https://www.spcforexcel.

com/knowledge/process-capability/cpk-vs-ppk-who-wins

Cpk vs Ppk: Who Wins?

May 2014

Your supplier has sent you the process capability charts you requested. The supplier has
produced some very nice charts, obviously generated with some fancy software package –
and, of course, with all those accompanying statistics. You know, things like Cpk, Ppk,
sigma level, ppm out of spec and so on. Very pretty charts. Looks like your supplier is
really performing for you. You note one capability chart that has a Ppk = 1.14 and a Cpk =
2.07. Why are those different? Well, it doesn’t matter. The Cpk is above 1.33, which is
what you asked the supplier for. Time to work on something else.

You just missed a very important piece of information about your supplier’s
performance. Know what it is?

Cpk and Ppk are two commonly used measures of process

capability – how well your process is meeting your customer specifications. Software today
makes it easy to plug the data in and generate the results. But, far too often, we simply take
the results and move forward without thinking about what they mean. In this month’s SPC
Knowledge Base publication we take an in-depth look at Cpk and Ppk. What are they? What
are they measuring? What do the values means? Which one should you rely on? Some of
the answers may well surprise you.

In this publication:

 Introduction
 Process Capability Review
 Cpk and Ppk Review
 Within Subgroup Variation vs Overall Variation
 That Little Issue of Statistical Control!
 Two Processes – Same Data, Same Ppk
 Two Processes – Same Data, Different Cpk
 Summary: So, Who Wins: Cpk or Ppk?
 Quick Links

Introduction

This is the third in a series of SPC Knowledge Base publications on

process capability. Two months ago, we took an interactive look at process capability. We
reviewed the process capability calculations, including Cp and Cpk. You could download an
Excel workbook that let you visually see how changing the average and standard deviation of
your process impacts your process capability. You were able to see visually how the process
shifts versus your specifications. In addition, the workbook showed how Cp, Cpk, the sigma
level, and the ppm out of specification changed as the average and standard deviation
changed. If you are new to process capability, please take a moment to review that
publication.

Last month’s publication was entitled “Cpk Alone is Not Sufficient.” In that publication we
took a look at the why a Cpk value by itself is not sufficient to describe the process
capability. We went through a process capability checklist designed to help you paint a true
picture of your process capability – to increase the confidence you, your leadership, and your
customers have in your process capability.

We did not mention Ppk in either publication. Time to change that in this publication.

Process Capability Review

Process capability analysis answers the question of how well your process meets
specifications – either those set by your customer or your internal specifications. To
calculate process capability, you need three things:

 Process average estimate

 Process standard deviation estimate
 Specification limit

This is true for both Cpk and Ppk. We will assume that our data are normally distributed.

Process capability indices represent a ratio of how far a specification limit is from the average
to the natural variation in the process. The natural variation in the process is taken as being 3
times the process standard deviation. Figure 1 shows the general set up for determining a
process capability index based on the upper specification limit (USL) with “s” being a
measure of the process variation.

Figure 1: Determining a Process Capability Index

The process capability index is then given by:

Process capability index = (USL – Average)/(3s)

To calculate process capability, you need to be able to estimate the process average and the
process standard deviation. And no, it is not as easy as simply doing some calculations. Both
of these statistics have to be “valid.” We explore this more detail below.

Cpk and Ppk Review

Both Cpk and Ppk are the minimum of two process indices. The equations for Cpk and Ppk
are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Cpk and Ppk Equations

The X with double bar over it is the overall average. In the Cpk equations, σ is used to
estimate the process variation. σ is the estimated standard deviation obtained from a range control
chart. In the Ppk equations, s is used to estimate the process variation. s is the calculated standard deviation
using all the data.

Thus, the major difference between Cpk and Ppk is the way the process variation is
estimated. So what is the difference between these two?

Within Subgroup Variation vs Overall Variation

The question of Cpk vs Ppk is really a question of within subgroup variation, σ, vs overall
variation, s. Let’s start with s or the calculated standard deviation, which is given by the
equation below.

N is the total number of data points. Look at the summation term under the square root
sign. This term is squaring how far each individual data point is from the overall average, as
shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Standard Deviation (s)

 According to the equation, you add up the squares of those deviations, divide by the
total number of points minus 1 and take the square root. You can view the calculated
standard deviation as the average distance each individual data point is from the overall
average. Note that you use all the data in the calculation. This is why this standard deviation
is sometimes called the overall variation. It accounts for all the variation in the data.

Now we will move to , which is usually referred to as the within subgroup

variation. This estimate of the process standard deviation comes from a range control
chart. For example, suppose you are using an X-R control chart with a subgroup size of
five. To form a subgroup, you take 5 samples. You calculate the average of those 5
samples. This is X and is plotted on the X chart. You also calculate the range of the
subgroup values. The range, R, is the maximum value in the subgroup minus the minimum
value in the subgroup. This is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Within Subgroup Variation ()

R is a measure of the variation within the subgroup. To calculate σ, you use the following
equation:
R is the average range and d2 is a control chart constant that depends on subgroup
size. So, σaccounts for the variation within the subgroup. It may or may not account for
all the variation as we will see below.

That Little Issue of Statistical Control!

All our publications on process capability have stressed the need for the process to be in
statistical control. How often is this just ignored? Last month we gave the process capability
checklist developed by Dr. Don Wheeler to paint a true picture of your process
capability. That checklist had five items:

1. Plot your data using a control chart to determine if the process is in statistical control
(consistent and predictable)
2. For a process that is in statistical control, construct a histogram with the specifications
added
3. For a process that is in statistical control, calculate the natural variation in the process
data
4. For a process that is in statistical control, calculate Cp and Cpk
5. Combine these four items together and present them all when talking about process
capability

See how often “for a process that is in statistical control” occurs? The
point is that Cpk (and Ppk) have no meaning unless your process is in statistical
control. And for the kicker: if your process is in statistical control, Cpk and Ppk will be very
close to being equal. In fact, if you compare Cpk and Ppk values for a given process, you
will find the following to be true:

 If Cpk is approximately equal to Ppk, the process is in statistical control

 If Cpk is significantly different that Ppk, the process is not in statistical control

So, when you looked at the supplier chart and noticed a big difference between Cpk and Ppk,
you were given a key piece of information. Your supplier’s process is not in statistical
control – and you can’t be sure of what you will get in the future.

In addition, if the process is not in statistical control, Cpk and Ppk have no meaning. You
cannot be sure of getting similar values in the future because of the process is not consistent
and predicable. We will explore this through in the following example for two processes
with the same data – just in a different order.

Two Processes – Same Data, Same Ppk

We will use two processes that have the same data (the data from last month’s
publication). Suppose you are taking four samples per hour and forming a subgroup. You
want to determine if your process is capable of meeting specifications (LSL = 65 and USL =
145). The data for the 30 subgroups for Process 1 are shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Process 1 Data

Day X1 X2 X3 X4 Day X1 X2 X3 X4
1 90.2 113.8 111.8 104.4 16 100.8 106 101.5 108.8
2 105.6 98.8 109.3 113.5 17 96.7 101.3 100.4 95.1
3 104 84.5 98.9 97 18 105.1 92 92.5 95
4 112.4 86.2 85.5 106.5 19 104.5 94.5 91.3 82.7
5 96.6 99.9 112.9 96.8 20 110.1 110.7 104 115.6
6 91.7 101.3 107.1 101.2 21 116.9 86.3 96.4 99.3
7 112 97.9 109 95.2 22 78.9 91.4 96.5 109.2
8 91.8 98 98.1 79.2 23 112.2 110.5 98.3 109.2
9 94.9 87.1 104.3 112.7 24 88.8 105.9 86.3 76
10 101.1 104 101.1 102.7 25 98.6 93.5 106.2 92.8
11 100.6 83.3 96.6 88.5 26 99.1 99.6 83.6 106.5
12 80.5 95 98.3 113.6 27 90.5 110 82.6 86
13 89.2 93.9 98.5 106.7 28 106.7 107.9 109.9 108.8
14 96.7 96.8 106.2 90 29 87.4 95 108.5 96.7
15 74.2 104.3 111.2 108.7 30 112.7 78.4 112.8 81.1

The data for Process 2 are the same, just in a different order. These data are shown in Table
3.

Table 3: Process 2 Data

Day X1 X2 X3 X4 Day X1 X2 X3 X4
1 105.6 113.5 107.1 101.2 16 92 92.5 95 96.6
2 112.4 109.3 104 101.3 17 90.5 96.7 82.6 86
3 104.3 112.7 112 100.6 18 101.1 104 101.1 102.7
4 104.3 111.2 108.7 113.6 19 100.8 106 101.5 108.8
5 101.3 100.4 95.1 106.7 20 110.1 110.7 104 115.6
6 105.1 116.9 109.2 110 21 112.2 110.5 112.8 109.2
7 104.5 112.9 105.9 109.9 22 94.5 91.3 82.7 91.7
8 108.5 108.8 106.7 107.9 23 86.3 96.4 99.3 80.5
9 106.5 106.2 106.2 98.8 24 88.8 74.2 86.3 76
10 86.2 85.5 106.5 84.5 25 113.8 111.8 104.4 112.7
11 97.9 109 95.2 98.9 26 98.6 93.5 95 92.8
12 83.3 96.6 88.5 97 27 99.1 99.6 83.6 96.7
13 95 98.3 94.9 99.9 28 78.4 98.3 81.1 87.4
14 89.2 93.9 98.5 96.8 29 78.9 91.4 96.5 90.2
15 96.7 96.8 87.1 90 30 91.8 98 98.1 79.2

Since they are the same, the data in Tables 2 and 3 have the same average and the same
standard deviation.
 Average = 98.98

Standard deviation (s) = 9.89

Now draw a histogram for the data in Table 2 and a histogram for the data in Table 3. Throw
in the specifications: LSL = 65 and USL = 145. If you do this, you will discover that the
histograms are exactly the same – just what you expect since the data are the same. Figure 4
shows the histogram.

Figure 4: Histogram of Process Data with Specifications Added

This process looks very good – definitely within the specifications. You are one happy
person. You can calculate Ppk for Process 1 and Process 2. Since the average and standard
deviation are the same, Ppk will be the same for both processes. The calculations are:

So, Ppk = 1.14 for Process 1 and Process 2.

Two Processes – Same Data, Different Cpk

But wait – what is the value for Cpk for these two processes? Are the same? No, they are
not the same. Remember Cpk is based on the within subgroup variation. And although the
data are the same in both processes, they are in different order – which changes the within
subgroup variation. To calculate the Cpk values, you need to estimate the standard deviation
() from the range chart and the overall process average from the X chart. This is a very
important difference between the Ppk approach and Cpk approach. Ppk simply uses
calculations; Cpk uses control charts to estimate the average and the process variation. It is
the way you tell the future about your process.

The control charts for Process 1 are shown below. The range chart is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Process 1 Range Chart

The range chart is in statistical control. Because it is in control, it is consistent and

predictable. You can now estimate the standard deviation using the following:

Note that since the range chart is in statistical control, the within subgroup variation is
consistent and predictable. The value for the process standard deviation is “valid.” The
process that generated it is consistent and predictable and will remain so as long as the
process stays the same.

To calculate Cpk, you need an estimate of the average. That comes from the X control
chart. Figure 6 shows this chart.

Figure 6: Process 1 X Chart

The X chart is in statistical control. This means that you have a good ("valid") estimate of
the process average. You can now use that average, along with σ to determine the Cpk
values

Now compare the results for Ppk and Cpk for Process 1:

Process 1: Ppk Process 1: Cpk

s = 9.89  = 9.54
Ppu = 1.55 Cpu = 1.61
Ppl = 1.14 Cpl = 1.19

Note how close the results are. This will always be the case when the process is in statistical
control. This is because of the following:

When a process is in statistical control, the within subgroup variation is a

good estimate of the overall process variation, i.e., σ= s.
Cpk is essentially the same as Ppk in this case. They are giving you the same information.

Let’s move on to Process 2. The range chart for Process 2 is shown in Figure 7.
 Figure 7: Process 2 Range Chart

The range chart is in statistical control – the within subgroup variation is consistent and
predictable. You can now estimate the standard deviation using the following:

Again you need an estimate of the average to determine Cpk. This comes from the X̅ chart,
which is shown in Figure 8

Figure 8: Process 2 X Chart

The X chart is not in statistical control – the between subgroup variation is not consistent and
predictable. There are points beyond the control limits, runs above the averages – all sorts of
problems with the stability of this process.

This means that you do not have a good estimate of the process average. It is moving
around. What will the next subgroup average be? You have no idea where it will be. The
process is not consistent and predictable. You can’t really calculate the Cpk value.

Many times folks just simply ignore this fact and move full steam ahead with calculating
Cpk. After all, the calculated average is 98.98. The Cpk calculations are as follows:

So, Cpk for Process 2 is 2.07. Now compare the results for Process 1 and Process 2.

Processes 1 and 2: Process 1: Cpk Process 2: Cpk

Ppk
s = 9.89  = 9.54  = 5.46
Ppu = 1.55 Cpu = 1.61 Cpu = 2.81
Ppl = 1.14 Cpl = 1.19 Cpl = 2.07

The values of Cpu and Cpl for Process 2 are significantly different than the Ppu and Ppl
values. And it all boils down to the issue of statistical control. When there are significant
differences in σ vs s, Cpu vs Cpl and Cpl vs Ppl, it is a very strong indication that the process
is not in statistical control.

Summary: So, Who Wins: Cpk or Ppk?

The reality is that Cpk is a better estimate of the potential of your process. It represents the
best your process can do and that is when the within subgroup variation is essentially the
same as the between subgroup variation. This is what it means to be in statistical
control. And if the process is in statistical control, Cpk is essentially the same as Ppk. So,
you really don’t need Ppk in this case.

And if your process is not in statistical control, you have something to work on – Cpk and
Ppk are pretty well meaningless – except for the fact that values of Cpk and Ppk that are
widely different are indications that the process is not in statistical control.

But you know that already because you are following the process capability checklist from
Dr. Wheeler. Always start by looking at the data in control chart format.
Quick Links

SPC for Excel Software

Visit our home page

SPC Training

SPC Consulting

Ordering Information

Thanks so much for reading our publication. We hope you find it informative and useful.
Happy charting and may the data always support your position.

Sincerely,

Dr. Bill McNeese

BPI Consulting, LLC

http://blog.minitab.com/blog/michelle-paret/process-capability-statistics-cpk-vs-ppk

Process Capability Statistics: Cpk vs. Ppk

Michelle Paret 12 August, 2016

Back when I used to work in Minitab Tech Support,

customers often asked me, “What’s the difference between Cpk and Ppk?” It’s a good
question, especially since many practitioners default to using Cpk while overlooking Ppk
altogether. It’s like the '80s pop duo Wham!, where Cpk is George Michael and Ppk is that
other guy.

Poofy hairdos styled with mousse, shoulder pads, and leg warmers aside, let’s start by
defining rational subgroups and then explore the difference between Cpk and Ppk.
Rational Subgroups
A rational subgroup is a group of measurements produced under the same set of conditions.
Subgroups are meant to represent a snapshot of your process. Therefore, the measurements
that make up a subgroup should be taken from a similar point in time. For example, if
you sample 5 items every hour, your subgroup size would be 5.

Formulas, Definitions, Etc.

The goal of capability analysis is to ensure that a process is capable of meeting customer
specifications, and we use capability statistics such as Cpk and Ppk to make that assessment.
If we look at the formulas for Cpk and Ppk for normal (distribution) process capability, we
can see they are nearly identical:

The only difference lies in the denominator for the Upper and Lower statistics: Cpk is
calculated using the WITHIN standard deviation, while Ppk uses the OVERALL standard
deviation. Without boring you with the details surrounding the formulas for the standard
deviations, think of the within standard deviation as the average of the subgroup standard
deviations, while the overall standard deviation represents the variation of all the data. This
means that:

Cpk:

 Only accounts for the variation WITHIN the subgroups

 Does not account for the shift and drift between subgroups
 Is sometimes referred to as the potential capability because it represents the potential your
process has at producing parts within spec, presuming there is no variation between
subgroups (i.e. over time)

Ppk:

 Accounts for the OVERALL variation of all measurements taken

 Theoretically includes both the variation within subgroups and also the shift and drift
between them
 Is where you are at the end of the proverbial day

Examples of the Difference Between Cpk and Ppk

For illustration, let's consider a data set where 5 measurements were taken every day for 10
days.

Example 1 - Similar Cpk and Ppk

As the graph on the left side shows, there is not a lot of shift and drift between subgroups
compared to the variation within the subgroups themselves. Therefore, the within and overall
standard deviations are similar, which means Cpk and Ppk are similar, too (at 1.13 and 1.07,
respectively).

Example 2 - Different Cpk and Ppk

In this example, I used the same data and subgroup size, but I shifted the data around, moving
it into different subgroups. (Of course we would never want to move data into different
subgroups in practice – I’ve just done it here to illustrate a point.)

Since we used the same data, the overall standard deviation and Ppk did not change. But
that’s where the similarities end.

Look at the Cpk statistic. It’s 3.69, which is much better than the 1.13 we got before. Looking
at the subgroups plot, can you tell why Cpk increased? The graph shows that the points
within each subgroup are much closer together than before. Earlier I mentioned that we can
think of the within standard deviation as the average of the subgroup standard deviations. So
less variability within each subgroup equals a smaller within standard deviation. And that
gives us a higher Cpk.

To Ppk or Not to Ppk

And here is where the danger lies in only reporting Cpk and forgetting about Ppk like it’s
George Michael’s lesser-known bandmate (no offense to whoever he may be). We can see
from the examples above that Cpk only tells us part of the story, so the next time you
examine process capability, consider both your Cpk and your Ppk. And if the process is
stable with little variation over time, the two statistics should be about the same anyway.

(Note: It is possible, and okay, to get a Ppk that is larger than Cpk, especially with a subgroup
size of 1, but I’ll leave explanation for another day.)

Capability Analysis Quality Improvement

You Might Also Like:

 Why Does Cpk Change When I Sort My Data?
 Six Sigma Concepts and Metrics (Part 2 of 2)
 How Cpk and Ppk Are Calculated, part 2
 High Cpk and a Funny-Looking Histogram: Is My Process Really that Amazing?

https://www.isixsigma.com/tools-templates/capability-indices-process-capability/cp-cpk-pp-and-
ppk-now-how-and-when-use-them/

Cp, Cpk, Pp and Ppk: Know How and When to Use Them

Daniela Marzagão 8

For many years industries have used Cp, Cpk, Pp and Ppk as statistical measures of process
quality capability. Some segments in manufacturing have specified minimal requirements for
these parameters, even for some of their key documents, such as advanced product quality
planning and ISO/TS-16949. Six Sigma, however, suggests a different evaluation of process
capability by measuring against a sigma level, also known as sigma capability.

Incorporating metrics that differ from traditional ones may lead some companies to wonder
about the necessity and adaptation of these metrics. It is important to emphasize that
traditional capability studies as well as the use of sigma capability measures carry a similar
purpose. Once the process is under statistical control and showing only normal causes, it is
predictable. This is when it becomes interesting for companies to predict the current process’s
probability of meeting customer specifications or requirements.

Capability Studies

Traditional capability rates are calculated when a product or service feature is measured
through a quantitative continuous variable, assuming the data follows a normal probability
distribution. A normal distribution features the measurement of a mean and a standard
deviation, making it possible to estimate the probability of an incident within any data set.

The most interesting values relate to the probability of data occurring outside of customer
specifications. These are data appearing below the lower specification limit (LSL) or above
the upper specification limit (USL). An ordinary mistake lies in using capability studies to
deal with categorical data, turning the data into rates or percentiles. In such cases,
determining specification limits becomes complex. For example, a billing process may
generate correct or incorrect invoices. These represent categorical variables, which by
definition carry an ideal USL of 100 percent error free processing, rendering the traditional
statistical measures (Cp, Cpk, Pp and Ppk) inapplicable to categorical variables.

When working with continuous variables, the traditional statistical measures are quite useful,
especially in manufacturing. The difference between capability rates (Cp and Cpk) and
performance rates (Pp and Ppk) is the method of estimating the statistical population standard
deviation. The difference between the centralized rates (Cp and Pp) and unilateral rates (Cpk
and Ppk) is the impact of the mean decentralization over process performance estimates.

The following example details the impact that the different forms of calculating capability
may have over the study results of a process. A company manufactures a product that’s
acceptable dimensions, previously specified by the customer, range from 155 mm to 157 mm.
The first 10 parts made by a machine that manufactures the product and works during one
period only were collected as samples during a period of 28 days. Evaluation data taken from
these parts was used to make a Xbar-S control chart (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Xbar-S Control Chart of Evaluation Data

This chart presents only common cause variation and as such, leads to the conclusion that the
process is predictable. Calculation of process capability presents the results in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Process Capability of Dimension

Calculating Cp

The Cp rate of capability is calculated from the formula:

where s represents the standard deviation for a population taken from , with s-bar
representing the mean of deviation for each rational subgroup and c4 representing a statistical
coefficient of correction.

In this case, the formula considers the quantity of variation given by standard deviation and
an acceptable gap allowed by specified limits despite the mean. The results reflect the
population’s standard deviation, estimated from the mean of the standard deviations within
the subgroups as 0.413258, which generates a Cp of 0.81.

Rational Subgroups

A rational subgroup is a concept developed by Shewart while he was defining control

graphics. It consists of a sample in which the differences in the data within a subgroup are
minimized and the differences between groups are maximized. This allows a clearer
identification of how the process parameters change along a time continuum. In the example
above, the process used to collect the samples allows consideration of each daily collection as
a particular rational subgroup.

The Cpk capability rate is calculated by the formula:

considering the same criteria of standard deviation.

In this case, besides the variation in quantity, the process mean also affects the indicators.
Because the process is not perfectly centralized, the mean is closer to one of the limits and, as
a consequence, presents a higher possibility of not reaching the process capability targets. In
the example above, specification limits are defined as 155 mm and 157 mm. The mean
(155.74) is closer to one of them than to the other, leading to a Cpk factor (0.60) that is lower
than the Cp value (0.81). This implies that the LSL is more difficult to achieve than the USL.
Non-conformities exist at both ends of the histogram.

Estimating Pp

Similar to the Cp calculation, the performance Pp rate is found as follows:

where s is the standard deviation of all data.

The main difference between the Pp and Cp studies is that within a rational subgroup where
samples are produced practically at the same time, the standard deviation is lower. In the Pp
study, variation between subgroups enhances the s value along the time continuum, a process
which normally creates more conservative Pp estimates. The inclusion of between-group
variation in the calculation of Pp makes the result more conservative than the estimate of Cp.
With regard to centralization, Pp and Cp measures have the same limitation, where neither
considers process centralization (mean) problems. However, it is worth mentioning that Cp
and Pp estimates are only possible when upper and lower specification limits exist. Many
processes, especially in transactional or service areas, have only one specification limit,
which makes using Cp and Pp impossible (unless the process has a physical boundary [not a
specification] on the other side). In the example above, the population’s standard deviation,
taken from the standard deviation of all data from all samples, is 0.436714 (overall), giving a
Pp of 0.76, which is lower than the obtained value for Cp.

Estimating Ppk

The difference between Cp and Pp lies in the method for calculating s, and whether or not the
existence of rational subgroups is considered. Calculating Ppk presents similarities with the
calculation of Cpk. The capability rate for Ppk is calculated using the formula:

Once more it becomes clear that this estimate is able to diagnose decentralization problems,
aside from the quantity of process variation. Following the tendencies detected in Cpk, notice
that the Pp value (0.76) is higher than the Ppk value (0.56), due to the fact that the rate of
discordance with the LSL is higher. Because the calculation of the standard deviation is not
related to rational subgroups, the standard deviation is higher, resulting in a Ppk (0.56) lower
than the Cpk (0.60), which reveals a more negative performance projection.

Calculating Sigma Capability

In the example above, it is possible to observe the incidence of faults caused by discordance,
whether to the upper or lower specification limits. Although flaws caused by discordance to
the LSL have a greater chance of happening, problems caused by the USL will continue to
occur. When calculating Cpk and Ppk, this is not considered, because rates are always
calculated based on the more critical side of the distribution.

In order to calculate the sigma level of this process it is necessary to estimate the Z bench.
This will allow the conversion of the data distribution to a normal and standardized
distribution while adding the probabilities of failure above the USL and below the LSL. The
calculation is as follows:

 Above the USL:

 Below the LSL:

Summing both kinds of flaws produces the following result:

(Figure
3)

Figure 3: Distribution Z

The calculation to achieve the sigma level is represented below:

Sigma level = Zbench + 1.5 = 1.51695 + 1.5 = 3.1695

There is great controversy about the 1.5 deviation that is usually added to the sigma level.
When a great amount of data is collected over a long period of time, multiple sources of
variability will appear. Many of these sources are not present when the projection is ranged to
a period of some weeks or months. The benefit of adding 1.5 to the sigma level is seen when
assessing a database with a long historical data view. The short-term performance is typically
better as many of the variables will change over time to reflect changes in business strategy,
systems enhancements, customer requirements, etc. The addition of the 1.5 value was
intentionally chosen by Motorola for this purpose and the practice is now common
throughout many sigma level studies.

Comparing the Methods

When calculating Cp and Pp, the evaluation considers only the quantity of process variation
related to the specification limit ranges. This method, besides being applicable only in
processes with upper and lower specification limits, does not provide information about
process centralization. At this point, Cpk and Ppk metrics are wider ranging because they set
rates according to the most critical limit.

The difference between Cp and Pp, as well as between Cpk and Ppk, results from the method of
calculating standard deviation. Cp and Cpk consider the deviation mean within rational
subgroups, while Pp and Ppk set the deviation based on studied data. It is worth working with
more conservative Pp and Ppk data in case it is unclear if the sample criteria follow all the
prerequisites necessary to create a rational subgroup.
Cpk and Ppk rates assess process capability based on process variation and centralization.
However, here only one specification limit is considered, different from the sigma metric.
When a process has only one specification limit, or when the incidence of flaws over one of
the two specification limits is insignificant, sigma level, Cpk and Ppk bring very similar
results. When faced with a situation where both specification limits are identified and both
have a history of bringing restrictions to the product, calculating a sigma level gives a more
precise view of the risk of not achieving the quality desired by customers.

As seen in the examples above, traditional capability rates are only valid when using
quantitative variables. In cases using categorical variables, calculating a sigma level based on
flaws, defective products or flaws per opportunity, is recommended.

References

Breyfogle, Forrest W., Implementing Six Sigma: Smarter Solutions Using Statistical Methods,
New York: Wiley & Sons, 1999.

Montgomery, Douglas C., Introdução ao Controle Estatístico da Qualidade, New York:

Wilwy & Sons, 2001.

Featured Product - Root Cause Analysis Course

With this course you will be able to train anyone in your company on the proper techniques for achieving
proper resolution of any type of problem, whether it be a transactional process, manufacturing issue, medical
procedure, or personnel issue.

If You Loved This Article, You Might Also Love

1. How to Avoid Common Mistakes When Measuring Performance

2. Process Capability (Cp, Cpk) and Process Performance (Pp, Ppk) – What is the Difference?
3. Capability and Performance
4. Resolving Common Issues with Performance Indices