Journal of Quality and Technology Management

Volume IV, Issue I1, Dec, 2008, pg. 5-11

Finding Characteristics of Process Capability Index, Cpk with

Different Distributions and Sample Sizes

S. M. Ali, M. A. Sarwar, A. Sultana

Department of Industrial and Production Engineering,
Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka

Abstract
Quality is considered to be vital issue in improving productivity. A Process Capability Index
(PCI) has been considered as a valuable and popular tool to express the Capability of a
Process and assure quality of product. This paper summarizes the characteristics of the
Process Capability Index, Cpk with different sample size for both real and simulated data. It
also tries to examine the behavior of Cpk with different distributions. In this paper, two
population distributions were considered, i.e., Normal and Exponential with different values
of sample sizes to ascertain sample size effect on Process Capability Index, Cpk. The
Simulation was performed by using Engineering software MATLAB 7.0. From the result, it
was found that mean value of Cpk decreases up to sample size 15; then the value becomes
reasonably constant and hence Cpk Vs sample size graph tends to be flatter.
Keywords: Characteristics, Distribution, Process Capability Index, Sample, Sample size

Introduction used tool among the industrial and

Quality is a key criterion for survival of
a product in a competitive environment.
The inspection of the quality of products
or services provided by a company is an
infallible proof of the presence of
competences within the organization
Industrial and quality control personnel
use different types of indices to assure
quality of product. The most popular and
widely used indices are Cp, Cpk and
Cpm. The earliest index Cp does not
consider the mean of the process when
finding capability of process and another
index Cpm does not directly relate to the
percentage of nonconforming product.
To overcome the limitations of Cp and
Cpm, another index (Cpk) is defined
which consider the mean of the process.
The index Cpk is defined in three-step
procedure. At first Cpu which is equal to
allowable upper process spread divided
by Actual upper process spread is found.
Then Cpl which is equal to allowable
lower process spread divided by actual
lower process spread is found. And Cpk
is the minimum of this two i.e. Cpk = min
(Cpu, Cpl). This Cpk is the most widely
research personnel.
Therefore value of this index tells how
much capable the process is, assuming
the process follow the normal
distribution. But when the process does
not follow the normal distribution and
the sample size is not fixed then what
may be scenario is a matter of question.
Therefore this paper aims to find out the
behavior of Cpk with different
distributions (Normal and Exponential)
and sample sizes for both real and
simulated data.
Process Capability Index Cpk: An
Overview
Process Capability Index (PCIs) have
generated extensive attention in
statistical and quality control
publications in recent times. The concept
of PCI was introduced by Juran. (1974)
as the ratio of tolerance width to a 6
multiple of a measure of variability for
the characteristic in question. The
earliest form (First Generation Index) of
this type of PCI is
Cp  USL  LSL
6σ
……………………......(1)

5

Where, USL and LSL are the upper and
lower specification limits respectively,
and σ is the standard deviation of the
quality characteristics characteristic. It is
apparent that Cp index measures
potential performance because only the
process spread is related to the
specification limits; the location of the
process mean is not considered here. It is
to avoid this situation, (Kane, 1986)
proposed the index Cpk that utilizes the
process mean and can be considered a
measure of process performance, where,
 USL μ μ  LSL ………..…(2)
Cpk  min , 
 3σ 3σ 
In order to get an accurate estimate of
process performance the sampling
conditions like normality, independence,
and statistical control are requirements.
This index, however, is only valid when
all of the assumptions have met, but this
rarely happens. The following is the way
to extend the previous capability indices
to the target value case.
In particular, ( Kane, 1986) proposed
 USL  T T  LSL  ………….(3)
C pk   , 
 3σ 3σ 
Where, USL and LSL are the upper and
lower specification limits respectively, σ
is the standard deviation of the
characteristic, T is the Target value of
the process. (Hsiang and Taguchi) noted
that if T=M, then three basic PCIs are
connected by the relationship,
1 target value.
C pk  C p  ………… (4)
 C 
2
 Kotz and Lovelace (1998) reported that
   1
3 
p
C 
 pm  
(Clements, 1989), in an influential paper,
suggested that “6” be replaced by the
length of the interval between the upper
and lower 0.135 percentage points of the
Journal of Quality and Technology Management
Volume IV, Issue I1, Dec, 2008, pg. 5-11
distribution of X (this is 6 for a Normal
N (µ,) distribution). He defines Cpk as
d ξ Μ
C pk  1/2 ξ0.51a ξa  ..…………….... …(5)
Where, a is defined by Pr [Xa] =a,
taking a=0.00135, so that 1-a, a are the
upper and lower 0.135 percentiles of the
distribution of X, for, an N (µ,)
distribution 1-a = µ+3, a = µ-3 .
(Bai and Choi, 1997) have constructed
PCIs for use with possibly skewed
distribution of X, based on a ‘weighted
Variance’ (WV) approach. This utilizes
different divisors at the upper and lower
limits (U, L) of the specification interval.
With Pr [X≥µ] = P, they define Cpk as
 Uμ μL 
 min 
W
C pk
,
 3σ 2P 3σ 1  P 
C pk ..……………..………...… (6)

W
Where, W  1  1  2p
Abbas Parchami. Mashallah Mashinchi,
Ali Reza Yavari and Hamid Reza Maleki
(2005) defined Cpk with concept of Fuzzy
logic as follows:
au c1 2 m bu b12 m Cu a12 m 
CpkT , ,  ....….(7)
 6 6 6 
 
Here,  au , bu , cu , Lal , bl , cl  FT ()
be the upper and lower engineering
fuzzy specification limits provided that
au>cl and m = (bu + bl) =2 and t is the
Leung et al. (997) examined five
distributions with exactly 99.73%
conforming product (corresponding to a
centered, normal process with Cp = Cpk
=1.0). The Cp values (calculated for non
normal adjustment) are 0.5766, 0.7954,
1.00, 1.221and 1.4030 when the
measurement arise from a uniform
6
 Journal of Quality and Technology Management
Volume IV, Issue I1, Dec, 2008, pg. 5-11

triangular, normal, logistic and double
exponential distribution. (Somerville and
Montgomery, 1996) investigated the
errors (in parts per million) for various
degrees of freedom and five capability
levels, when process data are t-
distributed, but are assumed normal.
They also investigated the one and two
sided cases with Cpk =1.33 for this
situation. Even though the t-distribution
is symmetrical and similar to the normal
when the degrees of freedom are high,
the errors in estimating process yield are
substantial. (English and Taylor 1993)
conducted extensive Monte Carlo
simulations of the distribution of Cpk for
normal, symmetrical, triangular, uniform
and exponential distributions.
There has been a debate in the
professional literature about the validity
and accuracy of the current indices.
However, (McCoy 1999) pointed out,
“There should be more concern about
how the indexes are applied than about
the indexes themselves-a point not to be
missed, especially when it comes to
considering the non normal issue.
(McCoy 1999) pointed out that, for the
vast majority of processes, normal data
seem impossible to find. But for
simplicity normality assumptions are
made.
Methodology and Data Collection
Two Ceramic industries (Mirpur
Ceramic Works Limited (MCWL) and
plotted on the graph. Simulated data
were generated for two different
distributions (Normal and Exponential)
using MATLAB. And similarly the
value Cpk was calculated for different
sub- sample size and plotted on the
graph. Upper specification limit (USL)
and lower specification limit (LSL) of
the sample product were given by the
management is given below:
Table 1: Product specification
Name of the LSL
USL (cm)
Organization (cm)
MCWL 24.75 23.75
DABMCL 24.75 23.75
Results and Discussion
Manufacturers typically use small
sample size for control chart purposes. A
large value of sample size has been
considered to determine the sample size
effect. This paper has been depicted both
for real data of two ceramic industries
and simulated data. Simulation
1. Real Data: Mirpur Ceramic Works
Limited
The mean (μ) and standard deviation (σ)
of the process were 24.13 and 0.08
respectively.
Figure 1: Cpk Vs sub-sample size for real
data
5
4.5
4
Mean Cpk

3.5
Dhaka Automatic Bricks Manufacturing 3
2.5
Company Limited (DABMCL)) were 2
1.5
selected in this study. 10-Hole 1
0.5
Engineering Brick was considered as a 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
sample product. The ‘length’ of the Sub-sample Size

Brick was considered as quality

characteristics for that product. Length
of bricks (data) was taken for different
sub-sample sizes from each industry.
Hypothesis test was done to check the
distribution. The stability of the process
was checked by using control chart.
After that the value Cpk was calculated
for different sub-sample sizes and
From Fig. 1, we have observed that for
smaller sample sizes the value of Cpk are
higher and for larger sample sizes the
value of Cpk are lower. The value of Cpk
then decreases for sample size 5, 10 and
15. For sample size15, the value of
Cpk=1.68. After sample size 15, the

7
 Journal of Quality and Technology Management
Volume IV, Issue I1, Dec, 2008, pg. 5-11

curve becomes fairly flat and the Cpk Figure 3: Cpk Vs sub-sample Size for
value reaches a reasonably constant simulated Exponential data
average for sample size 15 to 55. 3

2.5

Mean Cpk
2. Simulated Normal Data 2

The data were generated by using mean 1.5

1
and standard deviation of 24.21 cm and
0.5
0.08 cm respectively given by the
0
management. The simulations were 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

performed 20 times for each sample size

Sub-sample Size
3 to 125.

Figure 2: Cpk Vs sub-sample size for Again, it is seen from Fig. 3 that the
simulated Normal data value of Cpk decreases with small
3
fluctuations from 2.611 to 2.081 up to
2.5
sample size 3 to 15 and then the value of
Mean Cpk

1.5
Cpk attains a reasonably constant value
1
for rest of the sample size and
0.5 consequently the curve becomes fairly
0 flat.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Sub-sample Size
4. Real Data: Dhaka Automatic Bricks
Manufacturing Company limited
It is seen from Fig. 2 that the value of The mean (μ) and standard deviation (σ)
Cpk decreases from 2.7776 at point of the process were 24.25 and 0.08
having sample size 3 to 1.6373 at point respectively.
having sample size 15. Therefore, it is
seen that value of Cpk decreases with Figure 4: Cpk Vs sub-sample size for Real
slight random fluctuations up to sample data
size 15. From Fig. 3 it is seen that after 3.5

sample size 15, the value of Cpk becomes 3

2.5
Mean Cpk

constant regardless of sample size and 2

hence the curve is likely to be flatter at 1.5

1
higher value of sample size. 0.5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
3. Simulated Exponential Data Sub-sample Size

The data were generated having taken

input 24.21 as expected mean of the
process. It is seen from Fig. 3 that the It is seen from Fig. 4 that maximum
value of Cpk at the start and end point is value of mean Cpk is 3.123 for sample
2.611 and 1.937 for sample size 3 and size 3 and the minimum value of mean
125 respectively Cpk is 2.401 for sample size 30.It is seen
from the Fig. 4 that the Cpk values
decreases smoothly starting from mean
Cpk value 3.123 for sample size 3 to
2.433 for sample size 15. After that, the
value of mean Cpk remains quite constant
with the increases of sample size up to
above 15.

8
 Journal of Quality and Technology Management
Volume IV, Issue I1, Dec, 2008, pg. 5-11

5. Simulated Normal Data Figure 6: Combined graph of mean Cpk

The data were generated with mean Vs sub-sample size
24.25 as and standard deviation 0.15. 5

4.5
Real:
Figure 5: Cpk Vs Sub-sample size for 4
Simulated normal:
simulated Normal data 3.5
Simulated exponential:

Mean Cpk
3
3.5
2.5
3
2.5 2
Mean Cpk

2 1.5
1.5 1
1 0.5
0.5
0
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Sub-Sample Size
Sub-sample Size

It is also seen from the Fig. 6 that all the

From Fig. 5 it is clear that for sample three curves for Cpk for real and
size 3 maximum value of mean Cpk with simulated situation tend to be flatter
value equal to 3.0142 was found. Then from Sample Size 15 to 20.
the value of mean Cpk sharply decreases
to an amount of 1.99 for sample size 5 as 2. Dhaka Automatic Bricks
indicated in the Fig. 6. Manufacturing Company Limited

After that, the mean value of Cpk Figure 7: Combined graph of mean Cpk
gradually decreases from 1.99 to 1.624 Vs sub-sample Size
at the point of having sample size 40. 5

With increase of sample size further 4.5

from 40 to 125 mean Cpk value attains a 4 Real:

3.5 Simulated normal:
somewhat constant value.
Mean Cpk

2.5
Combined Effect 2
The combined effect of real data (Mirpur 1.5
Ceramic Works Limited) with simulated 1

data (Normal and Exponential 0.5

distribution) is shown in Fig.6 and for 0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Dhaka Automatic Bricks Manufacturing Sub-Sam ple Size
Company limited in Fig.7 respectively.

1. Mirpur Ceramic Works Limited
From Fig. 6, it is seen that for real data,
initially mean Cpk value is slightly
higher than the Cpk values for simulated
Normal and Exponential distribution.
Also for real data, most of the Cpk values
lie between the Cpk values for simulated
Exponential and Normal distribution.
From Fig. 7, it is clear that slight higher
values of Cpk have been obtained for real
data than the Cpk values for simulated
Normal data. Both curves are likely to be
flatter from sample size 15 to 20. Most
of the Cpk values for real data are
reclining on the simulated Normal curve
due to the fact that real data have lower
standard deviation than simulated
Normal data.

9
 Journal of Quality and Technology Management
Volume IV, Issue I1, Dec, 2008, pg. 5-11

Analysis of Effect of Sample Size on Figure 9: Sample standard deviation Vs

Cpk sub-sample size
From limiting value concepts, it has 0.09

Sample Standard deviation

0.08
been shown that when sample size 0.07
becomes large (n→ ∞), the mean and 0.06
0.05
standard deviation are moving towards 0.04

an average value or limiting value. So, 0.03

0.02
mean value of Cpk also attains a 0.01
0
reasonably constant value. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Sub-sample Size

From Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Fig. 4 and

Fig. 5, it can be established the fact that From Fig. 9 it is seen that an upward
from sample size 15, mean value of Cpk trend of standard deviation from sample
attains a moderately constant value. The size 3 to 10. At sample size 15, the value
equation (2) of Cpk shows that the value of standard deviation is 0.08 around
of Cpk depends on mean and the standard which some standard deviation
deviation of the sample. So, Fig. 8 and randomly fluctuates and some are
Fig. 9 ‘mean Vs sub-sample size’ and approaching to this value for the rest of
‘standard deviation Vs sub-sample size’ the sample size. So, this standard
show the effect of mean and standard deviation can be considered as limiting
deviation on Cpk. The LSL and the USL value. For this constant value, Cpk
are constant, so the value of Cpk is only becomes fairly constant and hence the
depending on the mean and the standard curves tend to be flatter with increase of
deviation of the sample taken from the sample size after sample size 15.
process.
Conclusion
Figure 8: Sample mean Vs sub-sample
The aim of this paper was to find out the
size
effect of sample size on Process
24.144
24.142 Capability Index, Cpk and tried to find
24.14
out the pattern of behavior of Cpk with
Sample Mean

24.138
24.136
24.134
different distributions. From Figure 6
24.132
24.13
and Figure7, it has been seen that up to
24.128 sample size 15, the mean values of Cpk
24.126
24.124 decrease i.e. the Cpk values are reflecting
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Sub-sample size
the variability of the process. In other
words, it has been outlined that mean
values of Cpk are showing the rejection
From Fig. 8 it is seen that at sample size rate and hence acting as a mirror of the
15, the mean value is 24.13. All other actual condition of the process i.e. voice
mean values for different sample size are of the process. However, after sample
randomly fluctuating around this mean size 15, the mean values of Cpk become
value keeping it as centered. Therefore, constant and the curves tend to be flatter.
for sample size 15, mean value of Cpk The constant value of Cpk does not give
attains a stable position and holds this any indication about variability of the
value constant throughout the entire process. It can be concluded that the
sample range after sample size 15. So sample size should be smaller than 15 to
after sample size 15 we do not get any make a clear sense about the voice of the
clear idea of the process as the process process i.e. to make decision on
does not show any shift. capability of the process.

10

From rule of thumb of process capability
index, we know that the higher the Cpk
value, the better it can meet engineering
tolerances or customer specifications.
From Fig. 6 and Fig. 7, it has also been
observed that with increase of sample
size the mean values of Cpk decreases
with increase of sample size. Therefore,
for getting higher values of Cpk, sample
size should be smaller. After considering
the facts it has been concluded that
sample size should be less than 15 when
control chart would be constructed.
Again from Fig. 6, it is seen that for
normal distribution, higher values of Cpk
have been obtained up to sample size 15,
so, values of Cpk are better suited for
Normal distribution as this satisfies the
thumb rule-the higher, the better. Also, it
is seen that normality assumption is true
in this case.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to articulate their
indebtedness to many personnel of
Mirpur Ceramic Works Limited and
Dhaka Automatic Bricks Manufacturing
Company Limited for their sincere
cooperation through the period of their
research work.
References
Bai, D. S. and Choi, S. S., 1997,
“Process Capability Indices for Skewed
Populations. Master Thesis, Department
of Industrial Engineering, Advanced
Institute of Science and Technology,
Taejon, South Korea
Clements, J.A. (1989), “Process
Capability Calculations for Non-Normal
Distributions. Quality Progress, Vol.22,
pp. 95-100
English, J.R. and Taylor, G.D. 1993,
“Process Capability Analysis-a
robustness study” Int. J. Prod. Res.
31:7, pp. 1621-1633
Journal of Quality and Technology Management
Volume IV, Issue I1, Dec, 2008, pg. 5-11
Hsiang, T. C. and Taguchi, G., “Tutorial
on Quality Control and Assurance- The
Taguchi Method”. Joint Meetings of the
American Statistical Association, Las
Vegas, Nevada, pp. 188
Jerry, B. 1989, “Principles of Quality
Control”. Jhon Wiley and Sons. Inc.
New York, USA
Juran, J. M., (1974), “Juran’s Quality
Control handbook”, 3rd edition,
McGraw-Hill, New York
Kane, V.E., (1986), “Process Capability
Indices”, Journal of Quality
Technology, Vol. 18, pp. 41-52
Kotz, S. and Lovelace, C. 1998,
“Introduction to Process Capability
Indices”. Arnold, London,UK
McCoy, P.F. 1999, “Using Perform
Indexes to Monitor Production
Process”. Quality Progress, pp. 49-55
Parchami, A., Mashinchi, M., Yavari
A.R., and Maleki, H.R., 2005, “Process
Capability as Fuzzy numbers”.
Australian Journal of Statistics, Vol. 34,
Number 4, pp. 391-402
Somerville S. E. and D. C. Montgomery,
1996, “Process Capability Indices and
Non-Normal Distributions”. Quality
Engineering 9:2, pp. 305-316
Nomenclature
Symbol Meaning
μ Mean
σ Standard deviation
USL Upper Specification limit
LSL Lower Specification Limit
11