On Monitoring Processes and Assessing Process Capability under a Hierarchical Model, Part 1

  • Poul Thyregod
  • Henrik Melgaard
  • Jørgen Iwersen
Conference paper
Part of the Frontiers in Statistical Quality Control book series (FSQC, volume 7)


In this paper we discuss the practical problems involved in following the rational subgrouping principle for control charting as many processes exhibit variation that exceeds the within subgroup variation. As an example we consider simple models for processes where the two extremes ‘high frequency variation’ and ‘low frequency variation’ both contribute to inherent process variation. We emphasize the importance of distinguishing between charting aimed at identifying situations where minor process adjustments are needed to compensate for process disturbancies, and charting aimed at demonstrating a state of ‘statistical control’ with a predictable long-term distribution of process output. For the latter purpose we discuss the modelling of process variation by means of a hierarchical model for normally distributed measurements. The approach is illustrated by a case from the pharmaceutical industry. We finally discuss the assessment of process capability under a hierarchical model for process variation.


Subgroup Average Control Chart Hierarchical Model Control Limit Process Output 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Thyregod, P., Iwersen, J. and Melgaard, H. (2003) On monitoring processes and assessing process capability under a hierarchical model, Part 2. To appear in Frontiers in Statistical Quality Control 7, H.-J. Lenz, P.-Th. Wilrich (Eds.), Physica Verlag, 2003Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Quality System Requirements, QS — 9000, 3rd edition, Automotive Industry Action Group, Soutfield, MichiganGoogle Scholar
  3. 4.
    Woodall, W.H., Thomas, E.W. (1995) Statistical Process Control With Several Components of Common Cause Variability. HE Transactions 27 757–764Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    Sparks, R. S., Field, J.F.B. (2000) Using Deming’s Funnel Experiment to Demonstrate Effects of Violating Assumptions Underlying Shewhart’s Control Charts. The American Statistician 54, 291–302.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 6.
    Fisher, R.A. (1918) The Correlation Between Relatives on the Supposition of Mendelian Inheritance. Transactions of The Royal Society, Edinburgh 52 399–433Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    Tippet, L.H.C. (1931) The Methods of Statistics, 1st Ed. William and Norgate, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. 8.
    MacGregor, J.F. (1976) Optimal Choice of the Sampling Interval for Discrete Process Control. Technometrics 18 151–160MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 9.
    Bayley, G. V. and Hammersley, J. M. (1946) The “Effective” Number of Independent Observations in an Autocorrelated Time Series. Journ. Roy. Statist. Soc. Suppl. VIII 185–197Google Scholar
  9. 10.
    Box, G., Luceño, A. (1994) Selection of Sampling Interval and Action Limit for Discrete Feedback Adjustment. Technometrics 36 369–378CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 11.
    Ryan, T. P. (1997) Efficient Estimation of Control Chart Parameters. In Lenz H.-J., Wilrich P.-Th. (Eds) Frontiers in Statistical Quality Control 5, Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, 90–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 12.
    Yashchin, E. (1994) Monitoring Variance Components. Technometrics 36 379–393CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 13.
    Heredia-Langner, A., Montgomery, D.C., Runger, G. C, Borror, C. M. and Post, R..I. (2001) Performance of Customized Control Charts to Detect Process Disturbancies. Quality and Reliability Engineering International 17 205–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 14.
    Freund, R. A. (1957) Acceptance Control Charts. Industrial Quality Control XIV No.4, 13–19, 22Google Scholar
  14. 15.
    Rao, P.S.R.S. (1997) Variance Components Estimation. Mixed Models Methodologies and Applications. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. 16.
    Nelson, L.S. (1999) The Calculation of Process Capability Indices. Journal of Quality Technology 31, 249–250Google Scholar
  16. 17.
    Satterthwaite, F. E. (1946) An Approximate Distribution of Estimates of Variance Components. Biometrics Bulletin 2 110–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 18.
    Seely, J. F. and Lee, Y. (1994) A Note on the Satterthwaite Confidence Interval for a Variance. Commun. Statist. — Theory Meth. 23 859–869CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 19.
    Stern, S. E. and Welsh, A. H. (2000) Likelihood Inference for Small Variance Components. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 28 517–532CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 20.
    Longford, N.T. (2000) On Estimating Standard Errors in Multilevel Analysis. The Statistician 49 389–398Google Scholar
  20. 21.
    Faddoul, N. R., English, J. R. and Taylor, G. D. (1996) The impact of mixture distributions in classical process capability analysis. HE Transactions 28 957–966Google Scholar
  21. 22.
    Shore, H. (1997) Process Capability Analysis when Data are Autocorrelated. Quality Engineering 9 615–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 23.
    Zhang, N. F. (1998) Estimating Process Capability Indexes for Autocorrelated Data. Journal of Applied Statistics 25 559–574CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Poul Thyregod
    • 1
  • Henrik Melgaard
    • 2
  • Jørgen Iwersen
    • 2
  1. 1.Informatics and Mathematical Modelling (IMM), Technical University of DenmarkLyngbyDenmark
  2. 2.Novo Nordisk A/SBagsvaerdDenmark

Personalised recommendations