From the table we find that about .4772 or 47.

72% of the area of the normal

curve is between 0 and 2 standard deviations. Therefore we can expect to find about
95.44% of the measures in our example to be between -3.04 and 4.36. This is shown
by the following graph. (INSERT NORMAL CURVE WITH 2 SIGMAS SHADED) Finally
we will calculate the values of Xdouble bar +/- 3SD(x') Xdouble bar +
3SD(x') = +0.66 + 3(1.85) = +6.21 Xdouble bar - 3SD(x') = +0.66 - 3(1.85)
= -4.89 Practically all, 99.73% of the measurements will lie between -4.89 and
+6.21 with approximately half of them on either side of the grand average, as shown
in the following graph. (INSERT NORMAL CURVE WITH 3 SIGMAS SHADED) We have
calculated limits within which we expect nearly all of the measurements to be
contained, as long as the process remains the same. Unless the process is affected
by an assignable cause, it can be expected to produce parts between -4.89 and
+6.21. This is the type of information we are looking for. Rather than assume that
our sample measurements reflect the extreme amount of variation which exists in the
process, we can calculate limits which accurately represent the variation. When
limits are calculated on either side of the average of a process which is
consistent, or in control, they are referred to as the natural limits of the
process. COMPARISON OF THE PROCESS WITH SPECIFICATIONS Many different
techniques have been devised to illustrate the manner in which specifications
compare with the process. There are several points of simularity in nearly all
since they are designed to answer the following questions: 1. Are parts being
produced which are above the upper specification? 2. Are parts being
produced which are below the lower specification? 3. How does the
process average compare with the middle of the specification? 4. How
does the process spread compare with the allowable tolerance? The
following illustrates one manner in which these answers may be obtained. The values
are of those of our example. Coded values have been used: however, decoded or
actual values may be more expedient. The results will be the same either way but
others who may not be acquainted with coding may be interested in the information.
SPECIFICATION PROCESS Upper Specification = +5 +6.21 =
UNL(x) , Upper Natural Limit Middle Specification = 0 +0.66 = Xdouble bar,
Process Aver. Lower Specification = -5 -4.89 = LNL(x) , Lower Natural Limit
Total Tolerance = 10 11.10 = UNL(x) - LNL(x) , Process Spread In
analyzing the above table, the values are compared horizontally. For instance, the
upper specification, +5, is compared with UNL(x) = +6.21. This indicates the
process is expected to produce parts which are above the upper specification and
are, therefore, defective. The second row shows the process mean to be slightly
above the desired value. The third row indicates that no defective parts are
expected to be below the lower specification. The fourth row indicates that the
process spread is greater than the allowable tolerance. This tells us that the
process exhibits too much variation and even if the average were adjusted to the
desired level, some parts would still be produced which would be outside
specification. The distribution curve shown below provides a pictoral method
for comparing the process with the specifications. (INSERT NORMAL CURVE SHOWING
TOLERANCE AND PROCESS SPREAD) In the preceding discussion we have discovered
that our process is producing defective material. It would be beneficial to know
just how much is defective. The technique for determining this is comparable to
that of finding the area under the curve. For our example, the area from the
process average, +0.66, to the upper specification limit of +5, is found in the
table where the value for z = (5.00 - 0.66) /1.85 = 2.35, is .4906 or 49.06%.
Therefore, the percent defective is approximately 1% (50.00 - 49.06 = 0.94) . A
responsible authority must now decide what is to be done. AVERAGES VS
INDIVIDUALS Even though all plottings on the control chart are within the
control limits, we should not assume that the process is meeting specifications.
Analysis of the control limits only tell us that the process is varying in a
consistent manner. Comparison the process with the specification requires the
prediction of the individuals. REMEMBER, control limits are based on averages while
specifications are based on individual values. CHARTS FOR AVERAGES AND
INDIVIDUALS The following chart has been constructed to include plottings of
both individuals and averages in the upper portion while the ranges are plotted on
the bottom portion. The averages are shown as circles and the individuals as
points. The data is that of our example. A look at the chart reveals that the
individuals vary more than the averages This should not be surprising because the
averages are based on the "middle" value of five individual values. Each average is
an estimate of the grand average for a constant cause system, so we should expect
them to be more tightly clustered about the grand average than the individual
values would be. The chart also reveals the relation which the Xbar and R
charts, together, have to the individuals chart. For any one sample, the Xbar and R
for that sample reveal the characteristics of all five individuals. For instance,
the first five individuals were +2, -1, 0, +2, +2. The Xbar was +1.0 and the R was
3. Notice how adequately the Xbar and R values reflect the individuals. The Xbar &
R Chart is less cluttered than the chart for individuals. The same information
exists on both, but the Xbar & R Chart provides easier detection of shifts and
trends. The Xbar & R Chart is a more sensitive chart. DISTRIBUTIONS OF AVERAGES
AND INDIVIDUALS If many samples of the same size were drawn form a constant
cause system, the averages calculated from the samples would be a closer
approximation to a normal curve than would the individual values. The distribution
of averages holds a distinct relationship to the distribution of individuals. This
relationship is dependent upon the sample size. Both distributions, averages
and individuals, have a common center. This center is the true mean of the universe
from which the parts are drawn. This is the grand average. The two
distributions differ in the amount of variation which they exhibit. The averages
vary less than the individuals. In more precise language, the standard deviation of
the averages, SD(Xbar) , is less than the standard deviation of the individuals,
SD(x) . The amount less is dependent upon the sample size. This relationship is
given in the following formula. SD(Xbar) =SD(x) / n where: SD(Xbar) = the
standard deviation, or more correctly the standard error, of
the averages. SD(x) = the standard deviation of the individuals.
n = the sample size. This relationship is depicted in the following diagram.
(INSERT NORMAL CURVE FOR AVERAGES WITH NORMAL CURVE FOR INDIVIDUALS
SUPERIMPOSED) As the sample size increases the distribution of averages becomes
narrower and narrower until it becomes co-incident with the grand average. As we
increase the sample size each sample average becomes a more valid estimate of the
grand average, and the averages would be expected to be more closely clustered. We
have more faith in a sample of fifty than a sample of five. The following
diagram is prepared from our example. (INSERT CURVE FOR AVERAGES AND
INDIVIDUALS OF EXAMPLE) The control limits for averages are located three
standard deviations of the averages, 3SD(Xbar) , on either side of the grand
average. Let's check some calculations. SD(x') = 1.85 (from previous
calculations) Therefore, SD(Xbar) = SD(x') / n = 1.85/ 5 = 1.85/2.236 = 0.827
3SD(Xbar) = (3) (0.827) = 2.481 A(2) Rbar = (0.577) (4.3) = 2.481
Both techniques provide the same answer. It is apparent that the use of the A(2)
Rbar calcualtion is the simpler; however, to aid in interpretation of the control
limits it is best to think of them as 3SD(Xbar) limits. The control limits for
averages are three standard deviations of the average from the grand average, or
center line. The natural limits for individuals are three standard deviations of
individuals from the grand average, or center line. IN CONTROL COMPARED TO
WITHIN SPECIFICATIONS When a control chart is placed on an operation, there are
two questions which are to be answered. Is the process operating in consistent
manner? Is the product meeting specifications? If the process is operating in a
consistent manner, the control chart should show a state of control. The plottings
on both the Xbar and R charts should be within their control limits and randomly
dispersed about the center lines. When this is true, we say there is no indication
of assignable causes and that the process is "in control". It must be emphasized
that this observation must be based on the Xbar & R Chart. If the process is
meeting specifications, the natural limits for the individuals must coincide with
the specifications or fall within them. If we are confident that the data is
actually distributed as the normal curve and the natural limits coincide with the
specifications, we can predict that any part will be within the specifications. Our
predictions will be correct 99.73% of the time. If the
natural limits fall within the specifications, our predictions will be correct
more than 99.73% of the time.