the complete layout the values are given in Table other for var(E(Y1x)) into a single error curve to
VI. represent the variation in the response, other than by
We can see clearly that since the effect of B on the simple addition. Also some of the errors are present
mean levels of Y is small the standard deviations at in experimentation whereas some may only be pre-
the levels of A represent a pooled value over the sent when the design factors are adjusted.
levels of B. However some of the variation over the If the question of a true cost or error response
levels of B is explained by variation over A exposing surface is resolved then we can revert to the metho-
the aliasing with the significant factor A . Also, we are dology of minimizing cost subject to attaining the
able to identify the behaviour of the variance over the target.

7. CONCLUSIONS 4. Control theory, not mentioned above, but

clearly applicable in the context of attaining a
There is obviously scope for widening the theoretical fixed target.
basis for Taguchi’s work without detracting from the 5. Research on tolerance levels and calibration.
very important ‘design for design’ message. In doing
so several areas of established statistical theory can be
called on and we shall merely list examples of them.
I . Classical factorial design supplemented by more We hope that the ideas presented here will help to
recent work on optimum experimental design. identify some directions of research. This hope is
2. Response surface methodology. reinforced by the urgent need to reinforce the
3. Variance estimation and more generally rnod- mushrooming U.S. research activity and to germinate
eflirig of variances on explanatory variables. it in Europe.



Design factors
I XI x2 x3 x4 x5 X6
~ ~~ ~-.-

1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
2 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 -1 0 -1 -1 0 0 1 1
5 - 1 0 0 0 1 1 -1 -1
6 -1 0 1 1 -1 -1 0 0
7 -1 1 -1 0 -1 1 0 1
8 -1 1 0 1 0 -1 1 -1
9 -1 1 1 -1 1 0 -1 0
10 1 -1 -1 1 1 0 0 -1
11 1 -1 0 -1 -1 1 1 0
12 1 - 1 1 0 0 -1 -1 1
13 1 0 - 1 0 1 -1 1 0
14 1 0 0 1 - 1 0 -1 1.
15 1 0 1 - 1 0 1 0 -1
16 1 1 - 1 1 0 1 -1 0
17 1 1 0 - 1 1 -1 0 1
18 1 1 1 0 - 1 0 1 -1


Y Time in hours to reach end point voltage of 1 volt. Duracell Batteries Ltd.

XI x2 Y-values

86.60 86.90 87.00 87.00 87.80 88.00 88.50 89.00

92.00 93.60 94.10 94-10 94.40 94.40 95-90 95.00
86.40 87.30 90.60 91.30 91.40 91.50 91.60 92.20
78.40 81.00 84.00 88-10 89.40 89-60 90-00 90.10
84-10 95.00 96.40 97.20 98.30 98.80 99.00 99.00
78-40 81.00 84-00 88.10 89.10 89-60 90.00 90.10

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 8. G . Taguchi and M. S. Phadke, ‘Quality enginccring through

design optimisation’, IEEE. C o m m . Soc., Atlanta, GA.
The authors are grateful to Mr. P. D. T. O’Connor November, 1984, pp. 1106-I 113.
of the Reliability Group, British Aerospace Dynam- 9. G . E. P. Box and R. D. Meycr, ‘Studies in quality improve-
ment’, I, dispersion effects from fractional designs; 11, an
ics, Stevenage, U.K. for suggesting this review. analysis for unreplicated fractional factorials’. Mathcmatics
Thanks are also due to Professor D. R. Cox, Research Centre, University o f Wisconsin. Madison, 19%.
Imperial College, U.K. for commenting on an earl- 10. M. S. Phadke, R. N. Kackar, D. V. Speery and M. J . Grieco.
‘Off-line quality control in intcgratcd circuit fabrication using
ier draft of this paper. experimental design’, Bell Sysl. Tech. J . , 62, 1273-1309
11. M. S. Bartlett and D. G . Kcndall, ‘The statistical analysis of
variance-heterogeneity and the logarithmic transformation’,
J. R. Statis/. Soc. Suppl., 8, 128-138 (1946).
12. D . R. Cox and D. V. Hinkley, ‘A note on the efficiency of least
REFERENCES* squares’, J. R. Sfatist. Soc. Series, B,M, 284-289 (1968).

I . G . Taguchi and Y-I Wu. A n Introductory Text f o r Design Authors’ biographies:

Engineers: Design and Design of Experimenfs, Japanese
Standard Association (Mimeo notes), 1981. Luis Basso is a Ph.D. student at Imperial College sup-
2. G . Taguchi. ExperimentalDesigns, 3rd edn, Vols 1 and 2, Seiki ported by a scholarship from the Brazilian Government.
Gakkaishi (in Japanese), 1976, 1977.
3. G . Taguchi and Y-I Wu, Introduction to Off-line Quulity Alan Winterbottom is a former Senior Lecturer and Head
Conrrol, Central Japan Quality Control Association, 1979. of Statistics at The City University. He is presently a
4. Journal of Quality Technology, October 1985, American Consultant and Associate of The City University Stat-
Society for Quality Control. istical Laboratory.
5. B. L. Joiner, ‘The key role of statisticians in the transformation
of North American Industry’, A m e r . Statist., 39, 224-227
Henry P. Wynn obtained his Ph.D. at Imperial College
6. D . A. Garvin, ‘Quality on the line’, Harvard Business Review, in 1970 and returned as a lecturer in 1973. He became
61. 65-75 (1983). Reader in Statistics and Head of Statistics at Imperial
7. R . N. Kackar and M. S. Phadke, ‘An introduction to off-line College before moving to The City University as Professor
and on-line quality control methods’, Technical Memoran- of Statistics and Director of the Statistical Laboratory in
dum, A T & T Bell Laboratories, Holmdel, N. J . , 1981. 1985.


“Many of the research papers are available from: American

Supplier Institute. Center for Taguchi Methods. 312OU Detroit
Industrial Expressway. Romulus. MI 48174. U.S.A. (Tel: 31-3-72