You are on page 1of 17

International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management

A process incapability index


Michael Greenwich Betty L. Jahr-Schaffrath

Article information:
To cite this document:
Michael Greenwich Betty L. Jahr-Schaffrath, (1995),"A process incapability index", International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, Vol. 12 Iss 4 pp. 58 - 71
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656719510087328

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 23:51 24 November 2015 (PT)

Downloaded on: 24 November 2015, At: 23:51 (PT)


References: this document contains references to 9 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 432 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:


Mats Deleryd, (1998),"On the gap between theory and practice of process capability studies", International Journal of Quality
& Reliability Management, Vol. 15 Iss 2 pp. 178-191 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656719810204892
Jann-Pygn Chen, Cherng G. Ding, (2001),"A new process capability index for non-normal distributions", International Journal
of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 18 Iss 7 pp. 762-770 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656710110396076

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:581774 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com


Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

IJQRM
12,4

A process incapability index


Michael Greenwich and Betty L. Jahr-Schaffrath

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 23:51 24 November 2015 (PT)

58
Received July 1993
Revised April 1994

Department of Mathematics, Computer Science and Statistics, Purdue


University Calumet, Hammond, Indiana, USA
Introduction
There have been a number of process capability indices proposed over the years
for the purpose of assessing the capability of a process to meet certain
specifications. Kane[l] investigated comprehensively the Cp and Cpk indices and
their estimators. Generally, the C pk index takes into account the process
variation as well as the location of the process mean relative to the specification
limits while the Cp index reflects only the magnitude of the process variation.
Chan et al.[2] developed the C pm index in order to take into account the
departure of the process mean from the target (nominal) value. The Cpm index is
defined mathematically as
C pm =

USL LSL
6

where

= E [( X T )2 ],
USL is the upper specification limit, LSL is the lower specification limit and T
is the target (nominal) value such that LSL < T < USL.
A general form of Cpm is C*pm which was defined by Chan et al.[2] as
C *pm =

where
D = min[(USL T)/3, (T LSL)/3].
In this article, C*pm is used for both Cpm and C*pm (except in those instances
where Cpm needs to be specified) since Cpm is merely a special case of C*pm where
USL T = T LSL. Unfortunately, the statistical properties of the estimator,
D
,
C *pm =
2
2
+ ( T )
for C*pm are analytically intractable, regardless of the choices for the variation
estimator, 2, and the mean estimator, . This process capability index is also
International Journal of Quality
& Reliability Management,
Vol. 12 No. 4, 1995, pp. 58-71,
MCB University Press,
0265-671X

The research for this article was supported partially by the School of Liberal Arts and Sciences,
Purdue University Calumet. The authors also wish to thank Mr R.J. Whittaker and his Integrated
Process Control Group, LTV Steel Co., for their support.

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 23:51 24 November 2015 (PT)

discussed in Spirings article[3]. Boyles[4] pointed out that the index C*pm is
identical to the process capability index proposed by Taguchi[5]. A table which
gives the critical values that C pm must exceed in order to conclude that Cpm > 1
at various significance levels was provided by Boyles[4].
A simple transformation of the C*pm index, Cpp, will be introduced in this
article. This Cpp index can be regarded as a process capability index or more
precisely as a process incapability index. Since the transformation is bijective,
the Cpp index contains the same information as that of C*pm; namely, inaccuracy
(the departure of the process mean, , from the target value, T) and imprecision
(the magnitude of the process variation, 2). Moreover, the Cpp index provides
an uncontaminated separation between information concerning the process
accuracy and precision while this kind of information separation is not
available with the C*pm index. Often, C*pm is employed to assess process
capability because the process accuracy is of significance. Therefore, this
information separation is highly beneficial because it indicates to what degree
the process inaccuracy contributes to the process being incapable of meeting
the specifications.
Recently, Pearn et al.[6] introduced a new (so-called third generation)
process capability index, Cpmk, in an attempt to detect a smaller departure of the
process mean from the target value. However, the degree of this process
inaccuracy (large or small) is indicated explicitly with Cpp as a result of the
information separation by the transformation. Moreover, since the Cpmk index is
sensitive to the process inaccuracy, it may produce a small value for a process,
indicating that the process is not capable of meeting the specification although
the process has a high proportion (for instance, greater than 99.73 per cent) of
conforming output. The same is true for Cpm and Cpp (but to a lesser extent
since they are less sensitive to process inaccuracy). The separated information
can be used to segregate processes (which are indicated to be less capable by a
process capability index) between those with a high proportion of conforming
output and those with a low proportion of conforming output.
The process incapability index, Cpp
Let Cpp be defined as
2

C pp

1
.
=
C*
pm

That is,
2

C pp

= ,
D

and, since 2 = ( T )2 + 2, it follows that

(1)

A process
incapability
index
59

IJQRM
12,4

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 23:51 24 November 2015 (PT)

60

C pp

T
=
+ ,
D D

(2 )

where is the process mean and 2 is the process variance. Due to the relation
(1), C pp assumes a smaller value for a process more capable of meeting its
specifications and a larger value for a less capable process. A process is most
capable when Cpp = 0. For this, the process mean must be at the process target
( = T ) and the process variance must be zero (2 = 0). Any non-zero value of
Cpp indicates some degree of incapability of the process. Thus, Cpp is a process
incapability index.
A (, ) plot can be constructed for Cpp by plotting the contours of Cpp = k for
various k values. They are a set of (, ) values satisfying the equation,
( T )2 + 2 = kD2.

These contours are semicircles centred


at = T with radius k D, which are the

same as those of Cpm = c = 1/(k D) plotted in Boyles[4, Figure 5]. The more
capable the process, the smaller the semicircle is. This geometric interpretation
of Cpp is immediate from the transformation (1).
The first and second terms of the right-hand side of (2) exclusively and
respectively reflect the process inaccuracy (departure of the process mean from
the process target) and the process imprecision (process variation). This
decomposition (non-contaminated information separation) is not available with
C*pm. If the process variation is negligible (that is, the second term is close to
zero), then Cpp provides a concrete measure of process centring.
For instance, if Cpp = 1, the process mean, , is located within one-third of the
distance between the target, T, and the nearest specification limit. The righthand side of (2) also shows that if the process shifts away from its target, then
Cpp increases. If the process variance increases, then Cpp increases. When the
process mean and variance both change, Cpp reflects these changes additively.
This indicates that C pp has the necessary properties for assessing process
capability, using both the departure from the target value and the magnitude of
the process variation.
Let ( T ) 2/D 2 be denoted by C ia (inaccuracy index) and ( /D) 2 by C ip
(imprecision index), then
Cpp = Cia + Cip.
The inaccuracy index is the squared ratio of the distance between the process
mean and the process target to one-third of the distance between the process
target and the nearest specification limit. The imprecision index is the squared
ratio of the process standard deviation to one-third of the distance between the
process target and the nearest specification limit. Since the denominators are
identical, these subindices provide the relative magnitudes of the contributions
to the process in capability indicated by Cpp. In fact,

100C ia

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 23:51 24 November 2015 (PT)

C pp

and

A process
incapability
index

100C ip
C pp

provide the proportions of the process incapability contributed by the


departure of the process mean from the target and by the process variation,
respectively.
An example of three processes with LSL = 10, T = 13 and USL = 16 is given
in Pearn et al.[6, Figure 2] and is used to illustrate that Cpm fails to distinguish
between on-target and off-target processes. The three processes are A
distributed as N(13.00, 1.00), B distributed as N(13.50, 0.87) and C distributed as
N(13.87, 0.50) where N(, ) stands for a normal distribution with mean and
standard deviation . The value of Cpp is one for each of A, B and C and, hence,
C pp also fails to distinguish between on-target and off-target processes.
However, the values of (Cia , Cip ) are (0, 1) for A, (0.25, 0.75) for B and (0.75, 0.25)
for C. These processes are clearly distinguished by the separated information.
The values of the indices for the three processes are summarized in Table I.
One disadvantage that C pmk has failed to overcome is that it cannot
distinguish processes of high conforming output proportions from those of low
conforming output proportions. For instance, the value of 0.83 for Cpmk can
occur from B, which has high conforming output, as well as from a process
distributed as N(13, 1.20) with the same LSL, USL and T, which has low
conforming output.
All three processes given in Pearn et al.[6, Figure 2] are capable because their
conforming output proportions (COP) are higher than or equal to 99.73 per cent.
The new process capability index, Cpmk, produces a value of 1.00 for A, a value
of 0.83 for B and a value of 0.71 for C although the conforming output
proportion of C is higher than that of B, which is, in turn, higher than that of A.
The same result happens to Cpm, but to a lesser degree, with a larger departure
(| T | > D) of the process mean from the target value. This is illustrated by
Pearn et al.[6, Figure 1]. In the figure, three processes (A of N(14.00, 4/3), B of
N(16.00, 2/3) and C of N(13.87, 1/2)) are presented with LSL = 10, T = 14 and
USL = 18. The values of Cpmk are respectively 1.00, 0.32 and 0.11 for A, B and C.
Those of C pm (C pp ) are 1.00 (1.00), 0.63 (2.50) and 0.44 (5.13) for the three
processes respectively. With these values, all three indices indicate that B and C
are not capable. However, they are highly capable of turning out a high
proportion of products that meet the specifications. The values of the indices for
the three processes are summarized in Table II.

A
B
C

Cpkm

Cpp

Cia

Cip

Ccop

1.00
0.83
0.71

1.00
1.00
1.00

0.00
0.25
0.75

1.00
0.75
0.25

1.00
1.00
1.00

61

Table I.
Values of various
indices for processes,
A, B and C

IJQRM
12,4

The two subindices can be used to identify processes with high conforming
output proportions by computing
C cop =

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 23:51 24 November 2015 (PT)

62

3 C ip

3 C ia

If Ccop 1, then the process has a conforming output proportion of at least 99.73
per cent (assuming normality). The values of Ccop for the three processes in
Pearn et al.[6, Figure 2] are all identical to 1, indicating that these three
processes are indeed capable of producing at least 99.73 per cent of the time
products which meet the specifications. If another process is distributed as
N(17, 1/4), then Cpm = 0.44 and Cpp = 5.10 (Cia = 81/16 and Cip = 9/256) for the
same process target and specification limits as in Pearn et al.[6, Figure 2].
However, Ccop is 0.75, indicating a very high (far greater than 99.73 per cent,
assuming normality) conforming output proportion.
Confidence intervals for Cpp based on a small sample
Let X be the normally distributed process quality characteristic of interest, and
X1,, Xn be a random sample of n observations of X taken while the process is
in control. It is assumed that such a normal sample of a relatively small sample

size n is available for inference on Cpp in this section. Let X and s2 denote the
usual sample mean and variance respectively.
Kushler and Hurley[7] compared the performances of a variety of confidence
bounds (intervals) for C pm using the actual miss rates of the different
confidence intervals. The miss rate is the probability of a confidence interval
missing the true value of Cpm. If the method (and the approximation used in the
method) of constructing a confidence interval is good, then the miss rate is
close to the nominal rate of in the 100(1 ) confidence. According to the
miss rates comparisons, the method suggested by Boyles[4] performs better
overall than other methods such as the central 2 method, the Bonferroni
method and the method suggested by Chan et al.[2].
The unbiased estimator for 2,
n

Xi T

2 =

Table II.
Values of various
indices for processes,
A, B and C

A
B
C

i =1

(3 )

Cpkm

Cpm

Cpp

Ccop

1.00
0.32
0.11

1.00
2.50
5.13

1.00
0.63
0.44

1.00
1.00
1.00

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 23:51 24 November 2015 (PT)

will be used in this article. This estimator was originally proposed by


Taguchi[5] and used by Boyles[4]. The variance of the estimator is smaller than
the mean squared error of the biased estimator proposed by Chan et al.[2].
Under normality, the estimator is also the maximum likelihood estimator
(MLE) for . Using (3), an unbiased and consistent point estimator for Cpp can be
obtained as

2
C pp =
.
D2
Intervals with 100(1 ) per cent confidence for C pp will be obtained by
approximating a non-central 2 distribution with a scaled 2 distribution by
equating the first two moments of the distributions. This is the same
approximation method used by Boyles[4] in obtaining confidence intervals for
Cpm.
The quantity 2/2 is approximately distributed as 2m /m where

m=

2

T

n 1 +

T
1 + 2

This means that the pivotal quantity is approximately distributed as 2m /m


since
C pp 2
=
.
C pp 2
Then, an approximate 100 (1 ) confidence interval for C pp is given as

pp
pp
mC
mC

,
,
cup( / 2 ; m

cup
1
2

)
(
/
;
m
)

(4 )

where cup( p; k) is the upper p percentage point of the 2 distribution with k


degrees of freedom, m
is the MLE for m given as

=
m

X T
n 1 +

*
s

X T
1 + 2

s*

A process
incapability
index
63

IJQRM
12,4

64

and s* = (n 1)s 2 / n . The lower and upper 100(1 ) confidence bounds (intervals) for C pp are respectively
mC

pp
pp
mC

.
, and 0,

cup(1 ; m
cup( ; m

)
)

(5 )

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 23:51 24 November 2015 (PT)

The upper confidence bound is likely to be of interest.


An unbiased and consistent point estimator for Cip can be defined obtained as
s2
C ip =
.
2
D
An unbiased and consistent point estimator for C ia can be obtained as
C ia = C pp C ip
=

2
2

D
The quantity

s2
D

( X T )2
D2
can be used to estimate C ia but it is biased by the factor

2
nD 2

This bias factor shows that the quantity is asymptotically unbiased but could
be considerably biased for a small sample size, n, and a large standard
deviation, .
Table III shows 30 computer-generated observations (rounded to three
decimal places) using a normal distribution with mean 13.50 and standard
deviation 13/15. Using a process target of 13 and upper and lower specification
limits of 16 and 10, respectively, Cpp = 1.00 results. Using the same USL, LSL, T
and the observations in Table III, confidence intervals for Cpp and estimates for
the sub-indices will be determined as an example. A 95 per cent confidence level
will be used.

Table III.
Computer-generated
normal observations

12.921
14.281
13.588
14.528
11.951
13.409

13.363
13.626
14.656
12.417
14.639
14.807

14.632
13.468
13.556
13.906
12.852
12.874

15.270
12.664
11.920
14.497
13.367
13.705

12.727
13.040
13.117
12.453
11.901
13.275

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 23:51 24 November 2015 (PT)

The point estimate of Cpp is 1.01 with the two-sided 95 per cent confidence
interval of [0.65, 1.75] by (4). This interval is equivalent to the 95 per cent
confidence interval of [0.76, 1.24] for Cpm. The one-sided 95 per cent confidence
intervals for C pp are [0.69, ) and (0, 1.60] by (5). These are equivalent
respectively to the one-sided 95 per cent confidence intervals, (0, 1.20] and [0.79,
), for Cpm. The estimate, 1.01, is close to the true value, 1.00, of Cpp and these
95 per cent confidence intervals contain the true Cpp.
^
The point estimate of Cip is 0.83, slightly higher than the true Cip of 0.75. The
^
point estimate Cia for Cia is 0.18 (1.01 0.83), determined by subtracting the
point estimate for Cip from that of Cpp. Thus, the estimated proportion of the
process incapability due to inaccuracy is 17.8 per cent which is determined by
^
^
dividing Cia by Cpp. The estimated proportion of the process incapability due to
the imprecision is 82.2 per cent. Both estimates are close to the true proportions.
These relative proportions suggest that the imprecision contributes more to the
incapability of the process and that, in order to improve the process, the process
variation should be reduced before attempting to adjust the process to the
target.
Boyles[4] conducted simulation studies to assess the accuracy of the
approximate lower confidence bounds for Cpm by the procedure based on the
same approximation. The accuracy of approximation was reported to be
satisfactory. This is expected to hold for the approximate confidence intervals
for Cpp introduced in this section since Cpp and its confidence intervals are a
bijective transformation of Cpm and its confidence bounds.
Confidence intervals for Cpp based on a large sample
Using a large sample sample (n 80), the confidence intervals both for Cpp
and for its subindices are developed in this section. It is assumed that
the process quality characteristic of interest X has the fourth moment (that is,
E(X4) < ), and that a large random sample of n observations of X was taken
while the process was in control and is available for determining confidence
intervals.
The estimators, developed in this section, for the indices are functions of the
first four sample moments and hence they are asymptotically normally
distributed due to a special case of Theorem B by Serfling[8] and corollary
[8, p. 124] to Theorem A by Serfling[8].
Chan et al.[9] used the theorems and corollary to show that the well-known
point estimators for Cp, Cpk and Cpm are asymptotically normally distributed.
The procedure used in this section is based on the asymptotic normality of the
point estimators for Cpp and for its subindices. This extends the construction of
confidence intervals for the indices of non-normal processes. However, one
needs to be careful about application of a process capability index for a nonnormal process because an index loses such a practical interpretation as the
conforming output percentage of the process.

A process
incapability
index
65

IJQRM
12,4

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 23:51 24 November 2015 (PT)

66

Due to the theorems and the corollary by Serfling mentioned above,

2 ( X T )2 s*2
C pp =
=
+
D2
D2
D2
2
is asymptotically normally distributed with mean C pp and variance pp
/n where
2
=
pp

4 ( T )2 2

4 3 ( T )

4 4

D4
D4
D4
3 = E [( X )3 ] and 4 = E [( X )4 ].
By substituting the sample moments,
n

Xi X

X , s*2 , M3 =

i =1

Xi X

and M 4 =

i =1

,
n
n
2
for , 2 , 3 and 4 , an estimator for pp
is obtained as
2
pp
=

4 ( X T ) 2 s *2
D4

4 M3(X T )
D4

M 4 s *4
D4

Using this estimator, a 100(1) per cent confidence interval for Cpp can be
constructed as

C pp z / 2 pp / n , Cpp + z / 2 pp / n ,

(6)

where generally zp represents the upper 100p per cent point of the standard
normal distribution. One-sided 100(1 ) per cent confidence intervals are
respectively,

C pp z pp / n , and 0 , C pp + z pp / n .
An estimator for C ia ,

(7 )

( X T )2
C ia =
,
D2
is asymptotically normally distributed with mean Cia and variance ia2 /n where
2
ia
=

4( T )2 2

.
D4

By substituting X and s*2 for and 2, an estimator for ia2 is obtained as


2
ia
=

4( X T )2 s*2
D4

Using this estimator, a 100(1 ) per cent confidence interval for Cia can be
constructed as

C ia z / 2 ia / n , C ia + z / 2 ia / n .
One-sided 100(1 ) per cent confidence intervals are respectively,

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 23:51 24 November 2015 (PT)

C ia z ia / n , and 0 , C ia + z ia / n .

(8 )

67
(9 )

Similarly, an estimator for Cia,


s2
C ip =
,
D2
is asymptotically normally distributed with mean Cip and variance ip2 /n where
2
ip
=

4 4

.
D4
By substituting s*4 and M4 for 4 and 4, an estimator for ip2 is obtained as
2
ip
=

M 4 s*4
D

Using this estimator, a 100(1 ) per cent confidence interval for Cia can be
constructed as

[C

ip

z / 2 ip / n , C ip + z / 2 ip / n .

(10 )

One-sided 100(1 ) per cent confidence intervals are respectively,

(11)
C ip z ip / n , and 0 , C ip + z ip / n .
2 , 2 and 2 , the two subindices, C
and C , are uncorrelated if
According to pp
ia
ip
ia
ip
the underlying distribution is symmetric (and hence 3 = 0). If the process
distribution is normal, then these estimators are independent as expected.
An estimator for Ccop,
C cop =

3 C ip

A process
incapability
index

3 C ia

where C ia and C ip are estimators for Cia and Cip defined earlier in this section, is
2 /n where
asymptotically normally distributed with mean Ccop and variance cop

IJQRM
12,4

2
=
cop

9 4
(3 D + T ) 4

9 3

(3 D + T )3

9( 4 4 )
4 2 (3 D + T )2

2
By using the same substitution with the sample moments, an estimator for cop
is obtained as

68

2
=
cop

9 s*4
(3 D X + T )

9 M3
(3 D X + T )

9( M 4 s*4 )
4 s (3 D X + T )
*2

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 23:51 24 November 2015 (PT)

Using this estimator, a 100(1 ) per cent confidence interval for Cia can be
constructed as

C cop z / 2 cop / n , C ip + z / 2 cop / n .

(12 )

One-sided 100(1 ) per cent confidence intervals are respectively,

(13 )
C cop z cop / n , and 0 , C cop + z cop / n .
In order to assess the accuracy of the approximate confidence intervals for Cpp,
Cia, Cip and Ccop, simulation studies were conducted for 95 per cent and 99 per
cent confidence levels. A simulation study consisted of taking 10,000 random
samples from a process and constructing a confidence interval (based on each
of the 10,000 samples) for every one of the four indices.
The ratio of the number of confidence intervals that contain the index to
10,000 (the total number of intervals) is the observed coverage rate. The
accuracy of the approximation can be measured by how close the observed
coverage rate is to the significance level preset for the intervals. This simulation
study was conducted for normal and non-normal processes using various
sample sizes.
The results of the simulation studies generally indicate that the observed
coverage rates tend to be lower than the preset significance level but the
approximation accuracy seems to be satisfactory for a sample size of 200 or
greater. A typical result of one such study is given in Table IV. The observed
coverage rates of 95 per cent two-sided confidence intervals for the indices of
the same normal process used as a numerical example in the last section are
given. As expected, the accuracy is lower for a smaller sample size. Incidentally,

Table IV.
The observed coverage
rates

100
200
300
400
500

Cpp

Cia

Cip

Ccop

93.57
94.16
94.51
94.60
94.59

93.60
94.10
94.47
94.21
94.64

92.51
93.95
95.25
94.18
94.13

93.35
94.26
94.28
94.66
94.45

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 23:51 24 November 2015 (PT)

the width of a confidence interval for a given significance level becomes wider
as the sample size gets smaller.
Since the observed coverage rates are indicated to be generally lower than the
confidence level, the approximation accuracy of the confidence intervals can be
improved by using in nk instead of n as the denominator in (6), (7), (8), (9),
(10), (11), (12) and (13). For instance, further simulation studies indicate that the
denominator of n 16 seems to work well for normal processes in general.
Table V shows the observed coverage rates of the same confidence intervals

Cpp

Cia

Cip

Ccop

50
60
70
80
90
100
200
300
400
500

95.56
95.39
95.15
95.01
95.06
95.24
94.84
95.20
95.00
94.99

95.21
95.00
95.19
95.07
94.69
95.26
95.10
95.08
94.64
94.99

94.60
94.48
94.82
94.20
94.24
94.51
94.67
94.58
94.67
94.50

95.49
95.25
94.89
94.88
94.91
95.25
94.88
95.10
95.10
94.77

12.740
15.386
14.971
14.383
12.490
13.467
12.702
13.056
12.505
12.594
13.020
14.015
12.661
12.211
14.068
12.369

15.258
13.971
12.447
13.375
14.345
11.968
12.053
14.664
13.030
14.135
13.362
13.346
15.090
13.418
14.084
12.765

13.452
12.276
12.197
13.883
13.544
13.341
12.505
12.315
14.156
13.228
13.933
13.193
14.095
13.548
14.194
12.925

Cpp
Cia
Cip
Ccop

13.312
13.158
13.973
13.188
13.316
13.938
11.487
13.765
14.592
12.656
13.895
13.952
12.686
13.090
14.144
14.928

13.122
14.473
11.938
14.450
14.144
13.003
13.982
13.852
14.254
13.680
13.321
15.123
14.633
13.780
12.866
12.074

Two-sided

One-sided

One-sided

[0.68, 1.28]
[0.02, 0.42]
[0.54, 0.98]
[0.86, 1.21]

[0.72, )
[0.05, )
[0.58, )
[0.89, )

(0, 1.23]
(0, 0.39]
(0, 0.94]
(0, 1.18]

A process
incapability
index
69

Table V.
The observed coverage
rates with n 16

Table VI.
Computer-generated
normal observations

Table VII.
95 per cent confidence
intervals

IJQRM
12,4

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 23:51 24 November 2015 (PT)

70

for the identical normal process as those listed in Table IV. However, this time,
n 16 is used with various sample size n.
With the correction factor k = 16, the accuracy seems to be satisfactory for a
sample size as small as 50. However, the confidence interval, using n 16 for
the denominator, is wider than a confidence interval using n.
Table VI shows 80 computer-generated observations (rounded to three
decimal places) from the same normal distribution used to generate the 30
observations in Table III. Using these 80 observations with the same target and
specification limits used in the example given in Table III, confidence intervals
for Cpp and its subindices will be constructed as an example of the large sample
method introduced at the beginning of this section. The confidence level used is
95 per cent.
The point estimate of C pp is 0.98 with the two-sided 95 per cent confidence
interval of [0.68, 1.28] by (6) while the one-sided 95 per cent confidence intervals
for Cpp are [0.72, ) and (0, 1.23] by (7). This estimate is close to the true value,
1.00, of Cpp and these 95 per cent confidence intervals contain the true Cpp.
The point estimate of C ia is 0.22 with the two-sided 95 per cent confidence
interval of [0.02, 0.42] by (8) while the one-sided 95 per cent confidence intervals
for Cia are [0.05, ) and (0, 0.39] by (9). This estimate is close to the true value,
0.25, of Cia and these 95 per cent confidence intervals contain the true Cia.
The point estimate of C ip is 0.76 with the two-sided 95 per cent confidence
interval of [0.54, 0.98] by (10) while the one-sided 95 per cent confidence
intervals for Cip are [0.58, ) and (0, 0.94] by (11). This estimate is close to the
true value, 0.75, of Cip and these 95 per cent confidence intervals contain the
true Cip.
Similarly, the point estimate of C cop is 1.04 with the two-sided 95 per cent
confidence interval of [0.86, 1.21] by (12) while the one-sided 95 per cent
confidence intervals for Ccop are [0.89, ) and (0, 1.18] by (13). This estimate is
close to the true value, 1.03, of Ccop and these 95 per cent confidence intervals
contain the true Ccop. These confidence intervals are summarized in Table VII.
Using the confidence intervals developed in this section, a sample size of 80
provides practical confidence intervals for Cpp and its subindices with adequate
accuracy as demonstrated with the simulation studies and numerical example
given in Table VI. If a subgroup of size 5 is used for an X-chart to monitor a
process, 80 observations constitute 16 points on the chart. The number of
observations, 80, is not prohibitively large for many processes.
References
1. Kane, V.E., Process capability indices, Journal of Quality Technology, Vol. 18, 1986,
pp. 41-52.
2. Chan, L.K., Cheng, S.W. and Spiring, F.A., A new measure of process capability: Cpm,
Journal of Quality Technology, Vol. 20, 1988, pp. 162-75.
3. Spiring, F.A., The Cpm index, Quality Progress, Vol. 24 No. 2, 1991, pp. 57-61.

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 23:51 24 November 2015 (PT)

4. Boyles, R.A., The Taguchi capability index, Journal of Quality Technology, Vol. 23, 1991,
pp. 17-26.
5. Taguchi, G., A tutorial on quality and assurance: the Taguchi methods, ASA Annual
Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, 1985.
6. Pearn, W.L., Kotz, S. and Johnson, N.L., Distributional and inferential properties of process
capability indices, Journal of Quality Technology, Vol. 24, 1992, pp. 216-31.
7. Kushler, R.H. and Hurley, P., Confidence bounds for capability indices, Journal of Quality
Technology, Vol. 24, 1992, pp. 188-95.
8. Serfling, R.J., Approximation Theorems of Mathematical Statistics, John Wiley & Sons,
New York, NY, 1980.
9. Chan, L.K., Xiong, Z. and Zhang, D., On the asymptotic distributions of some process
capability indices, Communications in Statistics Theory and Methods, Vol. 19, 1990,
pp. 11-18.

A process
incapability
index
71

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 23:51 24 November 2015 (PT)

This article has been cited by:


1. Mou-Yuan Liao, Chien-Wei Wu, Chien-Hua Lin. 2015. Assessing True TFT-LCD Process Quality in the Presence of
Unavoidable Measurement Errors. Journal of Testing and Evaluation 43, 20140103. [CrossRef]
2. Mou-Yuan Liao. 2015. Assessing process incapability when collecting data from multiple batches. International Journal of
Production Research 53, 2041-2054. [CrossRef]
3. Mou-Yuan Liao, Chien-Hua Lin, Chien-Wei Wu, Chien-Hui Yang. 2015. Reliable Confidence Intervals for Assessing Normal
Process Incapability. Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation 00-00. [CrossRef]
4. Sajid Ali, Muhammad Riaz. 2014. On the generalized process capability under simple and mixture models. Journal of Applied
Statistics 41, 832-852. [CrossRef]
5. hsan Kaya. 2014. The process incapability index under fuzziness with an application for decision making. International Journal
of Computational Intelligence Systems 7, 114-128. [CrossRef]
6. Young Dae Lee, Seok Jae Chu. 2013. Development of Program for Predicting GBD to Improve Canning Process Capability
for Catalytic Converter. Transactions of the Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers A 37, 419-427. [CrossRef]
7. Kwang-Ki Lee, Chan-Kyoung Park, Seung-Ho Han. 2009. Six Sigma Robust Design for Railway Vehicle Suspension.
Transactions of the Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers A 33, 1132-1138. [CrossRef]
8. J.-C. Ke, Y.-K. Chu, Y.-T. Chung, P. C. Lin. 2009. Assessing non-normally distributed processes by interval estimation of
the incapability index C pp. Quality and Reliability Engineering International 25:10.1002/qre.v25:4, 427-437. [CrossRef]
9. Jeh-Nan Pan, Chun-Yi Lee. 2009. Development of a New Process Incapability Index with an Application to the Evaluation
of Manufacturing Risk. Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods 38, 1133-1153. [CrossRef]
10. Daniel Grau. 2009. Moments of the unbalanced non-central chi-square distribution. Statistics & Probability Letters 79,
361-367. [CrossRef]
11. Gu-Hong Lin. 2009. A research note on the estimated incapability index. Yugoslav Journal of Operations Research 19, 215-223.
[CrossRef]
12. Jau-Chuan Ke, Yunn-Kuang Chu, Jer-Yan Lin. 2008. Comparing confidence limits for short-run process incapability index
Cpp. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 387, 3227-3238. [CrossRef]
13. K.S. Chen, T.W. Chen. 2008. Multi-process capability plot and fuzzy inference evaluation. International Journal of Production
Economics 111, 70-79. [CrossRef]
14. Gu-Hong Lin. 2007. A Bayesian approach based on multiple samples for measuring process performance with incapability
index. International Journal of Production Economics 106, 506-512. [CrossRef]
15. Gu-Hong Lin, Wern-Kueir Jehng, Kuang-Han Hsieh, Lai-Wang Wang, Shun-Te Lai. 2007. A Bayesian approach on
monitoring process capability. Journal of Statistics and Management Systems 10, 241-252. [CrossRef]
16. K. S. Chen, M. L. Huang, P. L. Chang. 2006. Performance evaluation on manufacturing times. The International Journal
of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 31, 335-341. [CrossRef]
17. Gu-Hong Lin. 2006. A hypothesis testing procedure on assessing process performance. Journal of Statistics and Management
Systems 9, 319-339. [CrossRef]
18. Chao-Yu Chou, Yu-Chang Lin, Chun-Lang Chang, Chung-Ho Chen. 2006. On the bootstrap confidence intervals of the
process incapability index Cpp. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 91, 452-459. [CrossRef]
19. K. S. Chen, K. L. Chen. 2006. Supplier selection by testing the process incapability index. International Journal of Production
Research 44, 589-600. [CrossRef]
20. K.L. Chen, K.S. Chen, R.K. Li. 2005. Suppliers capability and price analysis chart. International Journal of Production
Economics 98, 315-327. [CrossRef]
21. M. L. Huang, K. S. Chen, R. K. Li. 2005. Graphical Analysis of Capability of a Process Producing a Product Family. Quality
& Quantity 39, 643-657. [CrossRef]
22. K.S. Chen, K.L. Chen, R.K. Li. 2005. Contract manufacturer selection by using the process incapability index C pp. The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 26, 686-692. [CrossRef]
23. Hung-Chin Lin, Gwo-Ji Sheen. 2005. Practical Implementation of the Capability Index C pk Based on the Control Chart
Data. Quality Engineering 17, 371-390. [CrossRef]
24. Daniel Grau. 2005. Algebraic Relationship Between Symmetrical and Asymmetrical Capability Indices. Quality Engineering
17, 359-370. [CrossRef]
25. G.H. Lin. 2005. Process reliability assessment with a Bayesian approach. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology 25, 392-395. [CrossRef]

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 23:51 24 November 2015 (PT)

26. Wen-Pei Sung, Ming-Hsiang Shih, Kuen-Suan Chen. 2005. Evaluation method for the optimum seismic energy dissipation
performance of displacement dependent seismic-active hydraulic damper. Journal of Statistics and Management Systems 8,
261-273. [CrossRef]
27. Gu Hong Lin. 2004. Upper limits of the estimated incapability index: a practical application on the reliability assessment of
printed circuit boards. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 24, 841-846. [CrossRef]
28. C.C. Wu, H.L. Kuo, K.S. Chen. 2004. Implementing process capability indices for a complete product. The International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 24, 891-898. [CrossRef]
29. Wen-Pei Sung, Kuen-Suan Chen. 2004. Evaluation model for multi-process capabilities of stranded wire. The International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 24, 425-432. [CrossRef]
30. Wen-Pei Sung, Ming-Hsiang Shih, Kuen-Suan Chen. 2003. Analytical method for promoting process capability of shock
absorption steel. Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE A 4, 388-392. [CrossRef]
31. Michael Perakis, Evdokia Xekalaki. 2003. On a Process Capability Index for Asymmetric Specifications. Communications in
Statistics - Theory and Methods 32, 1459-1492. [CrossRef]
32. P. C. Lin, W. L. Pearn, K. S. Chen. 2003. Distributional Properties and Implications of the Estimated Process Incapability
Index n pp. American Journal of Mathematical and Management Sciences 23, 75-92. [CrossRef]
33. W.L Pearn, C.H Ko, K.H Wang. 2002. A multiprocess performance analysis chart based on the incapability index Cpp: an
application to the chip resistors. Microelectronics Reliability 42, 1121-1125. [CrossRef]
34. W. L. Pearn, G. H. Lin. 2002. Estimated incapability index: reliability and decision making with sample information. Quality
and Reliability Engineering International 18:10.1002/qre.v18:2, 141-147. [CrossRef]
35. Chung-Ho Chen, Chao-Yu Chou. 2002. A Note on Selecting Target and Process Capability Index Based on Fuzzy
Optimization. Economic Quality Control 17. . [CrossRef]
36. W. L. Pearn, G. H. Lin. 2001. On the reliability of the estimated incapability index. Quality and Reliability Engineering
International 17:10.1002/qre.v17:4, 279-290. [CrossRef]
37. Kuen Suan Chen, ShengLung Kuo. 2000. An effective method for the activities of environmental analysis. Journal of the
Chinese Institute of Engineers 23, 575-581. [CrossRef]
38. K. S. CHEN, W. L. PEARN, P. C. LIN. 1999. A NEW GENERALIZATION OF C pm FOR PROCESSES WITH
ASYMMETRIC TOLERANCES. International Journal of Reliability, Quality and Safety Engineering 06, 383-398. [CrossRef]
39. W. L. Pearn, K. L. Chen, C. H. Ko. 1999. C pp T T. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Industrial
Engineers 16, 519-531. [CrossRef]
40. K.S. Chen. 1998. Estimation of the process incapability index. Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods 27,
1263-1274. [CrossRef]
41. Michael Greenwich, Hwa Nien Chen. 1997. The Cpk index and its confidence intervals. International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management 14:7, 731-741. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]