When to use Ppk/Pp and Cpk/Cp - Difference between population and sample

B

Bill Pflanz

#11
J Oliphant said:
ok, that thread was helpful.

Basically, SPC plays no role in our finished process. We ship and approve intermediate product based on whether the test (one per batch) meets specifications. Therefore we have a system that promotes operator tampering. (see recent conversations about the funnel experiment). We do not reject/alter finshed/intermediates based on control limits.
Therefore If I understand the terminology-- we have lots of special cause variation and our process ISN'T in satical control.

Since the process data lacks rational subgroups and statistical control, we must use Pp and Ppk as the thread states, correct??
If I were you I would step back and re-consider the whole situation. Process capability is an indication of whether your process is capable of meeting the specifications. If you have special cause variation and your process is not in statistical control then you should not even bother to calculate the process capability since it is not meaningful. (See Grant & Leavenworth, Chapter 5).

I am also confused by your statement that "SPC plays no role in our finished product" but on the intermediate product which you "ship and approve". Is an intermediate product one that you ship from one department or plant to another and then they make it into a finished product? No matter what the answer is, SPC can be used to monitor finished product final testing, intermediate final testing or even the process controls such as temperature, pressure, reflux ratios etc. while you are making the product. Actually, there would be more value in learning what process variables have the most effect on your intermediate or final product and control chart those variables with the intent that you would find problems early and correct them before you get out of control or out of spec on your final product tests.

Also, control charts are used to determine if your process has changed and is not related to specification or product rejection. As a matter of fact, G&L Chap 9 caution practitioners about the confusion that can be caused when mixing control limits and specification limits in a discussion of control chart theory. It is possible to have a process that is not in control and still make product that passes final testing. Depending on how out of control the process is, I would not recommend that you wait too long to bring it back in control or you may find yourself with an entire batch that needs to be re-run or even worse, disposed of.

Rational subgroups is related to sampling methodology and must be done correctly if you want a meaningful control chart. G&L Chap 9 has information on this topic also.

Don't be shy about asking questions. In spite of what you may have read or taught in a class, control chart theory is not that easy and takes time to learn. If you are wondering about my references to Grant & Leavenworth, my book is liberally marked with post it notes on this subject and plenty of written notes in the margins. I was a "real" control chart user and a "real" engineer at one time and you have brought back some memories that are deeply buried but still there. When people talk about putting out fires at work, I always note that I may be the only one that actually did put out real fires. :lol:

Bill Pflanz
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
D

Darius

#12
Hi Oliphant, the second tread of Rob Nix states my point of view (may be not all), to me the only way to manage is to measure, without all the theorical background each capability indicator is usefull if you compare it with it self, but there are more robust indicators than others and conditions such that one indicator SHOULD NOT BE CALCULATED (ie. Cpk in one spec condition). For the Cp againt pp indicators: I like Cp indicators because I try to see my process not how does it behabe, the control limits are calculated with the same estimate than Cp, I tink this is a good point.

To answer your questions:

Ppk/Pp doesn't use an estimate (does it). Isn't it precisely the standard deviation of all the points (particularly, if you remove the n-1 degrees of freedom??)
Any calculation is an estimate, even if you measure the same item several times you can obtain different values (operator or instrument variation).

I also do not understand the concept of autocoorelation. Can you steer me to more information on this concept??
Autocorrelation is the relationship of one value with the previous ones, it affects primary the IX-MR charts, because, if subgroup increases the autocorrelation usually gets lower, you can say the same with the time (if the lag between samples increases the autocorrelation gets lower and usually is a solution for the most of the people, but why you have an sensor taking measures every hour if no cost is involved to take them more frequently?).

Donald Wheeler in "Advanced Topics in Statistical Process Control" show the calculations, you may look at the net for magazines and found presentations about autocorrelation since 1996.

There are other ways:

* Like using non parametrics to calculate the index, I love nonparametrics (median and interquartile or percentile calculation of variation). I know that is not common, but remember the objective of Capability of Performance Index: "To evaluate your process and know if it goes better or worse". The use of standard deviation is just to obtain the size of the natural variation of your process, so if you don't trust any estimate of standard deviation, use the estimate using non parametrics, it's stronger for outliers and non gausian behabiur.

* There are some practitioners that don't like them because the over simplification of the evaluation, the used box plots (I tink its a good idea, I allways use both to compare between periods of time).

We aren't in statistical control in these steps in our process and we never will be.
What is in control for you?, Shewhart wrote something like "A phenomenon will be said to be controlled when, through the use of past experience, we can predict,
at least within limits, how the phenomenon will vary in the future."

http://www.spcpress.com/ink_pdfs/Wh Modest Proposal.pdf

The "in control" Rules don't apply for all cases, you may need to see if each rule apply to you.

:eek:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
J

J Oliphant

#13
great thread

:agree1: Great thread Darius, I particularly enjoy Dr Wheeler's breakdown of three viewpoints of SPC.

One viewpoint is particularly common here, is the idea that SPC is a complicated way to make sure that the product is within spec. To them, SPC seems a complex route to a simple objective so it is 'quality by inspection'

For my validation friend, his assigned task is to conduct a study that "establishes documented evidence which provides a high degree of assurance that a specific process will consistently produce a product meeting its pre-determined specificaions and quality attributes." He was directed to use statistical tools and historical data to prove this.

Naturally, he finds the capability indexes as an appealing measurement. What he does not appreciate is that the data is rife with special cause variation.

By now many of you have told me I need to clean up my processes (get them under statistical control) before the indexes have much relevance. I agree. But its' not my project, this is a BB running this project and he really doesn't seem to understand my objection to his analysis. He betrayed his knowledge when I point out on one of his control charts of a test that was above the upper control limit. He replied back to me that it wasn't a problem because the Cp/Cpk were above 1.0.

Darius challenges me to know explain what I mean when I say the information is not statically controlled. Control charts are not run on products as they are produced. On occasion however, customers ask for charts and we produce charts for material that has already shipped. There are runs, there are (alot) of skewed distributions,they are out of control points on many of these charts. Management is not concerned with these results; only if they are out of specification.

I see no recognition (at all) of SPC as a tool for process improvement. Six sigma is the only recognized tool for process improvement and more often not if it changes process target it will place the target even closer to a spec, by the calculation of some raw material reduction,etc.

I really appreciate the information- I am learning a lot.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Darius

#14
Check for the attachement r001.pdf in

http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=6572

There is no size fit all in rules (as most of the programs or documents pretend to be).

There are runs, there are (alot) of skewed distributions,they are out of control points on many of these charts.
The runs is a common condition on batch processing (specialy with autocorrelation), so it doen't apply (if it's the case), don't use it.

There are a lot of process variables that don0t follow a gausian distribution and it doesn't imply "not in control".

And if is out of limits, it may be (specially with high autocorrelation) that the control limits doesn't represent the process.
:bonk:

He betrayed his knowledge when I point out on one of his control charts of a test that was above the upper control limit. He replied back to me that it wasn't a problem because the Cp/Cpk were above 1.0.
Even when you have a 2 or more in a Cpk, there is no guarantee that all points will be inside of the control limits (a teacher here said to me ones that you can have 2 points from each 100 without the variable being out of control), it really doesn't has to do with the Cpk being above 1.0, the indicator (Cp, or Pp or what else) depend on the sample size, if you obtain by calculus a Cpk of 2 you may have a 1 or less in your process (they are just estimates). IMHO a more realistic value could be "Wich is your indicator "at least" value?, but not many present that value (if looks better show it that way).
 
J

J Oliphant

#15
still thinking

Darius / William;

thanks for hanging with me- I'm still thinking hard about all this stuff. There is clearly stuff in regards to IMR that just isn't yet understood.

First the the topic of autocoorelation: I did a little more digging:
"Autocorrelation Function
The first of these correlation functions we will discuss is the autocorrelation, where each of the random variables we will deal with come from the same random process.
Definition 1: Autocorrelation
the expected value of the product of a random variable or signal realization with a time-shifted version of itself
With a simple calculation and analysis of the autocorrelation function, we can discover a few important characteristics about our random process. These include:
How quickly our random signal or processes changes with respect to the time function
Whether our process has a periodic component and what the expected frequency might be "

I really don't think MY process has much autocoorelation. we are talking about compounding a whole tank, taking one single measurement- completely draining that tank (or draining 99-99.75% of it) then compounding it again. there is little relationship from one batch to the other. Still it's complex and not a cut and dried issue:

if a tank of soup (which I don't make -just for an example) is
made of 60% BATCH 200 of beef broth.
30% BATCH 210 of carrots
10% BATCH 220 of onions

and next batch we use
60% BATCH 300 of beef broth
30% BATCH 310 of carrots
10% BATCH 222 of onions...

would these two results show autocorrelation? I'm not sure.

Darius, I really find your logic here hard to understand (no offense)- if we're not even charting our process, and points are outside the control line, the distributions is severely skewed and all kinds of point rules are being broken-- Surely we don't have our process under statistical control.

for the last point, If a point outside the control line sounds like a bigger deal then a high capability index, then We agree. I completely agree that you can have outlier tests and unexplained special cause variation and have a high Cp/Cpk.

Jay
 
D

Darius

#16
My last try :frust:
I really don't think MY process has much autocoorelation.
Autocorrelation happends primary when you take several meassures of the same batch with a small time lag (It's not you case, I agree but you didn't tell before that only one meassure was taken from each batch). I just said that point outside of control limits could happen because the variation estimate was wrong because of that.

if we're not even charting our process, and points are outside the control line, the distributions is severely skewed and all kinds of point rules are being broken-- Surely we don't have our process under statistical control.
If you don't chart it; DOESN'T HAS TO DO ANYTHING WITH CONTROL. As I told you before, the distribution has a lot to do with control limits and rules, if you readed the article r001.pdf in the tread I told you about, even Wheeler said that not allways all rules apply. Don Wheeler showed that even for "non normal" (non gaussian) distributions control limits worked, but the rules depend on the probabilities calculated for such distribution.

and at last remember Shewhart definition of control:
"A phenomenon will be said to be controled when, through the use of past experience, we can predict, at least within limits, how the phenomenon will vary in the future."

and Deming (1986): “no process, except in artificial demonstrations by use of random numbers, is steady and unwavering”

I did some simulations using all GE rules and Excel "random generator", rules hapen ones and ones again.

Auswiedersehen meine lieber freunde, Ich kan hier nicht mehr machen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
J

J Oliphant

#17
ok...

ok. no more hitting ones head against a wall.

We do have the process under 'control'. that is after any number of adjustments with spices in our 'soup', we can get that tank in spec. If we didn't have the process under control my GMP customers would be Hot in a hurry. :mad: The distribution are not usually visibly gaussian, and they are not measured in process.

Normally, I am told having a process under statistical control means you have common cause variation that leads to a stable (and many times guassian) distribution. It is not just one point rule that gives me fits, at times and places we break all of them. so Wheeler's caution against using all the point rules really doesn't fit. If I use any of them occasionally I break it, and in that instance I most likely 'special cause' variation.

I imagine that charting important properties and understanding distibution BEFORE operator adjustments have been made is an important step in SPC. But I have NOT implemented SPC. I don't have approval to implement SPC. And I lack proof of any kind that it will save $$$ to implement SPC on our 'BATCH' compounding steps. But if I could--charting the results, understanding the distribution and eliminating outliers would be a first step, right???

Just out of friendly curiousity, Darius. what does the german mean?? I'm not frustrating you, Am I?

I will also be a good CQE and study out what books and references mean, but sometimes what is written about SQC at other industries doesn't seem to apply. Nevertheless I think several how give me hope that SPC by G&L, is an espacially relevant book for me.

Jay
 
S

Swanee

#18
J,

The German was nothing bad...Darius was just asking other Cove members to help explain the point in a different way because he wasn't having much luck.

Chemical processing is a entirely different ballgame than the one I'm use to using SPC for, so I suggest that you look at Chapter 9 of "Statistical Quality Control". Having said that, here are my thoughts on what Darius was explaining.

Your sample size is 1 and your assuming it is from the entire population. This paints you into a corner because you aren't allowing the measurement to be comparred to anything else. That means there is no value in charting or using any SPC rules.

Darius' point, I think, was that you should be comparing it to the other batches. This increases your population size and degrees of freedom. Again, chemicals are not my industry, but it seems like this would be a good way to reliably use SPC tools without any additional measurements. This only works if you are using the same recipe for every batch.

The other way around this entire discussion is to increase your number of samples within a single batch. Probably not an option because of time, money, wasted product, etc.

Hopefully this helps.

Swanee
 
B

Bill Pflanz

#19
Swanee said:
Chemical processing is a entirely different ballgame than the one I'm use to using SPC for, so I suggest that you look at Chapter 9 of "Statistical Quality Control". Having said that, here are my thoughts on what Darius was explaining.

Your sample size is 1 and your assuming it is from the entire population. This paints you into a corner because you aren't allowing the measurement to be comparred to anything else. That means there is no value in charting or using any SPC rules.

Darius' point, I think, was that you should be comparing it to the other batches. This increases your population size and degrees of freedom. Again, chemicals are not my industry, but it seems like this would be a good way to reliably use SPC tools without any additional measurements. This only works if you are using the same recipe for every batch.

The other way around this entire discussion is to increase your number of samples within a single batch. Probably not an option because of time, money, wasted product, etc.
Since I have done control charting in the chemical industry, my experience tells me it definitely has value. The moving average control chart solves the problem of the sampling issue. The same SPC rules for out of control apply for this chart.

Using the same recipe for every batch is equivalent to making the same product on a machine. If you change the recipe then you change the product and plotting the data on a single control chart would be mixing data from multiple products. Increasing the number of samples within a single batch will only demonstrate variability in testing.

Control charting final product batches is okay but there is more value in control charting key parameters further back in the process. Batch to batch variation (assuming the same product is being made) is determined by the process. As Jay is finding out, tampering with process controls during intermediate processes can increase variation in the final product. Testing time can be a problem because you continue to make lots of product while waiting for the test results. The control chart, if probably used, can signal a change in the process and allow correction earlier.

Through emails with Jay, I have encouraged him to focus less on the product specifications and more on process control. Plant managers get in big trouble, very quickly if they make off-spec product since there can be expensive re-work costs or, even worse, high costs for waste disposal of chemicals. The control charts are used to improve the efficiency of the process not make on-spec product. Continual tampering will increase the variation until the process gets more and more out of control (off into the Milky Way per Deming) until you will get off-spec.

Bill Pflanz
 
K

KMAAA

#20
regarding the initial Ppk vs Cpk question:

Mean = SumXi / N
SD(short term) = MR-bar/1.128 (from IX-MR moving range chart)
SD(long term) = (Xi – X)^2 / N-1
Cp = (USL – LSL) / 6 * SDst
Cpk = min [(X – LSL) / 3 * SDst] , [(USL – X) / 3 * SDst]
Pp = (USL – LSL) / 6 * SDlt
Ppk = min [(X – LSL) / 3 * SDlt] , [(USL – X) / 3 * SDlt]

No?

Within the training I've had the Cp(k) is referred to the "process potential" (what might the capability be if all special causes could be removed...i.e. "potential") while the Pp(k) is referred to as "process performance" (what is the actual process capability you're experiencing today..i.e. "performance out the door"). Cp gives one view, based on one distribution/data-set. Pp gives another view, based on another distribution/dataset. Both are useful, they're just different views.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
A How to interpret Minitab Results? What is difference in Cpk and Ppk values? Using Minitab Software 2
B Difference between Ppk (Preliminary), Cpk, Performance Capability Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 2
D Real life example of the difference between Cpk and Ppk Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 0
E What is the difference between Cp, Cpk and Ppk? Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 2
K Could anyone tell me what is relation / difference in Cpk and Ppk Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 4
B What is the difference between Ppk and Cpk Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 2
W LTPD, AQL, Ppk and Cpk validation sampling plan table Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 0
A Interpretation with regards to Ppk > Cpk Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 14
E SPC Production - Getting Cpk and Ppk Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 8
V When to use Cp Cpk and Pp Ppk Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 4
S Value of Ppk or Cpk when targeting thinner material Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 4
B Cpk vs Ppk to look at the Capability by Fixture Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 4
V Customer requires CpK 2 and PpK 1.5 Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 2
R Which of the following indicators is important for Operations - Ppk, Cpk, or Cpm? Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 15
U Cpk and Ppk for different Countries/Standards Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 7
B Understanding why my CpK and PpK are low, and LCL Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 20
S Which one is better to calculate, Cpk or Ppk? Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 11
A How to calculate Cpk & Ppk if the tolerance changes during the period? Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 5
B Formula Data Validation Set for Cp, Cpk, Pp & Ppk Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 1
F Please share an MS Excel sheet to calculate Cpk and Ppk Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 1
R Ppk vs Cpk: Big Differences - What conclusion can I reach about my process? Six Sigma 3
J Cpk & Ppk - Reviewing a PPAP Package - Some questions Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 8
S Ppk & Cpk - Within Subgroup Variation is always smaller than Total Variation Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 18
V CNC Process Validation Cpk Ppk & In-Process Inspection Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 7
S Pp/Ppk & Cp/Cpk - Which is appropriate for Long/Short Term Study? Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 20
R Cpk & Ppk and Differences between Minitab and an Excel Spreadsheet Results Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 4
S How is Cpk /Ppk value calculated in Minitab since I have subgroup size of 1 Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 1
Q When to use Cpk or Ppk for a Process Capability Study? Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 14
A Deciding on when to go for Cp & Cpk or Pp & Ppk Study? Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 3
C Understanding the relationship of Pp, Ppk, Cp, Cpk Six Sigma 4
S Cpk and Ppk Differences and Questions Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 5
E Cpk and Ppk template wanted Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 3
Q ASQ CSSBB Question on Cpk and PPk , can you solve it ? Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 15
M Calculation of Cpk and Ppk for an unstable process Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 7
Q PPK, CPK of >= 1.67 Automotive Requirement and Auditing IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 1
P Individual & MR chart - Ppk or Cpk? Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 9
K Normality of distribution prior to Cpk and PpK Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 4
R Can Ppk value be greater than Cpk and if yes, under what conditions? Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 10
C Is it possible to get Pp,Ppk more than the within subgroup (Cp,Cpk's) indices? Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 7
S Are Pp and Ppk more useful than Cp and Cpk as a benchmark for further studies? Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 1
J Using Pin Gages as a Measurement Tool for Ppk/Cpk studies Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 11
N Cpk vs Ppk - Which should you use and How to Calculate Cpk and Ppk Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 25
V Quality Control Index - We thought that Cpk or Ppk would be good choices Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 6
Tim Folkerts Interpreting the common capability indices: Cp, Cpk, Pk, and Ppk. The Reading Room 5
J Machine issue in Cpk/Ppk and Control Plan - PPAP Submissions APQP and PPAP 5
D Use of an outlier in calculating Cpk/Ppk Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 8
N Analysis of non-normal stratified data for cpk/ppk? Rupture test Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 6
F Ppk/Cpk value with 1-sided specification - Only given a lower specification Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 1
S Ppk/Cpk for geometrical true position of hole with MMC Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 17
Howard Atkins Validation of Cpk and Ppk calculations - Sheet to check Cpk and Ppk values Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 4

Similar threads

Top Bottom