Intro to Response Surface Methods

Part 1 Central Composite Designs

*Presentation is posted at www.statease.com/webinar.html

Please use the raise hand feature on GotoWebinar, which I will watch
for during my presentation. To avoid disrupting the Voice over Internet
Protocol (VoIP) system, I will mute all. If I do not get to you, please accept
my apology in advance. Then Id appreciate you sending me an email after
the talk so we can discuss your issue(s) off-line. -- Shari

By Shari Kraber, MS, Applied Stats.

Stat-Ease, Inc., Minneapolis, MN
[email protected] 1

Introduction to Response Surface Methods

1. Response Surface Methodology

Response surface designs
Central composite designs
Whey protein case study
2. Multiple Response Optimization
Whey protein case study

Agenda Transition
Response Surface Methodology:

Screening

Known
Factors

Unknown
Factors

Response surface designs

Central composite designs

Whey protein case study

(design and analysis)

Trivial
many

Screening
Vital few

Characterization
Factor effects
and interactions
no

Curvature?
yes

Optimization

Response
Surface
Methods

Verification
Confirm?
Celebrate!

no

Backup

yes

Response Surface Methodology

Subject Matter
Knowledge
Factors
Design of Experiments

Process

Region of Operability

Region of Interest
Responses
Empirical Models
(polynomials)
ANOVA
Contour Plots
Optimization
4

Region of Interest
versus Region of Operability
Use factorial design to
get close to the peak.
Then RSM to climb it.

Region of Interest

Region of Operability
5

Polynomial Approximations
A decent approximation of any mathematical function can be made via an
infinite series of powers of X, such as that proposed by Taylor. For RSM,
this takes the form:

y 0 1x1 2 x 2 12 x1x 2 11x12 22 x 22

112 x12 x 2 122 x1x 22 111x13 222 x 23 ...

1. The higher the degree of the polynomial, the more closely the Taylor
series can approximate the truth.
2. The smaller the region of interest, the better the approximation. It
often suffices to go only to quadratic level (x to the power of 2).
3. If you need higher than quadratic, think about:
A transformation
Restricting the region of interest
Looking for an outlier(s)
Using a higher order polynomial

Simple Maximum (or Minimum)

Maximum

4.00

95

2.00

75
B

M a x im u m

85

0.00

85

65

80
75
70
65

-2.00

4.00

4.00
2.00

2.00
0.00

0.00
-2.00

-2.00
-4.00 -4.00

-4.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

2.00

4.00

y 83.57 9.39A 7.12B 7.44A 2 3.71B2 5.80AB

7

Rising Ridge

Rising Ridge

4.00

95

85
2.00

85

75
80
B

R is in g R id g e

90

65

65

0.00

65
75

-2.00

4.00

70

4.00
2.00

2.00
0.00

0.00
-2.00

-2.00
-4.00 -4.00

-4.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

2.00

4.00

y 77.57 8.80A 8.19B 6.95A 2 2.07B2 7.59AB

8

Stationary Ridge

Stationary Ridge

4.00

85
2.00

75
B

S t a t io n a r y R id g e

95

65 75 80 85
70

0.00

65
70
80 75
85

65

-2.00

4.00

4.00
2.00

2.00
0.00

0.00
-2.00

-2.00
-4.00 -4.00

-4.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

2.00

4.00

y 83.93 10.23A 5.59B 6.95A 2 2.07B2 7.59AB

9

Saddle, or MiniMax

Saddle

4.00

115

155

105

140

95

125

85

95

65
75

75
65

80

S a d d le

2.00

110

85

0.00

65

95
105
-2.00

115

4.00

4.00
2.00
0.00

125

2.00

135
145

0.00
-2.00

-2.00
-4.00 -4.00

-4.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

2.00

4.00

y 84.29 11.06A 4.05B 6.46A 2 0.43B2 9.38AB

10

Response Surface Methodology

Considerations
Requires a quantitative response affected by continuous
factors.
Works best with only a handful of critical factors, those that
survive the screening phases of the experimental program.

Produces an empirical polynomial model which gives an

approximation of the true response surface over a factor
region.
Seeks the optimal settings for process factors so you can
maximize, minimize, or stabilize the responses of interest.
By overlaying contour maps from multiple responses, RSM
can be used to find the ideal "window" of operability.

11

Response Surface Methodology

Types of Designs

Central Composite Design

Classic 5-level design
Great statistical properties
Box Behnken Design
3-level design
Also great statistical properties
Optimal (Custom) Design
Customizable for nearly any situation
Categoric factors, constrained design space
12

Agenda Transition
Response Surface Methodology:

Screening

Known
Factors

Unknown
Factors

Response surface designs

Central composite designs

Whey protein case study

(design and analysis)

Trivial
many

Screening
Vital few

Characterization
Factor effects
and interactions
no

Curvature?
yes

Optimization

Response
Surface
Methods

Verification
Confirm?
Celebrate!

no

Backup

yes

13

Response Surface Methodology

Central Composite Design

14

Central Composite Design

Elements
Two-level full/fractional factorial (Res V or higher).
Estimate first-order and two factor interactions.
Center points

Estimate pure error and tie blocks together.

Star (or axial) points
Estimate pure quadratic effects.

CCDs are good designs for fitting

second order (quadratic) polynomials
15

Central Composite Design

Template for 3 Factors
Factorial
points:

Axial (star)
points:

Center
points:

16

Structuring a CCD
Region of Interest

Keep axial
(star) runs
within the
circle.
This is the
region of
operability.

Stay within the

box* when you
use your model
for making
predictions!
*region of
interest

17

Agenda Transition
Response Surface Methodology:

Screening

Known
Factors

Unknown
Factors

Response surface designs

Central composite designs

Whey protein case study

(design and analysis)

Trivial
many

Screening
Vital few

Characterization
Factor effects
and interactions
no

Curvature?
yes

Optimization

Response
Surface
Methods

Verification
Confirm?
Celebrate!

no

Backup

yes

18

Whey Protein Concentrates

Case Study (design and analysis)
Richert et. al.* (1974) used a central composite design to study the effects of five
factors on whey protein concentrates. The factors, with ranges noted in terms of
alpha (star levels), are:
A. Heating temperature, C/30 min.
B. pH level
C. Redox potential, volts

65

85

-0.025

0.375

D. Sodium oxalate, molar

0.05

E. Sodium lauryl sulfate, % of solids

0.2

The experimenters chose a CCD based on a one-half fraction for the cube portion
(25-1). This rotatable design (with = 2) has six center points.

19

Whey Protein Concentrates

Instructions (1 of 4)
1. The experimenters chose a CCD based on a fraction for the
cube portion (25-1): choose the Fraction.
(Be sure to choose the half fraction before clicking on Enter
factor ranges in terms of alpha.)
2. Then choose Enter factor ranges in terms of alpha.
2
1

Rsm section 3

20

Whey Protein Concentrates

Instructions (2 of 4)
3. The experimenters used a rotatable design ( = 2) and six
center points.

Rsm section 3

21

Whey Protein Concentrates

Instructions (3 of 4)
4. Enter the factor ranges as the alpha values:

5. Enter the one response we will investigate, undenatured

protein, in abbreviated form such as Unde Pro. The units of
measure are percent (%).

Rsm section 3

22

Whey Protein Case Study

Data Factorial portion of CCD
Std

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Factor
Run
A:Heat
C / 30 min

9
25
3
19
4
29
22
18
11
31
2
23
13
30
7
12

70.0
80.0
70.0
80.0
70.0
80.0
70.0
80.0
70.0
80.0
70.0
80.0
70.0
80.0
70.0
80.0

Factor
B:pH

Factor
C:Redox
volt

Factor
D:Na ox
Molar

Factor
E:Na lau
% of soli

Response
Unde Pro
%

5.0
5.0
7.0
7.0
5.0
5.0
7.0
7.0
5.0
5.0
7.0
7.0
5.0
5.0
7.0
7.0

0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.275
0.275
0.275
0.275
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.275
0.275
0.275
0.275

0.0125
0.0125
0.0125
0.0125
0.0125
0.0125
0.0125
0.0125
0.0375
0.0375
0.0375
0.0375
0.0375
0.0375
0.0375
0.0375

0.15
0.05
0.05
0.15
0.05
0.15
0.15
0.05
0.05
0.15
0.15
0.05
0.15
0.05
0.05
0.15

80.6
67.9
83.1
38.1
79.7
74.7
71.2
36.8
81.7
66.8
73.0
40.5
74.9
74.2
63.5
42.8

23

Whey Protein Case Study

Data Star and center points
Std

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

Factor
Run
A:Heat
C / 30 min

8
27
16
24
10
17
15
28
32
21
20
5
6
26
1
14

65.0
85.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0

Factor
B:pH

Factor
C:Redox
volt

Factor
D:Na ox
Molar

Factor
E:Na lau
% of soli

Response
Unde Pro
%

6.0
6.0
4.0
8.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0

0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
-0.025
0.375
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175

0.0250
0.0250
0.0250
0.0250
0.0250
0.0250
0.0000
0.0500
0.0250
0.0250
0.0250
0.0250
0.0250
0.0250
0.0250
0.0250

0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.00
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10

80.9
42.4
73.4
45.0
66.0
71.7
77.5
76.3
67.4
86.5
77.4
74.6
79.8
78.3
74.8
80.9

24

Case Study

Whey Protein Concentrates

There were nine responses, lets look at three key ones:
Y1 Undenatured protein, %.
Y2 Whipping time, min.

Y3 Time at first drop, min.

25

Whey Protein Case Study

Sequential Model Sum of Squares
Sequential Model Sum of Squares
Sum of
Mean
Source
Squares
DF
Square
Mean 1.516E+005
1 1.516E+005
Linear
4323.77
5
864.75
2FI
883.30
10
88.33
Quadratic
1179.84
5
235.97
Cubic
202.04
5
40.41
Residual
36.51
6
6.09
Total 1.582E+005
32
4943.93

F
Value

Prob > F

9.77
1.00
10.88
6.64

< 0.0001
0.4848
0.0006
0.0196

Suggested
Aliased

"Sequential Model Sum of Squares": Select the highest order polynomial where the
additional terms are significant.

26

Whey Protein Case Study

Lack of Fit Tests
Lack of Fit Tests
Source
Linear
2FI
Quadratic
Cubic
Pure Error

Sum of
Squares
2268.60
1385.30
205.46
3.42
33.09

DF
21
11
6
1
5

Mean
Square
108.03
125.94
34.24
3.42
6.62

F
Value
16.32
19.03
5.17
0.52

Prob > F
0.0029
0.0022
0.0459
0.5044

Suggested
Aliased

"Lack of Fit Tests": Want the selected model to have insignificant lack-of-fit.

Do you want significant lack of fit?

27

Whey Protein Case Study

Model Summary Statistics
Model Summary Statistics
Std.
Adjusted Predicted
Source
Dev. R-Squared R-Squared R-Squared
PRESS
Linear
9.41
0.6526
0.5858
0.4673 3529.61
2FI
9.42
0.7859
0.5852
-1.1703 14379.16
Quadratic
4.66
0.9640
0.8985
0.1632 5544.20
Cubic
2.47
0.9945
0.9715
0.4325 3759.87

Suggested
Aliased

"Model Summary Statistics": Focus on the model minimizing the "PRESS", or

equivalently maximizing the "PRED R-SQR".

Whats wrong with these statistics?

28

Whey Protein Case Study

Significance (?) of Quadratic Terms
Lets try reducing this model to only significant terms.
Source
SS
A
2458.35
B
1807.87
C
0.26
D
12.18
E
45.10
2
A
506.85
B2
667.23
2
C
162.93
2
D
3.48
2
E
3.23
AB
616.28
AC
122.66
AD
50.06
AE
7.98
BC
45.23
BD
1.05
BE
3.71
CD
0.031
CE
36.30
DE
0.016

DF
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

MS
2458.35
1807.87
0.26
12.18
45.10
506.85
667.23
162.93
3.48
3.23
616.28
122.66
50.06
7.98
45.23
1.05
3.71
0.031
36.30
0.016

F
113.36
83.36
0.012
0.56
2.08
23.37
30.77
7.51
0.16
0.15
28.42
5.66
2.31
0.37
2.09
0.048
0.17
1.412E-003
1.67
7.205E-004

Prob > F
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
0.9147
0.4693
0.1771
0.0005
0.0002
0.0192
0.6965
0.7069
0.0002
0.0366
0.1569
0.5564
0.1766
0.8298
0.6873
0.9707
0.2222
0.9791

29

Algorithmic Model Reduction

Backward Selection
1. Begin with the full model.
2. Remove from the model the factor with the smallest F value.
3. Stop when the p-value of the next factor out satisfies the
specified alpha value criterion.

We put this first on the list because it gives every term a

chance to get into the model.

30

Whey Protein Case Study

Model Reduction (Instructor-led)
1. Return to model selection by
pressing the Model button
2. Reduce the model by changing the
Selection method from Manual to
Backward.
3. Choose ANOVA for this reduced
model.

31

Hierarchical Models*

Y E S!

32

Whey Protein Case Study

Full vs Reduced Quadratic Model (1 of 2)

ANOVA for Response Surface Quadratic Model (Full)
Sum of
Mean
F
Source
Squares
DF
Square
Value
Model
6386.91
20
319.35
14.73
Residual
238.55
11
21.69
Lack of Fit 205.46
6
34.24
5.17
Pure Error
33.09
5
6.62
Cor. Total
6625.46
31

ANOVA for Response Surface Reduced Quadratic Model

Sum of
Mean
F
Source
Squares
DF
Square
Value
Model
6331.63
12
527.64
34.12
Residual
293.83
19
15.46
Lack of Fit 260.73
14
18.62
2.81
Pure Error
33.09
5
6.62
Cor. Total
6625.46
31

Prob > F
< 0.0001
0.0459

Prob > F
< 0.0001

0.1297

33

Whey Protein Case Study

Full vs Reduced Quadratic Model (2 of 2)

Full Quadratic Model
Std. Dev.
4.66
Dep Mean
68.83
C.V.
6.77
PRESS 5544.20

R-Squared
Adj R-Squared
Pred R-Squared
Adeq. Precision

0.9640
0.8985
0.1632
11.789

R-Squared
Adj R-Squared
Pred R-Squared
Adeq Precision

0.9557
0.9276
0.8589
17.589

Reduced Quadratic Model

Std. Dev.
3.93
Mean 68.83
C.V. %
5.71
PRESS 934.73

Benefits are clear for using the reduced model for this response.

34

Case Study

Whey Protein Concentrates

There were nine responses, lets look at three key ones:
Y1 Undenatured protein, %.
Y2 Whipping time, min.

Y3 Time at first drop, min.

35

Whey Protein Concentrates

Y2 Whipping time
Response: Whip time
Transform: Base 10 log
Constant: 0.000
ANOVA for Response Surface Reduced Quadratic Model
Analysis of variance table [Partial sum of squares]
Sum of
Mean
F
Source
Squares
DF
Square
Value
Prob > F
Model
0.47
7
0.067
15.43
< 0.0001
A
0.23
1
0.23
53.78
< 0.0001
B
5.528E-004
1
5.528E-004
0.13
0.7241
C
0.037
1
0.037
8.53
0.0075
D
4.136E-003
1
4.136E-003
0.95
0.3384
A2
0.100
1
0.100
23.03
< 0.0001
AB
0.069
1
0.069
16.02
0.0005
BD
0.024
1
0.024
5.56
0.0269
Residual
0.10
24
4.333E-003
Lack of Fit
0.093
19
4.905E-003
2.27
0.1854
Pure Error
0.011
5
2.161E-003
Cor Total
0.57
31

36

Whey Protein Concentrates

Y2 Whipping time
Response: Whip time

Std. Dev.
Mean
C.V.
PRESS

Transform: Base 10 log

Constant: 0.000

0.066
0.64
10.28

R-Squared
Adj R-Squared
Pred R-Squared

0.20

Adeq Precision

0.8182
0.7652
0.6544
18.865

37

Case Study

Whey Protein Concentrates

There were nine responses, lets look at three key ones:
Y1 Undenatured protein, %.
Y2 Whipping time, min.

Y3 Time at first drop, min.

38

Whey Protein Concentrates

Y3 Time at first drop
Response: Time at first drop
Transform: Base 10 log
Constant: 0.000
ANOVA for Response Surface Reduced 2FI Model
Analysis of variance table [Partial sum of squares]
Sum of
Mean
F
Source
Squares
DFSquare
Value
Prob > F
Model
0.85
7
0.12
8.01
< 0.0001
A
0.019
1
0.019
1.26
0.2735
B
0.53
1
0.53
35.41
< 0.0001
C
0.089
1
0.089
5.89
0.0231
D
2.095E-004
1
2.095E-004
0.014
0.9072
E
0.025
1
0.025
1.68
0.2075
AD
0.11
1
0.11
7.55
0.0112
AE
0.064
1
0.064
4.24
0.0504
Residual
0.36
24
0.015
Lack of Fit
0.35
19
0.019
11.72
0.0063
Pure Error
7.950E-003
5
1.590E-003
Cor Total
1.21
31

39

Whey Protein Concentrates

Y3 Time at first drop
Response: Time at first drop

Transform: Base 10 log

Std. Dev.
Mean
C.V.

0.12
1.00
12.34

R-Squared
Adj R-Squared
Pred R-Squared

PRESS

0.73

Adeq Precision

Constant: 0.000

0.7001
0.6127
0.3933

12.609

40

Whey Protein Concentrates

Optimization
Next Step:
Use the three response models we just fit to find the best
tradeoff in properties to give the optimum operating
conditions.

41

Introduction to Design of Experiments

1. Response Surface Methodology

Response surface designs
Central composite designs
Whey protein case study

2. Multiple Response Optimization

Whey protein case study

42

Agenda Transition
Multiple Response Optimization:
Whey protein case study
(optimization)

Screening

Known
Factors

Unknown
Factors
Trivial
many

Screening
Vital few

Characterization
Factor effects
and interactions
no

Curvature?
yes

Optimization

Response
Surface
Methods

Verification
Confirm?
Celebrate!

no

Backup

yes

43

Simultaneous Optimization
of Multiple Responses
1. Analyze each response separately and establish an appropriate
transformation and model for each.
2. Optimize using the models to search the independent factor
space for a region that simultaneously satisfies the
requirements placed on the responses.

Useful models are essential!

Design of experiments is critical!

44

First Step: Develop Good Models

Dont Over Interpret the Statistics!
Be sure the fitted surface adequately represents your process
before you use it for optimization. Check for:
1. A significant model: Large F-value with p<0.05.
2. Insignificant lack-of-fit: F-value with p>0.10.
3. Adequate precision >4.
4. Well behaved residuals: Check diagnostic plots!

45

Whey Protein Concentrates

Y1 Undenatured protein
Response: Undenatured Protein

ANOVA for Response Surface Reduced Quadratic Model

Square

Mean
Value

F
Prob > F

12

527.64

34.12

< 0.0001

293.83

19

15.46

Lack of Fit

260.73

14

18.62

2.81

0.1297

Pure Error

33.09

6.62

6625.46

31

Source
Model

Residual

Cor. Total
Std. Dev.

Squares

Sum of
DF

6331.63

3.93

R-Squared

0.9557

68.83

Adj R-Squared

0.9276

C.V. %

5.71

Pred R-Squared

0.8589

PRESS

934.73

Adeq Precision

17.589

Mean

46

Whey Protein Concentrates

Y2 Whipping time
Response: Whip time

Transform: Base 10 log

Constant: 0.000

ANOVA for Response Surface Reduced Quadratic Model

Squares
0.47

Sum of
DF
7

Square
0.067

0.10

24

4.333E-003

Lack of Fit

0.093

19

4.905E-003

Pure Error

0.011

2.161E-003

Cor Total 0.57

31

Source
Model
Residual

Std. Dev.

Mean
Value
15.43

F
Prob > F
< 0.0001

2.27

0.1854

0.066

R-Squared

0.8182

Mean

0.64

Adj R-Squared

0.7652

C.V.

10.28

Pred R-Squared

0.6544

0.20

Adeq Precision

18.865

PRESS

47

Whey Protein Concentrates

Y3 Time at first drop
Response: Time at first drop

Transform: Base 10 log

Constant: 0.000

ANOVA for Response Surface Reduced Quadratic Model

Squares
0.85

Sum of
DF
7

Square
0.12

0.36

24

0.015

0.35

19

0.019

Pure Error 0.00795

1.590E-003

Source
Model
Residual
Lack of Fit
Cor Total

1.21

Mean
Value
8.01

F
Prob > F
< 0.0001

11.72

0.0063

31

Std. Dev.

0.12

R-Squared

0.7001

Mean

1.00

Adj R-Squared

0.6127

C.V.

12.34

Pred R-Squared

0.3933

0.73

Adeq Precision

12.609

PRESS

48

Response Surface Numeric Optimization

Desirability as an Objective Function (1/2)

To determine a best combination of responses, we use an
objective function, D(X), that involves the use of a geometric
mean:

D d1 d2 ... dn

1
n

di
i 1
n

1
n

The di, which range from 0 to 1 (least to most desirable

respectively), represents the desirability of each individual
(i) response.
n is the number of responses being optimized.

49

Response Surface Numeric Optimization

Desirability as an Objective Function (2/2)

Now you can search for the greatest overall desirability (D) for
responses and/or factors (for example, if time is a factor, you may
want to keep it to a minimum):
D = 1 indicates that all the goals are satisfied.
(If this happens, youre probably not asking
for enough!)
D = 0 when one or more responses fall outside acceptable
limits. (Hopefully this will not happen, but if so, try relaxing
some of your criteria!)

50

Desirability as an Objective Function

Assigning Optimization Parameters (1/2)

The crucial phase of numerical optimization is assignment of
various parameters that define the application of individual
desirabilities (dis). The most important are:
Goal (none, maximum, minimum, target or range)
Limits (lower and upper).
In this case:
Want to maximize undenatured protein.
Want to minimize whip time.
Want to maximize time at first drop.

51

Desirability as an Objective Function

Assigning Optimization Parameters (2/2)

Of lesser importance are the parameters:
Weight (0.1 to 10) (Well leave them all = 1)
Importance (5-point scale displayed + to +++++)

In this case:
Undenatured protein is most important, + + + + +.
Whip time is least important, + +.
Time at first drop, this is of intermediate importance, + + +.

52

Whey Protein Concentrates

Optimization
Want to maximize
undenatured protein,
this is the most important
response:

+++++

53

Whey Protein Concentrates

Optimization
Want to minimize whip
time, this is the least
important response:
++

54

Whey Protein Concentrates

Optimization
Want to maximize time at
first drop, this is of
intermediate importance:
+++

55

Whey Protein Concentrates

Numeric Optimization

Solutions
#

Y2

Y3

0.15

82.948 3.3895

12.7

0.217

0.04

0.15

82.917 3.3842

12.7

0.217

0.14

0.04

0.15

82.924 3.3902

12.6

0.214

6.15

0.17

0.04

0.15

82.852 3.3890

12.7

0.214

6.17

0.16

0.04

0.14

82.921 3.3925

12.5

0.212

1 70.00

6.23

0.15

0.04

2 70.00

6.24

0.15

3 70.00

6.26

4 70.00
5 70.00

Factor
A
B
C
D
E

Name
Heating
pH
Redox pot
Na oxalate
Na lauryl

Y1

Response
Y1
Y2
Y3

Name
Undenatured Protein
Whip time
Time at first drop

56

Whey Protein Concentrates

Numeric Optimization

57

Summary Response Surface Methods

Goal Optimization of process
Tools
Central Composite design
(when it fits the problem)
Optimal (Custom) design if needed
(Watch for webinar - Part 2!)
Numerical Optimization

58

Practical Paperbacks on DOE*

by Mark Anderson and Pat Whitcomb

User Review of DOE Simplified:

As an engineer (just beginning self study on the topic of DOE) I found this book
very useful. The authors provide practical insight that I was unable to find in other
DOE or statistics books. This is not a book for advanced statisticians, however, it is
a great book for someone trying to understand and apply the principles of DOE.

* Published by Productivity Press, New York.

59

Statistics Made Easy

For all the new features in v8 of Design-Expert software, see
www.statease.com/dx8descr.html

Best of luck for your

experimenting!
Thanks for listening!
-- Shari
Shari Kraber, MS, Applied Stats
Stat-Ease, Inc.
[email protected]
*Pdf of this Powerpoint presentation posted at www.statease.com/webinar.html.
For future webinars, subscribe to DOE FAQ Alert at www.statease.com/doealert.html.
60

How to get help

Search publications posted at www.statease.com.
In Stat-Ease software press for Screen Tips, view
reports in annotated mode, look for context-sensitive Help
(right-click) or search the main Help system.
Explore Experiment Design Forum http://forum.statease.com
and post your question (if not previously answered).
E-mail [email protected] for answers from Stat-Eases
staff of statistical consultants.

Call 612.378.9449 and ask for statistical help.

61