ANOVA – Analysis of Variance

Wednesday, April 25, 2018 10:55 PM

ANOVA stands for ‘Analysis of Variance’. It actually means analysis of variation in means
of different groups of a population or different populations. It is an advanced version of t –
test. While t-test is used to compare two means, ANOVA can be used for more than two
means.
What does an ANOVA do?
It studies whether the variation between group-means is due to an effect/treatment of it is
just a chance variation. It checks the ‘Between Group Variation’ and ‘Within Group
Variation’. If the treatment has a significant effect, then ‘Between Group Variation’ will be
significantly higher than ‘Within Group Variation’.
How to do an ANOVA test?
Assume an educational institute wants to check whether different modes of education like:
Visual aided teaching, practical learning, Self-learning through library & internet, have an
impact on the students’ performance. The management decided to assign 20 students to
each of the teaching methods. Their performance will be evaluated with an examination at
the end of treatment. The scores are collected and the mean scores of each of the methods
are also arrived.
ANOVA method is used to find out, if there is a difference between the mean values of the
three groups.
Like in all other Hypothesis Testing, the hypothesis of ANOVA is like:
Null hypothesis: Mean of all the three methods are equal
Alternate Hypothesis: There is a significant variation in mean in at least one of the
methods
1. Calculate the Sum of Squares of ‘Between the Group’ SS B.
2. Calculate the Sum of Squares of ‘Within the Group’ SS W.
3. Find the degrees of freedom of ‘Between the Group’: df 1 = Number of groups -1
4. Find the degrees of freedom of ‘Within the Group’: df 2 = Number of groups X (Number of
observations -1)
5. Calculate the Mean Square value for ‘Between the Group’. MS B= SSB/ df1
6. Calculate the Mean Square value for ‘Between the Group’. MS W = SSW/ df2
7. Calculate F value. FActual = MSB/ MSW
8. Find from F-Table, the FExpected value for the given degrees of freedom.
9. Find out the significance value ‘p’ value.
The below table will explain how the calculations are performed and interpreted:

Six Sigma Page 1

 The below table will explain how the calculations are performed and interpreted:

Figure 1: ANOVA Calculations

There are two ways to find out if the variation. If there is a significant difference between
the mean values of groups, F Actual will be greater than FExpected.
Another way is: p value will be less than α. Then null hypothesis cannot be validated. Thus
alternate hypothesis is accepted.
Types of ANOVA
ANOVA has multiple uses and there are various types that can be used for different
purposes:
1. One-way ANOVA: Used to compare means of groups/populations using one factor.
2. Two-way ANOVA: Used to compare means of groups/populations using two factors.
3. Two-way ANOVA (Repeated): Used to compare means of groups/populations using
two factors with interactions among the factors
4. Nested ANOVA: Used to compare means of groups/populations that can be sub-grouped
and the interactions happen only within the sub-groups and not with other factors.
Thus ANOVA can be used for various purposes. This article is just an introduction to
ANOVA. Each type of ANOVA has some variations and the methods and interpretations
will be different.
From <http://www.whatissixsigma.net/anova/>

A Simple Model of a Variance Stable

Process
John J. Hickey 1

Favorite

Most fairly accurate descriptions of equipment and/or process lifetimes assume that failure rates follow a three
period I II III “bathtub-curve pattern” where failures/errors:

I – Decrease during the debugging or improvement time period.

II – Remain relatively constant and at their lowest levels during the normal equipment or process operating period.

III – Increase during the wearout time period.

Scientific studies of limit based natural or complex growth patterns also suggest that many processes are

Six Sigma Page 2

Scientific studies of limit based natural or complex growth patterns also suggest that many processes are
inherently non-linear and subject to chaotic tendencies. The logistics map 3 or parabola Xt + 1 = RXt (1-Xt) where
Xt + 1 the measure of the next generation is a function of the present measure Xt, R is the growth factor and t is a
discrete time variable is a simple model for these processes. When the growth factor R falls within the range of 1
< R < 3 the process is stable. For R = 2, the time series iterates Xt = X1 X2 X3… converge to the constant value Xc
=.5 which can be easily demonstrated (see Table 1) through the use of an Excel spreadsheet or pocket calculator.

Table 1: Logistics Map – Xt + 1 =

Rxt (1-Xt) Calculated Iterates
Process Category Unstable Stable Unstable Unstable Unstable
Decreasing Constant Oscillation Oscillation Chaotic
R= 1 2 3 3.24 3.8
X0 0.800 0.800 0.800 0.800 0.800
X1 0.160 0.320 0.480 0.518 0.608
X2 0.134 0.435 0.749 0.809 0.906
X3 0.116 0.492 0.564 0.501 0.325
X4 0.103 0.500 0.738 0.810 0.833
X5 0.092 0.500 0.581 0.499 0.528
X6 0.084 0.500 0.730 0.810 0.947
X7 0.077 0.500 0.591 0.499 0.191
X8 0.071 0.500 0.725 0.810 0.587
X9 0.066 0.500 0.598 0.498 0.921
The critical growth factor value Rcr = 3.24 (51/2 +1 ) in Table 1 signals the start of chaotic instability in this model
process and for R = 3.8 the instability is clearly evident.

Process Variance Stability

If we assume that variance (Vt) of a process during its lifetime varies between zero and some maximum
acceptable value Vm, the application of the logistics parabola model to the process results in the iterate expression
Vt + 1 = RVt (Vm – Vt). In this case the process is stable 1 within the growth factor R range of 1/Vm < R < 3/Vm.
Also, the process attains super-stability or constancy when its variance equals one half of the maximum acceptable
value (Vt = Vm/2) and when R = 2/Vm. This is illustrated for a process with a maximum -allowed variance of Vm= 9
(standard deviation =3) in Table 2.

Table 2: Super-stable Process

Variance Map – Vt + 1 = RVt (9 –
Vt)
Variance Category Unstable Super-stable Unstable Unstable Unstable
Decreasing Constant Oscillation Oscillation Chaotic
R= 0.111 0.222 0.333 0.360 0.422
V0 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50
V1 2.25 4.50 6.74 7.29 8.55
V2 1.68 4.50 5.07 4.49 1.64
V3 1.37 4.50 6.64 7.29 5.09
V4 1.16 4.50 5.22 4.49 8.40
V5 1.01 4.50 6.57 7.29 2.13
V6 0.89 4.50 5.32 4.49 6.18
V7 0.80 4.50 6.52 7.29 7.35
V8 0.73 4.50 5.38 4.49 5.12
V9 0.67 4.50 6.48 7.29 8.39

Six Sigma Page 3

 Super-Stable Poisson Distribution – Ct + 1 = 2 / CmCt (Quadratic Map)

The values of R in Table 2 are obtained by scaling the R values of Table I by 1/Vm = 1/9. For example, R = 2/9
= .222 is the super-stable growth factor and Rcr = 3.24/9 =.36 is the critical factor. In the case of Poisson-
distributed processes, the expected number of occurrences C = NP (large N, small fraction P of occurrence) is both
the variance and mean of the distribution. A conditional Poisson process that conformed to this simple non -linear
model has the variance Ct + 1 = RCt (Cm -Ct) and would be stable in growth rate range 1/Cm < R < 3/Cm where
Cm is the specified maximum number of occurrences. When Ct = Cm/2 and R = 2/Cm the process is super -
stable1 and ideally Poisson because the expected number of occurrences Co = C1 = C2….= Ct = Ct + 1 remain
constant and are time independent over the operating lifetime of the process. This condition of super-stability is
analogous to “States of Equilibrium” in Statistical Mechanics 2 and is illustrated by the Ct + 1 = Ct intersecting line of
above Figure I quadratic map.

The hypothetical model is suggestive of an ideal, super-stable six sigma process with an expected Poisson failure
no of C = 1.7 PPM (N= 106, P= 1.7 x 10-6), maximum failure number of Cm = 3.4 PPM and growth factor that has
the value R = .60.

A real-world stable process would of course exhibit random fluctuations in variance which would not be strictly
deterministic. However, as it ages or deteriorates and becomes unstable some deterministic chaos may be present
and evident by an oscillatory pattern of variance (e.g., machine tool wear). If a process is stable with a relatively
constant variance and it meets requirements (in my opinion) it does not need to be fixed.

Notes and References

1. |F'(Vt)| < 1 is the first derivative criteria for the stability of the fixed points Vt = 0, Vt = Vm – 1/R in the Variance
quadratic map Vt + 1 = R Vt (Vm-Vt). Since F'(Vt) = R (Vm-2Vt), the stability ranges for the fixed points Vt = 0, Vt =
Vm – 1/R calculate as R < 1/Vm and 1/Vm < R < 3/Vm respectively. Vt = Vm/2 is the value of the non zero fixed
point at the growth rate R = 2 /Vm and F'(Vt) = 0 when this occurs. Therefore, a super-stable Poisson process
Variance Ct would be “ideally Poisson” because its expected number of occurrences Ct = Ct+1…remain constant
during successive time periods. The oscillatory behavior of the logistic parabola iterates in the unstable growth rate
region R ≥ 3 is known as 2n period doubling. It is represented mathematically by the composite function
expression Fn (X0) = X0 where n is the number of cycles or iterations required for a repetition of the point X0. The
cycles or “splittings” increase as the associated growth rates R1..R2.. become larger. Chaos and infinite period
doubling occurs with R > 3.6/Vm. For the 2-cycle period F2 (X0) = X0 and super-stable fixed point X0 =.5, the
growth rate for Vm = 1 is Rc = 51/2 + 1.
2. E.C. Andrews, Equilibrium Statistical Mechanics, John Wiley & Sons Inc., 1975 defines a state of equilibrium as
one in which the information we have about the system it has reached a time -independent minimum. In the
Chapter 7 section on ensembles with minimum information he proves that a maximum ignorance (lack of assigned
causes) about the system exists when the state probabilities are equal.
3. The technical literature on non-linear dynamics, logistic equations, quadratic maps, fixed-point stability, period
doubling and chaos is extensive.

From <https://www.isixsigma.com/tools-templates/variation/simple-model-variance-stable-process/>

Reduce Special-cause Variation Before

Experimentation
Six Sigma Page 4
Experimentation
Benjamin Madrigal 1

Favorite

For several years, a fully-automated plastic drinking cup production line used excessive amounts of raw materials
(plastic PET pellets) due to a wide distribution in the weight of the formed cups. When process operators and
engineers had tried to reduce the plastic pellet usage by reducing the average formed cup weight, many cups –
because of the wide variation – fell below the customer-specified minimum weight. The process thus had to be
reset to a higher weight target in order to avoid those out-of-specification cups. A previous process improvement
team attempted to find the sources of variation through some data collection and a couple of two -factor/two-level
full-factorial experiments. They were unsuccessful, however, as the factors used in the experiments did not
explain the response variation.

The Problem
The automated cup line has an average cup weight of 24.5 grams, which is 1 gram higher than the target of 23
grams (also the lower specification limit [LSL]) for an individual cup’s weight. To avoid low -weight cup failures, the
operators usually raise the target cup weight average, increasing the amount of resin use. An additional 260,198
pounds of resin is used annually with a cost of poor quality (COPQ) of $195,148. Figure 1 shows the current
output of cup weights over 30 days (3 shifts per day).

Figure 1: Overall Cup Gram Weight – Before

Six Sigma Page 5

Solving the Problem with DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze,
Improve, Control)
A Six Sigma project team (comprised of machine operators, quality assurance personnel, maintenance staff and
other factory subject-matter experts) was created to reduce weight distribution variability to achieve a
minimum Cp of 1.22. The team aimed to improve the production process such that the cup weight average could be
retargeted closer to the 23-gram LSL, saving 0.5 grams of resin on average per cup produced. If such an
improvement were achieved, the team could reduce by 50 percent the use of the additional resin – a savings of
$97,750 per year.

As part of the Define phase, a SIPOC (suppliers, input, process, output, customers) map was created (Figure
2).

Figure 2: SIPOC Map for Plastic Cup Forming

Six Sigma Page 6

 The process includes these pieces of equipment:

• A plastic-pellet extruder fed with virgin PET resin pellets, colorant and regrinds (scraped plastic cups that are
reground and fed back into the process). The extruder mixes all of them and supplies a constant plastic paste.
• A chilled stainless steel hard-chromed roller system that creates a wide plastic sheet.
• A beta-ray scanner that continuously monitors the thickness of the plastic sheet and also provides a closed-loop
control to the extruder and roller system.
• A wide, flat infrared oven that reheats the plastic sheet to specific target temperature.
• A 72-cavity thermoforming mold that receives the heated plastic sheet and stamps out 72 cups at each press
stroke (also known as a mold shot).
• A 72-position puncher that cuts the cups from the formed plastic sheet (called webbing) that presents the
separated cups in stacks to a conveyor system.
• An automatic box filler that takes the stacks of cups from the conveyor and fills up boxes with stacks of 20 cups.
During the early brainstorming sessions of the project team, changes such as mold temperature increases and
mold cavity (plug assist) replacements were suggested – and implemented – but cup-weight distribution remained
the same. The team decided to get back to basics, and a multivary study was initiated.

Multivary Studies
Multivary studies make no changes to the process being studied; they do, however, require the use of detailed
process and product data in order to distinguish, by categories, the source or sources of variation. Graphical tools,
multivary studies help identify the where or when of the biggest source of variation. The variation categories can
be grouped as: time to time, lot to lot, piece to piece, within piece, shift to shift, operator to operator, etc.

Data collection is designed to include all the suspected sources of variation, graphed against the output variable Y.
The graph below shown in Figure 3 is an example of a multivary study with group-to-group, A, B or C, variation.

Figure 3: Example of Within Group Variation

Six Sigma Page 7

In Figure 4, below, there is a time-related cyclical variation, represented by the changes between 1, 2 and 3 groups
to 4, 5 and 6, and so on.

Figure 4: Example of Time Cycle Variation

In the example of the plastic cups, the analysis of the sampled data showed that high variation was always present
with no correlation to time-related categories. Next, the team looked toward positional variation, a particular type of
multivary study.

Looking at Each Molded Cup

Each molded cup comes from a thermoforming mold with 72 cavity locations. Figure 5 shows a diagram of the
mold, with each cavity position numbered and the sides and direction of travel indicated.

Figure 5: Diagram of Molded Cup Creation

Six Sigma Page 8

Data was collected from cup units coming from each cavity as shown in Figure 6. The team was thus able to
identify all of the cavities that fell below the minimum limit at every sampled mold shot (every 72 units coming from
a single mold stroke).

Figure 6: Results of Cup Unit Sampling

After a few samples, it was clear that the cavity position inside the mold was the highest source of variation, with
product that come from one side of the mold running consistently below the average shot.

By creating a surface map using the average weights produced in each individual cavity, the row-to-row differences
across the mold were clear. As displayed in Figure 7, rows 1 through 4 have higher average weights than rows 7
through 9.

Figure 7: Surface Map of Molded Cups – Before

Six Sigma Page 9

Looking at Sheet Thickness Distribution
The project team began to look for clues as to why the side-to-side weight variation was occurring by returning to
the SIPOC exercise. An important input variable to the formed cup weight was the extruded sheet thickness.
Fortunately, a beta-ray scanner was available to monitor the thickness in a continuous raster (line-by-line) scan
and provided reliable numbers. The team was able to compare plastic sheet thickness to cup weight and found no
correlation – the extruded plastic sheet had a consistent thickness distribution among the width axes while the
formed cup still displayed a side-to-side difference.

Team members were left to examine the infrared oven and the mold itself. Previous work included looking at the
thermoforming electrical heaters and thermocouples, but they had shown no critical issue. This time, the team
decided to disassemble and inspect the infrared oven entirely, looking for any clues as to the uneven weight
distribution.

Upon inspecting the electrical components, team members found nothing wrong. The physical review, however,
found that a section of the oven had a gap between the oven and the mold interface, which allowed heat to
escape.

Figure 8: Extruded Plastic Sheet Reheating Oven

Six Sigma Page 10

After this physical gap was fixed and several full mold shot samples were run, a more even weight distribution was
seen across the mold. As shown in Figure 9, the variance in weights narrowed after the infrared oven was
repaired.

Figure 9: Surface Map of Molded Cups – During

Six Sigma Page 11

Figure 10: Cup Gram Weight After Fixing Oven Gap

Six Sigma Page 12

Issues with Position 65
A particular mold cavity, position 65, often had a low cup weight (Figure 10). The mold was inspected, cleaned and
the incumbent cavity fixture replaced. Unfortunately, the low weight behavior persisted. The team revisited the
cavity location and found a vacuum line had clogged; they fixed it by flushing the lines out. This last action allowed
the team to eliminate cavity 65 as a recurring low weight cup (Figure 11).

Figure 11: Cup Gram Weight (with Cp) After Flushing Vacuum Lines

Six Sigma Page 13

After this step, all special variations had been elminiated. The project team shifted its focus to reducing common
cause variation, returning again to its SIPOC map to identify critical inputs to process variation. Data analysis
showed that oven settings and initial sheet thickness contributed to cup-weight variation.

A standard three-factor full-factorial design of experiments (DOE) was set up with the factors of oven
temperature, plastic sheet thickness and plastic pellet regrind. The experiment data analysis resulted in a
good R2 square of 97.87 percent with sheet thickness and regrind set point as strong contributors to the overall
variation.

Further DOE work focused on fixing the oven temperatures, and working with sheet thickness and regrind levels
allowed the team to establish optimal input control parameters. The average weight was reduced to the 24 -gram
target with none (or very few) cups going under the 23-gram LSL. The original project goal of reducing raw material
usage was achieved with a savings of $100,000. Accordingly, the process Cp was increased to greater than the
targeted minimum of 1.5.

Today cup-weight surface mapping is more even across the mold with a tighter distribution. The low points, located
at the front corners (Figure 12), cannot be improved without redesigning the mold and reducing the size of the
mold from 72 to 60 cavities. This change was considered, but it would have resulted in a-14 percent reduction in
productivity; it was not pursued.

Figure 12: Surface Map of Molded Cups – After

Six Sigma Page 14

Conclusion
This process improvement project demonstrates that it is important to not use sophisticated statistical tools (such
as DOE) to analyze a process before reducing the special input variables present in the process in question.
Otherwise, time, energy and resources may be wasted without ever finding the critical characteristics to enable the
control and improvement of a process.

From <https://www.isixsigma.com/tools-templates/variation/reduce-special-cause-variation-before-experimentation/>

Six Sigma Page 15