Quality Engineering

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lqen20

Application of a proposed reliability analysis

multivariate capability index on manufacturing
processes

Rister Barreto & Herrera Acosta Roberto

To cite this article: Rister Barreto & Herrera Acosta Roberto (2021): Application of a proposed
reliability analysis multivariate capability index on manufacturing processes, Quality Engineering,
DOI: 10.1080/08982112.2021.1973035

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08982112.2021.1973035

Published online: 10 Sep 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=lqen20
QUALITY ENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/08982112.2021.1973035

Application of a proposed reliability analysis multivariate capability index on

manufacturing processes
Rister Barreto and Herrera Acosta Roberto
Engineering Faculty, Universidad del Atl
antico, Barranquilla, Colombia

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
n the manufacturing process of any product intervene several factors associated with the Process capability index;
monitored quality characteristics. These factors must be examined with adequate Statistical multivariate analysis;
Quality Control tools to provide estimates of product specification compliance. For this pur- principal component
analysis; product reliability;
pose, Process Capability Indices are commonly applied to manufacturing processes, assum- gamma distribution
ing that the quality variables are independent, and the data is normally distributed.
Additionally, an increasingly prominent quality characteristic across manufacturing industries
is product reliability. This paper explores the advantages of using multivariate capability
indices that include product reliability as a key quality criterion.

Introduction (Wooluru, Swamy, and Nagesh 2014). Generally, a

Process Capability Analysis is an engineering tech-
nique that facilitates the evaluation of product compli-
ance with technical specifications and tolerance
intervals. By monitoring the variables historically or
lineally, process capability analysis provides an esti-
mate of the product quality conditions and simplifies
the evaluation of product compliance with quality
standards. The importance of meeting these standards
is that they often reflect customer requirements and
lead to overall high-quality production. Consequently,
in order to achieve final product quality, it is neces-
sary to ensure that every production stage adheres to
the specifications. Through Statistical Quality Control
(SQC) methods, various statistical principles can be
applied at the stages of design and manufacturing of a
product, as well as services. Thus, SQC techniques
have made great contributions to companies that
require improvement in their mass production proc-
esses (Shinde and Katikar 2012).
Furthermore, the administration and implementa-
tion of process capability studies can greatly influence
the quality of engineering since the analysis results
can be used for new design applications, inspection
planning and evaluation techniques. This tool can also
prevent future defects in the production process
through design improvement, knowledge of machine
or process limitations and process factor control
process needs to be under statistical control before
evaluating its capability, which means that if there are
assignable causes for the out-of-control signs in the
process, they must be removed in order to guarantee
that only chance causes are responsible for variations
in the system (Shinde and Katikar 2012). Otherwise,
the results from the capability analysis may be incor-
rect and they can lead to inadequate estimations about
process performance.
Through Process Capability Indices (PCIs), it is
possible to summarize process capability information
into numerical data that compares the behavior of a
product or process characteristic to its engineering
requirements (Steiner, Bovas, and MacKay 1998).
Additionally, a process capability index often serves
the purpose of communicating the specifications set
by the customers, thus guaranteeing that their needs
are ultimately met. In general, the indices are used to
report on the performance of the process and its cap-
ability to produce parts that will meet the technical
specifications. Despite these advantages, implementing
PCIs requires that certain process conditions are met,
which sometimes constitutes a limitation. In order to
correctly utilize this tool in a manufacturing process,
the data must follow a normal distribution and the
observations must be independent. These restrictions
are especially disadvantageous in processes where the

CONTACT Rister Barreto rjbarreto@mail.uniatlantico.edu.co Engineering Faculty, Universidad del Atl
antico, Kra 35 #47-105, Barranquilla, Atl
antico
80005, Colombia.
ß 2021 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 R. BARRETO AND R. HERRERA
influencing variables are closely related, which is the
case for most real-world production systems. In these
instances, it is necessary to resort to Multivariate
Process Capability Indices (MPCIs) that take these
correlations into account. In SQC literature, several
multivariate capability index proposals have been pre-
sented in order to provide a process performance
measure aligned with the design specifications of each
variable involved in the process.
In this study, a Multivariate Capability Index is
proposed, based on the analysis of product compli-
ance with the technical specifications and with the
addition of a new factor that takes into consideration
the reliability of the product based on product war-
ranty promises and expected shelf-life. This is com-
pared to a traditional MPCI, based on the Principal
Component Analysis (PCA) as introduced by Chen,
Pearn, and Lin (2003). The rest of the paper is com-
posed by a Theoretical Framework Section, which
focuses on introducing the concepts of Multivariate
Process Capability Indices, the PCA technique, prod-
uct reliability background and the Gamma
Distribution. Next, an analysis on normality and auto-
correlation assumptions is presented to explain the
role these factors play in both the traditional and the
proposed model. Two different case studies are
included to highlight the contribution of this study to
process capability analysis and lastly, the conclusions
and future work recommendations explain the main
findings of this research and provide guidance for the
application of the proposed model on cases that do
not adhere to the standard conditions.
Theoretical framework
Multivariate capability index
According to Shinde and Khadse (2009), and Herrera
et al. (2018), there are generally six ways to define
multivariate capability indices:
1. The ratio of the tolerance and process regions as
proposed by Taam, Subbaiah, and Liddy (1993).
2. The evaluation of the non-conforming products
proportions as presented by Taam, Subbaiah, and
Liddy (1993), Castagliola et al. (2009), Bothe
(1991) and Wierda (1994).
3. The application of Principal Component Analysis,
as suggested by Wang and Chen (1998).
4. The application of Functional Data Analysis
(FDA) (Guevara and Vargas 2016).
5. The addition of key quality criteria, such as reli-
ability, to the univariate indicator, Herrera et
al. (2018).
6. Other authors have presented different proposals
for multivariate capability indices, such as (Shariai
and Abdollahzadeh 2009).
Principal components multivariate capability index
In the case of bilateral specifications, Wang and Du
(2000) presented the formulas for the r initial compo-
nents as follows
" #1
Y
r   r
MCPU ¼  Cpu Yi 
[1]
i¼1
" #1r
Y
r  
MCPL ¼ Cpl Yi  [2]
i¼1
Where Cpu Yi and Cpl Yi are the process capability
index values for each of the ith principal components.
Let PR and SR be the Process Region and Specification
Region, respectively. For processes where the PR is cen-
tered on the SR, the bilateral process capability indices
are defined as Cpu ¼ ðUSL  lÞ=3r and Cpl ¼
ðl  LSLÞ=3r, where l is the mean value of the prod-
uct characteristic sample. However, this approach does
not consider other scenarios where the target value is
not centered on the SR. The Cpk index considers the
minimal distance between the midpoint of the PR and
its closer specification limit. The measure is defined as
Cpk ¼ fCpl , Cpu g [3]
The Principal Component Analysis is used to
obtain a new set of variables (Principal Components)
based on the individual characteristics of a product
(Jackson 1980). The multivariate capability index
using the PCA method was introduced by Wang and
Chen (1998) and it is a measure that evaluates process
capability considering the relationship between the
quality characteristics studied. Let Cp;Yi represent the
univariate measure of process capability for the ith
principal component, then
" #1
Yr   r
MCp ¼ Cp;Y  [4]
i
i¼1
Note that Cp;Yi can be replaced with Cpk;Yi , Cpm;Yi
and Cpmk;Yi , obtaining similar indices for the trad-
itional univariate capability measures. K.S. Chen,
Pearn, and Lin (2003) presented process capability
indices to evaluate v characteristics, assuming nor-
mally distributed data and independent variables. Let
 QUALITY ENGINEERING 3

Figure 1. Yield autocorrelation test example.

MCpk be the capability index for multiple variables i ¼ 2 adds the product reliability model criterion. A,
based on the characteristics of the process, its calcula- on the other hand, is a constant defined as:
tion is given by " v #
Y   
8" #9 A¼ 2U 3Cpkj  1 þ 1 [8]
< Q
> v     >
2U 3Cpkj  1 þ 1 = j¼1
j¼1
MCpk ¼ U1 > >
1
: ; [5] The values of Cpkj are calculated using Eqs. [3] and
3 2 [6] for each quality characteristic. A very important
Where v is the total number of variables studied factor to consider for the constant A is the presence
and Cpkj is the value of the jth characteristic for of autocorrelation. Correlation between variables is
j ¼ 1, 2, :::N: one of the favorable aspects of using MPCIs since the
  simultaneous analysis of multiple quality characteris-
Cpkj ¼ min Cpuj ; Cplj [6]
tics offer a global overview of the capability of the
Equation [6] is used as a locating process capability process. Autocorrelation, on the other hand, can
index, based on the indices for upper and lower speci- potentially influence the results of the capability ana-
fication limits. lysis depending on the level of autocorrelation and the
specific statistical measures that are being imple-
mented in the process. A study presented by Guevara
Reliability analysis multivariate capability index
and Vargas (2007) analyzed the effects of autocorrel-
Assuming normality in the data distribution and ation on traditional capability indices Cp , Cpk , Cpm
mutual independence in the observations for each and Cpmk and concluded that the higher the autocor-
quality characteristic, the proposed multivariate cap- relation in the observations, the lower the capability
ability index is a modification of the index presented index. Additionally, they found that autocorrelation
by Chan et al. (2003). The new index includes reliabil- does not affect the expected value of sample mean but
ity RðtÞ as an important factor in process performance does impact the expected value of the standard error,
evaluation, given that reliability is an important criter- which increases as sample size increases.
ion that is overlooked in current multivariate capabil- Despite the fact that autocorrelation is prevalent in
ity index proposals. Thus, the proposed index is many continuous manufacturing processes (e.g., in the
calculated as follows chemical and pharmaceutical industry), the analysis of
 
this factor is often disregarded to prioritize normality
1 1 A 1
MCpCR ¼ w1 U þ w2 U ½RðtÞ [7] distribution tests and in-control process assessment
3 2
(Sun, Shengxian, and Zhihui 2010). As mentioned
Where wi is the assigned weight for product com- before, the proposed model sustains the normality and
pliance with the specifications, as well as with product mutual independence premises; therefore, normality
P
reliability, where 2i¼1 wi ¼ 1: In this case, i ¼ 1 uses and autocorrelation tests were applied to the collected
the quality criterion based on the specifications and data. The results generally show that the hypothesis of
4 R. BARRETO AND R. HERRERA
normality and statistically insignificant autocorrelation
factors could not be rejected with P-values over 0.05
and 95% confidence. Figure 1 shows an autocorrel-
ation test example for one of the variables studied,
where it can be observed that the autocorrelation fac-
tor does not surpass the significance level limit with a
lag k ¼ 1: Similarly, the other variables presented
results that allow the autocorrelation hypothesis to be
rejected. However, the recommendations for cases
outside these parameters will be discussed in a later
section of this paper.
Multivariate capability indices analysis
and comparison
Process Capability Analysis often entails assessing
processes and products based on key quality charac-
teristics, usually guided by technical specification
standards. Since a product rarely depends on a single
characteristic that defines its quality, most real-life sit-
uations involve evaluating several quality variables.
Traditionally, companies have resorted to obtain uni-
variate PCIs for each product characteristic they wish
to assess. This practice, however, can lead to inaccura-
cies in the capability analysis because the influence
each variable has on the others is not considered (de-
Felipe and Benedito 2017).
Multivariate capability indices and, more specific-
ally, the Principal Component Analysis methodology
solve this problem by evaluating all the product char-
acteristics simultaneously and accounting for all pro-
cess variability globally. The PCA technique
transforms the v characteristics of a product into a set
of linear functions of the original measurements,
called principal components. Each component is a
combination of the original variables and account for
the variation in the characteristics studied (Wang and
Chen 1998). Typically, the first principal component
contains the maximum variation of each product
characteristic in the process. In this sense, the PCA
technique evaluates the capability of a multivariate
process by relating the variability of multiple product
characteristics to their acceptable standard measures.
It is important to note that the PCA methodology
is a combination of univariate PCIs that are weighted
in each component based on the contribution each
variable makes to the overall variation in the process.
Therefore, these methodologies are complementary
rather than mutually exclusive. Consequently, a posi-
tive multivariate PCI measure is generally the result of
acceptable capability indices for each product charac-
teristic and vice versa. It is important to note that the
final decision on which method to apply will depend
on the conditions of the process. For highly correlated
product characteristics, a multivariate approach will
be more effective in assessing process capability than
individual indices for each characteristic.
De-Felipe and Benedito (2017) describe a method
to determine which PCI should be used for any given
process. Depending on the characteristics of the data
available and the expected output of the process cap-
ability analysis, decision makers should decide if the
process will be treated as a multivariate or univariate
process. For multivariate settings, there are different
approaches to consider based on four different crite-
ria: calculation complexity, globality, relation to NCP
and robustness. The PCA technique offers the advan-
tage of robustness and globality, which is the ability
to synthesize the capability of multiple characteristics
in a single index, thus providing insights into the
overall quality of the process.
The criteria to determine whether the process cap-
ability index chosen indicates a positive or negative
result can be established by company policy, depend-
ing on how stringent the measure should be for any
given process. However, a widely accepted perform-
ance measure is
MCp > 1:0 the process capability is optimal
MCp ¼ 1:0 process capability is acceptable
MCp < 1:0 process capability is inadequate
Other authors suggest an interval-based approach
for more specificity, e.g., Tsai and Chen (2006) sug-
gest the following to assess process capability for uni-
variate PCIs:
Cp > 2:00 Super Excellent
1:67  Cp  2:00 Excellent
1:33  Cp  1:67 Satisfactory
1:00  Cp  1:33 Capable
0:67  Cp  1:00 Inadequate
Cp < 0:67 Poor
It is the responsibility of decision-makers to estab-
lish the criteria for process capability index evaluation.
In this case, both the traditional and proposed indices
(MCp and MCpR ) will be considered under Tsai and
Chen’s scale, applied to the multivariate setting.
 QUALITY ENGINEERING 5

Product reliability determines the shape of the distribution or the rate in

the case of queuing models. The standard gamma
Product reliability refers to the performance of a product
probability density function is
over time. A more technical definition, as explained by
Blischke and Murthy (2000), is that the reliability of a xa1 ex
f ðx; aÞ ¼
product is the probability that, under normal conditions, CðaÞ
the product will perform its expected functions for a spe-
A random lifetime variable is distributed according
cific period of time. This definition illustrates the import-
to a Gamma with parameters a and k, Gða, kÞ, when
ance of product reliability for both the customers and
its density function is given by
the manufacturers, as it presents new challenges for pro-
duction systems that must guarantee reliability as part of ka t a1 kt
f ðt Þ ¼ e t  0; a, k > 0
the quality dimensions of the final products. There are CðaÞ
different factors that influence final product reliability,
Where a is the shape parameter, k is the scale par-
which is normally embedded in the manufacturing pro-
ameter and C is the Gamma function, defined as
cess and must be analyzed at every stage of production. ð1
Consequently, reliability can be influenced by design reli-
CðaÞ ¼ xa1 ex dx 8 a > 0
ability, due to assembly errors and component noncon- 0
formance; sales reliability, which can be affected by
When a ¼ 1, then the gamma distribution becomes
storage time and handling or reliability performance,
the exponential distribution with k ¼ b1 : This prob-
once the product is sold and the unit is either stored or
ability density function will be utilized in the pro-
put into operation immediately (Murthy 2007).
posed model to analyze product time-based quality
In the current market, constantly expanding due to
characteristics to compare the results to the index
technology advancement, reliability has become a
obtained applying the traditional PCA methodology.
quality characteristic expected by customers. It is the
responsibility of manufacturers to offer warranties for
Case Study I: Levocetirizine
their products in order to reassure customers that
they will perform well over time. This increasingly
Levocetirizine is an antihistamine, used for treating
stringent market expectation involves expenditure on
the symptoms of allergic diseases such as Seasonal
research and development for the companies (Murthy
Allergic Rhinitis (including ocular symptoms) and
and Jiang 2009), who are also responsible for failures
Chronic Idiopathic Rhinitis in patients from six
within the warranty period and their rectification.
months old on. The development of analytic tests for
Based on these considerations, product reliability con-
determining pH levels, density, active ingredient
stitutes not only an advantage in the current market
assessment and sucrose content in product manufac-
but also an obligation for manufacturers. Using reli-
ability as a factor in process capability analysis and turing aim to determine the compliance level with the
indices can result in an overall more stringent criteria specifications set for each of these variables, according
for high-quality performance and therefore, product to preestablished standards. An evaluative research
quality improvement and higher customer satisfaction. was conducted, where data for each of the studied
variables were collected to evaluate the performance
of the Levocetirizine manufacturing process. The data
Gamma distribution sample is summarized in Table 1.
In probability theory, the gamma distribution is a two- Table 2 presents the Upper and Lower Specification
parameter group of continuous probability distributions, Limits for each one of the variables studied.
which can be used to analyze the lifetime of components
and a variety of queuing models (Varshini et al. 2018). In Methodology application
this case, the reliability parameter included in the multi-
variate capability index proposal (see Eq. [7]) follows a Traditional method: Principal component analysis
gamma distribution, for which the probability density The Principal Component Analysis (PCA) technique,
function is defined as as proposed by Wang and Chen (1998), was applied
1 to the collected data in order to calculate the multi-
xa1 eb
x
f ðx; a, bÞ ¼ a
b CðaÞ variate capability index that constitutes the basis of
Where a and b are parameters with positive real the proposed method. The main purpose of the PCA
values. The parameter a is a scale factor, while b is to obtain a reduced number of linear combinations
6 R. BARRETO AND R. HERRERA

Table 1. Data sample for quality characteristics in levocetiri- Table 3. Eigenvalues and variance percentage per component.
zine manufacturing process. Variance Cumulated
pH Density Active ingredient assessment Sucrose content Component Eigenvalue percentage (%) percentage (%)
2.51 0.998 99.534 62.072 1 2.374 59.347 59.347
2.58 0.9941 99.523 63.939 2 1.102 27.545 86.891
2.63 1.0816 99.512 65.045 3 0.511 12.764 99.656
2.72 1.0339 99.492 67.261 4 0.014 0.344 100.00
2.74 1.0403 99.462 68.022
2.74 1.0615 99.616 68.075 through the PCA technique. The total variance per-
2.82 1.2663 99.492 68.103
2.76 1.0555 99.571 67.965 centage for each component is obtained by calculating
2.75 1.0385 99.417 67.827 the total weight of each component compared to the
2.75 1.0801 99.502 68.021
2.78 1.0152 99.406 68.212
total sum of the eigenvalues. If the second component
2.78 0.9972 99.416 68.394 is also included, they represent a cumulated 86.9% of
2.79 1.0913 99.465 68.883 the total variance.
2.79 1.0497 99.451 67.972
2.79 1.0668 99.426 68.049 The values in Table 4 are the coefficients for the
principal component equations, e. g., the first princi-
Table 2. Levocetirizine variable specifications. pal component is represented by the equation:
Upper and lower Unit of 0:639189  pH þ 0:333545  Density  0:321686
Variable specification limits measurement
pH 2.50  3.50  Assessment þ 0:63762  SucroseContent:
Density 1.00  1.26 g/ml
Active ingredient 90  110 The coefficients for each component equation have
assessment
Sucrose content 65  70 % interesting connotations, it can be observed that the first
Reliability 2 years component is weighted in a positive direction for the
variables pH, Density and Sucrose Content and in a
of the four studied variables that explain the variabil- negative direction for the Active Ingredient Assessment.
ity of the data. Thus, the starting point of this tech- The second and third component, on the contrary, show
nique consists of the mean vector (l) and variance- a strong positive direction for the Assessment value.
covariance matrix (S) calculations. The number of components to extract for the ana-
2 3 lysis depends mostly on the investigation criteria set by
2:72867
6 1:05800 7 the researchers. Different rules may be applied to make
l¼6 7
4 99:4857 5 the decision, such as extracting the components with
eigenvalues larger than one or plotting the sedimenta-
67:1893
tion of the components as shown in Figure 2. In this
And case, the first two components are higher than one [1]
  and explain 87% of the variance. Thus, the analysis will
 0:00096429 0:00100475 0:00068679 0:01511320 

 0:00078468 0:00373511  proceed using these factors. The normalized eigenvec-
 0:00100475 0:00408036
S¼ 
 0:00068679 0:00078468 0:00322693 0:00178746  tors using the values in Table 4 are presented below:
 
 0:00178746 0:40795000 
0:01511320 0:00373511 ^ 1 ¼ ð0:639189; 0:333545;  0:321686; 0:613762Þ
u
Table 3 summarizes the results obtained from the
PCA calculations of eigenvalues, applying the eigen- ^ 2 ¼ ð0:014799; 0:700623; 0:713025; 0:022448Þ
u
decomposition theorem. Figure 3 is a visual representation of the position
Consequently, the eigenvectors associated with the of each variable on the cartesian plane. The variables
principal components are described in the follow- in the further positions from the reference points (0),
ing matrix: contribute more to the component. Once the
extracted principal components and its corresponding
0.00096429 0.00100475 –0.00068679 0.01511320
vectors have been determined, the next step in the
0.00100475 0.00408036 –0.00078468 0.00373511 PCA technique is to calculate the linear combinations
–0.00068679 –0.00078468 0.00322693 –0.00178746 of the mean the specifications vectors, using the coef-
0.01511320 0.00373511 –0.00178746 0.40795000
ficients of the normalized vectors. Thus, the results
obtained for each component are determined by
According to the eigenvalues obtained, the first Xn

component contains 59.3% of the total variance in the LSL : LYi ¼ LSLvj  Dij
i;j
four quality characteristics that are being evaluated
 QUALITY ENGINEERING 7

Table 4. Component weight.

Variable Component 1 Component 2 Component 3 Component 4
pH 0.639189 0.014799 0.209187 0.739905
Density 0.333545 0.700623 –0.617753 –0.127503
A.I. assessment –0.321686 0.713025 0.616550 0.089325
Sucrose content 0.613762 –0.022448 0.441008 –0.654450

Figure 2. Component sedimentation in PCA for Case I.

Table 5. Process capability indices for each variable.

Variable Cpu Cpl Min fCpu , Cpl g
pH 2.9441 0.8728 0.8728
Density 0.9760 0.2948 0.2948
A. I. assessment 58.2380 52.5403 52.5403
Sucrose content 0.4857 0.3784 0.3784

Figure 3. Components weight biplot Case I.

X
n Similarly, the centers of specifications for each com-
USL : UYi ¼ USLvj  Dij ponent are calculated with the formula
i;j
X n
Center : PCmYi ¼ Cvj  Dij
Where LSLvi and USLvi are the lower and upper i;j
specifications limits for each quality characteristic vi : Where Cvj are the centers of specifications for each
On the other hand, Dij are the component weight quality characteristic. Thus, the first component linear
coefficients for each component i and characteristic j: calculations are
8 R. BARRETO AND R. HERRERA

Figure 4. Component sedimentation in PCA for Case II.

LSL : LY1 ¼ ð2:5  0:639189 þ 1:0  0:333545 þ 90
 ð0:321686Þ þ 65  0:613762Þ
¼ 12:8743
USL : UY1 ¼ ð3:5  0:639189 þ 1:25  0:333545 þ 110
 ð0:321686Þ þ 70  0:613762Þ
variation to consider a non-centered PR. Note that r ¼ 2,
defined by the two components extracted from the PCA
results.
1
MCpk ¼ ½0:2858  2:27672 ¼ 0:8063
The Cpk;Yi values were calculated with the equation

UYi  CYi CYi  LYi

¼ 10:2319 Cpk, Yi ¼ min ,
3r 3r

The specification limits for the second component Y2 are
calculated using the corresponding coefficients for this
component and the specification criteria presented in
Table 3.
Where r is the square root of each component
eigenvalue and CYi are the central values of each com-
ponent, obtained by evaluating the specifications cen-
tral values in the normalized vector function.
  

LSL : LY2 ¼ ð2:5  0:014799 þ 1:0  0:700623 þ 90  10:2319  11:5531   10:2319  11:5531 
Cp, Yi ¼ min  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi   pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
3  2:374 ,  3  2:374 
 0:713025 þ 65  ð0:022448ÞÞ
¼ 0:2858
¼ 63:4507
  

USL : UY2 ¼ ð3:5  0:014799 þ 1:25  0:700623 þ 110
 0:713025 þ 70  ð0:022448ÞÞ
¼ 77:7889
Then, the centers of specifications for each compo-
nent are calculated as
PCmY1 ¼ ð3:0  0:639189 þ 1:1  0:333545 þ 100
 ð0:321686Þ þ 67:5  0:613762Þ
¼ 11:5548
PCmY2 ¼ ð3:0  0:014799 þ 1:1  0:700623 þ 100
 0:713025 þ 67:5  ð0:022448ÞÞ
¼ 70:6223
Through the principal component analysis, the global
capability index is calculated using Eq. [4] with the Cpk;Yi
 77:7889  70:6233Þ   70:6233  63:4507 
Cp, Yi ¼ min  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi , 
 p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 

3  1:102 3  1:102
¼ 2:2775
Thus far, the Levocetirizine manufacturing process
capability has been evaluated using only the traditional
multivariate capability analysis proposed by Chen. The
Principal Component Analysis establishes that a process
is capable of complying with product specifications if the
global value is greater than one [1] (MCpk > 1), while
the contrary is usually a sign of underlying quality issues
in the process that will likely result in defective final
products. In this case, the global value obtained for the
Levocetirizine manufacturing process is 0.8063, which
indicates that if the correlation between the variables
involved in the process (pH, Density, Active Ingredient
and Sucrose Content) is considered, the process is unable
to produce specification-complying items.

Table 6. Reliability analysis multivariate capability index; Case I.
Form
Parameters 0.9244
Reliability RðtÞ 0.9993
Weight Specifications compliance ðw1 Þ
0.5
Reliability capability index MCpR
Suggested approach: Product reliability analysis
In the previous section, the PCA methodology was
applied to the collected data presented in Table 1. The
same dataset was analyzed using the proposed
approach i.e., the Reliability Analysis Multivariate
Capability Index. First, the differentiating factor of the
proposed method was calculated. As mentioned
before, product reliability is an important criterion
that directly influences customer satisfaction and con-
stitutes an obligation for manufacturers that want to
ensure product performance over time. Using the
gamma distribution density function with the parame-
ters of shape and scale defined as a ¼ 0:92 and b ¼
5025, the probability of the product having a lifetime
less than or equal to two years (t ¼ 2) is
f ð2; 0:92, 5025Þ ¼ 0:0007412
Thus, the resulting reliability factor, considering
that the warranty promises a lifetime greater than two
years is
Rð2Þ ¼ 1  0:0007412 ¼ 0:9992588
The proposed method also takes into account the
parameter of product compliance with the specifica-
tions A, for which it is necessary to calculate the pro-
cess capability indices Cpu and Cpl for each one of the
variables included in the study i.e., pH, Density,
Active Ingredient Assessment and Sucrose Content.
The results are summarized in Table 5.
 
Note that Cpkj ¼ min Cpuj ; Cplj was also applied to
the indices, using Eq. [6] to find the values for each
variable. Finally, through Eq. [8], the product compli-
ance factor obtained is
A
¼ 0:7298
2
In this case, the weight wi was 0.5 for both the
product compliance with the specifications and
product reliability, but this will depend on the criteria
of the manufacturer and the importance they assign
to each of these factors in the evaluation process.
Once these parameters have been established, the
proposed multivariate capability index was calculated
using Eq. [7]:
QUALITY ENGINEERING 9
Scale Time (years)
5025 2
Product reliability ðw2 Þ
0.5
0.6317
1 
MCpR ¼ 0:5  U1 ½0:7298 þ 0:5  U1 ½0:9996575
3
¼ 0:6317
The overall results are presented in Table 6, indicat-
ing the different parameters used and their value for
each factor included in the process capability analysis.
The global reliability analysis capability index for
the Levocetirizine manufacturing process is 0.6317.
Similar to the traditional PCA-based multivariate cap-
ability index, the expected value for the proposed reli-
ability index describing an optimized manufacturing
process is MCpR > 1:0: However, many companies
nowadays have established a MCpR > 1:2 mark to
consider the process performance acceptable. This
indicates that the overall capability performance of
this process is not capable of producing specification-
complying items with customer-appealing product
reliability assurance.
Case Study II: Latex Paint
Three main quality variables were studied in the
manufacturing process of a water-based paint to ana-
lyze its capability: performance, thickness, and viscos-
ity. Four different paint batches were sampled in
order to collect the observations presented in Table 7.
The Principal Component Analysis technique was
applied to the data in order to determine a traditional
multivariate capability index based on these
measurements.
Table 8 presents the Upper and Lower Specification
Limits set by the manufacturer based on previous
studies regarding the performance of the paint and
the requirements of the customers.
Methodology application
For the second case study, the same analysis method-
ology was applied to the collected data. First, the prin-
cipal component analysis technique was implemented,
using the traditional method proposed by Chen in
order to obtain a PCA-based Multivariate Capability
10 R. BARRETO AND R. HERRERA

Table 7. Collected data from water-based paint manufactur- Table 9. Eigenvalues and variance percentage per component.
ing process. Variance Cumulated
Yield (l=m2 Þ Viscosity ðPa  sÞ Thickness (mils)a Component Eigenvalue percentage (%) percentage (%)
11.84 25.20 12.94 1 1.8992 63.3050 63.3050
12.03 22.05 13.14 2 1.0000 33.3350 96.6410
12.79 19.88 13.34 3 0.1008 3.3590 100.000
12.83 21.06 13.91
12.83 22.01 13.91
13.00 24.05 14.09
13.18 23.11 14.28
13.00 24.04 14.22 Table 10. Component weight table.
13.15 21.41 14.26 Variable Component 1 Component 2
13.18 23.15 14.20 Yield 0.7071 –0.0007
13.26 25.95 14.37 Viscosity –0.0323 0.9989
12.52 21.46 13.58 Thickness 0.7063 0.0463
12.86 20.43 13.94
13.32 25.22 14.20
12.94 22.87 14.14
13.23 22.75 14.51 The eigenvalues calculated applying the eigen-decom-
13.25 24.67 14.26
13.26 24.33 14.37 position theorem are presented in Table 9.
13.14 23.62 14.24 These results show that the first component pos-
14.19 21.57 15.58
12.92 22.86 14.00
sesses the majority of the variance in the dataset with
13.25 23.77 14.36 63.30%. With over half of the total variance of the
12.79 21.45 13.86
13.30 22.13 13.42
three characteristics in the first component, it is
12.97 23.22 14.16 already noticeable that only the first two components
13.62 24.27 14.46 are relevant to the PCA study.
12.45 27.25 13.39
13.55 21.50 14.68 The values in Table 10 are the coefficients for the
12.56 22.81 13.55 principal component eigenvectors e. g., the first princi-
13.04 25.74 14.12
a
Measured for two layers of paint.
pal component is represented by the equation: 0:7071 
Yield  0:0323 Viscosity þ 0:7063  Thickness:
Table 8. Upper and lower specification limits for water-based As explained in the previous case study, the deci-
paint manufacturing. sion of how many principal components will be
Variable Upper and lower specification limits Unit of measurement defined, relies on the criteria of the investigation.
Yield 12.00  15.00 (l=m2 Þ Figure 4 shows that the first two components account
Viscosity 20.00  24.00 ðPa  sÞ
Thickness 12.00  15.00 ðmilsÞ
for over 96% of the variance in the sample and there-
fore, they will be enough to proceed with the PCA
methodology. The normalized eigenvectors are pre-
Index. Then, the proposed Commercial Multivariate sented below.
Capability Index was applied to the same dataset,
including the Reliability Factor based on a separate set ^ 1 ¼ ð0:7071;  0:0323; 0:7063Þ
u
of quality characteristic measurements of the same
paint manufacturing process. ^ 2 ¼ ð0:0007; 0:9989; 0:0463Þ
u
The biplot in Figure 5 shows that Thickness and
Traditional method: Principal component analysis Yield influence mostly component 2, while Viscosity
is the main characteristic driving the first component.
Similar to the first case study, the mean vector (l) Next, the linear combinations of each component
and variance-covariance matrix (S) were calculated for were calculated as follows:
the quality characteristics studied. The Upper and Lower Specifications Limits for the
2 3 first component Y1 are calculated as
13:01
l ¼ 4 23:13 5 LSL : LY1 ¼ ð12  0:0771 þ 20  ð0:0323Þ þ 12
14:05  0:7063Þ ¼ 8:7548

And, USL : UY1 ¼ ð15  0:0771 þ 24  ð0:0323Þ

  þ 15  0:7063Þ ¼ 10:9758
 0:2036 0:0326 0:2082 

S ¼  0:0326 3:0152 0:0006  The specification limits for the second and third com-
 0:2082 0:0006 0:2639  ponent Y2 are calculated using the corresponding

Figure 5. Components weight biplot Case II.
coefficients for the component and the specification
criteria presented in Table 10.
LSL : LY2 ¼ ð12  ð0:0007Þ þ 20  0:9989
þ 12  0:0463Þ ¼ 20:5252
USL : UY2 ¼ ð15  ð0:0007Þ þ 24  0:9989
þ 15  0:0463Þ ¼ 24:6576
The centers of specifications for each component
are
PCmY1 ¼ ð13:5  0:0771 þ 22  ð0:0323Þ
þ 13  0:7063Þ ¼ 9:5122
PCmY2 ¼ ð13:5  ð0:0007Þ þ 22  0:9989
þ 13  0:0463Þ ¼ 22:5683
Through the principal component analysis, the glo-
bal capability index is calculated using Eq. [4] with
the Cpk;Yi variation to consider a non-centered PR.
Note that r ¼ 2 is defined by the two components
extracted from the PCA results.
1
MCpk ¼ ½0:1832  0:68102 ¼ 0:3532
The Cpk;Yi values were calculated with equation
UYi  CYi CYi  LYi
Cpk, Yi ¼ min ,
3r 3r
Where r is the square root of each component
eigenvalue and CYi are the central values of each com-
ponent, obtained by evaluating the specifications cen-
tral values in the normalized vector function.
 
 10:9758  9:5122   9:5122  8:7548 
Cp, Yi ¼ min  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ,  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
3  1:8992   3  1:8992 
¼ 0:1832
QUALITY ENGINEERING 11
  
24:6576  22:5683Þ 22:5683  20:5252
Cp, Yi ¼ min  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ,  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi g ¼ 0:6810
3  1:0000 3  1:0000
The global value 0.3532 for the traditional multi-
variate capability index shows that the product does
not comply with the manufacturer specifications
according to the Principal Component Analysis.
Suggested approach: Commercial multivariate
capability index
Now, consider the same dataset presented in Table 7
but this time with a fourth quality characteristic based
on the time it takes for a coat of the paint to dry. The
manufacturer has not set acceptance criteria for this
variable but would like to include it in the process cap-
ability analysis. Waiting times are a key factor in the
paint industry, as the more it takes for paint to dry, the
longer a project will take to complete, especially in large
scale businesses such as construction and design.
The reliability of the product in this case relies on
the capability of the manufacturer to provide high-
quality paint with lower drying times between coats
but maintaining all the other product characteristics
that define the level of quality it possesses. For the
drying times data, the mean and standard deviations
were calculated as
l ¼ 0:42
r ¼ 0:14
Thus, the shape and scale parameters for the

gamma distribution are determined by
l2
a¼ ¼ 8:98
r2
12 R. BARRETO AND R. HERRERA

Table 11. Quality variables in latex paint manufacturing. Table 12. Process capability indices for each variable.
Yield (l=m Þ
2
Viscosity ðPa  sÞ Thickness (mils) Drying time (h) Variable Cpu Cpl Min fCpu , Cpl g
11.84 25.20 12.94 0.5014 Yield 1.4713 0.7449 0.7449
12.03 22.05 13.14 0.6078 Viscosity 0.1675 0.6004 0.1675
12.79 19.88 13.34 0.5162 Thickness 0.6168 1.9785 0.6168
12.83 21.06 13.91 0.2209
12.83 22.01 13.91 0.4198
13.00 24.05 14.09 0.2089 proposed multivariate capability index was calculated
13.18 23.11 14.28 0.4173
13.00 24.04 14.22 0.5933 using Eq. [7].
13.15 21.41 14.26 0.423  

1 1 1:3507 1
13.18
13.26
23.15
25.95
14.20
14.37
0.312
0.4283
MCpCR ¼ 0:5  U þ 0:5  U ½0:9991
3 2
12.52 21.46 13.58 0.3907
12.86 20.43 13.94 0.6455 ¼ 0:5983
13.32 25.22 14.20 0.3845
12.94 22.87 14.14 0.2263
13.23 22.75 14.51 0.4616 The overall results are presented in Table 13, indi-
13.25 24.67 14.26 0.3965
13.26 24.33 14.37 0.3739
cating the different parameters used and their value
13.14 23.62 14.24 0.2805 for each factor included in the process capabil-
14.19 21.57 15.58 0.4092 ity analysis.
12.92 22.86 14.00 0.3643
13.25 23.77 14.36 0.2648 The following section will explore the differences
12.79 21.45 13.86 0.7604 between the two multivariate capability index
13.30 22.13 13.42 0.2367
12.97 23.22 14.16 0.5065 approaches and the advantages of the pro-
13.62 24.27 14.46 0.6141 posed method.
12.45 27.25 13.39 0.5882
13.55 21.50 14.68 0.3644
12.56 22.81 13.55 0.4364
13.04 25.74 14.12 0.2605 Results and discussion
Although reliability is an increasingly demanded qual-
And ity characteristic in the current market for every
r2 industry, its evaluation is generally overlooked in
b¼ ¼ 0:05 overall process performance evaluation practices. This
l
paper focused on the proposal of a multivariate cap-
Now, consider the scenario where the manufacturer,
ability index based on a parameter modification in
based on the drying time sample presented in Table
traditional PCA-oriented capability analysis methodol-
11, promises the customer that each layer of the paint
ogies. In the first case study, the incorporation of
will dry in one hour or less. The cumulative probabil-
product reliability into the quality performance study
ity of this outcome based on the gamma distribution
of a productive system, resulted in a more stringent
density function is
measure that could guarantee not only specification
Rð1Þ ¼ f ð1; 8:98, 0:05Þ ¼ 0:9991 and design compliance but also customer satisfaction
The next step is calculating the specifications-com- and commercial value. Through the case study of a
pliance factor A. The process capability indices Cpu pharmaceutical company specialized in Levocetirizine
and Cpl were calculated for each of the variables for production in the first case study and a Water-based
which the manufacturer had set Upper and Lower paint production process in the second case study, the
Specification Limits. Table 12 summarizes this infor- traditional technique proposed by Wang was com-
mation, along with the minimum between the pared with the proposed multivariate index. The trad-
two measures. itional method consists of using the Principal
Applying Eq. [8], the product compliance factor for Component Analysis and its respective matrix-based
the proposed model is calculation to evaluate not only the process capability
for each quality characteristic, but also the correlation
A ¼ 1:3507
between these variables.
The weighted importance factor wi was defined as In the first case study, the result obtained for trad-
0.5 for both the product compliance with the specifi- itional PCA-based multivariate capability index pro-
cations and product reliability. However, this factor posed by Wang is MCp ¼ 0:8063: Using the process
will depend on the criteria of the manufacturer and capability analysis framework proposed by Tsai and
the priorities of the process performance evaluation. Chen, this result shows that the Levocetirizine manu-
Once these parameters have been established, the facturing process is not adequate and therefore, the

Table 13. Reliability analysis multivariate capability index, Case II.
Form
Parameters 8.98
RðtÞ 0.9991
Weight Specifications compliance ðw1 Þ
0.5
Reliability capability index MCpCR 0.5983
products will not comply with technical specifications.
On the other hand, the reliability multivariate capabil-
ity index highlights this problem in a different light.
In this case, MCpR ¼ 0:6317 which, according to Tsai
and Chen, indicates a poor process performance and
defective final products. Additionally, this index con-
tains a product reliability measure that is weighted
alongside the specification compliance value. This is
an advantage because it prompts decision-makers to
develop production plans or service agreements that
meet technical specifications while also maintaining
external stakeholder engagement.
The second case study, based on the observations
collected in a water-based paint manufacturing pro-
cess, highlights the opportunities for analysis that the
proposed model presents. The PCA-based Index
shows that the process has poor capability perform-
ance with an estimated value of MCp ¼ 0:3532, which
means that the process fails to produce units that
comply with the technical specifications set by the
manufacturer, according to Tsai and Chen parameters.
The proposed model, conversely, resulted in a capabil-
ity index with a value of MCpR ¼ 0:5983: While both
results show that the process is underperforming, the
proposed model offers a higher value based on the
consideration of the nuances of manufacturer prom-
ises and product reliability, which is presented
through the analysis of the drying times of the paint.
Following a gamma distribution model, the drying
times of the paint are a feature of this specific product
that can lead to a competitive advantage for the
manufacturer. The ability to promise shorter drying
times while maintaining compliance with the specifi-
cations and overall high-quality performance could
potentially put this product over others of a similar
kind in the market. The proposed model explores this
possibility by including it in the reliability factor and
studying the scenario where the paint takes less than
an hour per coat to dry. Based on the time observa-
tions, there is a probability of 99% that this event will
happen, leading to a higher reliability factor and over-
all better performance of the manufacturing process.
The proposed model also presents the opportunity
of studying this quality characteristic with a stricter
approach. If the manufacturer promise were to be
QUALITY ENGINEERING 13
Scale Time (h)
0.05 1
Product reliability ðw2 Þ
0.5
0.5 hours as opposed to one hour, the probability of
the product complying with this expectation would be
approximately 82% and the multivariate index value
would drop to 0.2281. This provides an opportunity
to explore different scenarios for this and other reli-
ability-related quality characteristics in order to ana-
lyze the performance of the product under each set of
conditions. If this characteristic were to be included
in the traditional method, utilizing the PCA method-
ology along with the other quality characteristics, the
difference in data distributions could lead to a higher
level of inaccuracy in the analysis. More importantly,
the proposed model has the advantages of using a
time-based model and a dedicated method for these
type of quality characteristics even without defined
technical specifications.
The importance of this investigation relies on the
replicability of the suggested approach, which can be
used for any product where reliability is a quality cri-
terion. Thus, this paper constitutes a valuable contri-
bution to the business sector and the academic
community, especially since this criterion has yet to
be considered in traditional multivariate analysis
methods. Furthermore, the proposal exposes an inte-
gral conception of what quality constitutes, as it
allows the assessment of other process or service qual-
ity dimensions. In doing so, it becomes possible to
analyze process performance in a more pre-
cise manner.
Future work: Multivariate capability analysis
model assumptions
Multivariate Capability Analysis has become a preva-
lent technique for manufacturers in the past few deca-
des, as researchers propose new methods for
analyzing process capability in multivariate settings. It
has been stablished that the majority of manufacturing
products possess more than one quality characteristic,
hence the increased interest in statistical tools to study
these variables and their correlation, which is a key
factor in process capability assessment (Alatefi,
Ahmad, and Alkahtani 2019). One of the most rele-
vant multivariate capability analysis tools are the
Multivariate Process Capability Indices. Many authors
14 R. BARRETO AND R. HERRERA
have proposed MPCIs that take advantage of the var-
iety of quality characteristics in real-life products and
exploit the correlation among them, in order to offer
new perspectives about process capability to support
decision making.
Despite the great advantages of using MPCIs, the
proposed methods so far work under three main
assumptions regarding the behavior of the observa-
tions: normality in the data distribution, in-control
process performance and mutual independence in the
data. According to Sun, Shengxian, and Zhihui (2010),
there are varying levels of relevance for each of these
assumptions in the models presented by different
authors. The normality in the data is often regarded
as the more important condition to be met in any
study and therefore, there are multiple ways to test
the fit to normal distribution. As a result, normality
tests are included in almost every MPCI investigation
published. The assumption of in-control process is
similarly regarded as an important feature and many
researchers make sure that the observations meet this
condition with several tests, such as Control Charts
and Standard Deviation analysis. Autocorrelation,
conversely, is rarely studied and often disregarded in
most PCI proposals, despite having relevant effects on
the results as explained by Guevara and
Vargas (2007).
The content of this study sustains these assumptions
in the model proposition, however, there are many
opportunities to explore in future research with the
Commercial Multivariate Capability Index and the reli-
ability factor. Alatefi, Ahmad, and Alkahtani (2019)
explain that there are many authors that have proposed
MPCIs that deal with non-normality in the data.
Nevertheless, there are some limitations to the pro-
posed indices in this category, such as complex compu-
tations to find the PCI in non-normal data, depending
on some level of normality, dealing with a limited quan-
tity of quality variables for the PCI to be accurate,
restricted to only a few specific cases of non-normality
and, consequently, the difficulty in the replicability of
these models. Therefore, data transformations to adhere
to a normal distribution for non-normal data are an
important research opportunity. Once non-normality
has been stablished, there are various ways to meet this
condition transforming the data using methods such as
the Root Model, the Box Cox transformation, and the
Johnson Model. These methods are relatively simple,
only requiring the application of simple calculations in
the data and the adjustment of technical specifications
for the transformed data.
Lastly, the presence of autocorrelation in the data,
offer the opportunity of adjusting the parameters of
the proposed model to include a scenario where auto-
correlation is prominent and could affect the global
results of the capability analysis. Pan and Huang
(2015) propose the modification of the variance-
covariance matrix in the traditional methods and cre-
ating a new correction factor that considers a function
between process mean and the process target vector.
In conclusion, based on the considerations presented,
this research could lead to two new proposals of
Multivariate Capability Index that include product
reliability in data that is not necessarily normally dis-
tributed and where the assumption of autocorrelation
is taken into account with a proposed development of
a new correction factor.
About the authors
Rister Barreto is an Industrial Engineering undergraduate
and Junior Researcher, currently employed in the logistics
and data quality field. Barranquilla, Colombia. His e-mail is
rjbarreto@mail.uniatlantico.edu.co
Roberto Herrera is a Professor of Statistics in the
Engineering Faculty of Universidad del Atl
antico and a
Doctor in Statistics. Barranquilla, Colombia. His e-mail is
robertojoseherrera@gmail.com
ORCID
Rister Barreto http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3408-4612
Herrera Acosta Roberto http://orcid.org/0000-0003-
4855-4830
References
Alatefi, M., S. Ahmad, and M. Alkahtani. 2019.
Performance evaluation using multivariate non-normal
process capability. Processes 7 (11):833–57. doi:10.3390/
pr7110833.
Blischke, W. R., and D. N. Murthy. 2000. Reliability. New
York: Wiley.
Bothe, D. 1991. A capability study for an entire product.
ASQC Quality Control Transations :921–5.
Castagliola, P., P. Maravelakis, S. Psarakis, and K.
V€annman. 2009. Monitoring capability indices using run
rules. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 15
(4):358–70. doi:10.1108/13552510910997733.
Chen, K. S., W. L. Pearn, and P. C. Lin. 2003. Capability
measures for processes with multiple characteristics.
Quality and Reliability Engineering International 19 (2):
101–10. doi:10.1002/qre.513.
De-Felipe, D., and Benedito, E. 2017. A review of univariate
and multivariate process capability indices. International
Journal of Advance Manufacturing Technology 92 (5):
1687–1705. doi:10.1007/s00170-017-0273-6.
Garc
ıa, T., M. V
asquez, G. y Ram
ırez, and J. Garc
ıa. 2007.
Extensi
on Multivariante del
Indice de Capacidad Real de

Procesos [Multivariate Extension of the Process Actual
Capability Index. Revista Ingenier
ıa UC 14 (3):86–91.
Guevara, R, and J. Vargas. 2016. Evaluation of process cap-
ability in multivariate nonlinear profiles. Journal of
Statistical Computation and Simulation 86 (12):2411–28.
doi:10.1080/00949655.2015.1112391.
Guevara, R., and J. Vargas. 2007. Comparison of process
capability indices under autocorrelated data. Revista
Colombia de Estad
ıstica 20 (2):301–16.
Herrera, R., Hernandez, K., Figueroa, E., and De La Ossa,
O. 2018. Application of multivariate statistical control to
measure the process capability of compression springs in
stainless steel. Prospect 16 (2):49–58..
Jackson, J. E. 1980. Principal component and factor analysis:
Part 1-Principal components. Journal of Quality
Technology 12 (4):201–13. doi:10.1080/00224065.1980.
11980967.
Murthy, D. N. 2007. Product reliability and warranty: An
overview and future research. Production 17 (3):426–34.
doi:10.1590/S0103-65132007000300003.
Murthy, D. N., and R. Jiang. 2009. Impact of quality varia-
tions on product reliability. Reliability Engineering &
System Safety 94 (2):490–6. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2008.05.009.
Pan, J., and W. Huang. 2015. Developing new multivariate
process capability indices for autocorrelated data. Quality
and Reliability Engineering International 31 (3):431–44.
doi:10.1002/qre.1603.
Shariai, H, and Abdollahzadeh, M. A new multivariate pro-
cess capability vector. Quality Engineering 21 (3):290–9.
doi:10.1080/08982110902873605.
Shinde, R. L., and K. G. Khadse. 2009. Multivariate process
capability using principal component analysis. Quality
and Reliability Engineering International 25 (1):69–77.
doi:10.1002/qre.954.
Shinde, J. H., and R. S. Katikar. 2012. Importance of process
capability and process performance indices in machine
QUALITY ENGINEERING 15
tool. International Journal of Research Engineering &
Applied Sciences 2 (2):1211–7.
Steiner, S., A. Bovas, and J. MacKay. 1998. Understanding
process capability indices. Ontario, Canada: Department
of Statistics and Actuarial Science-University of
Waterloo.
Sun, J., W. Shengxian, and F. Zhihui. 2010. The effect of
autocorrelated data on process capability index Cpk based
on AR (1) model. Beijing: Department of Management
Science and Engineering, Tsinghua University.
Taam, W., P. Subbaiah, and J. W. Liddy. 1993. A note on
multivariate capability indices. Journal of Applied
Statistics 20 (3):339–51. doi:10.1080/02664769300000035.
Tsai, C., and C. Chen. 2006. Making decision to evaluate pro-
cess capability index Cp with fuzzy numbers. The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology 30 (3–4):334–9. doi:10.1007/s00170-005-0052-7.
Varshini, K, Sudendar, S, Arjun, Kumaran, Abitha, S,
Barathi, Priya, Marimuthu, Muthuvel. 2018. National
conference on machine learning & artificial intelligence,
Coimbatore Institute of Technology, India, August 27th
and 28th.
Wang, F. K., and J. Chen. 1998. Capability index using
principal component analysis. Quality Engineering 11 (1):
21–7. doi:10.1080/08982119808919208.
Wang, F. K., and T. C. Du. 2000. Using principal compo-
nent analysis in process performance for multivariate
date. Omega 28 (2):185–94. doi:10.1016/S0305-
0483(99)00036-5.
Wierda, S. J. 1994. Multivariate statistical process control -
Recent results and directions for future research.
Statistica Neerlandica 48 (2):147–68. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9574.1994.tb01439.x.
Wooluru, Y., D. R. Swamy, and P. Nagesh. 2014. The pro-
cess capability analysis – A tool for process performance
measures and metrics – A case study. International
Journal for Quality Research 8 (3):399–416.