Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Editors note: This article is the second of a two-part illustrated discussion of the definitions and practices of process control, especially those practices that are supported by the construction and interpretation of Shewhart control charts. The first article, which
appeared in the May 1996 issue, addressed issues relating to the structure of control charts. This second article focuses on the interpretation of control charts, with special emphasis on the sensitivity of seven rules that are commonly used to help quality professionals hear the voice of the process.
A
Part 2: The
probability
structure of
rules for
interpreting
control charts
by
Robert W. Hoyer
and
Wayne C. Ellis
The B Chart
57
Description
Rule 1
Rule 2
Rule 2'
Rule 3
Rule 3'
Rule 4
Rule 5
Rule 6
Rule 7
What is sensitivity?
Suppose you have been measuring a certain process characteristic that has been in control for a long time. Suddenly, you
reach a point in the chart where one of the seven patterns of the
statistic occurs. You can be fairly certain that one of two possibilities is true: Either you have witnessed a miracle (a low-probability event for an in-control process) or the pattern is not surprising (it can easily be explained by adjusting the distribution
of the process output in a manner that makes the patterns
occurrence a reasonably high-probability event).
These two alternatives are illustrated in the X chart in Figure 3.
Notice that in both charts, there is no reason to believe that the
process is out of control until reaching the 15th value of X. At
that point, it seems reasonable to believe that either the process
is in control (chart a) and you have just witnessed a value of X
that occurs with a probability (P) less than P = 0.00135 (i.e.,
58
Description
Probability
(%)
Rule 6'
(7.50)
0.018%
Rule 2'
(2.60)
0.052%
Rule 3'
(2.14)
0.063%
Rule 6
(1.96)
0.069%
Rule 1
(1.00)
0.135%
Rule 5
(0.97)
0.139%
Rule 2
(0.88)
0.153%
Rule 7
(0.58)
0.234%
Rule 3
(0.49)
0.277%
Rule 4''
(0.35)
0.391%
Rule 6''
(0.32)
0.417%
Rule 4
(0.17)
0.781%
Rule 4'
(0.09)
1.563%
59
X is slightly skewed
X is seriously skewed
Sample size
Sample size
Sample size
is irrelevant
10
25
10
25
Rule
Description
0.135%
0.254%
0.209%
0.191%
0.488%
0.380%
0.281%
0.135%
0.021%
0.046%
0.080%
0.000%
0.008%
0.035%
0.153%
0.237%
0.212%
0.190%
0.342%
0.281%
0.235%
0.153%
0.076%
0.098%
0.119%
0.020%
0.048%
0.082%
0.052%
0.080%
0.072%
0.064%
0.117%
0.096%
0.080%
0.052%
0.026%
0.033%
0.040%
0.007%
0.016%
0.028%
0.277%
0.284%
0.281%
0.280%
0.273%
0.274%
0.277%
0.277%
0.284%
0.284%
0.278%
0.268%
0.273%
0.276%
0.063%
0.065%
0.064%
0.064%
0.062%
0.063%
0.063%
0.063%
0.065%
0.065%
0.064%
0.061%
0.063%
0.063%
0.781%
0.631%
0.680%
0.705%
0.494%
0.568%
0.636%
0.781%
0.961%
0.896%
0.865%
1.202%
1.060%
0.953%
0.391%
0.306%
0.333%
0.347%
0.231%
0.271%
0.309%
0.391%
0.495%
0.457%
0.439%
0.639%
0.554%
0.491%
0.139%
0.139%
0.139%
0.139%
0.139%
0.139%
0.139%
0.139%
0.139%
0.139%
0.139%
0.139%
0.139%
0.139%
Of 10 consecutive values of X,
a subset of eight (reading from
left to right) are in a monotone
increasing pattern
0.069%
0.069%
0.069%
0.069%
0.069%
0.069%
0.069%
Of 10 consecutive values of X,
a subset of eight (reading from
left to right) are in a monotone
decreasing pattern
0.069%
0.069%
0.069%
0.069%
0.069%
0.069%
0.069%
0.234%
0.229%
0.230%
0.232%
0.282%
0.261%
0.243%
2'
3'
4"
60
61
62
Seriously
skewed
process
distribution
ignore opportunities to improve the process by removing special-cause variation, we cannot overlook the fact that, for
small sample sizes, both Rule 2 and Rule 3 are much more
sensitive to upward movements in the process center than is
Rule 1.
No matter whether the distribution of the process output is
symmetric or skewed, Rule 1 should be viewed as merely a single indicatorand not even the most important onein a comprehensive set of rules that can help analysts identify specialcause variation. Frankly, singling out Rule 1 as an indicator that
can be used by itself to assess process control is intellectually
naive and borders on being dishonest.
63
References
1. Any argument in support of the mathematical accuracy of this relative comparison of sensitivities will be vulnerable to the counterargument that the measurement scale for pattern sensitivity is probably not
a ratio-level scale.
2. See Thomas P. Ryan, Statistical Methods for Quality
Improvement (New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1989), pp. 102104.
64
Excellent
Circle #361
Good
Circle #362
Fair
Circle #363
Poor
Circle #364