Annals of Operations Research 87(1999)3147

31

A review and interpretations of

process capability indices
Kurt Palmer a, and Kwok-Leung Tsui b
a

Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Southern California,

Los Angeles, CA 90089-0193, USA
E-mail: kpalmer@usc.edu
b

Department of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management,

Hong Kong University of Science and Technology,
Clear Water Bay, Hong Kong
E-mail: ktsui@ust.hk

Practitioners of industrial statistics are generally familiar with the common Cp and Cpk
process capability indices. However, many additional indices have been proposed, and
knowledge of these is less widespread. More importantly, information regarding the indices
comparative behavior is lacking. This paper compares the behavior of various indices under
shifting process conditions. Both useful and misleading characteristics of the indices are
identified. We begin with a short history of process capability measures. Several process
capability indices are reviewed. Application areas for capability indices are also summarized.
The indices are grouped according to the loss functions which are used in their interpretation.
Characteristics of the various indices are discussed. Finally, recommendations are made for
selection of indices at differing levels of process performance.
Keywords: capability index, loss function, process improvement

1.

Introduction

While the concept of process capability was most likely developed by American
statisticians, use of process capability indices by the United States industrial community did not become popular until reports of Japanese manufacturing methods appeared
in American trade and professional journals. One of the earliest domestically published
descriptions of capability indices was by Sullivan [20,21]. Kane [13] provided the
first discussion of the indices sampling characteristics, and made some suggestions

Corresponding author.

J.C. Baltzer AG, Science Publishers

32

K. Palmer, K.-L. Tsui y A review and interpretations of process capability indices

for modifications to the indices. Kotz and Johnson [14] gave an exhaustive summary
of modified indices and their sampling characteristics. While use of the original
capability indices has become widespread, many practitioners remain unfamiliar with
the detailed descriptions of the indices population characteristics. The motivations
for and characteristics of the modified indices are even less well known.
The process capability indices which Sullivan reported represented an improvement over previous metrics that were used to describe process capability. Feigenbaum
[4] and Juran [10] used 6 as a measure of process capability. They presented the
measure as a representation of the inherent variability of a process. This description
gave process capability an interpretation that was independent of customer specifications. There was an implication of inevitability regarding process performance. The
notion that the process doesnt know the specifications was emphasized. While
this is of course true, the interpretation seems to urge a passive approach to quality
improvement.
Juran [11] created a stronger link between process variability and customer specifications by comparing 6 to the tolerance width as a method of determining the need
for process improvement activities. However, capability itself was still interpreted
separately from specifications. Finally, Juran and Gryna [12] proposed a capability
ratio, which provided the first metric that directly compared process variability to
customer specifications:
6 variation
Capability ratio =
.
(1)
tolerance width
As is the case with the capability ratio, all process capability indices explicitly
link process variability to customer specifications, and in so doing, they emphasize
the suppliers responsibility to satisfy those specifications. However, capability indices
also have advantages over the capability ratio. Capability indices increase in value as
the process performance improves. This property may be of limited analytical value,
but it does provide psychological value in that it reinforces the natural bigger is
better predisposition. Furthermore, capability indices indicate the relative benefits
of improvements in both process location and variability.
This paper summarizes the univariate formulations of process capability indices,
and reviews the basics regarding index interpretation and process improvement. The
population characteristics for the indices are discussed in detail. Comparisons of the
indices behavior under shifting process conditions are described. Finally, recommendations are given for the selection of indices to direct process improvement activities
at various levels of process performance.
2.

The original five capability indices

Sullivan [21] described five indices which he had observed in use at Japanese
manufacturing facilities. The indices were Cp , Cpk , k, Cpu , and Cpl .

K. Palmer, K.-L. Tsui y A review and interpretations of process capability indices

33

2.1. Definitions of the original indices

While many indices now exist, all were developed from a common parent:
Cp =

U S L L S L
,
6

(2)

where
USL

is the upper specification limit,

LSL

is the lower specification limit,

is the process standard deviation.

The astute reader will notice that Cp is the reciprocal of Juran and Grynas
capability ratio. It is not clear how Cp was developed. At the least, we believe that it
is appropriate to credit Juran and Gryna with the development of the idea that led to
this family of metrics.
Conceptually, Cp compares the allowable process spread to the actual process
spread. It can be thought of as indicating the potential of the process to produce
conforming material. A common interpretation of Cp assumes that the process output
is normally distributed. This interpretation leads to the oft quoted proportions conforming that are given in table 1.
Table 1
Proportion conforming after centering.
Assumed
distribution
Normal
None

Cp value
0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

86.639%
> 55.556%

97.555%
> 80.247%

99.730%
> 88.889%

99.982%
> 92.889%

A more general interpretation does not require normality. Chebyshevs inequality

can be used to determine a lower bound for the proportion conforming, regardless of
the actual process distribution. These values are also shown in table 1. Since there is
no guarantee that a process will be normally distributed, the Chebyshev values should
be kept in mind as worst-case senarios. (The proportions conforming are given as
lower bounds because Chebyshevs inequality makes no assumptions regarding the
shape of the distribution.)
It is critical to note two points:
(1)

The metric Cp can only indicate the potential proportion conforming, due to the
centering assumption. The interpretations of proportion conforming given above
represent maximum values provided that the process mean is located at the specification midpoint.

K. Palmer, K.-L. Tsui y A review and interpretations of process capability indices

34

(2)

A state of statistical control is required of the process in order for the index
value to have any long-term meaning. If the process is not stable, then any conclusions regarding the capability of the process will need to be modified as its
performance varies.

To deal with violations of the centering assumption, the following pair of indices
was developed:
min(U S L , L S L)
C pk =
,
(3)
3
k=
where

m
,
(U S L L S L) 2

is the process mean,

is the specification midpoint, i.e. m = (USL + LSL) 2.

(4)

The index k represents a measure of the distance that the process lies off-center
and Cpk demonstrates the reduction in process capability caused by the lack of centering. If the assumption LSL < < USL is made, then |k| 1 and there is a simple
relationship among Cp , Cpk , and k. The relation is Cpk = (1 |k|)Cp . This relation leads
to the concept of Cp as an upper limit for Cpk , and reinforces the description of Cp as
the potential capability. The Cpk index will have a maximum value equal to the Cp
value when the process mean is at the specification midpoint. As the process mean
shifts away from the specification midpoint, the value of Cpk decreases linearly until
it reaches a value of zero, when the process mean is equal to one of the specification
limits.
It should be noted that both Sullivan [21] and Kane [13] describe k as an absolute
value. We believe that it is useful for k to retain its sign for applications such as the
process improvement roadmap, which will be presented below.
Sometimes, a customer will provide a one-sided specification. The indices Cpu
and Cpl were developed for these situations.
For processes with upper specification limit only:
Cpu =

U S L
.
3

(5)

For processes with lower specification limit only:

C pl =

LSL
.
3

(6)

The index Cpu compares the distance between the process mean and the upper
specification limit to the upper half-width of the distribution. Similarly, Cpl compares
the distance between the process mean and the lower specification limit to the lower

K. Palmer, K.-L. Tsui y A review and interpretations of process capability indices

35

half-width of the distribution. The indices show the relative size of the working margin,
i.e. the closeness of the distribution to the specification limit.
The definitions of Cpu and Cpl also provide insight into the formulation of Cpk .
Often, the relation Cpk = min(Cpu , Cpl ) is used. Therefore, Cpk is also a measure of the
remaining size of the working margin, as a result of a shift in the process mean away
from the center and towards one of the specification limits. Since the measure of the
half-width, 3, is the same for the two indices, Cpu and Cpl , this definition of Cpk
implies an assumption that the process distribution is symmetric about its mean.
2.2. Applications of capability indices
Kane [13] described six application areas for capability indices, which will be
paraphrased here:
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

A static goal for performance: A minimally desirable index value is set in order
to avoid nonconforming output, to maintain customer acceptance, or to define
contractual obligations. The stated objective is to achieve the minimal level. This
application is typical of customersupplier relationships.
A measure of continuous improvement: The index value is monitored over time
as an indication of relative improvement. The stated objective is to perpetually
increase the index value. This technique applies to both individual processes and
the distribution of index values for a collection of processes.
A common process performance language: The index value is used to communicate process performance to those who may not have a detailed knowledge
of the process. Since the value of any given index always carries the same interpretation of the relative relationship between process performance and customer
specifications, the indices provide consistent frames of reference regardless of
the specific process they describe.
A criterion for prioritization: The index is used in process-to-process comparisons to determine either relative need for improvement or relative benefit for
investment.
A roadmarker to direct process improvement activities: Pairwise comparisons
of selected capability indices determine the relative benefit of adjusting process
location versus reducing process variability.
An indicator of quality system deficiencies: Index values obtained during quality system audits are compared to process records to identify deficiencies in
sampling, measurement, process control, etc.

Shewhart [18], Juran [10] and Gryna [5] all discussed the use of process capability information to determine specification limits. In general, they recommended that
the tolerance width should not be tighter than 6. Feigenbaum [4] and Juran [10]
referred to the use of process capability information to assign jobs to machines. Jobs
requiring tight tolerance widths would be assigned to the most capable machine in

36

K. Palmer, K.-L. Tsui y A review and interpretations of process capability indices

order to minimize in-process waste. While the applications given above are certainly
among the most common, we do not intend to suggest that this represents an exhaustive
listing.
An application of particular interest is the use of indices to direct process
improvement activities. It is common for process capability indices to be used individually for most of the applications presented above. In order to direct process
adjustments, however, capability indices must be considered collectively. The indices
Cp , Cpk , and k represent one such grouping. Collectively, these indices signal the need
for deliberate process location adjustments and or process variability reductions.
Applying the steps sequentially, the roadmap operates as follows:
Step 1 . Obtain simultaneous estimates of Cp , Cpk , and k.
Step 2 . If Cpk < Cp , then evaluate k.
(a) If k > 0, then adjust the process location to decrease the process mean
until Cpk = Cp .
(b) If k < 0, then adjust the process location to increase the process mean
until Cpk = Cp .
Step 3 . If Cp < 1.0, then identify and remove sources of process variability.
The roadmap calls for adjustments to the process location prior to variability
reduction because process mean adjustments are considered to be relatively simple to
accomplish. As such, process mean adjustments, when necessary, can produce immediate improvements in process performance relative to the specifications. It is assumed
that adjustments in the process mean will have no effect upon process variability.
On the other hand, reductions in process variability, as required in step 3, are
generally considered to be a more difficult task than that of adjusting the process
location. Also, variability reductions may sometimes produce an unintendended shift
in the process mean. So, it may be necessary to revisit step 2 following improvements
made during step 3.
3.

Interpretations of capability indices

Over the years, two broad classes of indices have been developed. These categories are defined by the underlying loss function which is used to interpret the index.
The categories are: stepwise loss function interpretation and quadratic loss function
interpretation. Figure 1 displays the two types of loss functions. It will be shown that
Cp has a consistent meaning under either interpretation. The index Cp is the only index
which enjoys membership in both categories.
3.1. Stepwise loss function interpretation
The stepwise loss function interpretation holds that all process output which falls
within the specification limits is equally good. The defining characteristic of the loss

K. Palmer, K.-L. Tsui y A review and interpretations of process capability indices

37

Figure 1. Loss functions used to interpret capability indices.

function is that it has a value of zero over the entire specification range, and has a
value greater than zero outside the specification limits. The stepwise loss function is
implied whenever process performance is interpreted in terms of yield or proportion
conforming.
All of the original indices belong to this category. The indices Cp , Cpk , Cpu , and
Cpl each can be thought of as indicating the proportion of the process distribution
which falls within the specification limits. The translation of the index value to a
proportion conforming is a simple matter in the cases of Cpu and Cpl . Once the type of
process distribution has been assumed, the index value clearly communicates the
performance of the process relative to the appropriate specification limit. However,
the interpretation of proportion conforming is not quite so clear for Cp and Cpk .
Consider the situation presented in figure 2. The figure shows two processes
with the same Cpk value that have differing proportions conforming. Obviously, the
Cpk value alone is not sufficient to determine the proportion conforming. The Cpk value
only communicates process performance relative to one of the two specification limits.
Similarly, the Cp value alone is not sufficient to communicate the current proportion conforming. While the Cp value does communicate the potential of the process
after centering, it is not appropriate to assume that the process is currently centered.
In fact, it is necessary to know values for both Cp and Cpk in order to determine the
current proportion conforming.
Consider the process described by the second row of table 2. The Cp value indicates the width of the specification range as a multiple of the process standard
deviation, but the location is unknown. The Cpk value provides the missing information. The steps below demonstrate the logic of the current proportion conforming
calculation:
Cp = 0.75 USL LSL = 4.5,

K. Palmer, K.-L. Tsui y A review and interpretations of process capability indices

38

Figure 2. Two processes with C pk = 0.50.

Table 2
Examples of proportion conforming for normally distributed processes.

Cpk

Cp

P (x lies between
and near spec)

0.50
0.50
0.50
0.75
1.00

0.50
0.75
1.00
1.00
1.00

43.319%
43.319%
43.319%
48.778%
49.865%

P (x lies between
and far spec)

Current
P (x lies between
LSL and USL)

Potential
P (x lies between
LSL and USL)

43.319%
49.865%
49.999%
49.991%
49.865%

86.639%
93.184%
93.318%
98.769%
99.730%

86.639%
97.555%
99.730%
99.730%
99.730%

C pk = 0.50 min(U S L , L S L) = 1.5

max(U S L , L S L) = 3.0
P(L S L< x < U S L) = P(0 < z < 1.5) + P(0 < z < 3.0).
The above variable x represents the process output and z has a standard normal
distribution. The potential proportion conforming is given directly by Cp (see table 1).
Table 2 also demonstrates how the stepwise loss function interpretation has led
to the use of capability indices to direct process improvement activities. For the process
represented by the second row of the table, the current proportion conforming is
93.184%. The comparison Cpk < Cp indicates that the process mean is off-center and

K. Palmer, K.-L. Tsui y A review and interpretations of process capability indices

39

conformance may be improved by adjusting the mean. When the process is centered,
Cpk = Cp = 0.75, and the proportion conforming becomes 97.555%. Since Cp < 1.0,
reductions in process variation will be required to attain a proportion conforming of
99.730.
Since the assumptions surrounding the original capability indices have been
challenged over the years, several modifications have been proposed in order to perpetuate the stepwise loss function interpretation. For example, the above discussion
relies heavily upon the assumption that the process distribution is normal. The interpretation of the original indices, in terms of proportion conforming, differs from that
described above when the process distribution is not normal. Clements [3] presented
generalized versions of Cp , Cpk , Cpu , and Cpl which are applicable to non-normal
distributions. His formulations are denoted here as Cp, Cpk
, Cpu
, and Cpl :
C p =

U S L L S L
,
P0.99865 P0.00135

U S L P0.5
P LSL
C pk = min
, 0.5
,
P0.99865 P0.5 P0.5 P0.00135

(7)

(8)

C pu =

U S L P0.5
,
P0.99865 P0.5

(9)

C pl =

P0.5 L S L
,
P0.5 P0.00135

(10)

where P is the 100 percentile.

These indices are based upon the concept that a Cp value of 1.0 should continue
to represent a proportion conforming of 0.9973, the proportion enclosed by 3 in
the normal distribution. As a result, the formulations reduce to the original indices
when the process distribution is normal. The use of percentiles provides Cp, Cpk
, Cpu
,
and Cpl applicability to any distribution for which the percentiles can be estimated,
including both symmetric and asymmetric non-normal distributions. Clements method
for estimating the percentiles involved calculation of the skewness and kurtosis from
stable process data, which could then be compared to tabulated values for the Pearson
family of distributions. These indices can directly replace the original indices in most
applications. However, the proportions conforming only match those of the normal
distribution at index values of 1.0.
Another modified index which follows the same line of thought is that of Johnson
et al. [9]. They proposed the index Cp (), remarking that should be chosen so as to
represent a similar proportion conforming over many distributions. To accomplish
this end, they recommended = 5.15, which achieves a stable proportion conforming
of 0.9900 over several chi-squared distributions:

40

K. Palmer, K.-L. Tsui y A review and interpretations of process capability indices

C p ( ) =

U S L L S L
.

(11)

A modification which appears to have a motivation similar to that underlying Cp

and Cp () was proposed by Chan et al. [1]. They suggested the use of tolerance intervals, rather than percentiles or multiples of , as an alternative representation of the
process variability. In theory, this method can be applied to any process distribution
because no assumptions are made regarding the shape of the distribution. However, in
practice, the sample size must be very large in order to estimate the interval with
sufficient certainty. A sample size of 1000 or more measurements is required to estimate an interval covering 99.73% of the distribution (Kotz and Johnson [14]).
Each of the modifications to this point maintains the property that an increasing
index value indicates an increasing proportion conforming. The specific proportions
for differing distributions, however, can only be made to match at a single index value,
as was discussed in the case of Cp .
Asymmetric loss functions have also offered researchers a motivation to develop
modifications of the original indices in order to extend the stepwise loss function
interpretation. The stepwise loss function shown in figure 1 not only assumes that all
process output falling within the specification limits is equally good, it also assumes
that all results falling outside the specification limits are equally bad (a symmetric
loss function). What would happen if, for some reason, it was preferable for nonconforming process output to either fall below the lower specification limit or above
the upper specification limit?
Kane [13] observed that Springer [19] had shown the specification midpoint
would not be the most economical point to position the process mean if an asymmetric
loss function existed. Hunter and Kartha [8] and Nelson [15] had also developed target
values for the one-sided specification situation. Kane [13] proposed modifications to
*
*
*
Cp , Cpk , k, Cpu , and Cpl for these cases, denoted here as Cp* , C pk
, k *, C pu
, and C pl
:
C*p = min

T L S L U SL
,
3
3

T
,

* , C * ),
C *pk = min(C pl
pu

(12)
(13)

k* =

T
,
min(T L S L, U S L T)

(14)

* =
C pl

T L S L
|T |
1
,
3

T L S L

(15)

C*pu =

U S L T
|T |
1
,
3
U S L T

(16)

where T is the process target value.

K. Palmer, K.-L. Tsui y A review and interpretations of process capability indices

41

While these indices may share some conceptual features with the original indices,
they do not share all of the original indices characteristics. The index Cp* represents
the relative size of the smaller semi-tolerance, rather than the relative size of the entire
specification range per Cp . (The semi-tolerances are the distances between the target
and the specification limits.) The potential of the process is now interpreted in terms
of the ability of the distribution half-width to fit within the smaller semi-tolerance.
*
The behavior of the indices Cpl* and Cpu
is demonstrated in figure 3. These indices
have maxima which are realized when = T. (The indices Cpl and Cpu do not have
*
upper limits.) The upper limit for Cpl* is (T LSL) 3. The upper limit for Cpu
is
*
(USL T) 3 . Note that these values are the arguments of the min function in C p . As

*
Figure 3. Comparison of Cpl* (solid) and Cpu
(dashed).

the mean shifts away from the target, the index value decreases linearly. When the
mean has shifted by a distance equal to or exceeding the respective semi-tolerance,
the index value becomes zero.
*
*
The index Cpk
is defined as the minimum of C pl* and Cpu
. Figure 3 demonstrates
*
that the index related to the smaller semi-tolerance, Cpu in this case, produces the
*
smaller value throughout the specification range. Therefore, Cpk
has a maximum value
*
*
equal to Cp , which is attained when = T. Also, Cpk will have a value of zero whenever the mean is shifted away from the target by a distance equal to or exceeding the
smaller semi-tolerance. The index Cpk only has a value of zero when the mean is at or
outside the specification limits.
The index k* indicates the direction that lies away from the target and the
magnitude of the required adjustment, relative to the size of the smaller semi-tolerance.

42

K. Palmer, K.-L. Tsui y A review and interpretations of process capability indices

As was the case for k, we believe that it is valuable for k* to retain its sign, rather than
being defined as an absolute value according to Kane.
The result of these modifications it that the centering assumption has been
*
*
replaced by a targeting assumption. The indices Cpl* , Cpu
, and Cpk
indicate relative
distance from the target. A shift in the mean away from the target, even if it is in the
direction of improved conformance, will produce a decrease in the index value. The
potential of the process, represented by Cp*, is assumed to be realized when = T.
This assumption, however, begins to violate the spirit of the stepwise loss function
interpretation.
*
The indices Cp*, Cpk
, and k * may be used as direct replacements for Cp , Cpk , and
k in the roadmap of section 2.2. However, if the process standard deviation is large in
comparison to the specification width, then an appreciably greater proportion conforming will be realized by adjusting the process mean to the specification midpoint, rather
than the target (assuming a normal process distribution). The effect of adjusting the
*
process to make Cpk
= Cp* will be to trade off a fraction of the maximum possible
proportion conforming against the cost of producing noncomforming output in the
less desirable region.
3.2. Quadratic loss function interpretation
The quadratic loss function interpretation holds that there exists an ideal target
value for each process and any deviation from the target value is detrimental, even
within the specification limits. Large deviations from the target are considered to be
worse than small deviations. The defining characteristic of the penalty function is that
it only takes on a value of zero when process output is at the target; otherwise, the
penalty is proportional to the square of the deviation from the target.
All indices that follow the quadratic loss function interpretation include terms
which are related, more or less strongly, to the expectation of the squared deviations
from the process target value:
EX [(X T) 2 ] = 2 + ( T)2 .

(17)

This is the quadratic loss function which was popularized by Taguchi. Because
each of the indices in this category is scaled by the quadratic loss function, rather than
simply the variance, none of them have a clear interpretation in terms of the proportion
conforming, with the exception of Cp .
As an alternative to the notion of proportion conforming, the quadratic loss is
interpreted as a measure of economic penalty. The ideal process (all output lying
exactly on target) is assumed to be the most economically advantageous. When process
output varies from the target, an economic loss is assumed to exist. The loss can be
viewed either in terms of extraneous manufacturing cost or in terms of extraneous
utilization cost for the product. From this point of view, the quadratic loss is the
predominant quality measure of the process. Process improvement becomes a continuous effort to reduce loss, rather than an effort to achieve 100% conformance to

K. Palmer, K.-L. Tsui y A review and interpretations of process capability indices

43

specification. The use of process capability indices, which appeal to the specification
limits, emphasizes standardization of the loss for process to process comparisons.
The first index to be developed that explicitly used a loss function formulation
was Cpm . It was proposed independently by Hsiang and Taguchi [7] and by Chan
et al. [2]:
U S L L S L
C pm =
.
(18)
6 2 + ( T )2
This index attains its maximum value when = T, and will decrease in value
symmetrically, in a bell-shaped pattern, as the process mean shifts away from the
target value. See figure 4. If the process mean is at the target value, then Cpm = Cp . So,
Cp is the upper limit for Cpm; and Cp retains its meaning as the process potential under
the quadratic loss function interpretation.

Figure 4. Comparisons of Cpk (solid), Cpm (dotted), and Cpmk (dashed).

44

K. Palmer, K.-L. Tsui y A review and interpretations of process capability indices

Unlike Cpk , the value of Cpm does not go to zero at the specification limits. The
value of the index Cpm is independent of the closeness of to the specification limits.
Only the distance between and the target is considered. The entire curve for Cpm
shifts with the target value, regardless of the actual locations of the specification limits.
Recall that the target value is not necessarily the specification midpoint value. So, as
long as and the specification width remain fixed, the shape of the Cpm curve will
remain fixed too.
The fact that Cpm indicates the reduction in process capability due to shifts in the
process mean away from the target suggests that the pair of indices Cp and Cpm could
be used to direct process improvement activities in a manner similar to the roadmap
of section 2.2. The revised roadmap would be as follows:
Step 1 . Obtain simultaneous estimates of Cp and Cpm .
Step 2 . If Cp < 1.0, then identify and remove sources of process variability.
Step 3 . If Cpm < Cp , then evaluate .
(a) If > T, then adjust the process location to decrease the process mean
until Cpm = Cp .
(b) If < T, then adjust the process location to increase the process mean
until Cpm = Cp .
This version of the roadmap calls for variability reduction prior to adjustments
in process location. The order of the activities has been reversed because the overriding
concern, under the quadratic loss function interpretation, is variability reduction. It is
assumed that process location adjustments are a relatively simple matter. Since process
mean shifts may occur during variability reduction efforts, the process mean is only
adjusted after Cp achieves its desired value.
Furthermore, immediate adjustments to the process location will not necessarily
result in improved performance relative to the specifications. If Cp < 1.0 and the target
is not the specification midpoint, then adjusting the process location to the target may
result in a reduced proportion conforming (assuming a normal process distribution).
The immediate benefits of adjusting the process location, referred to in section 2.2,
only occur when the target is the specification midpoint. However, as long as LSL <
< USL is true, variability reduction will increase the proportion conforming.
Of course, it is usually the case that the target value for a two-sided specification
is the specification midpoint. So, the important point to focus upon is that the quadratic
loss function interpretation considers the ideal process to be one which is invariably
on-target. The primary goal is to reduce variability. This is the motivation for developing a loss function which penalizes off-target process ouput that falls within the
specification limits, and the predominant reason for the change in the roadmap.
An index which attempts to harmonize the characteristics of Cpm and Cpk is Cpmk ,
which was proposed by Pearn et al. [16]:

K. Palmer, K.-L. Tsui y A review and interpretations of process capability indices

C pmk =

min( L S L, U S L )
.
3 2 + ( T)2

45

(19)

The Cpmk index does have a value of zero when is at the specification limits,
like Cpk ; so, it will indicate closeness of to the specification limits. This is a desirable
characteristic that is not shared by Cpm . But as figure 4 demonstrates, when the target
value is not the specification midpoint, the maximum value for Cpmk is not the same as
the maximum for Cpk and Cpm , namely, the Cp value. In addition, the process location
where the maximum is attained is not readily determined. These facts suggest that the
ideal process characteristics underlying Cpmk cannot be easily stated. Therefore, it is
not practical to use this index for directing process improvement activities.
The undesirable characteristics presented by Cpmk are caused by the decision to
modify the numerator of Cpm in order to force the index to a value of zero when is
at a specification limit. It is possible to nearly achieve this desirable result by modifying the denominator of Cpm .
The rate at which the value of Cpm decreases, as moves away from the target,
depends upon the relative size of the process variance in comparison to the square of
the process bias ( T)2. The rate can be controlled by adjusting the weight of the
bias term in the index. This is the concept employed in the formulation of the index
Cpm (a), an adapted version of the index proposed by Kotz and Johnson [14]:
C pm (a) =

U S L L S L
.
2 + a( T)2

(20)

The Cpm (a) index will always have Cp as an upper limit, and will always attain
its maximum value when = T. In addition, its formulation allows the investigator
unlimited flexibility in defining the relative contribution of the process variance and
process bias components of the loss function. The value of a may be selected in
accordance with the location of the target, so that the index value approaches zero
when is near the specification limits. As a result, for the purpose of directing process
*
improvement activities, Cpm (a) presents an attractive alternative to both Cpk
and Cpmk .
4.

Recommendations

The selection of a practical set of capablility indices, for use in directing process
improvement activities, should be based upon the stated requirements of the customer
and the current ability of the process to satisfy those requirements. Below, we give
some guidelines for selection.
(1)

If the customer has given a one-sided specification, use Cpl or Cpu , as appropriate.

(2)

If the customer has given a two-sided specification and the current proportion
conforming is less than 95%, use Cp , Cpk and k.
If the customer has given a two-sided specification and the current proportion
conforming is between 95% and 99%, use Cpm (a) and Cp .

(3)

46

(4)

K. Palmer, K.-L. Tsui y A review and interpretations of process capability indices

If the customer has given a two-sided specification and the current proportion
conforming is greater than 99%, use Cpm and Cp .

Among the indices formulated for one-sided specification situations, Cpl and Cpu
are the easiest to implement and interpret. For a process with a stable , they will
provide a measure of the remaining working margin that will change linearly as the
process mean shifts. As the mean is adjusted in the correct direction, Cpl and Cpu will
*
increase monotonically (unlike Cpl* and Cpu
, which decrease in value after the mean
passes the target). Finally, the effort required to generate C pl and Cpu is not justified
by the advantage of all process distributions indicating the same proportion conforming when the index value is 1.0.
In the case of two-sided specifications, the selection of indices is dictated by the
nature of the current process improvement challenge. When the current proportion
conforming is less than 95%, the overriding concern should be to increase the proportion conforming. Among the indices in the stepwise loss function grouping, the original
indices are the easiest to use. Even though application of the original indices is straightforward, the introduction of new operating procedures always creates some level of
confusion in the workplace. The possible benefits of using more complex formulations
(such as Cp, Cpk
, or Cp ()) are outweighed by the additional confusion that they may
create, even for non-normal process distributions.
When the current proportion conforming is between 95% and 99%, process performance is in a region where the level of conformance is becoming a given, on the
percentage scale. It is becoming more important to concentrate on a targeting approach.
However, it is also necessary to maintain some awareness of working margins. The
index Cpm (a) can be set up, by appropriate selection of a, to indicate the size of the
working margin, similar to Cpk , while beginning to introduce the characteristics of the
*
quadratic loss function. The index Cpk
is a less desirable substitute for Cpm (a) because
*
*
Cpk requires Cp to indicate appropriate adjustment of the mean, and Cp* is a less readily
interpreted indicator of potential process performance relative to the specification
limits than Cp is.
When the current proportion conforming is greater than 99%, conformance on
the percentage scale is virtually guaranteed, if the process remains on target. Targeting should therefore become the overriding philosophy. The index Cpm is the simplest
of the quadratic loss function based indices available. The index Cpm (a) is a potential
replacement if the weighting of bias versus variance becomes an important consideration. Use of Cpmk as a replacement for Cpm introduces unneccessary complexity in
both application and interpretation.
References
[1]

L.K. Chan, S.W. Cheng and F.A. Spiring, The robustness of process capability index Cp to departures
from normality, in: Statistical Theory and Data Analysis, II, ed. K. Matusita, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1988, pp. 223229.

K. Palmer, K.-L. Tsui y A review and interpretations of process capability indices

[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]

[8]
[9]

[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]

47

L.K. Chan, S.W. Cheng and F.A. Spiring, A new measure of process capability: Cpm , Journal of
Modeling and Simulation 11(1988)16.
J.A. Clements, Process capability calculations for non-normal distributions, Quality Progress 22(9)
(1989)95100.
A.V. Feigenbaum, Quality Control, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1951, pp. 383389.
F.M. Gryna, Quality Control Handbook, ed. J.M. Juran, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1988, pp. 16.14
16.35, 4th ed.
J.T. Herman, Capability index enough for process industries?, ASQC Annual Quality Congress
Transactions , Toronto, 1989, pp. 670675.
T.C. Hsiang and G. Taguchi, A tutorial on quality control and assurance the Taguchi methods,
unpublished presentation given at the Annual Meetings of the American Statistical Association, Las
Vegas, NV, 1985.
W.G. Hunter and C.P. Kartha, Determining the most profitable target value for a production process,
Journal of Quality Technology 9(1977)176181.
N.L. Johnson, S. Kotz and W.L. Pearn, Flexible process capability indices, Institute of Statistics
Mimeo Series, No. 2072, Department of Statistics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC,
1992.
J.M. Juran, Quality Control Handbook , McGraw-Hill, New York, 1951, pp. 253279 and 404409.
J.M. Juran, Quality Control Handbook, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1962, pp. 11-1411-27,
J.M. Juran and F.M. Gryna, Quality Planning and Analysis, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York,
1980, pp. 283295.
V.E. Kane, Process capability indices, Journal of Quality Technology 18(1986)4152.
S. Kotz and N.J. Johnson, Process Capability Indices, Chapman and Hall, London, 1993, pp.
121127.
L.S. Nelson, Best target value for a production process, Journal of Quality Technology 10(1978)
8889.
W.L. Pearn, S. Kotz and N.L. Johnson, Distributional and inferential properties of process control
indices, Journal of Quality Technology 24(1992)216231.
R.N. Rodriguez, Recent developments in process capability analysis, Journal of Quality Technology
24(1992)176187.
W.A. Shewhart, Economic Control of Quality of Manufactured Products, D. Van Nostrand, New
York, 1931, pp. 249272.
C.H. Springer, A method for determining the most economical position of a process mean, Industrial
Quality Control 8(1951)3639.
L.P. Sullivan, Reducing variability: A new approach to quality, Quality Progress 17(7)(1984)1521.
L.P. Sullivan, Letters, Quality Progress 18(4)(1985)78.