Int. J. Pure Appl. Sci. Technol., 15(1) (2013), pp.

20-30
International Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences and Technology
ISSN 2229 - 6107
Available online at www.ijopaasat.in

Research Paper
Statistical Quality Control of Manufactured Products
(Case Study of Packaging at Lifespan Pharmaceutical
Limited)
C.N. Nnamani1, * and S.H. Fobasso1

1
Department of Mathematics, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria- Nigeria

* Corresponding author, e-mail: (ncngene@abu.edu.ng)

(Received: 9-12-12; Accepted: 16-1-13)

Abstract: In the manufacturing environment, quality improves reliability, increases

productivity and customer satisfaction. Quality in manufacturing requires the practice of
quality control. This research work investigates the level of quality control in Lifespan
pharmaceutical limited, makers of Lifespan Table Water. The study involves inspection of
some randomly selected finished products on daily bases. The data on the number of
defective sachets were collected two times (morning and afternoon shifts) per day. This
was done for three weeks. The physical observations (number of defectives) from the
company were analyzed using statistical tools such as Descriptive Statistics (proportion
and mean counts of defectives) and Control Chart for Attributes (P-chart and NP-chart).
The proportion of defective sachets per day was found to be 0.02634 with upper and lower
control limits of 0.03708 and 0.01560 respectively. Furthermore, this work shows that
there are many points that fall out of the control limits. This means that the production
process is out of control and needs a thorough and complete process inspection and
verification. Even though the proportion of 0.02634 (which is about 3 defectives out of 100
every sachets) is not too high, the fact that the production process is not within control
limits calls for a decisive action by the company.

Keywords: Water, Defective, Production, Chart.

Introduction
The world economy has undergone rapid changes during the past two decades with the advent of
global competition to an extent that almost every company (large or small) is touched by it in some
ways. As creativity and innovation are necessary for bringing forth the change required to obtain
competitive advantage, quality is the most effective factor a company or organization can use in the
battle for customer/clients. To be competitive, the customers must be satisfied and to satisfy the
Int. J. Pure Appl. Sci. Technol., 15(1) (2013), 20-30 21

customers, we must focus on quality. Quality control provides the philosophy and driving force for
designing quality in order to delight the customers by focusing on best value of a company’s products
and services. The basic goal of quality control is to ensure that the products, services or processes
provided meet specific requirements and are dependable, satisfactory, affordable and physically sound
(Hotelling, 1947).

Quality control is made up of those activities and techniques used to achieve and maintain a high
standard of quality in a transformation process at reduced cost. They may include systematic
inspection of inputs and outputs at various stages in their transformation to ensure that acceptable
tolerances are not being exceeded. They may also involve a statistical analysis of data produced by the
sampling (particularly in line production), benchmarking, continuous improvement (CI) and supplier
partnering. In this case, in traditional organizations, management has to balance the cost incurred
against the customers’ goodwill. Quality control is also concerned with finding and eliminating the
causes of quality problems.

However, Andrew J. Marlow (2006) views quality as integral part of all products including services.
It is an important consumer decision criterion in selecting among competitive products. Deming
(1986) saw quality as aiming at the needs of customers (present and futures). Robert Kotler (1994)
view a product’s quality as the ability to perform its functions. It includes the product’s overall
durability, reliability, precision, ease of operation and repairs and other valued attributes. Although,
some of these attributes can be measured objectively from marketing point of view, but quality should
be measured in terms of buyer’s perception. Sullivan (1986) showed evidence on this issue when he
defined seven stages of quality in Japan in order of increasing level of quality to include: product
oriented, process oriented, system oriented, humanistic, society, cost oriented and quality function
deployment (QFD). Juran defined quality as fitness for purpose. While Crosby (1979) saw quality
primarily as conformance to requirement. Broh (1982) defined quality as the degree of excellence at
an acceptable price and control of variability at an acceptable cost. However, quality improvement has
become the key factor for the success and growth of any business organization. Investment on quality
improvement gives rich returns. Japan is the best example. There are many different ways in which
quality can be approached, so one might wonder which one is the best for technical documentation.
Since quality is a necessary prerequisite for any company operating in today’s highly competitive
business environment, it is therefore, implied that as quality varies from one company to another, it
also dependent on their mission, policy and other elements that guide the company in the realization
of its corporate goals. It is therefore, a common knowledge that in the manufacturing sector, quality is
everything.

Essentially, quality control involves the examination of a product, service or process for certain
minimum levels of quality. The goal of quality team is to identify products that do not meet the
company’s specified standards of quality (Woodall, et al., 2004). If a problem is identified, the job of
a quality control team or professional may involve stopping production temporarily depending on the
particular service or product as well as the type of problem identified, production or implementation
may not cease entirely. Usually, it is not just the job of the quality control team or professional to
correct quality issues, typically, other individuals are involved in the process of discovering the cause
of quality issues and fixing them. Once such problems are overcome, the product, service or process
continues production or implementation as usual.

Due to the general breakdown of infrastructure in Nigeria occasioned by poor or lack of maintenance
and mismanagement of the nation’s resources, many Nigerian localities, urban areas inclusive, have
resorted to self help in the provision of basic amenities which, hitherto, have been seen (just as in
other parts of the world) as fundamental human rights and basic responsibility of Governments.
Despite the abundant natural water resources in our land, the promises of the Government in the area
of provision of portable water have been elusive, even in the face of the Millennium Development
Goals (Idris, 2012). This has led to a booming business of production of sachet water, popularly
referred to as “pure water” in many nooks and crannies of our communities. In many occasion, the
pure water sachets are found to be of varying sizes and qualities due to lack of application of
Int. J. Pure Appl. Sci. Technol., 15(1) (2013), 20-30 22

Statistical Quality Control (SQC) in the production process. This study applies SQC in the production
process of Lifespan Pharmaceutical Limited as a baseline for such processes in Nigeria.

Materials and Methods

Method of Data Collection
Data collection method used is random sampling method. Random sampling method is the purest
form of sampling, probability in the sense that each member of the population has a known non- zero
probability of being selected. The reason for choosing this method is to allow each member of the
population equal chance of being selected.

This study used primary data. The data were obtained using face to face interview with the operation
manager of Lifespan Pharmaceutical Limited and personal observation during production for a space
of three weeks. Lifespan Pharmaceutical Limited is among the major producers of sachet water in
Zaria-Nigeria. The product of Lifespan Pharmaceutical Limited is highly consumed in Zaria and its
environs. Within Kaduna State, it ranks among the most high patronised packaged water. The product
of Lifespan Pharmaceutical Limited spreads as far as (and even beyond) Funtua in Katsina State
Nigeria, Fulatan in Kano State Nigeria and anguwa Kahu in Plateau State Nigeria.

The data were collected on daily basis for three consecutive weeks, some in the morning and some in
the afternoon. Each day twenty samples were inspected with 2000 sachets of water per sample. The
main aim of using this procedure is to allow the products and production process to be well monitored
in order to make good decision because a situation whereby on ‘day1’ production process could be
excellent while the following day may encounter some short coming which may be due to mal-
functioning of the machine or faults, that is to say any decision taken based on the ‘day1’ will
continue to affect the quality of the production process in this company until proper inspection is
carried out. After each day collection, each sample is inspected and recorded for the fifteen
consecutive days after which they will be analyzed.

Method of Data Analysis

The tools used for this study are the p – chart and the np – chart for control of quality. These tools are
appropriate for the control of quality when the variables are attributes in nature. It is purely binary in
nature. “Good or Bad” and “Yes or No” are familiar terms commonly used to describe such processes.
Attribute data must be converted to a form of variable data called discrete data in order to be counted
or useful (Chanda, 2001). Attributes data are qualitative data that can be counted for recording and
analysis. Examples include the presence or absence of a required label. The control charts based on
attribute data are proportion defective (p) chart, number of defective units (np) chart, count chart (c),
count-per-unit chart (u), quality score chart and demerit chart (D).

The p chart and the np chart are the techniques used in this study. The p-chart is designed to control
the percentage or proportion of defectives per sample while the np-chart is designed to control the
number of defectives rather than the proportion of defective (Montgomery, 2008). The steps for
constructing these charts are enumerated below.

The steps in constructing the p-chart:

1. ) by dividing the number of defectives by the

Compute the average fraction defective (P

total number of units inspected. This is the center line (CL);

CL = 
P = ∑ x/n 1

2. Compute the upper control limit (UCL);

Int. J. Pure Appl. Sci. Technol., 15(1) (2013), 20-30 23

 ( 
 )
 + 3

UCL = P 2


3. Compute the lower control limit (LCL);


(  ) 
LCL = 
P - 3
3


The steps in constructing the np-chart are:

1. Compute the average number defective which represents the center line (CL);

CL = ̅ 4

2. Compute the upper control limit (UCL);

UCL =  + 3(1 − ) 5

3. Compute the lower control limit (LCL);

LCL =  - 3(1 −  ) 6

The data analysis is based on the data collected from Lifespan Pharmaceutical Limited for the three
consecutive weeks which are represented in a distribution table. The data collected is processed and
interpreted using some statistical quality control tools. These are Descriptive statistics, acceptance
sampling and control chart.

Table 1: Data collected in three consecutive Mondays

Lot sample No of Lot sample No of Lot sample No of

no inspected defective no inspected defective no inspected defective
1 2000 61 101 2000 60 201 2000 54
2 2000 49 102 2000 51 202 2000 54
3 2000 59 103 2000 50 203 2000 51
4 2000 53 104 2000 48 204 2000 59
5 2000 55 105 2000 47 205 2000 51
6 2000 55 106 2000 50 206 2000 54
7 2000 53 107 2000 39 207 2000 44
8 2000 46 108 2000 49 208 2000 52
9 2000 53 109 2000 52 209 2000 59
10 2000 49 110 2000 51 210 2000 51
11 2000 54 111 2000 69 211 2000 48
12 2000 56 112 2000 51 212 2000 55
13 2000 54 113 2000 31 213 2000 42
14 2000 55 114 2000 32 214 2000 51
15 2000 57 115 2000 49 215 2000 53
16 2000 56 116 2000 45 216 2000 54
17 2000 51 117 2000 57 217 2000 53
18 2000 58 118 2000 36 218 2000 56
19 2000 48 119 2000 37 219 2000 53
20 2000 51 120 2000 45 220 2000 55
Int. J. Pure Appl. Sci. Technol., 15(1) (2013), 20-30 24

Table 2: Data collected in three consecutive Tuesdays

Lot sample No of Lot sample No of Lot sample No of

no inspected defective no inspected defective no inspected defective
21 2000 48 121 2000 43 221 2000 43
22 2000 49 122 2000 43 222 2000 42
23 2000 51 123 2000 45 223 2000 57
24 2000 49 124 2000 51 224 2000 51
25 2000 51 125 2000 48 225 2000 54
26 2000 51 126 2000 43 226 2000 48
27 2000 56 127 2000 52 227 2000 44
28 2000 49 128 2000 50 228 2000 50
29 2000 50 129 2000 51 229 2000 36
30 2000 51 130 2000 49 230 2000 33
31 2000 51 131 2000 44 231 2000 53
32 2000 43 132 2000 49 232 2000 56
33 2000 64 133 2000 51 233 2000 40
34 2000 52 134 2000 55 234 2000 44
35 2000 51 135 2000 50 235 2000 54
36 2000 50 136 2000 40 236 2000 64
37 2000 60 137 2000 44 237 2000 59
38 2000 53 138 2000 56 238 2000 60
39 2000 57 139 2000 53 239 2000 53
40 2000 51 140 2000 53 240 2000 64

Table 3: Data collected on three consecutive Wednesdays

Lot sample No of Lot sample No of Lot sample No of

no inspected defective no inspected defective no inspected defective
41 2000 49 141 2000 50 241 2000 42
42 2000 51 142 2000 41 242 2000 56
43 2000 50 143 2000 47 243 2000 44
44 2000 45 144 2000 42 244 2000 51
45 2000 50 145 2000 58 245 2000 54
46 2000 45 146 2000 69 246 2000 36
47 2000 51 147 2000 51 247 2000 51
48 2000 62 148 2000 56 248 2000 59
49 2000 53 149 2000 58 249 2000 50
50 2000 50 150 2000 60 250 2000 52
51 2000 51 151 2000 42 251 2000 41
52 2000 43 152 2000 49 252 2000 59
53 2000 49 153 2000 42 253 2000 51
54 2000 52 154 2000 61 254 2000 53
55 2000 52 155 2000 71 255 2000 61
56 2000 49 156 2000 63 256 2000 44
57 2000 55 157 2000 77 257 2000 48
58 2000 62 158 2000 56 258 2000 50
59 2000 51 159 2000 51 259 2000 49
60 2000 53 160 2000 46 260 2000 57
Int. J. Pure Appl. Sci. Technol., 15(1) (2013), 20-30 25

Table 4: Data collected on three consecutive Thursdays

Lot sample No of Lot sample No of Lot sample No of

no inspected defective no inspected defective no inspected defective
61 2000 49 161 2000 92 261 2000 30
62 2000 43 162 2000 70 262 2000 41
63 2000 51 163 2000 49 263 2000 48
64 2000 49 164 2000 57 264 2000 54
65 2000 56 165 2000 30 265 2000 53
66 2000 51 166 2000 53 266 2000 48
67 2000 68 167 2000 53 267 2000 44
68 2000 50 168 2000 50 268 2000 50
69 2000 48 169 2000 51 269 2000 43
70 2000 54 170 2000 58 270 2000 51
71 2000 47 171 2000 53 271 2000 36
72 2000 55 172 2000 51 272 2000 53
73 2000 60 173 2000 80 273 2000 39
74 2000 52 174 2000 79 274 2000 50
75 2000 66 175 2000 97 275 2000 56
76 2000 70 176 2000 60 276 2000 60
77 2000 53 177 2000 83 277 2000 41
78 2000 40 178 2000 101 278 2000 48
79 2000 58 179 2000 66 279 2000 51
80 2000 54 180 2000 96 280 2000 52

Table 5: Data collected on three consecutive Fridays

Lot sample No of Lot sample No of Lot sample No of

no inspected defective no inspected3 defective no inspected defective
81 2000 50 181 2000 56 281 2000 54
82 2000 63 182 2000 31 282 2000 76
83 2000 51 183 2000 51 283 2000 51
84 2000 51 184 2000 52 284 2000 36
85 2000 53 185 2000 57 285 2000 71
86 2000 69 186 2000 66 286 2000 52
87 2000 57 187 2000 52 287 2000 53
88 2000 49 188 2000 38 288 2000 49
89 2000 52 189 2000 39 289 2000 44
90 2000 50 190 2000 69 290 2000 50
91 2000 58 191 2000 53 291 2000 66
92 2000 49 192 2000 51 292 2000 54
93 2000 60 193 2000 53 293 2000 36
94 2000 57 194 2000 72 294 2000 71
95 2000 62 195 2000 67 295 2000 62
96 2000 61 196 2000 53 296 2000 60
97 2000 67 197 2000 22 297 2000 48
98 2000 43 198 2000 60 298 2000 57
99 2000 55 199 2000 52 299 2000 51
100 2000 44 200 2000 56 300 2000 56
Int. J. Pure Appl. Sci. Technol., 15(1) (2013), 20-30 26

Result and Discussion

The Control Limits for P and NP chart are given in the following table,

Limits P NP
LCL 0.01555 31.19
CL 0.02634 52.68
UCL 0.03702 74.16

(a)

(b)
Fig. 1: (a) p and (b) np chart for Monday productions

One point more than 3 sigma from center line. Test failed at point 33 for both P-chart and NP-chart.
Monday productions of Lifespan table water are out of control at only one point.
Int. J. Pure Appl. Sci. Technol., 15(1) (2013), 20-30 27

(a) (b)
Fig. 2: (a) p and (b) np chart for Tuesday productions

The process for Tuesday productions does not present any unusual pattern so the process is in
statistical control. The data were collected for three consecutive Tuesdays both in morning shift and
afternoon shift which make this process a benchmark when planning for process improvement.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 3: (a) p and (b) np chart for Wednesday productions

Int. J. Pure Appl. Sci. Technol., 15(1) (2013), 20-30 28

One point more than 3 sigma from center line. Test failed at point 37. Wednesday productions of
Lifespan table water are out of control at only one point.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 4: (a) p and (b) np chart for Thursday productions

One point more than 3 sigmas from center line. Test failed at points: 21, 25, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41.
Thursday productions of Lifespan table water are out of control at nine points.
Int. J. Pure Appl. Sci. Technol., 15(1) (2013), 20-30 29

(a)

(b)

Fig. 5: (a) p and (b) np chart for Friday productions

One point plotted more than 3 sigma from center line. Test failed at points: 22, 37 and 42. Friday
productions of Lifespan table water are out of control at three points.

Conclusion
It can thus be concluded that the entire process at Lifespan pharmaceutical limited is out of control
which implies that there are a lot of waste in input either financial or time consuming. For
optimization of process output, there is a need for complete and vigorous process verification and
checking so as to identify the causes of process been out of control.

References
[1] J.M. Andrew, Quality Control for Technical Documentation, Moonprint, 2005.
[2] A. Broh, Managing Quality for Higher Profits, New York: Mc Graw-Hill, 1982.
[3] M.J. Chanda, Statistical Quality Control, CRC Press, LLC, 2000 N.W. Corporate Blvd., Boca
Raton, Florida 33431, 2001.
Int. J. Pure Appl. Sci. Technol., 15(1) (2013), 20-30 30

[4] P. Crosby, Quality is Free, New York: Mc Graw-Hill, 1994.

[5] W.E. Deming, Out of the Crisis, MIT Press, Cambridge MA, USA, 1986.
[6] H. Hotelling, Multivariate Quality Control: Techniques of Statistical Analysis, McGraw-Hill,
1947.
[7] D.C. Montgomery, Introduction to Statistical Quality Control (4th ed.), Wiley, New York,
NY, 2008.
[8] R. Kotler, Phenol skin peeling, symposium on chemical skin peeling, Annual American
Academy of Facial Plastic Reconstructive Surgery, San Diego, 1994.
[9] W.H. Woodall, D.J. Spitzner, D.C. Montgomery and S. Gupta, Using control charts to
monitor process and product quality profiles, Journal of Quality Technology, 36(2004), 309-
320.
[10] A. Idris, The massive MDG fraud: How the health ministry steals from the sick and dying,
Premium Times, July 20 (2012).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.