Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 23:51 24 November 2015 (PT)
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management
A process incapability index
Michael Greenwich Betty L. JahrSchaffrath
Article information:
To cite this document:
Michael Greenwich Betty L. JahrSchaffrath, (1995),"A process incapability index", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 12 Iss 4 pp. 58  71 Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded on: 24 November 2015, At: 23:51 (PT) References: this document contains references to 9 other documents. To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 432 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Mats Deleryd, (1998),"On the gap between theory and practice of process capability studies", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 15 Iss 2 pp. 178191 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656719810204892
JannPygn Chen, Cherng G. Ding, (2001),"A new process capability index for nonnormal distributions", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 18 Iss 7 pp. 762770 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656710110396076
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emeraldsrm:581774 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 23:51 24 November 2015 (PT)
IJQRM
12,4
58
Received July 1993 Revised April 1994
A process incapability index
Michael Greenwich and Betty L. JahrSchaffrath
Department of Mathematics, Computer Science and Statistics, Purdue University Calumet, Hammond, Indiana, USA
Introduction There have been a number of process capability indices proposed over the years for the purpose of assessing the capability of a process to meet certain
indices and
specifications. Kane[l] investigated comprehensively the C
index takes into account the process
variation as well as the location of the process mean relative to the specification
their estimators. Generally, the C
p
and C
pk
pk
limits while the C
Chan et al.[2] developed the C
index in order to take into account the
departure of the process mean from the target (nominal) value. The C _{p}_{m} index is defined mathematically as
p
index reflects only the magnitude of the process variation.
pm
C pm ^{=}
USL – LSL
6
where
=
EX [(
T
)
2 ],
USL is the upper specification limit, LSL is the lower specification limit and T is the target (nominal) value such that LSL < T < USL. A general form of C _{p}_{m} is C* _{p}_{m} which was defined by Chan et al.[2] as
C
* D
pm
=
,
where D = min[(USL – T)/3, (T – LSL)/3].
In this article, ^{C}^{*} _{p}_{m} is used for both C _{p}_{m} and ^{C}^{*} _{p}_{m}
where C _{p}_{m} needs to be specified) since C _{p}_{m} is merely a special case of ^{C}^{*} _{p}_{m} where
USL – T = T – LSL. Unfortunately, the statistical properties of the estimator,
(except in those instances
ˆ
C
are analytically intractable, regardless of the choices for the variation
estimator, ˆ ^{2} , and the mean estimator, ˆ . This process capability index is also
for
^{C}^{*} pm
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, 1995, pp. 5871, © MCB University Press,
0265671X
The research for this article was supported partially by the School of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Purdue University Calumet. The authors also wish to thank Mr R.J. Whittaker and his Integrated Process Control Group, LTV Steel Co., for their support.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 23:51 24 November 2015 (PT)
^{C}^{*} _{p}_{m} is
identical to the process capability index proposed by Taguchi[5]. A table which
discussed in Spiring’s article[3]. Boyles[4] pointed out that the index
ˆ
gives the critical values that C
at various significance levels was provided by Boyles[4].
, will be introduced in this
index can be regarded as a process capability index or more
precisely as a process incapability index. Since the transformation is bijective,
the C _{p}_{p} index contains the same information as that of ^{C}^{*} _{p}_{m}
(the departure of the process mean, , from the target value, T) and imprecision
(the magnitude of the process variation, ^{2} ). Moreover, the C
an uncontaminated separation between information concerning the process accuracy and precision while this kind of information separation is not
is employed to assess process
available with the
capability because the process accuracy is of significance. Therefore, this information separation is highly beneficial because it indicates to what degree the process inaccuracy contributes to the process being incapable of meeting the specifications.
article. This C
_{p}_{m} must exceed in order to conclude that C _{p}_{m} > 1
^{C}^{*} _{p}_{m} index, C _{p}_{p}
; namely, inaccuracy
pp
index provides
A simple transformation of the
pp
^{C}^{*} _{p}_{m} index. Often, ^{C}^{*} _{p}_{m}
A process
incapability
index
59
Recently, Pearn et al.[6] introduced a new (socalled “third generation”)
, in an attempt to detect a smaller departure of the
process mean from the target value. However, the degree of this process
inaccuracy (large or small) is indicated explicitly with C
index is
information separation by the transformation. Moreover, since the C
sensitive to the process inaccuracy, it may produce a small value for a process, indicating that the process is not capable of meeting the specification although
the process has a high proportion (for instance, greater than 99.73 per cent) of
conforming output. The same is true for C
since they are less sensitive to process inaccuracy). The separated information
can be used to segregate processes (which are indicated to be less capable by a process capability index) between those with a high proportion of conforming output and those with a low proportion of conforming output.
(but to a lesser extent
process capability index, C
pmk
as a result of the
pmk
pp
and C
pp
pm
The process incapability index, C _{p}_{p} Let C _{p}_{p} be defined as
C
pp
=
That is,
C
pp = ^{}
1
C
_{*}
pm
D
2
,
and, since ^{2} = (
2
.
– T) ^{2} + ^{2} , it follows that
1
()
Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 23:51 24 November 2015 (PT)
IJQRM
12,4
60
C pp = ^{}
2
D
2
,
()2
where is the process mean and ^{2} is the process variance. Due to the relation
(1), C
specifications and a larger value for a less capable process. A process is most
= 0. For this, the process mean must be at the process target
capable when C
( = T ) and the process variance must be zero ( ^{2} = 0). Any nonzero value of
indicates some degree of incapability of the process. Thus, C _{p}_{p} is a process
assumes a smaller value for a process more capable of meeting its
pp
pp
by plotting the contours of C _{p}_{p} = k for
pp
C pp
incapability index. A ( , ) plot can be constructed for C
various k values. They are a set of ( , ) values satisfying the equation,
( – T ) ^{2} + ^{2} = kD ^{2} .
These contours are semicircles centred at = T with radius √k ^{–} D, which are the
same as those of C
capable the process, the smaller the semicircle is. This geometric interpretation
of C
The first and second terms of the righthand side of (2) exclusively and respectively reflect the process inaccuracy (departure of the process mean from
the process target) and the process imprecision (process variation). This decomposition (noncontaminated information separation) is not available with
. If the process variation is negligible (that is, the second term is close to
^{C}^{*} pm
zero), then C
= 1, the process mean, µ, is located within onethird of the
distance between the target, T, and the nearest specification limit. The right
hand side of (2) also shows that if the process shifts away from its target, then
increases. When the
process mean and variance both change, C
This indicates that C
capability, using both the departure from the target value and the magnitude of the process variation.
Let ( – T ) ^{2} /D ^{2} be denoted by C _{i}_{a} (inaccuracy index) and ( /D) ^{2} by C _{i}_{p} (imprecision index), then
^{C} pp ^{=} ^{C} ia ^{+} ^{C} ip ^{.} The inaccuracy index is the squared ratio of the distance between the process mean and the process target to onethird of the distance between the process target and the nearest specification limit. The imprecision index is the squared ratio of the process standard deviation to onethird of the distance between the process target and the nearest specification limit. Since the denominators are identical, these subindices provide the relative magnitudes of the contributions to the process in capability indicated by C _{p}_{p} . In fact,
= c = 1/(√k ^{–} D) plotted in Boyles[4, Figure 5]. The more
pm
is immediate from the transformation (1).
pp
provides a concrete measure of process centring.
pp
pp
For instance, if C
C _{p}_{p} increases. If the process variance increases, then C _{p}_{p}
pp
pp
reflects these changes additively.
has the necessary properties for assessing process
Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 23:51 24 November 2015 (PT)
C
100
ia
C
pp
and
C
100
ip
C
pp
provide the proportions of the process incapability contributed by the departure of the process mean from the target and by the process variation, respectively. An example of three processes with LSL = 10, T = 13 and USL = 16 is given
fails to distinguish
between ontarget and offtarget processes. The three processes are A
in Pearn et al.[6, Figure 2] and is used to illustrate that C
pm
distributed as N(13.00, 1.00), B distributed as N(13.50, 0.87) and C distributed as N(13.87, 0.50) where N( , ) stands for a normal distribution with mean and
standard deviation . The value of C
is one for each of A, B and C and, hence,
also fails to distinguish between ontarget and offtarget processes.
) are (0, 1) for A, (0.25, 0.75) for B and (0.75, 0.25)
C pp
pp
However, the values of (C _{i}_{a} , C
for C. These processes are clearly distinguished by the separated information.
The values of the indices for the three processes are summarized in Table I.
has failed to overcome is that it cannot
distinguish processes of high conforming output proportions from those of low
can
occur from B, which has high conforming output, as well as from a process
distributed as N(13, 1.20) with the same LSL, USL and T, which has low conforming output.
All three processes given in Pearn et al.[6, Figure 2] are capable because their conforming output proportions (COP) are higher than or equal to 99.73 per cent.
, produces a value of 1.00 for A, a value
The new process capability index, C
of 0.83 for B and a value of 0.71 for C although the conforming output
proportion of C is higher than that of B, which is, in turn, higher than that of A.
The same result happens to C
( – T  > D) of the process mean from the target value. This is illustrated by
Pearn et al.[6, Figure 1]. In the figure, three processes (A of N(14.00, 4/3), B of N(16.00, 2/3) and C of N(13.87, 1/2)) are presented with LSL = 10, T = 14 and
USL = 18. The values of C
(C _{p}_{p} ) are 1.00 (1.00), 0.63 (2.50) and 0.44 (5.13) for the three
Those of C
processes respectively. With these values, all three indices indicate that B and C
are not capable. However, they are highly capable of turning out a high proportion of products that meet the specifications. The values of the indices for the three processes are summarized in Table II.
ip
One disadvantage that C
pmk
conforming output proportions. For instance, the value of 0.83 for C
pmk
pmk
, but to a lesser degree, with a larger departure
pm
are respectively 1.00, 0.32 and 0.11 for A, B and C.
pmk
pm
A process
incapability
index
61
^{C} pkm 
^{C} pp 
^{C} ia 
^{C} ip 
^{C} cop 

A 
1.00 
1.00 
0.00 
1.00 
1.00 
B 
0.83 
1.00 
0.25 
0.75 
1.00 
C 
0.71 
1.00 
0.75 
0.25 
1.00 
Table I. Values of various indices for processes, A, B and C
Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 23:51 24 November 2015 (PT)
IJQRM
12,4
62
The two subindices can be used to identify processes with high conforming output proportions by computing
C
cop
=
≤ 1, then the process has a conforming output proportion of at least 99.73
If C
per cent (assuming normality). The values of C
Pearn et al.[6, Figure 2] are all identical to 1, indicating that these three
processes are indeed capable of producing at least 99.73 per cent of the time products which meet the specifications. If another process is distributed as
N(17, 1/4), then C _{p}_{m} = 0.44 and C _{p}_{p} = 5.10 (C _{i}_{a} = 81/16 and C _{i}_{p} = 9/256) for the
same process target and specification limits as in Pearn et al.[6, Figure 2].
However, C
assuming normality) conforming output proportion.
cop
for the three processes in
cop
is 0.75, indicating a very high (far greater than 99.73 per cent,
cop
Confidence intervals for C
Let X be the normally distributed process quality characteristic of interest, and
X _{1} ,…, X _{n} be a random sample of n observations of X taken while the process is in control. It is assumed that such a normal sample of a relatively small sample
size n is available for inference on C
usual sample mean and variance respectively. Kushler and Hurley[7] compared the performances of a variety of confidence
bounds (intervals) for C
using the actual “miss rates” of the different
confidence intervals. The “miss rate” is the probability of a confidence interval
. If the method (and the approximation used in the
method) of constructing a confidence interval is good, then the “miss rate” is close to the nominal rate of in the 100(1 – ) confidence. According to the “miss rates” comparisons, the method suggested by Boyles[4] performs better overall than other methods such as the central _{} ^{2} method, the Bonferroni
missing the true value of C
and s ^{2} denote the
based on a small sample
pp
–
in this section. Let X
pp
pm
pm
method and the method suggested by Chan et al.[2]. The unbiased estimator for _{} ^{2} ,
ˆ
2
=
i
n
(
= 1
X
i
T
)
2
n
,
() 3
Table II. Values of various indices for processes, A, B and C
^{C} pkm 
^{C} pm 
^{C} pp 
^{C} cop 

A 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 
B 
0.32 
2.50 
0.63 
1.00 
C 
0.11 
5.13 
0.44 
1.00 
Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 23:51 24 November 2015 (PT)
will be used in this article. This estimator was originally proposed by Taguchi[5] and used by Boyles[4]. The variance of the estimator is smaller than the mean squared error of the biased estimator proposed by Chan et al.[2]. Under normality, the estimator ˆ is also the maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) for . Using (3), an unbiased and consistent point estimator for C _{p}_{p} can be obtained as
C ˆ
^{ˆ}
2
pp ^{=}
D
2
.
Intervals with 100(1 – ) per cent confidence for C
approximating a noncentral ^{2} distribution with a scaled ^{2} distribution by
equating the first two moments of the distributions. This is the same approximation method used by Boyles[4] in obtaining confidence intervals for
^{C}
will be obtained by
pp
pm
.
The quantity ˆ ^{2} / ^{2} is approximately distributed as ^{2} _{m} /m where
A process
incapability
index
63
This means that the pivotal quantity is approximately distributed as ^{2} _{m} /m since
ˆ
C
ˆ
2
pp
=
C
pp
2
.
Then, an approximate 100 (1 –
ˆ
mC
ˆ
pp
ˆ
mC
ˆ
pp
) confidence interval for
cup (
/
2 ;
ˆ )
m
,
cup (
12 / ;
m ˆ ) ,
C
pp
is given as
() 4
where cup( p; k) is the upper p percentage point of the ^{2} distribution with k degrees of freedom, mˆ is the MLE for m given as
2
Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 23:51 24 November 2015 (PT)
IJQRM
12,4
64
*
s
(
n
1
)
sn
2
/.
C
ˆ
mC
pp
pp
cup (
;
ˆ )
m
and
vals) for
ˆ
=
The lower and upper 100(1
ˆ
mC
ˆ
pp
)
.
) confidence bounds (inter
()
5
are respectively
,
•
and
0,
cup (
1
;
ˆ
m
The upper confidence bound is likely to be of interest. An unbiased and consistent point estimator for C _{i}_{p} can be defined obtained as
C
ip
ˆ s
=
D
2
2
.
An unbiased and consistent point estimator for
C ia
can be obtained as
nD 2
C ia
but it is biased by the factor
This bias factor shows that the quantity is asymptotically unbiased but could be considerably biased for a small sample size, n, and a large standard deviation, . Table III shows 30 computergenerated observations (rounded to three decimal places) using a normal distribution with mean 13.50 and standard
deviation 13/15. Using a process target of 13 and upper and lower specification
limits of 16 and 10, respectively, C
and estimates for
and the observations in Table III, confidence intervals for C
the subindices will be determined as an example. A 95 per cent confidence level
will be used.
= 1.00 results. Using the same USL, LSL, T
pp
pp
Table III.
Computergenerated
normal observations
12.921 
13.363 
14.632 
15.270 
12.727 
14.281 
13.626 
13.468 
12.664 
13.040 
13.588 
14.656 
13.556 
11.920 
13.117 
14.528 
12.417 
13.906 
14.497 
12.453 
11.951 
14.639 
12.852 
13.367 
11.901 
13.409 
14.807 
12.874 
13.705 
13.275 
Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 23:51 24 November 2015 (PT)
^
is 1.01 with the twosided 95 per cent confidence
interval of [0.65, 1.75] by (4). This interval is equivalent to the 95 per cent
confidence interval of [0.76, 1.24] for C
intervals for C
respectively to the onesided 95 per cent confidence intervals, (0, 1.20] and [0.79,
• ), for C
95 per cent confidence intervals contain the true C
of 0.75. The
point estimate C _{i}_{a} for C _{i}_{a} is 0.18 (1.01 – 0.83), determined by subtracting the
point estimate for C
process incapability due to inaccuracy is 17.8 per cent which is determined by
The point estimate of C
pp
_{p}_{m} . The onesided 95 per cent confidence
are [0.69, ∞) and (0, 1.60] by (5). These are equivalent
pp
. The estimate, 1.01, is close to the true value, 1.00, of C _{p}_{p} and these
^
^
ip
pp
.
is 0.83, slightly higher than the true C
ip
pp
. Thus, the estimated proportion of the
pm
The point estimate of C
^
^
ip
from that of C
dividing C _{i}_{a} by C
the imprecision is 82.2 per cent. Both estimates are close to the true proportions. These relative proportions suggest that the imprecision contributes more to the
incapability of the process and that, in order to improve the process, the process variation should be reduced before attempting to adjust the process to the target. Boyles[4] conducted simulation studies to assess the accuracy of the
approximate lower confidence bounds for C
same approximation. The accuracy of approximation was reported to be
satisfactory. This is expected to hold for the approximate confidence intervals
for C
bijective transformation of C _{p}_{m} and its confidence bounds.
and its confidence intervals are a
by the procedure based on the
. The estimated proportion of the process incapability due to
pp
pm
introduced in this section since C
pp
pp
Confidence intervals for C
Using a large sample sample (n ≥ 80), the confidence intervals both for C
and for its subindices are developed in this section. It is assumed that the process quality characteristic of interest X has the fourth moment (that is,
E(X ^{4} ) < • ), and that a large random sample of n observations of X was taken while the process was in control and is available for determining confidence intervals.
The estimators, developed in this section, for the indices are functions of the first four sample moments and hence they are asymptotically normally distributed due to a special case of Theorem B by Serfling[8] and corollary [8, p. 124] to Theorem A by Serfling[8]. Chan et al.[9] used the theorems and corollary to show that the wellknown
point estimators for C
The procedure used in this section is based on the asymptotic normality of the
and for its subindices. This extends the construction of
point estimators for C
confidence intervals for the indices of nonnormal processes. However, one needs to be careful about application of a process capability index for a non normal process because an index loses such a practical interpretation as the conforming output percentage of the process.
based on a large sample
pp
pp
p
, C
pp
pk
and C
are asymptotically normally distributed.
pm
A process
incapability
index
65
Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 23:51 24 November 2015 (PT)
IJQRM
12,4
66
Due to the theorems and the corollary by Serfling mentioned above,
ˆ
C pp
^{ˆ} 
2 
( 
X 
T 
) 
2 
* 
2 

s 

= 
= 
+ 

D 
2 
D 
2 
D 
2 
is asymptotically normally distributed with mean
C
pp
and variance
2
pp
/
n
where
represents the upper 100p per cent point of the standard
where generally z
normal distribution. Onesided 100(1 – ) per cent confidence intervals are
respectively,
p
and
0 ,
ˆ
Cz
pp
+
.
() 7
is asymptotically normally distributed with mean C _{i}_{a} and variance
_{i}_{a} 2 /n where
2
ia
=
(
4
T
)
2
2
D 4
–
.
By substituting X and s ^{*}^{2} for and ^{2} , an estimator for _{i}_{a} is obtained as
2
^{}
ˆ
2
ia
=
4 (
XTs )
^{}
2
*
2
D
4
.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 23:51 24 November 2015 (PT)
Using this estimator, a 100(1 – ) per cent confidence interval for C _{i}_{a} can be constructed as
ˆ
C
ia
z
/
2
ˆ
ia
ia
+
z
/
2
ˆ
ia
/
.
()
8
Onesided 100(1 – ) per cent confidence intervals are respectively,
ˆ
Cz
ia
ˆ
ia
/
, •
and
0 ,
ˆ
Cz
ia
+
ˆ
ia
.
() 9
Similarly, an estimator for C _{i}_{a} ,
2
ˆ s
C
ip ^{=}
D
2
,
is asymptotically normally distributed with mean C _{i}_{p} and variance _{}
2
ip
_{i}_{p} 2 /n where
By substituting s* ^{4} and M _{4} for ^{4} and _{4} , an estimator for
_{i}_{p} 2 is obtained as
^{}
ˆ
2
ip
=
M
4
* 4
s
D
4
.
A process
incapability
index
67
Using this estimator, a 100(1 – ) per cent confidence interval for C _{i}_{a} can be constructed as
+
ip
z
ˆ
/ 2
ip
() 10
Onesided 100(1 – ) per cent confidence intervals are respectively,
ˆ
Cz
ip
ˆ
ip
/
2
pp ^{,} ^{}
•
ˆ
Cz
ip
+
ˆ
ip
and
2
,
0
() 11
, are uncorrelated if
According to
the underlying distribution is symmetric (and hence _{3} = 0). If the process distribution is normal, then these estimators are independent as expected.
2
_{i}_{a} and
_{i}_{p} , the two subindices, C _{i}_{a} and
^{C}
ip
where C _{i}_{a} and C
asymptotically normally distributed with mean C _{c}_{o}_{p} and variance
ip
are estimators for C _{i}_{a} and C
ip
defined earlier in this section, is
_{c}_{o}_{p} 2 /n where
Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 23:51 24 November 2015 (PT)
IJQRM
12,4
68
2
cop
=
9
4
+
9
3
(
3 DT
+
4
)(
3
DT
+
)
3
+
9 (
4
4
)
4
2
( 3
DT
+
)
2
.
By using the same substitution with the sample moments, an estimator for is obtained as
^{}
ˆ
2 9 s
cop
=
*
4 9 M
3
+
(
3 DXT
+
)(
4
3 DXT
+
)
3
+
9 (
M
4
* 4
s
)
* 2
4
s
( 3
DXT
+
)
2
.
2
cop
Using this estimator, a 100(1 – ) per cent confidence interval for C _{i}_{a} can be constructed as
ˆ
C
cop
z
+
ip
z
/ 2
ˆ
cop
/
.
()
12
Onesided 100(1 – ) per cent confidence intervals are respectively,
ˆ
Cz
cop
ˆ /
cop
•
and
0 ,
ˆ
Cz
cop
+
.
() 13
In order to assess the accuracy of the approximate confidence intervals for C
^{C} ia ^{,} ^{C} ip ^{a}^{n}^{d} ^{C} cop
cent confidence levels. A simulation study consisted of taking 10,000 random samples from a process and constructing a confidence interval (based on each of the 10,000 samples) for every one of the four indices. The ratio of the number of confidence intervals that contain the index to 10,000 (the total number of intervals) is the observed coverage rate. The accuracy of the approximation can be measured by how close the observed coverage rate is to the significance level preset for the intervals. This simulation
study was conducted for normal and nonnormal processes using various sample sizes. The results of the simulation studies generally indicate that the observed coverage rates tend to be lower than the preset significance level but the approximation accuracy seems to be satisfactory for a sample size of 200 or greater. A typical result of one such study is given in Table IV. The observed coverage rates of 95 per cent twosided confidence intervals for the indices of the same normal process used as a numerical example in the last section are given. As expected, the accuracy is lower for a smaller sample size. Incidentally,
pp
,
, simulation studies were conducted for 95 per cent and 99 per
Table IV. The observed coverage rates
^{n} 
^{C} pp 
^{C} ia 
^{C} ip 
^{C} cop 
100 
93.57 
93.60 
92.51 
93.35 
200 
94.16 
94.10 
93.95 
94.26 
300 
94.51 
94.47 
95.25 
94.28 
400 
94.60 
94.21 
94.18 
94.66 
500 
94.59 
94.64 
94.13 
94.45 
Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 23:51 24 November 2015 (PT)
the width of a confidence interval for a given significance level becomes wider as the sample size gets smaller. Since the observed coverage rates are indicated to be generally lower than the confidence level, the approximation accuracy of the confidence intervals can be
improved by using in √n–k instead of √n as the denominator in (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12) and (13). For instance, further simulation studies indicate that the
denominator of √n – 16 seems to work well for normal processes in general. Table V shows the observed coverage rates of the same confidence intervals
A process
incapability
index
69
^{n} 
^{C} pp 
^{C} ia 
^{C} ip 
^{C} cop 
50 
95.56 
95.21 
94.60 
95.49 
60 
95.39 
95.00 
94.48 
95.25 
70 
95.15 
95.19 
94.82 
94.89 
80 
95.01 
95.07 
94.20 
94.88 
90 
95.06 
94.69 
94.24 
94.91 
100 
95.24 
95.26 
94.51 
95.25 
200 
94.84 
95.10 
94.67 
94.88 
300 
95.20 
95.08 
94.58 
95.10 
400 
95.00 
94.64 
94.67 
95.10 
500 
94.99 
94.99 
94.50 
94.77 
13.452 
13.312 
13.122 
12.740 
15.258 
12.276 
13.158 
14.473 
15.386 
13.971 
12.197 
13.973 
11.938 
14.971 
12.447 
13.883 
13.188 
14.450 
14.383 
13.375 
13.544 
13.316 
14.144 
12.490 
14.345 
13.341 
13.938 
13.003 
13.467 
11.968 
12.505 
11.487 
13.982 
12.702 
12.053 
12.315 
13.765 
13.852 
13.056 
14.664 
14.156 
14.592 
14.254 
12.505 
13.030 
13.228 
12.656 
13.680 
12.594 
14.135 
13.933 
13.895 
13.321 
13.020 
13.362 
13.193 
13.952 
15.123 
14.015 
13.346 
14.095 
12.686 
14.633 
12.661 
15.090 
13.548 
13.090 
13.780 
12.211 
13.418 
14.194 
14.144 
12.866 
14.068 
14.084 
12.925 
14.928 
12.074 
12.369 
12.765 
Table V. The observed coverage rates with √n – 16
Table VI.
Computergenerated
normal observations
Twosided 
Onesided 
Onesided 

C 
[0.68, 1.28] 
[0.72, • ) [0.05, • ) [0.58, • ) [0.89, • ) 
(0, 1.23] 

C 
_{p}_{p} ia 
[0.02, 0.42] 
(0, 0.39] 

C 
ip _{c}_{o}_{p} 
[0.54, 0.98] 
(0, 0.94] 

C 
[0.86, 1.21] 
(0, 1.18] 
Table VII. 95 per cent confidence intervals
Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 23:51 24 November 2015 (PT)
IJQRM
12,4
70
for the identical normal process as those listed in Table IV. However, this time,
√n – 16 is used with various sample size n. With the correction factor k = 16, the accuracy seems to be satisfactory for a
sample size as small as 50. However, the confidence interval, using √n – 16 for
the denominator, is wider than a confidence interval using √n. Table VI shows 80 computergenerated observations (rounded to three decimal places) from the same normal distribution used to generate the 30 observations in Table III. Using these 80 observations with the same target and
specification limits used in the example given in Table III, confidence intervals
for C
method introduced at the beginning of this section. The confidence level used is
95 per cent.
and its subindices will be constructed as an example of the large sample
pp
is 0.98 with the twosided 95 per cent confidence
interval of [0.68, 1.28] by (6) while the onesided 95 per cent confidence intervals
for C
ˆ
The point estimate of C
pp
are [0.72, ∞) and (0, 1.23] by (7). This estimate is close to the true value,
pp
and these 95 per cent confidence intervals contain the true C
ˆ
pp ^{.}
pp
1.00, of C
The point estimate of C _{i}_{a} is 0.22 with the twosided 95 per cent confidence interval of [0.02, 0.42] by (8) while the onesided 95 per cent confidence intervals
for C _{i}_{a} are [0.05, ∞) and (0, 0.39] by (9). This estimate is close to the true value, 0.25, of C _{i}_{a} and these 95 per cent confidence intervals contain the true C _{i}_{a} .
is 0.76 with the twosided 95 per cent confidence
interval of [0.54, 0.98] by (10) while the onesided 95 per cent confidence
intervals for C
true value, 0.75, of C _{i}_{p} and these 95 per cent confidence intervals contain the
true C
are [0.58, •) and (0, 0.94] by (11). This estimate is close to the
ˆ
The point estimate of C
ip
.
ip
ip
cop
cop
is 1.04 with the twosided 95 per cent
confidence interval of [0.86, 1.21] by (12) while the onesided 95 per cent
confidence intervals for C
are [0.89, • ) and (0, 1.18] by (13). This estimate is
and these 95 per cent confidence intervals
contain the true C
close to the true value, 1.03, of C
ˆ
Similarly, the point estimate of C
cop
cop
. These confidence intervals are summarized in Table VII.
pp
–
Using the confidence intervals developed in this section, a sample size of 80
and its subindices with adequate
accuracy as demonstrated with the simulation studies and numerical example
provides practical confidence intervals for C
given in Table VI. If a subgroup of size 5 is used for an Xchart to monitor a
process, 80 observations constitute 16 points on the chart. The number of observations, 80, is not prohibitively large for many processes.
References
1. 
Kane, V.E., “Process capability indices”, Journal of Quality Technology, Vol. 18, 1986, 

2. 
pp. 4152. Chan, L.K., Cheng, S.W. and Spiring, F.A., “A new measure of process capability: C _{p}_{m} ”, 

Journal of Quality Technology, Vol. 20, 1988, pp. 16275. 

3. 
Spiring, F.A., “The C _{p}_{m} index”, Quality Progress, Vol. 24 No. 2, 1991, pp. 5761. 
4. 
Boyles, R.A., “The Taguchi capability index”, Journal of Quality Technology, Vol. 23, 1991, 
A process incapability 

5. 
pp. 1726. Taguchi, G., “A tutorial on quality and assurance: the Taguchi methods”, ASA Annual 

Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, 1985. 
index 

6. 

capability indices”, Journal of Quality Technology, Vol. 24, 1992, pp. 21631. 

7. 
Kushler, R.H. and Hurley, P., “Confidence bounds for capability indices”, Journal of Quality 
71 

Technology, Vol. 24, 1992, pp. 18895. 

8. 
Serfling, R.J., Approximation Theorems of Mathematical Statistics, John Wiley & Sons, 

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 23:51 24 November 2015 (PT) 
9. 

capability indices”, Communications in Statistics – Theory and Methods, Vol. 19, 1990, pp. 1118. 
Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 23:51 24 November 2015 (PT)
This article has been cited by:
1. 
MouYuan Liao, ChienWei Wu, ChienHua Lin. 2015. Assessing True TFTLCD Process Quality in the Presence of Unavoidable Measurement Errors. Journal of Testing and Evaluation 43, 20140103. [CrossRef] 
2. 
MouYuan Liao. 2015. Assessing process incapability when collecting data from multiple batches. International Journal of Production Research 53, 20412054. [CrossRef] 
3. 
MouYuan Liao, ChienHua Lin, ChienWei Wu, ChienHui Yang. 2015. Reliable Confidence Intervals for Assessing Normal Process Incapability. Communications in Statistics  Simulation and Computation 0000. [CrossRef] 
4. 
Sajid Ali, Muhammad Riaz. 2014. On the generalized process capability under simple and mixture models. Journal of Applied Statistics 41, 832852. [CrossRef] 
5. 
İhsan Kaya. 2014. The process incapability index under fuzziness with an application for decision making. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems 7, 114128. [CrossRef] 
6. 
Young Dae Lee, Seok Jae Chu. 2013. Development of Program for Predicting GBD to Improve Canning Process Capability for Catalytic Converter. Transactions of the Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers A 37, 419427. [CrossRef] 
7. 
KwangKi Lee, ChanKyoung Park, SeungHo Han. 2009. Six Sigma Robust Design for Railway Vehicle Suspension. Transactions of the Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers A 33, 11321138. [CrossRef] 
8. 
J.C. Ke, Y.K. Chu, Y.T. Chung, P. C. Lin. 2009. Assessing nonnormally distributed processes by interval estimation of the incapability index C pp. Quality and Reliability Engineering International 25:10.1002/qre.v25:4, 427437. [CrossRef] 
9. 
JehNan Pan, ChunYi Lee. 2009. Development of a New Process Incapability Index with an Application to the Evaluation of Manufacturing Risk. Communications in Statistics  Theory and Methods 38, 11331153. [CrossRef] 
10. 
Daniel Grau. 2009. Moments of the unbalanced noncentral chisquare distribution. Statistics & Probability Letters 79, 361367. [CrossRef] 
11. 
GuHong Lin. 2009. A research note on the estimated incapability index. Yugoslav Journal of Operations Research 19, 215223. [CrossRef] 
12. 
JauChuan Ke, YunnKuang Chu, JerYan Lin. 2008. Comparing confidence limits for shortrun process incapability index Cpp. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 387, 32273238. [CrossRef] 
13. 
K.S. Chen, T.W. Chen. 2008. Multiprocess capability plot and fuzzy inference evaluation. International Journal of Production Economics 111, 7079. [CrossRef] 
14. 
GuHong Lin. 2007. A Bayesian approach based on multiple samples for measuring process performance with incapability index. International Journal of Production Economics 106, 506512. [CrossRef] 
15. 
GuHong Lin, WernKueir Jehng, KuangHan Hsieh, LaiWang Wang, ShunTe Lai. 2007. A Bayesian approach on monitoring process capability. Journal of Statistics and Management Systems 10, 241252. [CrossRef] 
16. 
K. S. Chen, M. L. Huang, P. L. Chang. 2006. Performance evaluation on manufacturing times. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 31, 335341. [CrossRef] 
17. 
GuHong Lin. 2006. A hypothesis testing procedure on assessing process performance. Journal of Statistics and Management Systems 9, 319339. [CrossRef] 
18. 
ChaoYu Chou, YuChang Lin, ChunLang Chang, ChungHo Chen. 2006. On the bootstrap confidence intervals of the process incapability index Cpp. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 91, 452459. [CrossRef] 
19. 
K. S. Chen, K. L. Chen. 2006. Supplier selection by testing the process incapability index. International Journal of Production Research 44, 589600. [CrossRef] 
20. 
K.L. Chen, K.S. Chen, R.K. Li. 2005. Suppliers capability and price analysis chart. International Journal of Production Economics 98, 315327. [CrossRef] 
21. 
M. L. Huang, K. S. Chen, R. K. Li. 2005. Graphical Analysis of Capability of a Process Producing a Product Family. Quality & Quantity 39, 643657. [CrossRef] 
22. 
K.S. Chen, K.L. Chen, R.K. Li. 2005. Contract manufacturer selection by using the process incapability index C pp. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 26, 686692. [CrossRef] 
23. 
HungChin Lin, GwoJi Sheen. 2005. Practical Implementation of the Capability Index C pk Based on the Control Chart Data. Quality Engineering 17, 371390. [CrossRef] 
24. 
Daniel Grau. 2005. Algebraic Relationship Between Symmetrical and Asymmetrical Capability Indices. Quality Engineering 17, 359370. [CrossRef] 
25. 
G.H. Lin. 2005. Process reliability assessment with a Bayesian approach. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 25, 392395. [CrossRef] 
Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 23:51 24 November 2015 (PT)
26. WenPei Sung, MingHsiang Shih, KuenSuan Chen. 2005. Evaluation method for the optimum seismic energy dissipation performance of displacement dependent seismicactive hydraulic damper. Journal of Statistics and Management Systems 8, 261273. [CrossRef]
27. Gu Hong Lin. 2004. Upper limits of the estimated incapability index: a practical application on the reliability assessment of printed circuit boards. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 24, 841846. [CrossRef]
28. C.C. Wu, H.L. Kuo, K.S. Chen. 2004. Implementing process capability indices for a complete product. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 24, 891898. [CrossRef]
29. WenPei Sung, KuenSuan Chen. 2004. Evaluation model for multiprocess capabilities of stranded wire. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 24, 425432. [CrossRef]
30. WenPei Sung, MingHsiang Shih, KuenSuan Chen. 2003. Analytical method for promoting process capability of shock absorption steel. Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE A 4, 388392. [CrossRef]
31. Michael Perakis, Evdokia Xekalaki. 2003. On a Process Capability Index for Asymmetric Specifications. Communications in Statistics  Theory and Methods 32, 14591492. [CrossRef]
32. P. C. Lin, W. L. Pearn, K. S. Chen. 2003. Distributional Properties and Implications of the Estimated Process Incapability Index Ĉ n pp. American Journal of Mathematical and Management Sciences 23, 7592. [CrossRef]
33. W.L Pearn, C.H Ko, K.H Wang. 2002. A multiprocess performance analysis chart based on the incapability index Cpp: an application to the chip resistors. Microelectronics Reliability 42, 11211125. [CrossRef]
34. W. L. Pearn, G. H. Lin. 2002. Estimated incapability index: reliability and decision making with sample information. Quality and Reliability Engineering International 18:10.1002/qre.v18:2, 141147. [CrossRef]
35. ChungHo Chen, ChaoYu Chou. 2002. A Note on Selecting Target and Process Capability Index Based on Fuzzy
Optimization. Economic Quality Control
[CrossRef]
36. W. L. Pearn, G. H. Lin. 2001. On the reliability of the estimated incapability index. Quality and Reliability Engineering International 17:10.1002/qre.v17:4, 279290. [CrossRef]
37. Kuen Suan Chen, Sheng‐Lung Kuo. 2000. An effective method for the activities of environmental analysis. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers 23, 575581. [CrossRef]
38. K. S. CHEN, W. L. PEARN, P. C. LIN. 1999. A NEW GENERALIZATION OF C pm FOR PROCESSES WITH ASYMMETRIC TOLERANCES. International Journal of Reliability, Quality and Safety Engineering 06, 383398. [CrossRef]
39. W. L. Pearn, K. L. Chen, C. H. Ko. 1999. 應應應應應應應應應應 C pp 應應應應應應 T T應應應應應. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Industrial Engineers 16, 519531. [CrossRef]
40. K.S. Chen. 1998. Estimation of the process incapability index. Communications in Statistics  Theory and Methods 27, 12631274. [CrossRef]
Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.
Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.
Jederzeit kündbar.