Interpreting the common capability indices: Cp, Cpk, Pk, and Ppk.

Tim Folkerts

Super Moderator
#1
Understanding capability indices is a repeated concern here at the Cove. So I thought I would provide my own take on interpreting the common capability indices: Cp, Cpk, Pk, and Ppk.

Rather than start with a theoretical presentation of the equations, my plan is to start with the data. In subsequent posts, I will present data for a hypothetical process. Each set of data is generated to illustrate one or more specific features. By seeing the data and the capability indices, hopefully the interpretation will be more concrete, more intuitive.

Unless other wise stated, the following will be true of all the data:
  • The process has specification limits at +/- 5
  • Data is generated from a normal distribution
  • Data are collected into subgroups of 4
  • Calculations will be based on 30 subgroups (occasionally 100 subgroups)
  • Processing is done with Minitab
  • Data will be screened; the data is randomly generated, but data sets that are "too unusual" will be discarded in favor of data that more clearly illustrates the desired features.
I will add data as I have time -- the first few should be available within a few hours as I gather the info and get it posted.

Comments are, of course, welcome. If there are any particular situations you would like illustrated, let me know, and I can try to work it into the series.


Tim
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Tim Folkerts

Super Moderator
#2
"Typical" data

Typical Data

This first set of data represents typical data from a process. And by “typical”, I mean “excellent”. :lol:

From the run chart, we can see that the data is well centered and well within the specifications. There is definitely variation, but no obvious trends or outliers.

Calculations for this data show
  • Cp = 1.61
  • Cpk =1.59
  • Pp = 1.62
  • Ppk = 1.60
All four values are approximately the same, which is apparently one hallmark of an excellent process.


In reality, this data came from a normal distribution random number generator, with a mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1. Theoretically, all four indices should be 1.67. The fact that all are a little smaller than 1.67 can be attributed to random variations. The fact that Cpk is smaller that Cp, and Ppk is slightly smaller than Pp, can be attributed to the mean of the data not being exactly 0.

The random variability of the data was conformed by generating10 different sets of data with the same parameters. In the ten data sets (which should be identical!)
  • Cpk varied from 1.41 to 1.80
  • Ppk varied from 1.52 to 1.83
  • Cpk & Ppk were usually close to each other, but they could be up to about 0.1 different
  • Within a given data set, sometimes Cpk > Ppk, and sometimes Ppk > Cpk.
  • Variations were reduced when 100 subgroups were used for the calculations
CONCLUSION
  • Large, consistent values of the indices indicate excellent data.
  • Don’t read too much into small variations between the indices, especially for smaller data sets.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Tim Folkerts

Super Moderator
#3
Data Set 2: a shift in mean

I'm going to forge ahead and insert the images later ...

The second data set shows similar variation, but the center has shifted toward the upper spec limit. I fact, many of the data points are at or outside the specification limits.

Calculations for this data show
  • Cp = 1.65
  • Cpk = 0.96
  • Pp = 1.67
  • Ppk = 0.98
(Theoretically, mean = 2, sigma = 1: Cp = Pp = 1.67; Cpk = Ppk = 1.00)

The conclusion is obvious:
  • When the center is shifted, Cpk & Ppk are smaller than Cp & Pp.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Tim Folkerts

Super Moderator
#4
Data Set 3: Increased Variation

In this third example, the process is again centered, but the variation has increased.

Calculations for this data show.
  • Cp = 0.81
  • Cpk = 0.79
  • Pp = 0.80
  • Ppk = 0.78
(Theoretically, this data has mean = 0, sigma = 2, producing Cp = Cpk = Pp = Ppk = 0.83)

Again, the interpretation is clear and familiar:
  • An increase in variation reduces all the capability indices
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Tim Folkerts

Super Moderator
#5
Data Set 4: Drift

I wanted to try one slightly more challenging situation.

Here we see that the variation within each group is again similar to Set 1, but there is a significant drift, starting from an average of -2 at the beginning to +2 after 30 subgroups.

The calculations show:
  • Cp = 1.65
  • Cpk = 1.62
  • Pp = 1.12
  • Ppk = 1.10
(The data has a theoretical mean of 0, a within-subgroup standard deviation of 1.0, and a linear drift from -2 to +2 over the 30 subgroups)

The data is still centered, which agrees with the observation Cp =Cpk, and Pp = Ppk.

This is the first time we have seen Cp ≠ Pp and Cpk ≠ Ppk. Apparently, this is caused by the drift. On other words, when there is some non-random variation (in this case drift) the actual long-term performace (Pp & Ppk) is worse that the short-term potential (Cp & Cpk).




CONCLUSION:
  • When there is non-random variation between subgroups, then long-term Pp & Ppk suffer compared to the short-term Cp & Cpk
 

Attachments

Last edited:

bobdoering

Stop X-bar/R Madness!!
Trusted Information Resource
#6
Re: Data Set 4: Drift

I wanted to try one slightly more challenging situation.

Here we see that the variation within each group is again similar to Set 1, but there is a significant drift, starting from an average of -2 at the beginning to +2 after 30 subgroups.

The calculations show:
  • Cp = 1.65
  • Cpk = 1.62
  • Pp = 1.12
  • Ppk = 1.10
(The data has a theoretical mean of 0, a within-subgroup standard deviation of 1.0, and a linear drift from -2 to +2 over the 30 subgroups)

The data is still centered, which agrees with the observation Cp =Cpk, and Pp = Ppk.

This is the first time we have seen Cp ≠ Pp and Cpk ≠ Ppk. Apparently, this is caused by the drift. On other words, when there is some non-random variation (in this case drift) the actual long-term performace (Pp & Ppk) is worse that the short-term potential (Cp & Cpk).




CONCLUSION:
  • When there is non-random variation between subgroups, then long-term Pp & Ppk suffer compared to the short-term Cp & Cpk
It seems the assumption is that the drift will continue ad infinitum. If that is the case...maybe so. But, if the system is reset to the lower level and allowed to increase again, as in tool wear, then the game changes. It becomes the sawtooth curve, the uniform distribution, and capability = (USL-LSL)/(UCL-LCL). Also, calculating the averages really has no meaning for that distribution, so plotting the High and Low values of X are much easier and more effective, especially when the origin of this distribution is precision machining.
 

Attachments

Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Q Interpreting Tensile Charts General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 0
Q Interpreting China Medical Device regulations/standards China Medical Device Regulations 1
P ISO 80369-7 standard - Interpreting which Parts should be in scope Other Medical Device Related Standards 7
K PACS - interpreting MDD and Borderline Guidance CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 5
M List of Packaging Contents - Medical Devices - Interpreting EU Directive 93/42/EEC CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 3
D Interpreting Normal vs Weibull Capabilities Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 4
P Interpreting Span Measurement - P95-P5 Six Sigma 1
B Interpreting Deviations 5 & 6 in Annex ZA in ISO 14971:2012 ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 1
B Interpreting "misuse" when assessing Hazardous Situations ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 2
S Interpreting clause 4.1.5 in ISO 13485:2016 ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 9
M Interpreting Process Controls - 21 CFR Part 820.70(a) 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 5
M Help interpreting 21 CFR Part 806 (corrections and removals) Other US Medical Device Regulations 1
G Interpreting Type 1 MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) Results Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 4
M Help interpreting MIL-STD-105E Single Sampling Plans Tables Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 5
M Biocompatibility in Respiratory Products - Help interpreting whitepaper IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 22
I Interpreting Product Realization (Clause 7) in ISO 9001:2008 for Service Industry ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 5
V GD&T Interpreting Datums in Two Single Segmented Position Tolerances Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 5
M Interpreting X bar and R Control Charts Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 2
B Help with interpreting stock market terminologies Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 4
V Interpreting Zinc Plating Specification GMW 3044 - 6K96/48 APQP and PPAP 2
K Interpreting and Applying 7.3.2 Design and Development Inputs ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 4
S Interpreting the Calibration Report for my Dial Indicator General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 3
J Interpreting Process Capability results and ratios Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 1
B Length Measure - Interpreting Calibration Results and Measurement Uncertainty (MU) Measurement Uncertainty (MU) 3
S Interpreting Level of Confidence - Round Robin for Tensile Testing - Help needed Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 4
M Interpreting AS9100 Clause 8.2.2 Internal Audit Requirements Internal Auditing 28
T Interpreting my t test in Minitab Using Minitab Software 2
S Interpreting Linear Regression Results from Minitab Using Minitab Software 15
optomist1 Interpreting LMC for Pattern of Slots (GD&T) Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 3
optomist1 Interpreting Minitab Test For Equal Variances Using Minitab Software 3
V Interpreting Minitab Gauge R&R Results Using Minitab Software 6
A ISO 2081 - Interpreting Coating Thickness Other ISO and International Standards and European Regulations 3
L Interpreting Injection Molding Tooling Documents - Cavities Manufacturing and Related Processes 3
C Interpreting Gage R&R Results - 3 operators, 3 iterations and 10 parts Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 6
M Interpreting Measurement Uncertainty for Temperature PRT probes Measurement Uncertainty (MU) 2
N Interpreting Hygrometer Calibration Uncertainty - Temperature Coefficient Measurement Uncertainty (MU) 1
mr500 Interpreting Decimals in the mm state - Off Wall Question Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 14
J Interpreting clause 7.5.2.1 (validation of software used in production & service) ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
E Interpreting Partial Least Square Results Using Minitab Software 1
C Interpreting Outside Laboratory Calibration Certificate Measurement Uncertainty (MU) 3
M Interpreting MIL-PRF-19500 (Performance Spec, Semicon Dev) - What is LTPD of 20 - ??? Manufacturing and Related Processes 4
T Rules for interpreting control charts Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 2
Q Interpreting Responsibility and Authority Clause 5.5.1 ISO 13485 ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 18
H Interpreting 'Evaluation of compliance' in ISO 14001 Internal Auditing 4
P Micrometer Gage R&R study - Interpreting the data and suggestions Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 4
W Interpreting a Normal Probability Plot Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 4
Wes Bucey "Downsizing" ramifications - Evaluating and Interpreting the News World News 0
Q Interpreting calibration result of Air Particle Counter on Counting efficiency General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 1
A Particle Counter Results - Interpreting Data for a Class 100,000 Cleanroom Other Medical Device Related Standards 12
M GD&T Q&A session - Interpreting FCF (Feature Control Frame) Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 43

Similar threads

Top Bottom