82286_16_Solution.

qxd 12/12/06 4:54 PM Page S-1

Solutions to Even-Numbered Problems S-1

SOLUTIONS TO EVEN-NUMBERED PROBLEMS

CHAPTER 8
2. The general conclusion that can be reached for Imagimatrix from inspecting the
data is that costs for internal and external failure are larger than they should be
(totaling 47% of quality costs). Improvements that have been made to date have
probably involved increasing prevention and appraisal costs that now stand at
more than 50% of the total quality costs. Since appraisal costs are a large per-
centage of costs, and internal failures are a larger percentage than external fail-
ures, it is likely that quality is being “inspected in,” and many defective items
are being taken out and reworked after being caught by inspection. More
money and time needs to be invested in prevention, which will reduce defects
and costs in other areas in a fairly short time.
4. An Excel chart can be constructed to show details on Product B sales and cost
of quality presented in the problem, along with information on the percentage
of total quality cost attributable to each cost category (external, internal,
appraisal, and prevention). This problem contains time-phased data, unlike
problem 1. Thus it is possible to calculate an index base and quarterly indices
for the various cost categories. The data show that the external and internal fail-
ure indices, as well as the appraisal index, are declining, while the prevention
index is increasing. The overall quality cost index as a percent of sales is also
declining. This is an ideal situation in which managers of the B product line are
continuing to put more emphasis on prevention and attempting to reduce costs
in other categories.
6. The data can be rearranged as follows:

Type of Cost Cost Category $ Cost % of COQ

Inspection and retest Appraisal 340,000 38.9
Scrap Int. failure 330,000 37.8
Customer returns Ext. failure 90,000 10.3
Repair Int. failure 80,000 9.2
Quality equipment design Prevention 25,000 2.9
Supplier quality surveys Prevention 8,000 0.9

$ Costs % of COQ
Internal failure 410,000 47.0
External failure 90,000 10.3
Appraisal 340,000 38.9
Prevention 33,000 3.8
873,000

Although scrap is part of the process, Smith Company needs to minimize the
amount of scrap produced, just as if it were making a product. The total cost of
quality is $873,000. Although the categories are not completely clear, the
assumed categories are listed in the revised table above. Internal failure (scrap
and repair) total 47% of quality costs, and external failure in the form of cus-
tomer returns adds another 10.3%. Only 3.8 % of total costs are being applied to
prevention. Apparently, based on high internal failure and appraisal costs, this
organization is attempting to screen out bad product and scrap or repair it.
82286_16_Solution.qxd 12/12/06 4:54 PM Page S-2

S-2 Solutions to Even-Numbered Problems

Also, on this batch, they didn’t accomplish their goal of 60% of book value goal
because (1,700,000 – 873,000)/1,700,000 = 48.65 %.
8. Miami Valley Aircraft Service Company’s data show rapidly decreasing total
quality costs (except for a slight rise in the 4th quarter), possibly due to a con-
certed quality effort. The decrease in both internal and external quality costs, as
a percentage of total quality and labor costs, while the prevention costs per-
centage is rising, is good. The only recommendation would be to increase pre-
vention costs even more rapidly, while holding the line on appraisal costs
However, the caution is that doing so may increase total quality costs in the
short run, as may have happened in the 2nd quarter.

Percentages Quarterly Quality/Labor Costs

1 Qtr. 2 Qtr. 3 Qtr. 4 Qtr.
External failure 5.13 4.74 4.52 3.82
Internal failure 17.95 17.11 14.29 11.58
Appraisal 4.62 6.32 5.48 4.53
Prevention 2.05 2.63 2.62 4.21
Total Quality/Labor Cost 29.74 30.79 26.90 24.13

10. Spreadsheet data and the Pareto chart for Repack Solutions, Inc. show that the
company is spending too much on appraisal and internal failure cost and too
little on prevention. Checking boxes, machine downtime, and packaging waste
need immediate improvement to have the greatest impact on quality costs
because they constitute almost 82% of quality costs. However, it should be done
with caution because “checking boxes” represents appraisal costs designed to
screen out poor quality and prevent it from reaching the customer.
Repack Solutions, Inc. Quality Cost & Percentages
Quality Cost
Percent Cumulative % Cost ($) Category
Checking boxes 48.80 48.80 710,000 Appraisal
Mach. downtime 27.84 76.63 405,000 Int. Fail.
Pkg. waste 5.15 81.79 75,000 Int. Fail.
Income. insp. 4.12 85.91 60,000 Appraisal
Other waste 3.78 89.69 55,000 Int. Fail.
Cust. complaints 2.75 92.44 40,000 Ext. Fail.
Error corrn. 2.75 95.19 40,000 Int. Fail.
Qual. train. assoc. 2.06 97.25 30,000 Prevent.
Improv. proj. 1.37 98.63 20,000 Prevent.
Typo corrn. 0.69 99.31 10,000 Int. Fail.
Quality planning 0.69 100.00 10,000 Prevent.
Total 1,455,000

Note that costs could also be classified by aggregating them into the four cate-
gories of internal and external failure, prevention, and appraisal costs, instead
of the categories listed in the table.
12. For HiTeck Tool Company, the largest costs are internal failure (56.6%) and
appraisal (27.1%). More must be done in quality training, a component of pre-
vention (currently 7.8%), if failure, appraisal, and overall quality costs are to be
controlled. External failure costs are 8.6% of quality costs, so screening methods
are working fairly well. Note that the proportions are fractions of the total quality
costs of $247,450.
82286_16_Solution.qxd 12/12/06 4:54 PM Page S-3

Solutions to Even-Numbered Problems S-3

Quality Cost Categories

Cost Elements Costs ($) Subtotal Proportion
APPRAISAL
Incoming test & inspection 7,500
Inspection 25,000
Test 5,000
Laboratory testing 1,250
Design of Q.A. equipment 1,250
Material testing & insp. 1,250
Insp. equipt. & calibration 2,500
Formal complaints to vendors 10,000
Setup for test & inspection 10,750
Laboratory services 2,500
$67,000 0.271
PREVENTION
Quality training 0
Quality audits 2,500
Maintenance of tools and dies 9,200
Quality control admin. 5,000
Writing proced. & instr. 2,500
$19,200 0.078
INTERNAL FAILURE COSTS
Scrap 35,000
Rework 70,000
Correcting imperfections 6,250
Rework due to vendor faults 17,500
Problem solving—prod. engrs. 11,250
$140,000 0.566
EXTERNAL FAILURE COSTS
Adjustment cost of complaints 21,250
$21,250 0.086
Total costs $247,450

14. The data for Beechcom Software Corporation show that the three categories of
rejected disks (loaded), returns, and system downtime account for 74.64 percent
of the defects. These appear to be completely under the control of the firm, so
steps should be taken to analyze root causes for these problem areas in order to
correct them as quickly as possible.

Beechcom Software Corporation Quality Costs and Percentages

Percent Cumulative % Cost ($)
Rej. disks (load.) 39.34 39.34 360,000
Returns 20.22 59.56 185,000
Sys. Downtime 15.08 74.64 138,000
Rej. disks (blank) 9.73 84.37 89,000
Trng./sys. improve. 7.32 91.69 67,000
Rework costs 3.28 94.97 30,000
Insp.—Out 3.06 98.03 28,000
Insp.—In. 1.97 100.00 18,000
Total Costs 915,000
82286_16_Solution.qxd 12/12/06 4:54 PM Page S-4

S-4 Solutions to Even-Numbered Problems

16. This is a very challenging problem, even for advanced students. Although you
may fit a linear regression equation to the set of data given in the problem, fit-
ting a curvilinear model would provide a higher R-squared value. This requires
a more complex solution process. There is no “cut and dried” answer to what
level of additional quality improvement effort would be best, of course.
A number of “what if” questions and scenarios could be raised. Some of
these might include the following:
1. What if the sample of hotel guests was not representative of the general popu-
lation of guests?
2. What if the site manager was simply interested in reducing, rather than
“eliminating,” dissatisfied customers?
3. What if her objective was to eliminate the competition, then go back to the
previous level of quality?
4. What are the disadvantages of fitting a linear model to the data? (Note: In using
Excel 4.0 when this solution was developed, it appears that there is a “bug” in
the module that calculates the equation for the graph. Therefore, the “add-in”
Excel model was used to get the equation and the R-squared value, as follows.)

Excelsior Inn—Return on Quality

Svc. Improvemt. Percent of Customers— Predicted
Effort—$ 000 Dissatisfied Y—Regression Line
0 0.200 0.1075
50 0.150 0.1046
150 0.100 0.0987
260 0.076 0.0922
290 0.067 0.0905
300 0.059 0.0899
450 0.052 0.0811
600 0.045 0.0723
750 0.040 0.0635
900 0.035 0.0547
1050 0.031 0.0459
1200 0.027 0.0371
1350 0.024 0.0283
1500 0.021 0.0195
1650 0.017 0.0107
1800 0.014 0.0019
1950 0.010 −0.0070
2100 0.007 −0.0158

Partial Summary Output

Excel Regression Analysis
Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.795781742
R Square 0.633268581
Adjusted R Square 0.610347868
Standard Error 0.031875396
Observations 18
Coefficients
Intercept 0.107507099
X Variable 1 –5.87234E-05
82286_16_Solution.qxd 12/12/06 4:54 PM Page S-5

Solutions to Even-Numbered Problems S-5

Equation: y = 0.10751 − .0000587 xi

Assume that we use the calculated value of y = 0 (no dissatisfied customers).
The model tells us that we will have:
0 = 0.10751 − 0.0000587 xi

So xi = 0.10751/0.0000587 = $1831.5 thousand

We can calculate the net present value, using standard present value table
figures of:

Year PV Factor for 10% Cost Present Value ($000)

1 0.909 1831.5 1664.83
2 0.826 1831.5 1512.82
3 0.751 1831.5 1375.46
Total Net Present Value 4553.11

The return on quality of: ROQ = Annual profit increase/discounted present

value of investment
ROQ = (2.5 points − market share increase × $600)/4553.11 = 32.9%, which is a
very healthy return on investment

CHAPTER 10
2. The defect rate is 65/1000 = 0.065. This is the same as: 0.065 × 1,000,000 = 65,000
dpmo. From Table 10.1, we see that this is slightly better than 3 sigma with off
centering of 1.5 sigma.
4. We use 3/1054 to get the number of defects per unit (DPUs). However, there are
2 opportunities per injection (wrong drug, wrong dosage) to make an error.
They must be considered to calculate dpmo.
dpmo = (3/1054) × 1,000,000/2 = 1423.1, which is slightly less than 4.5 sigma
with off centering of 1.5 sigma.
6. To calculate the overall dpmo and sigma level, we have:
dpmo = (6/5000) × 1,000,000/5 = 240, which is approximately 5 sigma with off-
centering of 1.5 sigma.
But for the one characteristic, we have:
dpmo = (2/5000) × 1,000,000 = 400, which is still good, but somewhat less than
5 sigma with off centering of 1.5 sigma.
A Six Sigma project should be launched to determine root causes for the defects
from this one characteristic.

CHAPTER 11
2. The following results were obtained from the Staunton Steam Laundry Data
82286_16_Solution.qxd 12/12/06 4:54 PM Page S-6

S-6 Solutions to Even-Numbered Problems

Frequency Histogram
40
35 Frequency

30

Frequency
25
20
15
10
5
0
15 30 45 60 75 90 105 More
Measures

Column1
Mean 34.280
Standard Error 3.241
Median 25.500
Mode 19.000
Standard Deviation 32.412
Sample Variance 1050.507
Kurtosis 3.847
Skewness 1.756
Range 169.000
Minimum 1.000
Maximum 170.000
Sum 3428.000
Count 100.000
Largest(1) 170.000
Smallest(1) 1.000
Confidence Level(95.0%) 6.431

The conclusion that can be reached from looking at the summary statistics and
the histogram is that these data are exponentially distributed, with descending
frequencies. These data may show errors, by category, which are best repre-
sented by a histogram.
4. Descriptive statistics for the Harrison Metalwork foundry are shown in the
following chart:

Descriptive Statistics
Mean 38.6320
Standard Error 0.0444
Median 38.6000
Mode 38.4000
Standard Deviation 0.4436
Sample Variance 0.1967
Range 2.6000
Minimum 37.3000
Maximum 39.9000
Sum 3863.2000
Count 100.0000
82286_16_Solution.qxd 12/12/06 4:54 PM Page S-7

Solutions to Even-Numbered Problems S-7

Frequency Distribution
35
Frequencies
30

25
Frequency
20

15

10

0
37.5 37.8 38.1 38.4 38.7 39.0 39.3 39.6 39.9
Cell Boundaries

The conclusion that can be reached from looking at the summary statistics and
the histogram is that these data are fairly normally distributed, with some slight
skewing to the right.
6. For Georgia Tea’s bottling process, the values for the 1% cutoff and the standard
deviation are:
x = 1990 ml; σ = 15 ml
For a total probability of 1% for overfilling:
x−µ
P(x > upper fill limit) = 0.5000 − P  − 0.5000 − .4900 = 0.01
 σ 
Using the Normal Table, Appendix A, z = 2.33
x − µ 1990 − µ
z= = = 2.33
σ 15
µ = 1955.05 ml
∴The process mean should be 1955.05 ml, so that there is only a 1% probability
of overfilling.
8. The mean for the Kiwi Blend product is µ = 927.5; the standard deviation,
σ = 15, x = 950.
x − µ 950 − 927.5
z= = = 1.50
σ 15
P(x > 950) = 0.5000 − P(0 < z < 1.5)
P(z > 950) = 0.5000 − 0.4332 = 0.0668
(Results are based on the Standard Normal Table, Appendix A.)
10. Given that the process mean filling weight is µ = 16.8 oz for the Martin salt
containers,
By looking up 0.5000 – 0.0250 = 0.4775, we find z = 1.96
16 − 16.8
z = − 1.96 =
σ
∴ σ = 0.4082 oz.
(Results are based on the Standard Normal Distribution Table, Appendix A.)
82286_16_Solution.qxd 12/12/06 4:54 PM Page S-8

S-8 Solutions to Even-Numbered Problems

12. Adj. Cell

Midpoints Frequencies fx fx2
Cell 1 37.35 1 37.35 1395.02
Cell 2 37.65 3 112.95 4252.57
Cell 3 37.95 8 303.60 11521.62
Cell 4 38.25 23 879.75 33650.44
Cell 5 38.55 25 963.75 37152.56
Cell 6 38.85 23 893.55 34714.42
Cell 7 39.15 10 391.50 15327.23
Cell 8 39.45 6 236.70 9337.82
Cell 9 39.75 1 39.75 1580.06
3858.90 148931.73

∑ fx 3858.90
a. x = = = 38.589 (vs. 38.670 from the data in problem 11-3)
n 100

∑ fx 2 ∑( fx)2 /n 148931.73 (3858.9)2 /100

s= − = −
n−1 n−1 99 99
= 0.4572 (versus 0.4556 from the spreadsheet data)
b. Answer may be found in Problem 11-3.
c. A normal probability plot shows that the data are approximately normally
distributed, with an R square value of 0.947.

Normal Probability Plot

41
40
39
Y

38
37
0 20 40 60 80 100
Sample Percentile

14. Specification for answer time for the Tessler utility is:
H0: Mean response time: µ1 ≤ 0.10
H1: Mean response time: µ1 > 0.10
−
x 1 = 0.1023, s1 = 0.0183
and the t-test is:
x − 0.10 0.1023 − 0.10 0.0023
t1 = = = = 0.697 , t29 ,.05 = 1.699
s/ n 0.0183/ 30 0.0033
Specification for service time is:
H0: Mean service time: µ2 ≤ 0.50
H1: Mean response time: µ2 > 0.50
−
x 2 = 0.5290, s2 = 0.0902
and the t-test is:
x − 0.50 0.529 − 0.50 0.029
t2 = = = = 1.761, t29 ,.05 = 1.699
s n 0.0902/ 30 0 .0165
82286_16_Solution.qxd 12/12/06 4:54 PM Page S-9

Solutions to Even-Numbered Problems S-9

Because t29,.05 = 1.699, we cannot reject the null hypothesis for t1, but we can
reject the hypothesis for t2. Therefore, there is no statistical evidence that the
mean response time exceeds 0.10 for the answer component, but the statistical
evidence does support the service component.
Note: Problems 15–19 address sample size determination and refer to theory
covered in the Bonus Material for this chapter as contained on the student
CD-ROM.
16. The size of the population is irrelevant to this customer satisfaction survey, although
it is good to know that it is sizable. Therefore, make the following calculations:
n = (zα/2)2 p(1 − p)/E 2 = (1.96)2 (0.04)(0.96)/(0.02)2 = 368.79, use 369
18. Using the formula: n = (zα/2)2 p(1 − p)/E 2, the engineer at the Country Squire
Hospital can solve for zα/2 as follows:
800 = (zα/2)2 (0.10)(0.90)/(0.02)2
800 = (zα/2)2 (225)
(zα/2)2 = 800/225
(zα/2)2 = √3.556 = 1.886; use 1.87
From the Standard Normal Distribution table, Appendix A, we find a proba-
bility of 0.4693 for z = 1.87. Because it is only one tail of the distribution, we
multiply the area by 2 to get the confidence level of 0.9386. Thus, the man-
agement engineer can only be almost 94% confident of her results based on
this sample size.
20. The process engineer at Sival Electronics can calculate the main effects as follows:
Signal
High (18 + 12 + 16 + 10)/4 = 14
Low (8 + 11 + 7 + 14)/4 = 10
High – Low = 4
Material
Gold (18 + 12 + 8 + 11)/4 = 12.25
Silicon (16 + 10 + 7 + 14)/4 = 11.75
Gold – Silicon = 12.25 – 11.75 = 0.5
Temperature
Low (18 + 16 + 8 + 7)/4 = 12.25
High (12 + 10 + 11 + 14)/4 = 11.75
Low – High = 12.25 – 11.75 = 0.5
The main effects of the “signal” far outweigh the effects of material and tem-
perature, indicating that these factors are insignificant. Therefore, interaction
effects will be negligible.

CHAPTER 12
2. With the new data given for Fingerspring’s potential customers, a partial House
of Quality for the design of the PDA can be built. Note that there are strong rela-
tionships between customer requirements and associated technical require-
ments of the PDA design.
The inter-relationships of the roof may be sketched in. For example, they
would show a strong inter-relationship between size and weight.
82286_16_Solution.qxd 12/12/06 4:54 PM Page S-10

S-10 Solutions to Even-Numbered Problems

The analysis suggests that Fingerspring should try to position itself between
Springbok and Greenspring in price and features. It should build on the strength
of the customer’s reliability concern, keeping battery life near 35 hours and use a
proven operating program, such as PalmOS. Enough features (10) should be
offered to be competitive. If Fingerspring can design a high-value PDA and sell it
at an attractive price (say, $350 or less), it should be a very profitable undertaking.
4. With the new data given for Bertha’s customers, a partial House of Quality for
the design of the burritos can be built. Note that the relationships between cus-
tomer requirements (flavor, health, value) and associated technical require-
ments (% fat, calories, sodium, price) of the burrito design are strong.
The inter-relationships of the roof may be sketched in. For example, they
would show a strong inter-relationship between fat and calories.
Bertha’s Big Burritos technical requirements must be placed on a more equal
basis, which would best be shown as units/ounce, except for the percent fat
value. These are shown in the following:

Company Price/oz Calories/oz Sodium/oz % Fat

Grabby’s $0.282 80 13.63 13
Queenburritos $0.300 85 12.67 23
Sandy’s $0.292 90 13.33 16

Although Bertha’s is low in price per ounce, calories, and percent fat, this analy-
sis suggests that Bertha’s should try to increase its size and visual appeal, while
continuing to reduce the cost per ounce. At the same time, it should build on the
strength of the nutrition trend by keeping the sodium and percent fat low, as did
Grabby’s, and slightly reducing the number of calories per ounce to be even more
competitive. If Bertha’s can design a flavorful, healthy, 7-oz burrito and sell it at
an attractive price (say, $1.85 or less), it should be a very profitable undertaking.
6. The following table can be used to sketch the reliability function.

Failure Rate Curve—Problem 12-6

Cumulative Failures Hours Lambda = Cum. Failures/Hrs.
20 10 2.000
28 20 1.400
29 30 0.967
29.5 40 0.738
30 50 0.600
35 60 0.583
40 70 0.571
50 80 0.625
65 90 0.722
90 100 0.900

8. a. P(x > 875) = 0.5 − P(750 < × < 875)

 875 − 750 
P(750 < x < 875) = P  z <  = P(0 < z < 1.5) = 0.4332
 50
Therefore, P(x > 875) = 0.5 − 0.4332 = 0.0668 or 6.68% should survive
beyond 875 days.
 650 − 750 
b. P(x < 700) = P  z <
  = P(z < − 2.0)
50
82286_16_Solution.qxd 12/12/06 4:54 PM Page S-11

Solutions to Even-Numbered Problems S-11

Therefore, P(x < 880) = 0.5 – 0.4772 = 0.0228 or 2.28% should survive less than
650 days.
c. This distribution looks approximately like:

X = 750 X = 875
σ = 50

d. Let xw be the limit of the warranty period.

P(x < xw) = 0.10; z = −1.28, for z = x − 750 = −1.28,

50
xw = 686 hours for the warranty limit.
10. Massive Corporation’s motors have a failure rate of:

3 3
λ= = = 0.001237 faillures/hour
[(3 × 600) + 100 + 175 + 350] 2425

12. The MTTF is θ = 1; so, θ = 40000

λR(T) = e−T/θ = e −15000/40000 = e −0.375 = 0.687 or 68.7% probability of surviving

14. Supplier 1: RaRbc = (0.97) [1 – (1 – 0.85)(1 – 0.95)] = 0.963

Supplier 2: RaRbc = (0.92) [1 – (1 – 0.90)(1 – 0.93)] = 0.914
Supplier 3: RaRbc = (0.95) [1 – (1 – 0.90)(1 – 0.88)] = 0.939
Therefore, choose Supplier 1.
16. a. RaRbRc = (0.98)(0.95)(0.93) = 0.866
b. RaRbc = (0.98) (0.95) [1 – (1 – 0.90)(1 – 0.90)] = 0.922
Yes, this will provide better than the minimum required system reliability.
18. Spreadsheets for descriptive statistics can be used to structure details for this
solution.
Accuracy of: Scale A Scale B
Abs[113.96 − 114] Abs[115.92 − 114]
100 × = 0.035% 100 × = 1.685%
114 114
Scale A is more accurate.
The frequency distribution, taken from the Excel printout, shows that Scale B is
more precise than Scale A.
82286_16_Solution.qxd 12/12/06 4:54 PM Page S-12

S-12 Solutions to Even-Numbered Problems

Scale B is a better instrument because it is likely that it can be adjusted to

center on the nominal value of 0.

SCALE A FREQUENCY TABLE FOR PROBLEM 12-18(a)

Upper Cell
Boundaries Frequencies Standard Statistical Measures
Cell 1 112.00 3 Mean 113.96
Cell 2 112.67 0 Median 114.00
Cell 3 113.33 5 Mode 114.00
Cell 4 114.00 9 Standard deviation 1.14
Cell 5 114.67 0 Variance 1.29
Cell 6 115.33 6 Max 116.00
Cell 7 116.00 2 Min 112.00
Range 4.00

SCALE B FREQUENCY TABLE FOR PROBLEM 12-18(b)

Upper Cell
Boundaries Frequencies Standard Statistical Measures
Cell 1 114.00 3 Mean 115.92
Cell 2 115.33 5 Median 116.00
Cell 3 116.00 10 Mode 116.00
Cell 4 117.33 5 Standard deviation 1.12
Cell 5 118.00 2 Variance 1.24
Max 118.00
Min 114.00
Range 4.00

20. Detailed calculations for the first operator are as follows:

x– 1 = (ΣΣMijk)/nr = 48.48/30 = 1.616
–
R1 = (ΣMij)/n = 1.33/10 = 0.133
Use this method to calculate values for the second operator:
–
x– 2 = 46.74/30 = 1.558; R2 = 1.58/10 = 0.158
Also, use this method to calculate values for the third operator:

x3 = 47.05/30 = 1.568; R3 = 0.610/10 = 0.061

xD = max {xi } – min {xi } = 1.616 – 1.558 = 0.058

R = (Σ R i )/m = (0.133 + 0.158 + 0.061)/3 = 0.117

D4 = 2.574; UCLR = D4 R = (2.574) (0.117) = 0.3012, all ranges below

K1 = 3.05; K 2 = 3.65 (from Table 12.3)

EV = K1 R = (3.05) (0.117) = 0.3569

AV = (K 2 xD )2 − (EV 2 /nr ) = 0.1424

RR = (EV )2 + ( AV )2 = 0.3843
82286_16_Solution.qxd 12/12/06 4:54 PM Page S-13

Solutions to Even-Numbered Problems S-13

Equipment variation = 100(0.3569/0.40) = 89.23%

Operator variation = 100(0.1424/0.40) = 35.60%
R & R variation = 100(0.3843/0.40) = 96.08%
Note that the range in sample 7 exceeded the control limit of 0.301 by for the
first operator. This point could have been due to a misreading of the gauge.
If so, this sample should be thrown out, another one taken, and the values
recomputed.

Tolerance
analysis
Average range 0.117 Repeatability (EV) 0.3579 89.47%
– ) 0.058
X-bar range (x 35.58%
D Reproducibility (AV) 0.1423
Repeatability and Reproducibility (R&R) 0.3851 96.28%
Control limit for individual ranges 0.3020
Note: Any ranges beyond this limit may be the result
of assignable causes. Identify and correct. Discard
values and recompute statistics.

∴ The recommendation is to concentrate on reducing equipment variation.

Note also that the calculator values, shown in the detailed calculations, and
computer values do not match precisely because a greater number of decimal
places are used by the computer to carry out calculations. All formulas are
identical, however.
22. The Taguchi Loss Function for Partspalace’s part is: L(x) = k(x – T)2
$10 = k(0.025)2
k = 16000
∴ L(x) = k(x – T)2 = 16000(x – T)2
24. The Taguchi Loss Function is: L(x) = k(x – T)2
a. $5 = k(0.025)2
k = 8000
∴ L(x) = k(x – T)2 = 8000(x – T)2
b. L(x) = 8000(x – T)2
∴ L(0.015) = 8000(0.015)2 = $1.80
26. For a specification of 180 ± 5 ohms:
a. L(x) = k(x – T)2
$100 = k(5)2
k=4
b. EL(x) = k(σ2 + D2) = 4(22 + 02 ) = $16
28. For a specification of 2.000 ± .002 mm and a $5 scrap cost:
Analysis of the dataset for problem 12–29 provides the following statistics:
–x = 2.00008; D = 2.00008 – 2.00 = 0.00008

σ = 0.00104
82286_16_Solution.qxd 12/12/06 4:54 PM Page S-14

S-14 Solutions to Even-Numbered Problems

a. L(x) = k(x – T)2

$5 = k(0.002 )2 ; ∴ k = 1,250,000
b. EL(x) = k(σ2 + D2) = 1,250,000 (0.001042 + 0.000082) = $1.36
30. a) The Taguchi Loss function is: L(x) = k(x – T)2
300 = k(30)2
k = 0.333
So, L(x) = 0.333 (x – T)2
b) $2.25 = 0.333 (x – 120)2
6.76 = (x – 120)2
(x – T)Tolerance = √6.76 = 2.60 volts
∴ x = 122.60
32. For the AirPort 778 plane parts:
Specifications are 24 ± 3 mm
L(x) = 60,000 (x – T)2
For a typical calculation:
∴ L(0.21) = 60,000(0.21 – 0.24)2 = $54.00
Weighted loss = 0.12 × $54.00 = $6.48
Problem 12-32
AirPort Airplane Co.
Calculation of Taguchi Loss Values
Process P Weighted Process Q Weighted
Value Loss ($) Probability Loss ($) Probability Loss ($)
0.20 96.00 0 0.00 0.02 1.92
0.21 54.00 0.12 6.48 0.03 1.62
0.22 24.00 0.12 2.88 0.15 3.60
0.23 6.00 0.12 0.72 0.15 0.90
0.24 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.30 0.00
0.25 6.00 0.12 0.72 0.15 0.90
0.26 24.00 0.12 2.88 0.15 3.60
0.27 54.00 0.12 6.48 0.03 1.62
0.28 96.00 0 0.00 0.02 1.92
Expected Loss 20.16 16.08
Therefore, Process Q incurs a smaller loss than Process P, even though some
output of Q falls outside specifications.
34. For sample statistics of: –x = 0.5750; σ = 0.0065 and a tolerance of 0.575 ± 0.007

Cp = UTL – LTL = 0.582 – 0.568 = 0.359; not capable, unsatisfactory

6σ 6(0.0065)
–
36. a. Data set 1: x = 1.7446; s = 0.0163; 3s = 0.0489
Data set 2: –x = 1.9999; s = 0.0078; 3s = 0.0234
Data set 3: –x = 1.2485; s = 0.0052; 3s = 0.0156
Part 1 will not consistently meet the tolerance limit because its ± 3s value is
greater than the tolerance limit. Parts 2 and 3 are well within their tolerance
limits because their ± 3s values are smaller than the stated tolerances.
82286_16_Solution.qxd 12/12/06 4:54 PM Page S-15

Solutions to Even-Numbered Problems S-15

b) xT = 4.9930 ; Estimated σ Process = s12 + s22 + s32

= 0.01632 + 0.00782 + 0.0052 2 = 0.0188

Process limits: 4.9930 ± 3(0.0188) or
4.9366 to 5.0494 vs. specification limits of
4.919 to 5.081 for a confidence level of 0.9973.
The parts will fit within their combined specification limit with a 0.9973 con-
fidence level.

38. a. x = 25.0 ; σ = 1.2

UTL − LTL 25.0 − 21.75

Cp = = = 0.903
6σ 6(1.2)

Cm = Cp / 1 + [(mean − target)2 /σ 2 ] = 0.903/ 1 + [(25.0 − 25.0)2 /1.2 2 ] = 0.903

UTL − x 28.25 − 21.75

Cpu = = = 0.903
3σ 3(1.2)
x − LTL 25.0 − 21.75
Cpl = = = 0.903
3σ 3(1.2)

Conclusion: The process is centered on the mean, but it does not have adequate
capability at this time.
Cpk= min (Cpl, Cpu) = 0.903

b. x = 23 ; σ = 1.2
UTL − LTL 28.25 − 21.75
Cp = = = 0.903 ged.
This result has not chang
6σ 6(1.2)

Cmodified = Cp / 1 + [(mean − target)2 /σ 2 ] = 0.903 / 1 + [(23.0 − 25.0)2 /1.2 2 = 0.584

Because of the shift away from the target, capability is lower.

UTL − x 28.25 − 23.0

Cpu = = = 1.458
3σ 3(1.2)
x − LTL 23.0 − 21.75
Cpl = = = 0.347 ; Cpk = min(Cpl , Cpu ) = 0.347
3σ 3(1.2)

Conclusion: The process is skewed and still does not have adequate capability
at this time.
c. σ2new = 0.4 (1.44) = 0.576
∴ σnew = 0.759

Cp = UTL – LTL = 28.25 – 21.75 = 1.427

6σ 6(0.759)

Cmodified = Cp / 1 + [(mean − target)2 /σ 2 ] = 1.427/ 1 + [(25.0 − 25.0)2 /0.7592 ] = 1.427

82286_16_Solution.qxd 12/12/06 4:54 PM Page S-16

S-16 Solutions to Even-Numbered Problems

If there is no shift away from the target, capability is equal to Cp.

28.25 − 25.0
Cpu = = 1.427
3(0.759)
25.0 − 21.75
Cpl = = 1.427
3(0.759)
Cpk = min(Cpl , Cpu ) = 1.427

Reducing the variance brings the Cpl and Cpu to the point of adequacy, provided
the process can remain centered.

UTL − LTL 5.80 − 5.00 0.8

40. Cp = = 2.0 = = ; Therefore, σ = 0.0667
6σ 6σ 6σ
UTL − x 5.80 − x
Cpu = = = 2.0 ; Therefore, we get: x = 5.4
3σ 3σ
x − LTL x − 5.00
Cpl = = = 2.0 ; Therefore, we get: x = 5.4
3σ 3σ

CHAPTER 13
2. The important quality characteristics for this drive-through window are the
machinery, materials, methods, and people (manpower). The machinery must
work well (e.g., most important is the speaker system by which the order is
transmitted and received), the bell and its operating system must work well, the
menu sign must be readable and conveniently placed, the order computer/cash
register must be working properly to give the total bill, and all the necessary
equipment in the food preparation area must also be working properly. The
“materials” used in order taking are few. However, the sign must be kept up-to-
date with the latest prices and selection of menu items. The method currently
being used is shown on the flowchart (Figure 13.23), and possible improve-
ments are discussed in the next paragraph. The people who take the order must
be trained to be courteous, friendly, accurate, and knowledgeable, or the
system’s quality will suffer.
Possible improvements to the system might include installation of a second
window, so that the order is taken at the first window, money is collected there,
and the pickup is made at the second window. A radio transmit/receive unit
linking the customer at the sign to the employee wearing a headset could
increase the ability of the employee to hear the order and to move around to
assemble the order while the customer is driving through. Automatic order
entry of standard selections might be built into the menu board with push but-
tons (similar to an automated teller machine in a drive-through banking opera-
tion). This would probably need to be coupled with personal assistance from
employees for special orders via a speaker system.
4. a. The C-E diagram for this process analysis shows that possible major causes
relating to client dissatisfaction (the effect) may be classified into three cate-
gories: employees, processing method, and client procedures.
b. The supervisor might use flowcharts, check sheets, and Pareto analysis to
classify the types of defects and their frequencies. Then, training, cross-
checking for errors, and work redesign might be done in order to remove
82286_16_Solution.qxd 12/12/06 4:54 PM Page S-17

Solutions to Even-Numbered Problems S-17

those error causes. Once the process is under control, control charts might
be used to “hold the gains.”
6. The scatter diagram shows that the employees’ accuracy improves for approxi-
mately the first 25 weeks. After that, it basically levels off. The differences don’t
appear to be significant after about 30 weeks.
8. The scatter diagram shows the packing time for a standard size package is lowest
for the first group of 20 packers, who average 13.85 minutes, although Packers #20
and 21 are considerably higher than the “lower” time group members. The pack-
ing time for a standard size package is higher for the second group of 20 packers,
who average 19.25 minutes, which is considerably longer. This suggests that some
workers are able to perform the task much faster than the norm (mean of 16.55). If
the output quality is the same for the faster group, as well as the slower one, then
the production coordinator should attempt to find the root cause, by observing the
methods of both groups, as well as testing to see if there are any significant differ-
ences in abilities between the group members. If the methods used by the first
group can be taught to the slower group members, this could increase productiv-
ity, reduce cost, and perhaps even improve quality, simultaneously.
10. It is obvious from the table and Pareto chart that may be constructed that the
first two categories, accounting for 68% of the errors, need improvement.
Ace Printing Company
Quality Errors and Percentages
Percent Cumulative % Frequency
Setup delays 37.40 37.40 245
No press time 30.53 67.94 200
No paper 12.21 80.15 80
Design delays 9.16 89.31 60
Order info error 4.43 93.74 29
Cust. chg, delays 3.05 96.79 20
Lost order 3.21 100.00 21
Total 655

12. The medication administration process offers numerous possibilities for error at
every step. The physician may not write legibly (probably the most frequent
source of physician error), or even specify the wrong drug or dosage. The sec-
retary may not transcribe the order correctly. The reviewing nurse may approve
an order that is not correct. The pharmacist may not read or interpret the pre-
scription correctly, or may mix up orders. And the attending nurse may give the
wrong medication, or the wrong amount, to the patient.
A Medication Error Committee at one hospital identified the highest ranked
problems that were deemed to be the most critical in causing severe errors as follows:
• Having lethal drugs available on floor stocks.
• Mistakes in math when calculating doses.
• Doses or flow rates calculated incorrectly.
• Not checking armbands (patient identity) before drug administration.
• Excessive drugs in nursing floor stock.
To reduce possible critical errors at the point of medication, these poka-yokes
could be applied:
• Remove lethal and excessive drugs from floor stock.
• Standardize infusion rates and develop an infusion handbook
• Educate nurses to double-check rates, protocols, and doses
82286_16_Solution.qxd 12/12/06 4:54 PM Page S-18

S-18 Solutions to Even-Numbered Problems

14. From the Pareto diagram that can be constructed, we can conclude that 55% of the
problems are with long delays and another 25.2% are due to shipping errors, for a
total in the top two categories of 80.2%. These categories should be improved first.

DOT.COM Apparel House

Quality Errors and Percentages
Percent Cumulative % Frequency
Long delays 54.98 54.98 5372
Shipping errors 25.18 80.16 2460
Delivery errors 7.69 87.85 752
Electronic charge errors 6.65 94.50 650
Billing errors 5.50 100.00 537
Total 9771

16. The data on the syringes that may be graphed show a suspicious pattern that
indicates that the process may be unstable. Ten values, from samples 20 to 29,
are alternating above and below the average, indicating that some instability
may be found in the system, if it is carefully investigated.

CHAPTER 14
2. Results from 50 samples of 5 for Mount Blanc Hospital’s customer service project
show that the R chart is obviously out of control. On the x– chart, means for sam-
ples 6 and 7 are on, or almost on, their control limits. Assignable causes should
be determined and eliminated, and control limits should be recalculated.
–
For the Center Lines, CL x– : =
x = 22.62; CLR: R = 1.94
–
Control limits for the –x- chart are: =
x ± A2 R
–
UCLx– = =x + A2 R = 22.62 + (0.577) 1.94 = 23.74
–
LCLx– = =
x – A2 R = 22.62 – (0.577) 1.94 = 21.49
–
For the R-chart: UCLR = D4 R = (2.114) 1.94 = 4.11
–
LCLR = D3 R = 0
4. a. Descriptive statistics for Babbage Chips, Inc., based on all 50 samples, are
shown in the following. The histogram, when drawn, shows the “classic”
bell-shaped curve.

Descriptive Statistics for Problem 14-4

Mean 9.046
Standard Error 0.070
Median 9.011
Mode 9.215
Standard Deviation 1.103
Sample Variance 1.218
Kurtosis –0.323
Skewness 0.071
Range 5.716
Minimum 6.341
Maximum 12.057
Sum 2261.440
Count 250.000
Conf. Level(95.0%) 0.137
82286_16_Solution.qxd 12/12/06 4:54 PM Page S-19

Solutions to Even-Numbered Problems S-19

b. Results from first 30 samples of 5 for Babbage show that both the x– and R
charts are apparently in control.
For the Center Lines, CL – : =
–
x = 9.170; CL : R = 2.543
x R
Control limits for the –x- chart are: =
–
x ± A2 R
UCL – = =
–
x + A R = 9.170 + (0.577) 2.543 = 10.64
x 2
LCL x– = =
–
x – A2 R = 9.170 – (0.577) 2.543 = 7.70
For the R-chart:
–
UCLR = D4 R = (2.114) 2.543 = 5.38
–
LCLR = D3 R = 0
c. Using these control limits to monitor the last 20 samples, there is one unusual
occurrence, with seven out of the last eight samples below the centerline,
indicating a probable out-of-control condition. Note to instructors: The tem-
plates for the x– and R charts had to be modified to show the control limits,
based only on the first 30 samples, and the data for the additional 20 samples
were then added to the table and as shown as follows.
6. For the Quality Service Company’s center lines, CL x– = =
–
x = 8.0; CLR : R = 2.0
–
Control limits for the x –chart are:
= –
x ± A R = 8.0 ± (0.483) 2.0 = 7.03 to 8.97
2
–
For the R-chart: UCLR = D4 R = 2.004(2.0) = 4.01
–
LCLR = D3 R = 0
–
Estimated σ = R/d2 = 2.0/2.534 = 0.79
8. We can see from the initial control charts [labeled as x-bar chart (A) and R-chart
(A)], for the Hertz Company that there are two out-of-control points, one on the
–x -chart and one on the R-chart. We must throw out outliers #16, #23, and revise
the chart to yield the results shown in part b.
For the Center Lines, CL – : =
–
x = 402.92; CL : R = 33.20
x R
Control limits for the –x -chart are:
= –
x ± A R = 402.92 ± 1.023(33.20) = 368.96 to 436.88
2
–
For the R-chart: UCLR = D4 R = 2.574(33.20) = 85.46
–
LCLR = D3 R = 0
For the revised –x - chart:
=
x ± A2 = 400.29 ± 1.023(30.96) = 368.62 to 431.96
–
For the revised R-chart: UCLR = D4 R = 2.574 (30.96) = 79.69
–
LCLR = D3 R = 0
10. For 50 samples of 5 given for Beta Sales Corp., we obtain the following control
limits. We can conclude from the –x - and R charts that the process is probably in
control because the points seem to be randomly distributed in both charts.
For the Center Lines, CL : =
–
x = 0.011; CL : R = 1.372
–x R
Control limits for the –x -chart are:
= –
x ± A R = 0.011 ± 0.577 (1.372) = 0.78 to 0.80
2
–
For the R-chart: UCLR = D4 R = 2.11 (1.3718) = 2.89
–
LCLR = D3 R = 0
82286_16_Solution.qxd 12/12/06 4:54 PM Page S-20

S-20 Solutions to Even-Numbered Problems

12. Interpretation of each of the control charts reveals:

a. Two points outside upper control limit.
b. Process is in control.
c. Mean shift upward in second half of control chart.
d. Points hugging upper and lower control limits.
14. a. Center Lines, CL–x : =
–
x = 5.100; CLR : R = 1.083
Control limits for the –x -chart are:
= –
x ± A2 R = 5.100 ± 0.729 (1.083) = 4.31 to 5.89
–
For the R-chart: UCLR = D4 R = 2.282(1.083) = 2.47
LCLR = D3 R = 0
–

b. We can see from the –x -chart that points 19 and 21 are out of control and the
R-chart shows point 18 is out of control on the range. We obtain the fol-
lowing control limits and related charts after dropping these 3 points:
New Center Lines: Center Lines, CL – : =
–
x = 5.037; CL : R = 1.057
x R

Control limits for the –x - chart are:

= –
x ± A R = 5.037 ± 0.729(1.057) = 4.266 to 5.808
2
–
For the R-chart: UCLR = D4 R = 2.282 (1.057) = 2.412
LCLR = D3 R = 0
–

The –x and R-charts now show that the process is in control.

c. The additional data from the database show that the process is still operating
within control limits.
–
16. a. CLx : –x = 0.1115; CLR : R = 0.0124
(with a 4-period moving average)
–
Estimated σ = R/d2 = 0.0124/2.059 = 0.0060; actual σ= 0.0055, close to the estimate.
–x ± 3 σ = 0.1115 ± 3 (0.0060) = 0.0935 to 0.1295;
est

for –x ± 3 σ = 0.1115 ± 3 (0.0055) = 0.0950 to 0.1280

These limits apply to individual items only. Individual items can only be plot-
ted on –x -charts. See the following chart on individuals and the previous prob-
lem for a more thorough discussion.
b. The detailed comparisons of process capability using estimated σ can be seen
in a table on the spreadsheet template.
Although individual values must be plotted on –x -charts, as shown earlier,
students need to understand their relationship to –x -chart and R-chart results
for comparison with the charts for individuals.
For the –x -chart:
= –
x ± A2 R = 0.1115 ± 0. 0.729(0.0092) = 0.1048 to 0.1182
–
For the R-chart: UCLR = D4 R = 2.282 (0.0092) = 0.0210
LCLR = D3 R = 0
–
These limits apply to sample groups of 4 items each.
82286_16_Solution.qxd 12/12/06 4:54 PM Page S-21

Solutions to Even-Numbered Problems S-21

Nominal specification 0.110 Average 0.1115 Cp 1.1190

Upper tolerance limit 0.125 Standard Deviation 0.0092 Cpu 1.0071
Lower tolerance limit 0.095 Cpl 1.2309
Cpk 1.0071

c. The calculations of process capability using the estimated σ value are shown
on the following table.
–
Estimated σ = R/d2 = 0.0124/2.059 = 0.0060; actual σ = 0.0055, as shown in part
a, above.
18. For the Center Lines, CL x– : =
–
x = 69.147; CLR : R = 21.920
–
Control limits for the x-chart are:
= –
x ± A R = 69.147 ± 0.577 (21.920) = 56.50 to 81.80
2
–
For the R-chart: UCLR = D4 R = 2.114 (21.920) = 46.34
–
LCLR = D3 R = 0
These limits apply to sample groups of 5 items each.
–
Estimated σ = R/d2 = 21.920/2.326 = 9.423
The problem asks that students perform a process capability analysis. This is
only justified if the process is in control. The fact that the process is thought to
be normally distributed does not establish that it is in control. The –x -chart
shows that the process is, in fact, out of control because 4 out of 5 samples
within samples 6–10 are on one side of the center line. The % outside calculation
can be performed as follows. Note the warning, however.
Percent outside Specification Limits (45 to 95)

=
LSL − x
% Below LSL: z =
σ
45 − 69.147
z= = −2.56;; P(z < − 2.56) = (0.5 − 0.4948)
9.423
= 0.0052 that items will exceed lower limit
=
% Above USL : z = USL − x
95 − 69.147
z= = 2.74 ; P(z > 2.74) = (0.5 − 0.4969)
9.423
= 0.0031 that items will exceed upper limit

Therefore, the percent outside is calculated as 0.83%

Although the % outside calculations seem to show that the process has a rel-
atively small % outside specifications, it should be noted that the –x -bar chart
shows that the process is not in control. Hence, the % outside calculation is
going to generate questionable results.
20. With data from Problem 14 and using USL = 6.75, LSL = 3.25, from the template
spreadsheet we see:
82286_16_Solution.qxd 12/12/06 4:54 PM Page S-22

S-22 Solutions to Even-Numbered Problems

Upper specification 6.75 Cp 1.137

Lower specification 3.25 Cpl 1.113
Nominal specification 5.00 Cpu 1.161
Cpk 1.113

Note that the spreadsheet uses an estimated standard deviation of:

–
Estimated σ = R/d2 = 1.057/2.059 = 0.5134
From this, we obtain:
Percent outside Specification Limits (3.25 to 6.75)
LSL − x=
% Below LSL: z =
σ
3.25 − 5.037
z= = −3.48 ; P(z < − 3.48) = (0.5 − 0.4998*)
0.5134
= 0.00002 that items will exceed lower limit
*Note: This was taken from an outside table because Appendix A extends only
to z = 3.09.
=
USL − x
% Below USL: z =
σ
6.75 − 5.037
z= = −3.33 ; P(z < − 3.33) = (0.5 − 0.4995)
0.5134
= 0.0005 that items will exceed upper limit

Therefore, the percent outside is calculated as 0.07%

These calculations show that the process has a relatively small % outside
specifications. In problem 14b, points that showed assignable causes were elim-
inated, so the process should be in control. The process still needs some “fine
tuning” in order to become more capable (ideally the Cp should be 2.0, or
better) as shown by the % outside calculation and the capability indexes. The
modified control limits are:
–
URLx = US – Am R = 6.75 – (0.728) (1.057) = 5.98
–
LRLx = LS + Am R = 3.25 + (0.728) (1.057) = 4.02
22. See the following data and control charts and a template spreadsheet for details
on the Moby Molding Co.’s plastic molding process.
a. For the Center Line, CL – : =
–
x = 0.0093; CL : R = 0.1037
x R

Control limits for the –x - chart are:

= –
x ± A2 R = 0.0093 ± 0.729 (0.1037) = – 0.0663 to 0.0849
–
For the R-chart: UCLR = D4 R = 2.282 (0.1037) = 0.2366
–
LCLR = D3 R = 0
b. We can see from the –x -chart (and possibly the R-chart) that the process is “hug-
ging” the center line creating an out-of-control condition on the means and
their ranges. The cause for this condition may be judged from the structure of
82286_16_Solution.qxd 12/12/06 4:54 PM Page S-23

Solutions to Even-Numbered Problems S-23

the data. It appears that each of the heads on the molding machine has a sep-
arate distribution of data. Thus, control charts should be prepared for each
head, rather than treating the data as if it came from the same population.
24. See control charts for Wilmer Machine Co. and template spreadsheet for details.
a. For the center line, CL –x : = 3.526; CLs : –s = 0.359
Control limits for the –x -s charts are:
=
x ± A3 –s = 3.526 ± 1.954 (0.359) = 2.825 to 4.227
For the s-chart: UCLs = B4 –s = 2.568 (0.359) = 0.922
LCL = B –s = 0
s 3

The –x chart shows an out-of-control condition, with points 11 through 18 below

the center line. Causes must be investigated and the process must be brought
under control before –x -s charts can be used for process monitoring.
26. The data and control charts from the template spreadsheet show that.
For the Hertz Co. data from problem 14-7, the center line, CL –x :
=
x = 400.290; CL : –s = 16.404
s

Control limits for the –x - s charts are:

=
x ± A3 –s = 400.290 ± 1.954(16.404) = 368.263 to 432.344
For the s-chart: UCL = B –s = 2.089 (16.404) = 42.127
s 4
LCLs = B3 –s = 0
Because the revised data from problem 14-7 (b) with 23 samples was used, the
process is under control, with no apparent problems.
28. Using data from problem 14, Slobay Co. as individual measures, with 5 sample
moving ranges, the calculations for the x-chart for individuals and R-chart show:
–
From the data shown below, : –x = 0.0762; R = 0.0050
Control Limits on x:
–
UCL = –x + 3 (R /d ) = 0.0762 + 3 (0.0050)/2.326 = 0.0827
x 2
–
LCLx = –x – 3 (R/d2) = 0.0762 – 3 (0.0050)/2.326 = 0.0698
–
Control limits on R: UCLR = D4 R = 2.114(0.0050) = 0.0106
–
LCLR = D3 R = 0(0.0050) = 0
The process is probably out of control, with points 25–36 “hugging” the center
line on the x-chart and points 33–60 on the Moving Range Chart above the
center line. Reasons for the out-of-control condition need to be sought out and
corrected.
30. Control limits for Yummy Candy Company are as follows:

CLp = 75/2250 = 0.0333

sp = [( p )(1 − p )]/n

sp = (0.0333)(0.9667 ) / 75 = 0.0207

Control limits:
UCL = –p + 3 s–
p p
UCLp = 0.0333 + 3(0.0207) = 0.0954
82286_16_Solution.qxd 12/12/06 4:54 PM Page S-24

S-24 Solutions to Even-Numbered Problems

LCLp = –p – 3 s–p
LCLp = 0.0333 – 3(0.0207) = – 0.0288, use 0
32. The data and control chart for Quality Printing Company’s plant from the tem-
plate spreadsheet show:
CL–p = 0.06

sp = [( p )(1 − p )]/ n = [(0.06)(0.94)]/50 = 0.0336

Control limits:
UCLp = –p + 3 sp = 0.06 + 3(0.0336) = 0.1608
LCL = –p – 3 s = 0.06 – 3(0.0336) = – 0.0408 use 0
p p

The process appears to be under control.

b. When the additional data is added, while the process is being monitored
using the previously calculated control limits, the process starts to go out of
control, with samples 29, 30, and 31 being the first indicators. Two out of three
of these are more than 2 σ away from the mean, p – . Later, four out of five sam-
ples between 37 and 41 are more than 1 σ away from the mean, p – . Finally,
sample 48 exceeds the upper control limit. The process should have been
stopped and corrected when the first indications were seen. If these were
missed, it is certain that sample 48, which was above the control limits, should
have been spotted, and the process should have been stopped.
34. The spreadsheet for Full Life Insurance Co., when constructed from the tem-
plate, shows:
a. Initially, based on the sum of the p values for the 25 samples,

p1 + p2 + p3 + 
CLp =
N
CLp = 0.63 / 30 = 0.0210

sp = [( p )(1 − p )]/ n = [(0.0210)(0.979)]/ 100 = 0.0143

UCL p = p + 3 sp = 0.0210 + 3(0.0143) = 0.0640

LCP = p − 3 sp = 0.0210 − 3(0.0143) = − 0.0220, use 0

Throw out #9 and #23, out-of-control values, and revise.

b. Revised
CL–p = 0.480/28 = 0.0171

sp = [( p )(1 − p )]/ n = [(0.0171)(0.9829)]/ 100 = 0.013

30

Control limits:
UCL = –p + 3 s– = 0.0171 + 3(0.0130) = 0.0561
p p
LCLp = –p – 3 s–p = 0.0171 – 3(0.0130) = −0.0219, use 0
The conclusion is that the process is now in control.
36. The template spreadsheet for AtYourService.com shows:
The average sample size = 15755/30 = 525.17
82286_16_Solution.qxd 12/12/06 4:54 PM Page S-25

Solutions to Even-Numbered Problems S-25

CL–p = 202/15755 = 0.0128

sp = [( p )(1 − p )]/ n = [(0.0128)(0.9872)]/ 525.17 = 0.0049

UCLp = –p + 3 s–p = 0.0128 + 3(0.0049) = 0.0275

LCL = –p – 3 s– = 0.0128 – 3(0.0049) = – 0.0019, use 0
p p
All points fall within the control limits.
38. The template spreadsheet, using data from problem 14–34, can be used to con-
struct the np-chart for the Full Life Insurance Company, yielding the following
results:
CL – = n –p = 100(0.021) = 2.1
np

snp = [n( p )(1 − p )] = 100(0.021)(0.979) = 1.434

Control limits:
– + 3 s – = 2.1 + 3(1.434) = 6.402
UCL np– = np np
LCL – = np – – 3 s – = 2.1 – 3(1.434) = −2.202, use 0
np np
As was shown in the previous control chart for problem 14-34, values for sam-
ples 9 and 23 are out of limits. Eliminating these points, we get revised control
limits shown for the final control chart (follows). Note that the two values of 6
or more were dropped.
Problem 38—Revised
– = 100 (0.0171) = 1.71
So, CL – = npnp

snp = [n( p )(1 − p )] = 100(0.0171)(0.9829) = 1.296

Control limits:
– + 3 s – = 1.71 + 3(1.296) = 5.598
UCLnp– = np np

LCL – = np– – 3 s – = 1.71 – 3(1.296) = −2.178, use 0

np np

40. Center line for the c-chart: –c = 1000/40 = 25

c ± 3 c = 30 ± 3 25 = 30 ± 15 = 15 to 45

42. Data for defects per pizza in a new store being opened by Rob’s Pizza Palaces is
used to construct a c-chart. The chart shows:
Number defective = 84; number of samples = 25
Center Line for the c-chart: –c = 84/25 = 3.36

c ± 3 c = 3.36 ± 3 3.36 = 3.36 ± 5.50

= − 2.14 to 8.86, use 0 for lower control limit.

The process appears to be in control.

44. For the c-chart: Center Line: –c (average number of defects) = 18

c ± 3 c = 18 ± 3(4.24) = 18 ± 12.72 = 5.28 to 30.72

82286_16_Solution.qxd 12/12/06 4:54 PM Page S-26

S-26 Solutions to Even-Numbered Problems

46. The appropriate sample size for detecting shifts in means is simply an exercise in
reading values from the curves to fit required conditions.
a. For a 1 σ shift and a 0.80 probability, use n = 15 (if rounded to next higher value).
b. For a 2 σ shift and a 0.95 probability, use n = 8 (rounded to next higher value).
c. For a 2.5 σ shift and a 0.90 probability, use n = 3 (rounded to next higher value).
48. The stabilized p-chart diagram, based on the post office example, plots the
“transformed z statistic” instead of p, and it shows the process is in control. To
verify calculations from the spreadsheet, for example, the first data point is:

p = 0.022 σ process = p(1 − p ) = 0.022(1 − 0.022) = 0.1467

Note that –p (1 – –p) is not divided by n because this is the estimated process stan-
dard deviation, not the sample standard deviation. Thus variations in sample
and lot sizes can be tolerated here, where they might cause problems with the
standard p-chart.
p − p 0.03 − 0.022
z= = = 0.0545
σp 0.1467

50. The control chart for the EMWA versus observed values shows that, with an
α = 0.8, the process is under control, and the EMWA estimate fairly closely antic-
ipates the next observed value. The conclusion is that a better “forecast” of future
values may be obtained for volatile values such as these if a larger α value is
used to give greater weight to more recent values.
For problems 52 through 54, see the Statistical Foundations of Control Charts
Section in the Bonus Materials folder on the CD-ROM.
α 0.10
52. = = 0.05 ; From the normal probability table, P( z) = 0.4500
2 2
Therefore, z0.02 = 1.64 or 1.65 because it is equidistant (0.4495 and 0.4505, respec-
tively) between the closest table values to 0.4500.
54. Using the binomial formula:
n

∑
n
Probability (acceptance) = f ( x) = and f ( x) = ( x) px (1 − p)n − x
x=0

11 in a row = (0.5) 11
= 0.049%

 11
11 of 11 =   (0.5)10 (0.5)1 = 11(0.5)11 = 0.539%
 10

 11
9 of 11 =   (0.5)9 (0.5)2 = 55(0.5)11 = 2.695%
 9

 11
8 of 11 =   (0.5)8 (0.5)3 = 165(0.5)11 = 8.085%
 8

 11
7 of 11 =   (0.5)7 (0.5)4 = 330(0.5)11 = 16.17%
7

∴ 9 out of 11 pointss are statistically significant (p < 0.05)..