On Monitoring Processes and Assessing Process Capability under a Hierarchical Model, Part 1
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.
KeywordsSubgroup Average Control Chart Hierarchical Model Control Limit Process Output
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 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.Quality System Requirements, QS — 9000, 3rd edition, Automotive Industry Action Group, Soutfield, MichiganGoogle Scholar
- 4.Woodall, W.H., Thomas, E.W. (1995) Statistical Process Control With Several Components of Common Cause Variability. HE Transactions 27 757–764Google Scholar
- 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
- 7.Tippet, L.H.C. (1931) The Methods of Statistics, 1st Ed. William and Norgate, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 14.Freund, R. A. (1957) Acceptance Control Charts. Industrial Quality Control XIV No.4, 13–19, 22Google Scholar
- 15.Rao, P.S.R.S. (1997) Variance Components Estimation. Mixed Models Methodologies and Applications. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 16.Nelson, L.S. (1999) The Calculation of Process Capability Indices. Journal of Quality Technology 31, 249–250Google Scholar
- 20.Longford, N.T. (2000) On Estimating Standard Errors in Multilevel Analysis. The Statistician 49 389–398Google Scholar
- 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