Statistical Process Control

SPC
Dr. Ejaz Ahmed
VARIATION

MOST UNDESIRABLE
MOST UNAVOIDABLE.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THINGS
(even if produced under same conditions)

NEMESIS OF QUALITY
BRINGS IN THE CONCEPT OF DATA

(or DATA bring in the concept of Variation?)

Further

VARIATION

CAN NOT BE ELIMINATED
REMAINS PART OF EVERY PROCESS
REMAINS PART OF EVERY PRODUCT.


SMALLER THE VARIATION IS
BETTER THE PROCESS WILL BE

Q.

WHY WE ENCOUNTER WITH VARIABILITY?
HOW DOES IT BECOME PART OF EVERY PROCESS?
World Would Be
With no Variation Monotonous
Boring

With Lot of
Variation
Mad House
Variation Could be Person to Person
Project to project
Time to time
CAUSES OF VARIATION

COMMON/CHANCE/RANDOM CAUSES

COMMON
MANY IN NUMBERS
USUALLY ACCEPTABLE
PROCESS'S BUILT-IN
HARD TO FIND
ELIMINATION MAY NOT
GIVE DESIRED RESULTS.
EXPENSIVE TO DETECT AND REMOVE.


PROCESS IN CONTROL EVEN IF THEY ARE PRESENT


ASSIGNABLE CAUSES

FEW IN NUMBERS
NON-RANDOM
MAY BE DETECTED
MAY BE ELIMINATED


PROCESS OUT OF CONTROL IF THEY ARE PRESENT
Seven Magnificent Tools

HISTOGRAM/ Stem-and-Leaf Plot
CHECKSHEET
PARETO CHART
CAUSE AND EFFECT DIAGRAM
DEFECT DETECTION DIAGRAM
SCATTER DIAGRAM
CONTROL CHARTS
HISTOGRAM / STEM-AND-LEAF PLOT

Frequency distribution

Collect raw data
Group (Arrange) into array (Ascending/Descending)
Group into classes
Construct frequency distribution

4 21 20 6 32
18 13 15 16 42
8 2 8 25 46
10 6 17 33 40
6 8 21 30 17
4 12 14 20 16
13 16 19 23 25
7 27 26 14 12
23 23 11 13
15 14 7 12
Data (Driver.mtw)
45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
10
5
0
Corrects
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
Histogram
Stem-and-leaf of Corrects N = 48
Leaf Unit = 1.0
3 0 244
11 0 66677888
22 1 01222333444
(9) 1 556667789
17 2 0011333
10 2 5567
6 3 023
3 3
3 4 02
1 4 6
Stem-and-leaf of Math N = 200
Leaf Unit = 10
1 4 4
3 4 79
12 5 001222234
38 5 55555666677777778888889999
(63) 6 000000000000001111111111112222222222222222333333333344444444444
99 6 555555555666666666666667777777777788888889999999
51 7 000000000011111111111112222222333334444
12 7 5566777789
2 8 00
800 700 600 500 400
30
20
10
0
Math
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
Histogram of Math
800 700 600 500 400
30
20
10
0
Math
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
Histogram of Math, with Normal Curve
Character Stem-and-Leaf Display
Stem-and-leaf of GPA N = 200
Leaf Unit = 0.10
1 0 3
1 0
7 1 123444
17 1 6788888999
83 2 00000000000000000111111111333333333333333333333344444444444444444+
(52) 2 5555555555666666666666777778888888888999999999999999
65 3 00000000000000000001111111112233333333333333444444444
12 3 556666677889
4 3 2 1 0
40
30
20
10
0
GPA
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
Histogram of GPA
4 3 2 1 0
40
30
20
10
0
GPA
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
Histogram of GPA, with Normal Curve

15
10
5
0
CLASS BOUNDRIES
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
HISTOGRAM
Defects
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL
Parts Damaged
Machining Problems
Supplied Parts
Masking insufficient
Misaligned weld
Procesing out of order
Wrong parts issued
Unfinished fairing
Adhesive failure
Powdery alodine
Paint out of limits
Paint damaged by etching
Film on parts
Primer cans damaged
Voids in casting
Delaminated composite
Incorrect dimensions
Improper test procedure
Salt-spray failure
Year 1 Year 2
Check Sheet
Date/Shift Total
Defects



















TOTAL
Pareto Analysis
Vilfredo Pareto (1848-
1923)Found, in Italian
Economy
80% of the wealth
held by 20% of the
people
80/20 principle
80% of occurrences
fall in 20% categories.
Distinguishes Vital
Few from Trivial
Many.
Allowing resources for
vital few to have
greatest impact.
Developing Pareto Chart
Could be developed in many ways.
One way is
Collect data using a check sheet.
Check sheet shows the frequency in various
categories.
Construct Histogram.
Arrange categories from left to right in decreasing
frequencies.
PARETO DIAGRAM

TOOL FOR ANALYSIS AND
NOT FOR PROBLEM SOLVING

MORE IMPORTANT TO SOLVE
VITAL FEW THAN TRIVIAL MANY

O
th
e
rs
In
c
o
m
p
le
te
P
a
rt
D
e
fe
c
tive
H
o
u
s
i
L
e
a
ky
G
a
s
k
e
t
M
is
s
in
g
C
lip
s
M
is
s
in
g
S
c
re
w
s
18 10 19 43 59 274
4.3 2.4 4.5 10.2 13.9 64.8
100.0 95.7 93.4 88.9 78.7 64.8
400
300
200
100
0
100
80
60
40
20
0
Defect
Count
Percent
Cum %
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
C
o
u
n
t
(EXH_QC.MTW)
Pareto Chart for Defects
Check Sheet
Defects
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Part damaged 1 3 1 2 1 10 3 2 2 7 2 34
Machininig problems 3 3 1 8 3 8 3 29
Supplied parts rusted 1 1 2 9 13
Masking insuf f icient 3 6 4 3 1 17
Misaligned weld 2 2
Processing out of order 2 2 4
Wrong part issued 1 2 3
Unf inished f airing 3 3
Adhesive f ailure 1 1 2 1 1 6
Powdery alodine 1 1
Paint out of limits 1 1 2
paint damaged by etching 1 1
Film on parts 3 1 1 5
Primer cans damaged 1 1
Voids in casting 1 1 2
Delaminated composite 2 2
Incorrect dimensions 13 7 13 1 1 1 36
Improper test procedure 1 1
Salt-spray f ailure 4 4
Total 4 5 14 12 5 9 9 6 10 14 20 7 29 7 7 6 2 166
1988 1989
O
t
h
e
rs
P
a
i
n
t
o
u
t
o
f
l i
m
i
ts
M
i
s
a
li
g
n
e
d
w
e
ld
U
n
f
in
i
s
h
e
d
f
a
ir
i n
g
W
r
o
n
g
p
a
r
ts

is
s
u
e
d
s
a
l
t-
s
p
ra
y
f
a
il
u
re
P
r
o
c
e
s
i
n
g
o
u
t
o
f
o
r
d
e
r
F
i l
m

o
n
p
a
r
ts
A
d
h
e
s
iv
e
f
a
il
u
re
S
u
p
p
l i
e
d
P
a
rt
s
M
a
s
k
in
g

in
s
u
f
fi
c
i
e
n
t
M
a
c
h
in
i
n
g
P
ro
b
l
e
m
s
P
a
rt
s
D
a
m
a
g
e
d
I
n
c
o
r
re
c
t
d
im
e
n
s
io
n
s
8 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 6 13 17 29 34 36
5 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 4 8 10 17 20 22
100 95 94 93 91 89 87 84 81 78 70 60 42 22
150
100
50
0
100
80
60
40
20
0
Defect
Count
Percent
Cum %
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
C
o
u
n
t
Pareto Chart for Defects
Pareto Charts: Two
Approaches
Frequency
For all categories
The degree of
importance is the
same.
Potential for
occurrence is the
same.
Weighted Frequency
For all categories
The degree of importance
is not equal.
Potential for occurrence is
not equal.
Construction
Defects Freq.
Dirty floors 17
Cracked windows 9
External scratches 12
Worn seats 45
Faulty breaks 5
F
a
u
lty b
re
a
k
s
C
ra
c
ke
d
w
in
d
o
w
s
E
xte
rn
a
l s
c
ra
c
h
e
s
D
irty F
l o
o
rs
W
o
rn
s
e
a
ts
5 9 12 17 45
5.7 10.2 13.6 19.3 51.1
100.0 94.3 84.1 70.5 51.1
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
80
60
40
20
0
Defect
Count
Percent
Cum %
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
C
o
u
n
t
Pareto Charts for Defects
Defects Frequency Defects Ordered f cf %cf
5
2
4
11
24
2
1
3
23
1
2
2
Relevant to business list 12 possible defects. Construct
Pareto Chart and give comments, using the following data
Defects Frequency Defects Ordered f cf %cf
A 5 E 24 24 30
B 2 I 23 47 58.75
C 4 D 11 58 72.5
D 11 A 5 63 78.75
E 24 C 4 67 83.75
F 2 H 3 70 87.5
G 1 B 2 72 90
H 3 F 2 74 92.5
I 23 K 2 76 95
J 1 L 2 78 97.5
K 2 G 1 79 98.75
L 2 J 1 80 100
Example Pareto Chart
Cause-and-Effect Diagram (Fishbone Diagram)

TO ANALYZE DISPERSION

Major Categories MEN, METHOD, MATERIAL, MACHINE

Identify Effects

Identify Causes


Major/ Minor

Brainstorming

Construct Diagram
Man Machine Material Method Measure Enviro
Shifts Sockets Alloys Angle Micrometers Moisture%
Supervisors Bits Lubricants Engager Microscopes Condensation
Training Lathes Suppliers Brake Inspectors
Operators Speed
CAUSE -AND-EFFECT DIAGRAM
OUTPUT
Condensation
Moisture%
Inspectors
Microscopes
Micrometers
Brake
Engager
Angle
Suppliers
Lubricants
Alloys
Speed
Lathes
Bits
Sockets
Operators
Training
Supervisors
Shifts
Men
Machi nes
Materi al s
Methods
Measurements
Envi ronment
Cause-and-Effect Diagram (Minitab EXH_QC.MTW)
DEFECT CONCENTRATION DIAGRAM
PICTURE OF THE UNIT, SHOWING ALL RELEVANT
VIEWS.
VARIOUS TYPES OF DEFECTS ARE DRAWN ON THE
PICTURE.
DETERMINE WHETHER LOCATION OF DEFECTS
CONVEYS ANY USEFUL INFORMATION.
Left
side
Front Back
Right
side
Bottom
Top
Scatter Plot
Factors that influence the price of a diamond stone are the 4 C's: Carat, Clarity, Color
and Cut. The weight of a diamond stone is indicated in terms of carat units. One carat is
equivalent to 0.2 grams. All other things being equal, larger diamond stones command
higher prices in view of their rarity.
Control Charts

A very powerful tool to detect deviations/variations
Based upon Binary system
0/1, Go/No-Go Philosophy
Goal Post criteria



Visual Display


Needs Center Line
Upper and Lower Control
CONTROL CHARTS
IMPROVE PRODUCTIVITY
EFFECTIVE IN DEFECT PREVENTION
PROVIDE DIAGNOSTIC INFORMATION
PROVIDE PROCESS CAPABILITY INFORMATION
UCL
TARGET
LCL
3o
3o
UCL
TARGET
LCL
3o
3o
Under Normality Assumption

P(-3o < X- < 3o) = 0.9973
i.e.
P(Falling out of control limits) = 0.0027
(Around 3 units out of 1000)
BASIC PRINCIPLES

For an IN-CONTROL Process:

Nearly all the points should fall

in between the two control limits.
in a random fashion around the center line.

Points should not follow any specific

CYCLE or PATTERN.

For an OUT-OF-CONTROL Process

A POINT PLOTTED FALLS OUTSIDE
THE CONTROL LIMIT.
POINTS FALL INSIDE THE CONTROL
LIMITS BUT THEY FOLLOW A
SYSTEMATIC, NON_RANDOM
BEHAVIOR.
79
UCL
TARGET
LCL
3o
3o
PATTERN RECOGNITION
(Western Electric Handbook)

One point plots outside the 3 sigma control limit
Two out of three consecutive points plot beyond
the 2-sigma warning line.
Four out of five consecutive points plot at a distance
of 1-sigma or beyond from the center line.
Eight consecutive points plot on one side of the
center line.

79
UCL
TARGET
LCL
3o
3o
Types of Control Charts
VARIABLES
IF THE QUALITY CHARACTERISTIC
CAN BE MEASURED AND
EXPRESSED AS A NUMBER
ON SOME CONTINUOUS
SCALE OF MEASUREMENT.
COMMONLY USED CHARTS ARE
X-BAR, R-, AND S-.CHARTS
84
Types of control Charts
ATTRIBUTES
IF THE QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS ARE NOT
MEASURED ON A CONTINUOUS SCALE OR
EVEN A QUANTITATIVE SCALE.
THEN WE MAY JUDGE EACH UNIT OF PRODUCT
AS EITHER
CONFORMING OR NONCONFORMING.
p-, np-, c-, ARE COMMONLY USED SUCH CHARTS
Process
Measurement System
Input output
Detect assignable
causes
Identify root causes
Implement
corrective action
Verify &
follow-up
Process improvement using control chart
MEASURES FOR DESCRIBING DATA
CENTRAL TENDENCY
MEAN
n
x
x
n
i
i
=
=
1
MODE MOST FREQUENT OBSERVATION
MEDIAN THE CENTER MOST OBSERVATION
DISPERSION
RANGE R = X
MAX
- X
MIN
VARIANCE (Population) o
2
= (X
I
- )
2
N
VARIANCE (Sample)
( )
1
1
1
2
1 1
2
1
2
2

|
.
|

\
|

= =
=
n
x
n
x
n
x x
s
n
i
i
n
i
i
n
i
i
STANDARD DEVIATION = \VARIANCE
X-Bar/ R Chart
X-Bar Chart
Center Line
x
UCL
R A x
2
+
LCL
R A x
2

R-Chart
Center Line R
UCL
R D
4
LCL
R D
3
Process control plays a vital role in providing high quality end performances in production and services. Your organization considers
time to complete a specific job within 30 +/- 7 minutes. To study the behavior of your process a study was conducted and time to
complete the specific job were recorded as given below. Construct a suitable control chart and determine process capability.


Shift Sample Observation
1 31.5 35.6 34.9 32.9 23.7 38.2
2 33.6 35.9 35 41.3 24.3 25.7
3 23.6 25 24.7 29.8 29.8 27.9
4 33.1 31.8 29.8 28.9 29.8 24.9
5 36.5 37.6 34.8 39.7 31.9 28.7
6 24.9 29.8 32.7 35.6 36.7 33.1
7 23 24.6 29.8 23.1 21.9 20.7
8 33.1 39.1 32.1 34.8 35.9 33.1
9 29.4 29.8 29.8 30.1 29.1 32.8
10 37.9 37.9 29.9 38.9 39.1 33.7
11 21.3 27.6 23.4 24 24.7 23.8
12 26.8 29.8 27.9 22.1 31.8 34.8
13 32.1 33.3 29.1 24.3 27.3 29.1
14 31.4 34.1 40.1 37.8 37.8 38.9
15 23.6 43 19.6 21.7 31 23.8
16 23.4 26.5 25.6 27.9 28.9 29.8
17 21.3 31.2 23.5 31.4 32.5 34.6
18 29.1 34.7 33.9 31 34.3 34.5
19 29.1 23.7 31.2 21.7 23.9 24.7
20 27.9 34.8 41.3 31.2 34.2 23.9
21 32.4 33.5 34.6 34.2 31.4 32.6
22 43.2 21.3 32.1 33.2 28.3 23.8
23 19.8 12.4 21.9 23.9 32 28.9
24 23.1 23.9 29.8 31.1 23.8 31.4
25 23.4 24.7 28.9 31.6 34.7 33.9
Specific Job for business is Time to deliver the Fresh Baked Small Size Cake ito customers who arrive at
most 30 minutes before 4 p.m.
The process is not behaving well. Delivery was out of UCL in shifts 10 and 14. Plus the time taken to supply cakes was
also not appreciable in shifts 5 and 8, too. Cakes were also served too early (less than desired LCL) in shifts 7, 11 and 21
and quite low average time cold be observed in many shifts. Ten consecutive samples after shift 14 are falling in the lower
half, except very few ( like shifts 18, 20 and 21) indicating a process problem. Range chart also shows a bad behavior.
Almost all range values (right from shift 3 to 25) except shifts 15, 20, 22 and 23, are falling in the lower half of the chart.

It indicates that we are always consistent in our performance whether we are taking longer times or are quicker in service.
Perhaps when there are rush hours under cooked cakes, less than desired time, are supplied and when there are fewer
customers overcooked cakes, more than desired time, are supplied. Variation is quite volatile aftr 15
th
shift and need proper
measures to control the process
X-Bar/S Chart
X-Bar Chart
Center Line
x
UCL S A x
3
+
LCL S A x
3

S-Chart
Center Line
S
UCL S B
4
LCL S B
3
0
0082 . 0 00252 . 0 * 267 . 3
00252 . 0
3
4
= =
= = =
=

R D LCL
R D UCL
R
Chart MR
5105 . 0 ) 128 . 1 / 000047 (. 3 51722 . 0 3
5237 . 0 ) 128 . 1 / 00252 . 0 ( 3 51722 . 0 3
51722 . 0

2
2
= = =
= + = + =
=
d
R
x LCL
d
R
x UCL
x
ns Observatio Individual f or Chart Control
Batch Octane MR (2)
1 87.3
2 86.6
3 87.5
4 87.3
5 86.2
6 85.9
7 86.8
8 87.3
9 86.1
10 86.7
11 88.1
12 87.8
0.7
0.9
0.2
1.1
0.3
0.9
0.5
1.2
0.6
1.4
0.3
10 5 0
89
88
87
86
85
Observ ation
I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
X=86.97
3.0SL=88.93
-3.0SL=85.01
2
1
0
M
o
v
i
n
g

R
a
n
g
e
R=0.7364
3.0SL=2.406
-3.0SL=0.000
I-MR CHart for Octane Rating
BD Abs(MR)
0.519
0.513
0.517
0.52
0.52
0.518
0.514
0.516
0.517
0.519
0.518
0.52
0.516
0.515
0.513
0.519
0.519
0.513
0.518
0.519
0.518
0.518
0.006
0.004
0.003
0
0.002
0.004
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.004
0.001
0.002
0.006
0
0.006
0.005
0.001
0.001
0
5105 . 0 ) 128 . 1 / 00252 . 0 ( 3 51722 . 0 3
5239 . 0 ) 128 . 1 / 00252 . 0 ( 3 51722 . 0 3
51722 . 0

2
2
= = =
= + = + =
=
d
R
x LCL
d
R
x UCL
x
ns Observatio Individual f or Chart Control
0
0082 . 0 00252 . 0 * 267 . 3
00252 . 0
3
4
= =
= = =
=

R D LCL
R D UCL
R
Chart MR
20 10 0
0.525
0.520
0.515
0.510
Observ ation
I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
X=0.5172
3.0SL=0.5239
-3.0SL=0.5105
0.010
0.005
0.000
M
o
v
i
n
g

R
a
n
g
e
R=0.002524
3.0SL=0.008246
-3.0SL=0.000
I-MR CHart for Bulk Density
n
) p - (1 p
3 p Limits, Contorl
p , Line Center
m. , ... 1,2, i ;
n
D
p
i
i

= =
CONTROL CHARTS FOR ATTRIBUTES

Quality characteristics are Conforming or Nonconforming

FRACTION NONCONFORMING (p-Chart)
Assumptions:
m independent samples are drawn
n size of each sample
D
i
Number of defective units found in i
th
sample
Sample Defectives
1 12
2 15
3 8
4 10
5 4
6 7
7 16
8 9
9 14
10 10
11 5
12 6
13 17
14 12
15 22
Example To study the performance of your finished product, that you produced at you class room
business, 15 samples each of size 50, after a specific time were selected and the number
of faulty (nonconforming) units were recorded as given below. List three
nonconformities of your product and assuming that all three non- conformities are part
of the defect list as reported. Give your comments too.
pi
0.24
0.30
0.16
0.20
0.08
0.14
0.32
0.18
0.28
0.20
0.10
0.12
0.34
0.24
0.44
( )
( )
0425 . 0
50
78 . 0 * 22 . 0
3 22 . 0
1
3
3957 . 0
50
78 . 0 * 22 . 0
3 22 . 0
1
3
22 . 0
= =

= + =

+
=
n
p p
p
n
p p
p
p
0 5 10 15
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Sample Number
P
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
p-chart for Proportion Defectives
1
P=0.2227
UCL=0.3992
LCL=0.04616
Di pi
6
5
3
6
5
5
7
5
7
6
4
3
5
9
8
2
11
6
5
6
0.2500
0.2083
0.1250
0.2500
0.2083
0.2083
0.2917
0.2083
0.2917
0.2500
0.1667
0.1250
0.2083
0.3750
0.3333
0.0833
0.4583
0.2500
0.2083
0.2500
20 10 0
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Sample Number
P
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
p-chart for WPP Bags (Insertion)
P=0.2375
UCL=0.4981
LCL=0
( )
( )
023 . 0
24
7625 . 0 * 2375 . 0
3 2375 . 0
1
3
4981 . 0
24
7625 . 0 * 2375 . 0
3 2375 . 0
1
3
2375 . 0
= =

= + =

+
=
n
p p
p
n
p p
p
p
Control Chart for Fraction Nonconforming
Variable Sample Size e.g. 100% Inspection
Variable Width Control Limits
i
th
Sample Size n
i
Control Limits p 3\[p(1-p)/n
i
]
Control Limits Based on Average Sample Size
( )
( )
n
p p
p LCL
n
p p
p UCL
k
n
n
k
i
i

+ =
=

=
1
3
1
3
1
20 10 0
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Sample Number
P
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
p-chart for WPP Bags (Insertion)
P=0.2285
UCL=0.4970
LCL=0
Ni Di Pi
24 6
25 5
26 3
23 6
20 5
19 5
23 7
24 5
25 7
26 6
27 4
26 3
24 5
23 9
28 8
29 2
30 11
29 6
26 5
22 6
0.2500
0.2000
0.1154
0.2609
0.2500
0.2632
0.3043
0.2083
0.2800
0.2308
0.1481
0.1154
0.2083
0.3913
0.2857
0.0690
0.3667
0.2069
0.1923
0.2727
2285 . 0
499
114
= = =

i
i
i
i
N
D
p
LCLi
-0.029
-0.023
-0.019
-0.034
-0.053
-0.060
-0.034
-0.029
-0.023
-0.019
-0.014
-0.019
-0.029
-0.034
-0.010
-0.005
-0.001
-0.005
-0.019
-0.040
UCLi
0.486
0.480
0.476
0.491
0.510
0.517
0.491
0.486
0.480
0.476
0.471
0.476
0.486
0.491
0.467
0.462
0.458
0.462
0.476
0.497
( )
( )
i
i
i
i
i
i
N
p p
p LCL
N
p p
p UCL
N
D
p

+ =
=

1
3
1
3
Control Limits Based on Standardized Limits
Plot Center Line at ZERO
UCL & LCL at +3 and 3, respectively.
Do not plot fraction nonconforming instead PLOT
( )
i
i
i
n
p p
p p
z

=
1

Day ni Di pi UCL LCL

1 245 12
2 216 14
3 183 8
4 152 11
5 145 13
6 190 21
7 237 7
8 218 13
9 248 25
10 272 20
11 291 18
12 275 15
13 248 16
14 212 9
15 189 8
16 203 2
17 209 8
18 227 10
19 235 26
20 250 11

=
=
=
=
k
i
i
k
i
i
i
i
i
n
D
p
n
D
p
1
1
( )
( )
i
i
i
i
n
p p
p LCL
n
p p
p UCL

+ =
1
3
1
3
20 10 0
0.10
0.05
0.00
Sample Number
P
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
P Chart for Defects
P=0.06007
3.0SL=0.1052
-3.0SL=0.01498
Control Chart for Number of Nonconforming
np-Control Chart
( ) ) 1 3

) 1 ( 3
np np np LCL
np Line Center
np np np UCL
=
=
+ =
If a standard value of p is not available use
p
.
Control Charts for Nonconformities (c-charts)
Nonconforming Item Unit of Product that doesnt satisfy ONE or
MORE of the specifications for that product.
Defect or
Nonconformity Each point at which a specification is not
satisfied.
Nonconforming Item Contains at least one nonconformity.
Control Charts could be prepared for
Total Number of Nonconformities in a unit
Or
Average Number of Nonconformities per unit
Assumption
Occurrence of Nonconformities Follows Poisson
Distribution
This requires
# of Potential Locations for Nonconformities be
Infinitely Large
&
Probability of Occurrence of nonconformity at any
location be small and constant.
In many cases these conditions are not satisfied.
Poisson assumption works as long as departures are not severe.
Control Chart for Nonconformities
(c - Chart)

(Number of nonconformance in an inspection unit of product)
In most cases the inspection unit will be a single unit of product.

Assuming
n # of independent samples
c
i
# of nonconfomities in the i
th
sample


C-Chart (No Standard Given)
c c LCL
c Line Center
c c UCL
3

3
=
=
+ =
Sample c Sample c
1 21 14 19
2 24 15 10
3 16 16 17
4 12 17 13
5 15 18 22
6 5 19 18
7 28 20 39
8 20 21 30
9 31 22 24
10 25 23 16
11 20 24 19
12 24 25 17
13 16 26 15
Total Total
= =
= + =
= =

=
c c LCL
c c UCL
k
c
c
k
i
i
3
3
1
20 10 0
40
30
20
10
0
Sample Number
S
a
m
p
l
e

C
o
u
n
t
C Chart for Defects
1
1
C=19.85
3.0SL=33.21
-3.0SL=6.481
Where c are the # of defects found in each sample
GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING CONTROL CHARTS

DETERMINE

PROCESS CHARACTERISTICS OF INTEREST

WHERE CHARTS SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED
IN THE PROCESS.

PROPER TYPE OF CONTROL CHARTS.

TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTIONS

SELECT APPROPRIATE DATA COLLECTION SYSTEM
SELECT COMPUTER SOFTWARE.
Regression
Model Specification
Parameter Specification
Variable Selection
Parameter Estimation
Model Evaluation
Linear Regression
Consider the scatter diagram
Data appear to have a linear trend.
All points do not follow a straight line
pattern.
A line might be a good representative.
Errors (difference between actual and
fitted data) exist.
Linear Regression
yi = a + bxi ; i = 1, 2, , n
Linear Model
Least Square Estimators
. ,..., 2 , 1 ;
. ,..., 2 , 1 ;

. ,..., 2 , 1 ;
n i e y y
n i e x b a y
n i bx a y
i i i
i i i
i i
= + =
= + + =
= + =
( )( )
( )
x b y a
x
n
x
y x
n
y x
b
n
i
i
n
i
i
n
i
i
n
i
i
n
i
i i

1
1

2
1 1
2
1 1 1
=

=


= =
= = =
X Y X^2 Y^2 XY
2 5
4 9
6 11
8 10
10 15
Total
4 25 10
16 81 36
36 121 66
64 100 80
100 225 150
30 50 220 552 342
|
.
|

\
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
|
.
|

\
|
=
|
.
|

\
|
=



= = =
= =
= =
n
i
i
n
i
i
n
i
i i xy
n
i
i
n
i
i yy
n
i
i
n
i
i xx
y x
n
y x S
y
n
y S
x
n
x S
1 1 1
2
1 1
2
2
1 1
2
1
1
1
x b y a
S
S
b
xx
xy
=
=
sxx 40
syy 52
sxy 42
b 1.05
a 3.7
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
x
y
S = 1.62275 R-Sq = 84.8 % R-Sq(adj) = 79.7 %
y = 3.7 + 1.05 x
Regression Plot
Linear Regression Equation

y = a + bx

yy xx
xy
S S
S
r =
The regression equation is
y = 3.70 + 1.05 x

Predictor Coef SE Coef T P
Constant 3.700 1.702 2.17 0.118
x 1.0500 0.2566 4.09 0.026

S = 1.623 R-Sq = 84.8% R-Sq(adj) = 79.7%

Analysis of Variance

Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 1 44.100 44.100 16.75 0.026
Residual Error 3 7.900 2.633
Total 4 52.000