Quality
Quality
Quality Control
1
Phases of Quality Assurance
2
Inspection: Appraisal of good/service quality
Total Cost
Cost of
inspection
(appraisal and
Prevention cost)
Cost of
passing
defectives
Optimal (failure cost)
Amount of Inspection
3
Inspection
• Where/When
• Raw materials
• Finished products
6
Statistical Process Control
7
Mean and Variance
• Given a population of numbers, how to
compute the mean and the variance?
x i
Mean i 1
N
N
i
( x ) 2
Variance 2 i 1
N
Standard deviation
8
Statistical Process Control
• From a large population of goods or
services (random if possible) a sample is
drawn.
– Example sample: Midterm grades of BA3352
students whose last name starts with letter R
{60, 64, 72, 86}, with letter S {54, 60}
•Sample size= n
•Sample average or sample mean= x
•Sample range= R
•Standard deviation of sample means=
x where : Standard deviation of the population
n
9
Sampling Distribution
Process distribution
Variability of the scores
for the entire class
Mean
normdist(x,.,.,1) normdist(x,.,.,0)
Probab
95.44%
99.74%
normdist(x,mean,st_dev,1)
0 x
norminv(prob,mean,st_dev)
13
Control Limits
Process
distribution
Mean
LCL UCL
Lower Upper
control control
limit limit 14
Setting Control Limits:
Hypothesis Testing Framework
• Null hypothesis: Process is in control
• Alternative hypothesis: Process is out of control
• Alpha=P(Type I error)=P(reject the null when it is true)=
P(out of control when in control)
• Beta=P(Type II error)=P(accept the null when it is false)
P(in control when out of control)
/2 /2
Mean
Mean
Normal variation
due to chance
LCL
Abnormal variation
due to assignable sources
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Sample number
17
Observations from Sample Distribution
UCL
LCL
1 2 3 4
Sample number
18
Control Charts
• Control charts for variables (measurable
quantities), e.g. length, temperature
– Mean control charts
• To check mean
– Range control charts
• To check variability
• Control charts for attributes, e.g. fit, defective
– p-charts
• To check proportion of defectives (occurrences)
– c-charts
• To check the number of defectives (occurrences)
19
Mean control chart
Grand mean x average of x
UCL x z x grand mean plus a multiple of standard deviation
LCL x z x grand mean minus a multiple of standard deviation
UCL x norminv(1- /2, x, x ) x
z Most often z is set to 2 or 3.
x x
EX: In the last five years, the range of GMAT scores of incoming PhD class is
88, 64, 102, 70, 74. If each class has 6 students, what are UCL and LCL for
GMAT ranges?
21
Mean and Range Charts: Which?
(process mean is
shifting upward)
Sampling
Distribution
UCL
LCL
UCL
Does not
R-chart
detect shift
LCL
22
Mean and Range Charts: Which?
Sampling
Distribution (process variability is increasing)
UCL
Does not
x-Chart
reveal increase
LC
L
UCL
LC
L
23
Use of p-Charts
UCL p z p LCL p z p
p(1 p)
where p , z as before
n
24
Use of c-Charts
UCL c z c LCL c z c
if c is not known, use the average c
25
C-chart Example
• While the nuclear submarine Kursk was being raised in the
Barents sea (between Svalbard, No and Novaya Zemlya, Ru),
which took 15 hours, engineers took a reading of number of
Geiger counts per hour to detect any increase in radiation
levels. Should they have stopped before 5th or 10th hour given 3-
sigma control and the readings data: 42, 48, 50, 45, 52, 66, 64,
84, 92, 76.
At the 5th hour, average number of counts=47.4, stdev of counts=6.88,
UCL=47.4+3*6.88=68.05, LCL=47.4-3*6.88=26.75. Do not stop.
At the 10th hour, average number of counts=61.9, stdev of counts=7.87,
UCL=61.9+3*7.87=85.51, LCL=61.9-3*7.87=38.29. Stop, 9th reading is
out of control.
26
Up and Down Run Charts
• If all readings are in control, is the process
really in control?
• There could be trends in readings even
when they are in control.
Counting Up/Down Runs (r=8 runs)
U U D U D U D U U D
27
Up and Down Run Charts
UCL E (r ) z r Expected runs plus a multiple of stdev of runs
LCL E (r ) z r Expected runs minus a multiple of stdev of runs
2K - 1 16 K 29
E(r) and r
3 90
K Number of samples
EX: What are 3-sigma UCL and LCL for the number of runs in 50 samples?
2K - 1 16 K 29
K 50, E(r) 33 and r 2.92
3 90
UCL E (r ) z r 33 3 * 2.92
LCL E ( r ) z r 33 - 3 * 2.92
28
Process Capability
• Tolerances/Specifications
– Requirements of the design or customers
• Process variability
– Natural variability in a process
– Variance of the measurements coming from the process
• Process capability
– Process variability relative to specification
– Capability=Process specifications / Process variability
29
Process Capability:
Specification limits are not control chart limits
Lower Upper
Specification Specification
Sampling
Distribution
Process variability matches
is used
specifications
Lower Upper
Specification Specification
30
Process Capability Ratio
Example: Suppose that the process is not centered in the previous example
and the SOM wants all the scores to fall within 50% and 100%. What is the
Capability ratio if the average score was 70?
Lower Upper
specification specification
Process
mean
+/- 3 Sigma
+/- 6 Sigma
33
Chapter 10 Supplement
Acceptance
Sampling
34
Acceptance Sampling
• Acceptance sampling: Is a lot of N products good
if a random sample of n (n<N) products contain
only c defects?
– For example take a sample of 10(=n) milk bottles out
of every 100(=N). If 1(=c) or more bottles do not fit
specifications, reject the entire lot of 100 bottles.
• c is determined to balance type I and type II
errors.
• This is a smart compromise between 100%
inspection and no inspection.
• Generally used for input/output inspection.
35
Why not to emphasize
Acceptance Sampling (AS)
• AS plans have no clearly stated economic objective.
They target some levels of type I and II errors.
• AS incorporate an attitude of punishment by rejecting
entire lots after examining small samples. This feeds
the mistrust between supplier and the customer.
• AS does not attempt to find the root cause of
defectives. It merely detects defectives. Real
problem is actually finding the root cause. Some
people say that:
– “AS provides elegant solutions to balance type I and II
errors by making a type III error: solving the wrong
problem”.
36