REVISED

M17_REND6289_10_IM_C17.QXD 4/25/08 8:07 PM Page 262

C H A P T E R

Statistical Quality Control

17

TEACHING SUGGESTIONS
Teaching Suggestion 17.1: Japans change in status since WWII. Remind students that Japan began a few decades ago with perhaps the worlds worst quality and that Made in Japan was synonymous with shoddy products just 45 years ago. Teaching Suggestion 17.2: Four interesting quotes from QC expert Philip Crosby. 1. The cost of quality is the expense of doing things wrong. 2. There is absolutely no reason for having errors or defects in any product or service. 3. If quality isnt ingrained in the organization, it will never happen. 4. It is much less expensive to prevent errors than to rework, scrap, or service them. Teaching Suggestion 17.3: Natural vs. assignable variations. Random chance l natural Specic cause l assignable Teaching Suggestion 17.4: Mean and range charts. Mean and range charts tell us what we need to know about the process. Each plays a necessary role.

Alternative Example 17.3: The average range of a process is 10 pounds. The sample size is 10. Using Table 17.2, D4 1.78, D3 0.22.

UCL R D4 R (1.78)(10) 17.8 pounds

LCL R D3 R (0.22)(10) 2.2 pounds

Alternative Example 17.4: Based on samples of 20 IRS auditors, each observed handling 100 les, we nd that the total number of mistakes made in handling les is 220. We set 95.45% limits on this process below: total no. mistakes 220 0.11 p total no. files (100)(20)

(0.11)(1 0.11) 0.03 100 100 is the size of each sample

UCL p p Z p 0.11 (2)(0.03) 0.17

LCL p p Z p 0.11 (2)(0.03) 0.05

Alternative Example 17.5: There have been complaints that the sports page of the Dubuque Register has lots of typos. The last six days have been examined carefully, and the number of typos/page recorded below. Is the process in control, using Z 2?
Day Mon. Tues. Wed. Thurs. Fri. Sat. Number of Typos 2 1 5 3 4 0

ALTERNATIVE EXAMPLES
Alternative Example 17.1: Twenty-ve engine mountings are sampled each day and found to have an average width of 2 inches, with a standard deviation of 0.1 inch. To set control limits that include 99.7% of sample means (Z 3),
UCL x X Z x 2 3(0.1 / 25 ) 2 0.06

2.06 inches
LCL x X Z x 2 3(0.1 / 25 ) 2 0.06

c 15 / 6 2.5
UCL c c 2 c 2.5 2(1.58) 5.66

1.94 inches Alternative Example 17.2: Several samples of size n 8 have been taken from todays production of fencing poles. The average pole was 3 yards in length and the average sample range was 0.015 yard. We nd 99.7% control limits for the process below.

LCL c c 2 c 2.5 2(1.58) 0.66 (or 0)

All days are in control.

X 3 yards

R 0.015 yard

A2 0.373 from Table 17.2

UCL x X A2 R 3 0.373(0.015) 3.006 yards
LCL x X A2 R 3 0.373(0.015) 2.994 yards

SOLUTIONS TO DISCUSSION QUESTIONS AND PROBLEMS

17-1. The central limit theorem allows us to use the normal curve regardless of the distribution of the population we are trying to control.

262

REVISED
M17_REND6289_10_IM_C17.QXD 4/25/08 8:07 PM Page 263

CHAPTER 17

STATISTICAL QUALITY CONTROL

263

17-2. The ultimate goal of x- and R-charts is to ascertain, by a sampling procedure, that the process is kept within specied upper and lower bounds. The combination of x and R-charts allows one to determine that both the average or customary value and the extreme deviations are within the limits. 17-3. A control chart for variables is used when the item of concern is measured in continuous units such as the length or weight of an item. A control chart for attributes is used when the sampled items are placed into categories such as defective or nondefective. The number or proportion of items in each category is the relevant measure. 17-4. A p-chart measures the proportion of defective items in a sample. The binomial distribution is the appropriate distribution with p-charts, and the normal distribution is often used to approximate the binomial distribution. A c-chart is used to control the number of defects per unit of output. The Poisson distribution is the appropriate distribution with c-charts, and the normal distribution is often used to approximate this. 17-5. Some patterns that would indicate a process is out of control are (1) one or more items out of the control limits, (2) two or more items near the control limits, (3) a run of 5 consecutive items below (or above) the central line, (4) trends in either direction for 5 or more items, and (5) extremely erratic behavior. 17-6. A process might become out of control due to such factors as tool wear; a change in raw materials; a change in working environment (temperature or humidity, for example); or tired or poorly trained labor. 17-7. Any time that one samples less than the entire lot of the product, there is the possibility of making an error, which is the acceptance of the lot even though the process is actually out of control. The sample means may be within the limits due to random chance. 17-8. n6 From Table 17.2, A2 0.483, D4 2.004, D3 0
UCL x X A2 R

LCL x X A2 R

60 0.308 3 59.076

UCL R D4 R
1.777 3 5.331

LCL R D3 R
0.223 3 0.669 17-10. n8 From Table 17.2, A2 0.373, D4 1.864, D3 0.136
UCL x X A2 R

17 0.373 0.5 17.187

LCL x X A2 R

17 0.373 0.5 16.814

UCL R D4 R
1.864 0.5 0.932

LCL R D3 R
0.136 0.5 0.068 17-11. n4 From Table 17.2, A2 0.729, D4 2.282, D3 0.0
UCL x X A2 R

10.04 0.729 0.52 10.42

LCL x X A2 R

46 0.483 2 46.966
LCL x X A2 R

10.04 0.729 0.52 9.66

46 0.483 2 45.034

UCL R D4 R
2.282 0.52 1.187

UCL R D4 R
2.004 2 4.008

LCL R D3 R
0 0.52 0.0 The smallest sample mean is 9.9, the largest 10.2. Both are well within the control limits. Similarly, the largest sample range is 0.6, also well within the control limits. Hence, we can conclude that the process is presently within control. One step the QC department might take would be to increase the sample size to provide a clearer indication as to both control limits and whether or not the process is in control.

LCL R D3 R
02 0 17-9. n 10 From Table 17.2, A2 0.308, D4 1.777, D3 0.223
UCL x X A2 R

60 0.308 3 60.924

REVISED
M17_REND6289_10_IM_C17.QXD 4/25/08 8:07 PM Page 264

264

CHAPTER 17

STATISTICAL QUALITY CONTROL

Table for Problem 17-11

Time 9 A.M. 10 A.M. 11 A.M. 12 P.M. 1 P.M. Box 1 9.8 10.1 9.9 9.7 9.7 Box 2 10.4 10.2 10.5 9.8 10.1 Box 3 9.9 9.9 10.3 10.3 9.9 Box 4 10.3 9.8 10.1 10.2 9.9 Average 10.10 10.00 10.20 10.00 19.90 Average 10.04 Range 0.60 0.40 0.60 0.60 0.40 0.52

17-12.
Hour 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 _ X 3.25 3.10 3.22 3.39 3.07 2.86 3.05 2.65 _ R 0.71 1.18 1.43 1.26 1.17 0.32 0.53 1.13 Hour 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 _ X 3.02 2.85 2.83 2.97 3.11 2.83 3.12 2.84 _ R 0.71 1.33 1.17 0.40 0.85 1.31 1.06 0.50 Hour 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 _ X 2.86 2.74 3.41 2.89 2.65 3.28 2.94 2.64 _ R 1.43 1.29 1.61 1.09 1.08 0.46 1.58 0.97

Average X 2.982 Average R 1.02375 n4 From Table 17.2, A2 0.729, D4 2.282, D3 0.0
UCL x X A2 R

17-13.

UCL p p 3

p(1 p) n

LCL p p 3
n 200 q 1 p
Percent Defective p 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10

p(1 p) n

2.982 0.729 1.024 3.728

LCL x X A2 R

2.982 0.729 1.024 2.236

q 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.92 0.91 0.90

pq / n
0.0070 0.0099 0.0121 0.0139 0.0154 0.0168 0.0180 0.0192 0.0202 0.0212

LCLp 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0038 0.0096 0.0159 0.0225 0.0293 0.0364

UCLp 0.0311 0.0497 0.0662 0.0816 0.0962 0.1104 0.1241 0.1375 0.1507 0.1636

UCL R D4 R
2.282 1.024 2.336

LCL R D3 R
0 1.024 0.0 The smallest sample mean is 2.64, the largest 3.41. Both are well within the control limits. Similarly, the largest sample range is 1.61, also well within the control limits. Hence, we can conclude that the process is presently within control.

Control Limits for Percent Defective 0.2 UCL LCL 0.15

Control Limits

0.1

0.05

0.02

0.04 0.06 Percent Defective

0.08

0.1

REVISED
M17_REND6289_10_IM_C17.QXD 4/25/08 8:07 PM Page 265

CHAPTER 17

STATISTICAL QUALITY CONTROL

265

17-14.
Sample Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Sample Range 1.10 1.31 0.91 1.10 1.21 0.82 0.86 1.11 1.12 0.99 0.86 1.20 Sample Mean 46 45 46 47 48 47 50 49 51 52 50 52

The smallest average is 45, the largest 52. Both are outside the proper control limits. Therefore, while the range is within limits, the average is outside limits, and apparently increasing. Immediate action is needed to correct the problem and get the average within the control limits again. 17-15. See the table.

X 63.488
R 1.496

n4 From Table 17.2, A2 0.729, D4 2.282, D3 0.

UCL x X A2 R

63.488 0.729 1.496 64.6

LCL x X A2 R

R 1.049

X 48.583

n 12 From Table 17.2: A2 0.226, D4 1.716, D3 0.284

63.488 0.729 1.496 62.4

UCL R D4 R
2.282 1.496 3.414

LCL x X A2 R
48.583 0.266 1.049 48.304
UCL x X A2 R

LCL R D3 R
0 1.496 0 17-16. a. We find x 1011.8 and R 96.3. Then using Table 17.2 we find

48.583 0.266 1.049 48.86

LCL R D3 R
0.284 1.049 0.298

b. UCL x x A2 R 1011.8 0.577(96.3) 1067.37

LCL x x A2 R 1011.8 0.577(96.3) 956.23

c. The process appears to be out of control. There are two sample means less than 956.23 and there are some sample means greater than 1067.37.

UCL R D4 R
1.716 1.049 1.800 The smallest sample range is 0.82, the largest 1.31. Both are well within the control limits.

Table for Problem 17-15

Sample 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X 63.5 63.6 63.7 63.9 63.4 63.0 63.2 63.3 63.7 R 2.0 1.0 1.7 0.9 1.2 1.6 1.8 1.3 1.6 Sample 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 X 63.5 63.3 63.2 63.6 63.3 63.4 63.4 63.5 63.6 R 1.3 1.8 1.0 1.8 1.5 1.7 1.4 1.1 1.8 Sample 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 X 63.8 63.5 63.9 63.2 63.3 64.0 63.4 R 1.3 1.6 1.0 1.8 1.7 2.0 1.5

REVISED
M17_REND6289_10_IM_C17.QXD 4/30/08 3:47 AM Page 266

266

CHAPTER 17

STATISTICAL QUALITY CONTROL

17-17. We get D3 and D4 from Table 17.2. The limits are UCL R D4 R 2.114(96.3) 203.58
LCL R D3 R 0(96.3) 0

17-18. Develop upper and lower control limits for a c-Chart, we compute C 20 / 20 1

pi 0.0467 N p(1 p) 0.0467 0.9533 0.0211 p n 100 For a 3 p-chart, the upper control level is given by p

LCL C 3 C 1 3(1) 2; since this cant be negative, we let LCL 0

UCL C 3 C 1 3(1) 4

UCL p 3 0.0467 3 0.0211 0.11

LCL 0 The process is in control. 17-23.

17-19.

p 0.1
p(1 p) 0.1(0.9) 0.1 3 n 10 0.1 3(0.0949) 0.1 0.285 0.385

UCL p p 3

2000 20 100 Using a normal approximation to the Poisson distribution: c 20

Average blemishes/table

c 20 4.472

LCL p p 3

p (1 p ) 0.1(0.9) 0.1 3 n 10 0.1 3(0.0949) 0.1 0.285 0.185 and

UCL c c 3 c
20 3 4.472 33.4 or 33 blemishes LCL c c 3 c 20 3 4.472 6.6 or 7 blemishes Yes; 42 blemishes is considerably above the upper control limit.

we let this be 0 since the proportion cannot be negative.

SOLUTIONS TO INTERNET HOMEWORK PROBLEMS

17-20.
UCL p p 3 p(1 p) n

LCL p p 3

p(1 p) n
0.011 0.989 1000
0.011 0.989 1000

CASE STUDIES
Morristown Daily Tribune Case
(1) The overall fraction of errors ( p) and the control limits are developed as follows: 120 total number of errors p number of samples sa ample size 30 100 0.04

UCL p 0.011 3
0.0208
LCL p 0.011 3

0.0011 17-21.
UCL p p 3 p(1 p) n

p(1 p) / n 0.04 0.96 / 100

0.0196 Then the control limits are given (for a 95% condence interval) by

LCL p p 3

p(1 p) n

UCL p 1.96
0.04 1.96 0.0196 0.0784 LCL p 1.96 0.04 1.96 0.0196 0.018 Both the table presented below and the control chart indicate that the quality requirements of the Morristown Daily Tribune are more stringent than those of the industry as a whole. In ve instances, the fraction of errors exceeds the rms upper control limit; in two cases, the industrys upper control limit is exceeded. An investigation, leading to corrective action, is clearly warranted.

0.025 0.975 UCL p 0.025 3 200 0.0581 0.025 0.975 LCL p 0.025 3 200 0.0081 or 0
17-22.
Number Defective 6 5 6 4 3 4 5 Number Defective 3 6 3 7 5 4 3 Number Defective 4 5 6 5 4 3 7

Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Day 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Day 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

REVISED
M17_REND6289_10_IM_C17.QXD 4/25/08 8:07 PM Page 267

CHAPTER 17

STATISTICAL QUALITY CONTROL

267

p-Chart 0.14
Fraction Defective

Firm LCL Firm UCL

Ind LCL Ind UCL

0.12 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 0 5 10

15 20 Sample
Errors in Sample 2 4 10 4 1 1 13 9 11 0 3 4 2 2 8

25

30

35

Sample 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Fraction* of Errors (n/100) 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.09 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.08

Sample 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Errors in Sample 2 3 7 3 2 3 7 4 3 2 2 0 1 3 4

Fraction of Errors (n/100) 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04

*Boldface entries indicate sample fractions outside the quality control limits for the Morristown Tribune. Indicates sample fractions outside the industry standard quality control limits.

SOLUTIONS TO INTERNET HOMEWORK PROBLEMS SOLUTIONS TO INTERNET CASES

Bayeld Mud Company
The rst thing that must be done is to develop quality control limits for the sample means. This can be done as follows. Since the process appears to be unstable, we can use the desired mean as the nominal line. Desired x 50.0 x 1.2(from past results of Wet-Land Drilling) x x / n 1.2 / 6 1.2 / 2.45 0.5 At a 99.5% condence interval:
UCL x x 2.81 x

Now that we have appropriate control limits, these must be applied to the samples taken on the individual shifts (see the tables on the next page): (a) Day shift (6:00 A.M.2:00 P.M.):

number of means within control limits 23 96% 24 total number of means

(b) Evening shift (2:00 P.M.10:00 P.M.):
number of means within control limits 12 50% total number of means 24

(c) Night shift (10:00 P.M.6:00 A.M.):

number of means within control limits 12 50% 24 total number of means

As is now evident, none of the shifts meets the control specications. Bag weight monitoring needs improvement on all shifts. The problem is much more acute on the evening and night shifts staffed by the more recent hires. See the control chart on the next page. Note also that the number of samples indicating a short weight is much greater than the number indicating excess weight. With regard to the range, 99.7% of the individual bag weights should lie within 3s of the mean. This would represent a range

50 2.81 0.5 50 1.4 51.4

LCL x x 2.81 x
50 1.4 48.6

REVISED
M17_REND6289_10_IM_C17.QXD 4/25/08 8:07 PM Page 268

268

CHAPTER 17

STATISTICAL QUALITY CONTROL

Day Shift* DAY 1 Time 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 Ave. 49.6 50.2 50.6 50.8 49.9 50.3 48.6 49.0 Low 48.7 49.1 49.6 50.2 49.2 48.6 46.2 46.4 High 50.7 51.2 51.4 51.8 52.3 51.7 50.4 50.0 Ave. 48.6 50.0 49.8 50.3 50.2 50.0 50.0 50.1 DAY 2 Low 47.4 49.2 49.0 49.4 49.6 49.0 48.8 49.4 High 52.0 52.2 52.4 51.7 51.8 52.3 52.4 53.6 Ave. 48.4 48.8 49.6 50.0 51.0 50.4 50.0 48.9 DAY 3 Low 45.0 44.8 48.0 48.1 48.1 49.5 48.7 47.6 High 49.0 49.7 51.8 52.7 55.2 54.1 50.9 51.2

*Boldface type indicates a sample outside the quality control limits. Evening Shift DAY 1 Time 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 Ave. 49.0 49.8 50.3 51.4 51.6 51.8 51.0 50.5 Low 46.0 48.2 49.2 50.0 49.2 50.0 48.6 49.4 High 50.6 50.8 52.7 55.3 54.7 55.6 53.2 52.4 Ave. 49.7 48.4 47.2 46.8 46.8 50.0 47.4 47.0 DAY 2 Low 48.6 47.2 45.3 44.1 41.0 46.2 44.0 44.2 High 51.0 51.7 50.9 49.0 51.2 51.7 48.7 48.9 Ave. 49.8 49.8 50.0 47.8 46.4 46.4 47.2 48.4 DAY 3 Low 48.4 48.8 49.1 45.2 44.0 44.4 46.6 47.2 High 51.0 50.8 50.6 51.2 49.7 50.0 48.9 49.5

*Boldface type indicates a sample outside the quality control limits. Night Shift DAY 1 Time 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 Ave. 49.2 49.0 48.4 47.6 47.4 48.2 48.0 48.4 Low 46.1 46.3 45.4 44.3 44.1 45.2 45.5 47.1 High 50.7 50.8 50.2 49.7 49.6 49.0 49.1 49.6 Ave. 47.2 48.6 49.8 49.6 50.0 50.0 47.2 47.0 DAY 2 Low 46.6 47.0 48.2 48.4 49.0 49.2 46.3 44.1 High 50.2 50.0 50.4 51.7 52.2 50.0 50.5 49.7 Ave. 49.2 48.4 47.2 47.4 48.8 49.6 51.0 50.5 DAY 3 Low 48.1 47.0 46.4 46.8 47.2 49.0 50.5 50.0 High 50.7 50.8 49.2 49.0 51.4 50.6 51.5 51.9

*Boldface type indicates a sample outside the quality control limits.

of 6s, or 7.2. Only one of the ranges dened by the difference between the highest and lowest bag weights in each sample exceeds this range. It would appear, then, that the problem is not due to abnormal deviations between the highest and lowest bag weights, but rather to poor adjustments of the bag weight-feeder causing assignable variations in average bag weights. The proper procedure is to establish mean and range charts to guide the bag packers. The foreman would then be alerted when sample weights deviate from mean and range control limits. The immediate problem, however, must be corrected by additional bag weight monitoring and weight-feeder adjustments. Short-run declines in bag output may be necessary to achieve acceptable bag weights.

Bayfield Mud Case: Control Chart X 54.0

Average Weight (Pounds)

52.0 50.0 48.0 46.0 44.0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 Sample UCL LCL Day Eve Night