IE380

Quality Control and

Improvement
Unit 7
Process Capability
Process Capability
• Recall that a few lectures back we mentioned the differences between being in
control and conforming to specifications.
• We will explore this aspect of quality management further now.

Conformance to Specifications: Individual parts conform to spec's (or not). This is

based on the design/intent of the process, as well as how it is performing. This is an
indication of the capability of the process. (EXTERNAL)
Statistical Control: A process is in or out of control. This is a statistical
determination, based on samples and their averages, which we hope determines
the absence of special causes. This is an indication of the efficiency of the process.
(INTERNAL)
Example
We take 25 subgroups of 5 parts each and chart them on a control chart. The X
chart for this process appears below.

Is this process in statistical

control?
Yes, cannot see any reason
to say no.
What percentage of parts
are meeting specifications?
No idea! These are control
limits, not spec’s!
• So we need to look at both, control limits and spec’s.
• What if a process is "in control", but the parts are not meeting spec's?
• In this case we say the process is not capable. How could we have nonconforming
parts from a "in control" process?
Question: Should we do something?
Question: Should we do something?
Yes
Outside of limit
Special cause variation
 Could get worse
Variability is bad
Less robust, less consistent
No
Wait and Watch
 maybe it will go away
Within spec’s limits, still OK
 Could try to sell
Finite resources
Question: Should we do something?
• These are AVERAGES! High chance some are off spec’s.
Example
• Returning to the example of Lecture 5, assume that my specifications are 74.000
± 0.020. What percentage of my parts do I expect to fail to meet my spec's?

• I assume that the process is normal.

Example
• Therefore to find the probability that any given part will exceed spec's:
1. Estimate 𝜎𝑥 . Note that is an estimate of the variation of one part.
𝑅 0.023
𝜎𝑥 = = = 0.0099
𝑑2 2.326
2. Find the probability that a single part does not conform, based on our
assumptions: If the process is centered perfectly, how many standard
deviations wide are our spec's?
𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐 0.020
= = 2.02 (𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑒 2.02𝜎 𝑤𝑖𝑑𝑒)
𝜎𝑥 0.0099
3. Find the probability that any given normal random variable will be this far away.
How???
Example
3. Find the probability that any given normal random variable will be this far away.
How???
Using the NORMSDIST function in excel, or the unit normal distribution chart,
𝜙(2.02) = 0.9783. Therefore the probability that any part exceeds the upper
specification is (1-0.9783) = .0217. Thus the probability that a part will not meet
spec's is 2*0.0217 = .0434 = 4.34% = 43400 PPM (parts per million)
What if this is too high?
1. Loosen spec
2. Improve process (lower 𝜎𝑥 )
• What if the process isn’t centered perfectly?

Defects go up!
How can we formalize this? Using
capability indicies.
Process Capability Indices: 𝐶𝑝
• As the usual measure of capability is 3𝜎 on each side of the center line, we
define:
𝑈𝑆𝐿 − 𝐿𝑆𝐿
𝐶𝑝 ≜
6𝜎𝑥
• Note that if spec’s are ±3𝜎 then 𝐶𝑝 = 1
• Therefore if 𝐶𝑝 = 1, 99.73% of parts conform, on average. In other words, we
can expect 2700 parts per million to fail to meet specifications.
How did we get this? 𝑃𝑃𝑀 = 2 ∗ 1000000 ∗ 1 — 𝑁𝑂𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐷𝐼𝑆𝑇 3 ∗ 𝐶𝑝
• Again this assumes that the underlying process is normal. If it is not, but we know
the distribution, a similar statistic can be calculated.
Example
Parts are manufactured according to two independent normal processes with
capabilities 1.25 and 0.9 respectively. Of every one million parts which go through
these processes, how many good ones can we expect to have (good implies
conforming to spec's for both processes)?
Solution: For the first process, the expected number of defects is:
𝐶𝑝 = 1.25 ⇒ 3𝐶𝑝 = 3.75 ⇒ 𝑁𝑂𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐷𝐼𝑆𝑇 3.75 = 0.99991
⇒ 1 − 𝑁𝑂𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐷𝐼𝑆𝑇 3.75 = 0.00009 ⇒ 180 𝑃𝑃𝑀.
For the second process:
𝐶𝑝 = 0.9 ⇒ 3𝐶𝑝 = 2.7 ⇒ 𝑁𝑂𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐷𝐼𝑆𝑇(2.7) = 0.996533
⇒ 1 − 𝑁𝑂𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐷𝐼𝑆𝑇(2.7) = 0.003467 ⇒ 6934 𝑃𝑃𝑀.
What is the total expected number of defects?
Example
Solution: For the first process, the expected number of defects is:
𝐶𝑝 = 1.25 ⇒ 3𝐶𝑝 = 3.75 ⇒ 𝑁𝑂𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐷𝐼𝑆𝑇 3.75 = 0.99991
⇒ 1 − 𝑁𝑂𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐷𝐼𝑆𝑇 3.75 = 0.00009 ⇒ 180 𝑃𝑃𝑀.
For the second process:
𝐶𝑝 = 0.9 ⇒ 3𝐶𝑝 = 2.7 ⇒ 𝑁𝑂𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐷𝐼𝑆𝑇(2.7) = 0.996533
⇒ 1 − 𝑁𝑂𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐷𝐼𝑆𝑇(2.7) = 0.003467 ⇒ 6934 𝑃𝑃𝑀.
What is the total expected number of defects?
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑠 = 180 + 6934 − (𝐹𝑎𝑖𝑙 𝑏𝑜𝑡ℎ)
𝑃 𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑙 𝑏𝑜𝑡ℎ = 2 × 0.00009 × 2 × 0.003467 = 0.000001248 = 1.25PPM
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑠 = 180 + 6934 − 1.25 = 7112.75 𝑃𝑃𝑀
Generally we want 𝐶𝑝 ≥ 1
 6𝜎
𝐶𝑝
• Let's calculate the PPM for the first process using the 6𝜎 technique.
• In this technique we assume a drift of 1.5𝜎, on either side of the nominal, so we
redefine:
6𝜎
𝑈𝑆𝐿 − 𝐿𝑆𝐿 − 3𝜎𝑋
𝐶𝑝 ≜ = 𝐶𝑝 − 0.5
6𝜎𝑥
Note if spec’s are 4.5𝜎, 𝐶𝑝6𝜎 =1
Why do we assume a drift of 1.5𝜎?
Because Motorola says so!
Thus 𝐶𝑝6𝜎 = 1.25 − 0.5 = 0.75
Yielding 2 × 1 − 𝑁𝑂𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐷𝐼𝑆𝑇 3 × 0.75 = 0.024449 ⇒ 24449 𝑃𝑃𝑀
• Many companies also use 6𝜎 as a reverse mapping benchmark - without explicitly
comparing their specifications to their deviation, if they produce fewer than 3.4 defects
per million they declare themselves 6cr capable. What do you think of this?
• Sigma table maps defects to a sigma level.
• Good: Tells where you are, very general.
• Bad: Takes you away from the process, not diagnostic. Focuses on end number (3.4PPM)
Question: What is the biggest shortcoming of 𝐶𝑝 ?
Ignores the mean, assumes on target.
Question: What if we only have one-sided specifications?
Use 𝐶𝑝𝑘
In both cases we can use 𝐶𝑝𝑘
𝐶𝑝𝑘
• When we have a process which may not be centered, or has one specification
which is tighter or more important than the other, 𝐶𝑝𝑘 is a better measure of the
process capability.
• This is because 𝐶𝑝𝑘 relates to the process' sample average; we do not simply
assume that it lies exactly in the middle of its specification range.

𝑈𝑆𝐿 − 𝑋 𝑋 − 𝐿𝑆𝐿
𝐶𝑝𝑘 ≜ min ,
3𝜎𝑥 3𝜎𝑥
So we are taking the tighter of the two spec's.
Example
For the example from Lecture 5, the process was not perfectly centered. In fact 𝑋 =
74.00112. Find 𝐶𝑝𝑘 for this process:
Recall that 𝑈𝑆𝐿 = 74.02, 𝐿𝑆𝐿 = 73.98, 𝜎𝑋 = 0.0099. Thus
74.02 − 74.00112
𝐶𝑝𝑘 = = 0.6357
3 × 0.0099
Therefore we expect 1000000 × (1 − 𝑁𝑂𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐷𝐼𝑆𝑇(3 × C𝑝𝑘 )) =
28254 defective PPM.
Why is this different than the answer above (43400 PPM)?
Only counts the bad side.
The other side: 16449 PPM, for a total of 44703.
′ 74.00112 − 73.98
𝐶𝑝𝑘 = ⇒ 16449𝑃𝑃𝑀 on low side
3 × 0.0099
Example
Question: So how many defects do we estimate being caused by our
variance, and how many by being off nominal?
44703 off nominal
43400 on nominal  due to variability
Difference= 1303  due to off nominal
Tolerances on Assemblies and Components
Example: Building an oreo. Assume we are assembling an oreo, and the nominal on
the cookies is 0.1 in, and for the "stuff' is 0.25 in. All processes are normally
distributed and 3𝜎 capable, with 𝜎𝑐 = 0.01 and 𝜎𝑠 = 0.02.

Actual assemblies
would come out
much better than
this. Why?
Tolerances on Assemblies and Components
Example: Building an oreo. Assume we are assembling an oreo, and the nominal on
the cookies is 0.1 in, and for the "stuff' is 0.25 in. All processes are normally
distributed and 3𝜎 capable, with 𝜎𝑐 = 0.01 and 𝜎𝑠 = 0.02.

First of all, what does 3𝜎 capable mean?

spec’s ±3𝜎

If the spec's for an individual oreo are 0.45 ± 0.1 inches, what is 𝐶𝑝 for my
process? (Assume the cookies come from completely independent processes.)
Tolerances on Assemblies and Components
• We want to calculate 𝐶𝑝 for this. Recall
𝑈𝑆𝐿 − 𝐿𝑆𝐿
𝐶𝑝 ≜
6𝜎𝑥
We know USL and LSL because the spec’s are given as 0.45 ± 0.1 inches.
We need to calculate 𝜎𝑥 using the standard deviations of individual parts.
2
𝜎𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑜 = 𝜎𝑐2 +𝜎𝑠2 +𝜎𝑐2
2
𝜎𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑜 = 0.0001 + 0.0004 + 0.0001
2
𝜎𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑜 = 0.0006 ⇒ 𝜎𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑜 = 0.0245
0.2
Therefore 𝐶𝑝 = = 1.36
6×0.0245
So how many 𝜎 capable is this process now?
𝜎 − 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 ≜ 3𝐶𝑝 = 4.08𝜎 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒
Tolerances on Assemblies and Components
So how many 𝜎 capable is this process now?
𝜎 − 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 ≜ 3𝐶𝑝 = 4.08 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒
So what happened? Why did our capability increase from 3 to 4.08?
Took 3𝜎 capable, cut the ‘slack’ from 0.12 to 0.1
‘stacked’ them  4.08 𝜎
Fat cookie + Avg stuff + Avg cookie => in spec’s!
Risk pooling- Variation cancels each other
Tolerances on Assemblies and Components
• What if the cookies came from the same distribution?
2
𝜎𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑜 = 𝜎𝑐2 +𝜎𝑠2 +𝜎𝑐2 + 2𝜎𝑐 𝜎𝑐
2
𝜎𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑜 = 0.0001 + 0.0004 + 0.0001 + 0.0002
2
𝜎𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑜 = 0.0008 ⇒ 𝜎𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑜 = 0.02828
0.2
Then 𝐶𝑝 = = 1.18 now 3.54𝜎 capable
6×0.02828
What does this say about correlation?
Positive correlation: Bad – hurts risk pooling
Negative correlation: Good
Tolerances on Assemblies and Components
Example. We can do the reverse. Assume that the spec for an individual
oreo is 0.45 ± 0.12, and we want our oreo process to be 3𝜎 capable.
What should my cookie and filling spec’s be if I want them to also be
3𝜎 capable?
2
𝜎𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑜 = 0.04 𝜎𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑜 = 0.0016
Assume that 𝜎𝑐2 = 𝜎𝑠2 = 𝜎𝑐2
So 𝜎𝑐2 +𝜎𝑠2 +𝜎𝑐2 = 0.0016 ⇒ 𝜎𝑐 = 𝜎𝑠 = 0.0231
𝐶𝑜𝑜𝑘𝑖𝑒: 0.1 ± 0.0693
𝑆𝑡𝑢𝑓𝑓: 0.25 ± 0.0693 0.21 𝑠𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑘
𝐶𝑜𝑜𝑘𝑖𝑒: 0.1 ± 0.0693
Tolerances on Assemblies and Components
What if I want the spread of my cookie spec’s to be twice that of my
filling spec’s?
2
𝜎𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑜 = 0.04 𝜎𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑜 = 0.0016
𝜎𝑐 = 2𝜎𝑠
So 𝜎𝑐2 +𝜎𝑠2 +𝜎𝑐2 = 0.0016 ⇒ 𝜎𝑐 = 0.02667 𝜎𝑠 = 0.01333
𝐶𝑜𝑜𝑘𝑖𝑒: 0.1 ± 0.08
𝑆𝑡𝑢𝑓𝑓: 0.25 ± 0.04 0.20 𝑠𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑘
𝐶𝑜𝑜𝑘𝑖𝑒: 0.1 ± 0.08