{domain:"www.qualitydigest.com",server:"169.47.211.87"} Skip to main content

User account menu
Main navigation
  • Topics
    • Customer Care
    • FDA Compliance
    • Healthcare
    • Innovation
    • Lean
    • Management
    • Metrology
    • Operations
    • Risk Management
    • Six Sigma
    • Standards
    • Statistics
    • Supply Chain
    • Sustainability
    • Training
  • Videos/Webinars
    • All videos
    • Product Demos
    • Webinars
  • Advertise
    • Advertise
    • Submit B2B Press Release
    • Write for us
  • Metrology Hub
  • Training
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
Mobile Menu
  • Home
  • Topics
    • 3D Metrology-CMSC
    • Customer Care
    • FDA Compliance
    • Healthcare
    • Innovation
    • Lean
    • Management
    • Metrology
    • Operations
    • Risk Management
    • Six Sigma
    • Standards
    • Statistics
    • Supply Chain
    • Sustainability
    • Training
  • Login / Subscribe
  • More...
    • All Features
    • All News
    • All Videos
    • Contact
    • Training

Seven Quality Tools of an Improvement Ninja, Part 3

The control chart

Paul Naysmith
Mon, 03/25/2013 - 13:12
  • Comment
  • RSS

Social Sharing block

  • Print
  • Add new comment
Body

ADVERTISEMENT

Story update 4/3/2013: The author replaced his earlier chart example with an explanation of how to set up an Xbar chart.

Unlike the difficult "third album," the one that is supposed to be a real challenge following the first two musical productions, my third album in the Seven Quality Tools suite is quite easy to compose. Why? Because I'm fortunate in having access to the vast swathes of research that many statisticians have contributed about the control chart, which is the subject of this column.

ADVERTISEMENT

 …

Want to continue?
Log in or create a FREE account.
Enter your username or email address
Enter the password that accompanies your username.
By logging in you agree to receive communication from Quality Digest. Privacy Policy.
Create a FREE account
Forgot My Password

Comments

Submitted by Richard DeRoeck on Thu, 03/28/2013 - 10:04

Simple-yes and no

Paul,

Well....not as simple as you think.

The "proper" calculation for control limits use an average (local)  dispersion statistics not the global formula you suggest. This use of a local statistic minimizes the effect of out-of -contol points on the limits. As Wheeler says: You get Good Limits from Bad Data.

Read Wheeler....and then read him again.

Rich DeRoeck 

  • Reply

Submitted by Paul Naysmith on Thu, 03/28/2013 - 17:49

In reply to Simple-yes and no by Richard DeRoeck

Thanks for the comment Rich,

Thanks for the comment Rich, I agree that Wheeler is a great resource to tap into and a great recommendation for beginners into the field of Quality.
  • Reply

Submitted by NickKolakowski (not verified) on Sat, 12/14/2013 - 01:36

In reply to Thanks for the comment Rich, by Paul Naysmith

Hey Paul great job. I read

Hey Paul great job. I read your first and second part also of Ninja, and I liked this article of control chart also. You have a great calibar of putting your ideas precisely and effectively. Waiting for your other articles. javascript chart

  • Reply

Submitted by Davis Balestracci on Thu, 03/28/2013 - 11:37

Calculation of Standard Deviation

Be prepared for questions when people ask you, "Why don't I get the same limits as Minitab?" -- because one should never use the "typical" calculation of standard deviation for control limits, which is what you describe (As I say to people I teach regarding that, "What part of 'never' don't you understand?").  If there are special causes, as there seem to be in your data, this estimate will be inflated, sometimes seriously.

Given the way you describe the data collection, there are also a couple of different ways you could calculate it -- Wheeler has discussed this in his many "rational subgrouping" columns.

And your alleged special cause -- Point 7 is indeed below the limit.  Maybe it isn't even the special cause.  Rather than that one point below the limit, one should investigate a possible process shift that seems to settle in around observations 16-17.  This SHIFT might be the special cause and Point 7 could actually be common cause before the shift took place!  That said...

...I'd also be concerned about points 5 and 6, which could be a special cause in "process 1" -- as could points 21 and 22 in "process 2."  With the data, one could see whether the moving ranges from point 4 to 5 and point 6 to 7 might be suspect...as might the moving ranges from  20 to 21 and 22 to 23.  You get the idea -- it's not just as simple as calculating limits and looking for points outside the limits.

And if you sub-grouped the data (a possibility given the way you collected it), then the moving range isn't appropriate.  BUT...calculating the standard deviation correctly, THAT is what might flag points 5 and 6 and 21 and 22 as special causes (outside the limits) with their appropriate center lines if the shift is confirmed. 

I appreciate what you're trying to do in these columns on the tools, but I just couldn't let these (relatively) common teaching errors about calculating the standard deviation or interpretation get a free pass.

Just goes to show you, a statistician's favorite answer is, "It depends."  If only it were so simple.  Rather than teach people tools, we should try to teach them how to ask better questions to change conversations.

Davis Balestracci

  • Reply

Submitted by Paul Naysmith on Thu, 03/28/2013 - 17:48

In reply to Calculation of Standard Deviation by Davis Balestracci

Great comment Davis, I love

Great comment Davis, I love your last line "Rather than teach people tools, we should try to teach them how to ask better questions to change conversations." so very true. Thank you for taking the time to read my little article.
  • Reply

Submitted by Steve Moore on Fri, 03/29/2013 - 07:32

YIKES - ARE YOU KIDDING????

Paul, I will not be as polite and diplomatic as my good friend Davis. Regarding your calculation of control limits, you are COMPLETELY WRONG!!! You mention Shewhart's work, but obviously did not learn much from it. Have you read the book? Your data is time-ordered. The SD calculation has nothing to do with time order. The SD will be the same value regardless of the order of the data. That alone should be a clue that SD is not the proper statistic to calculate control limits. An "average dispersion statistic" (i.e., average moving range) must be used with the proper bias factor. SD is an enumerative calculation, while a control chart is an analytic tool. There is a huge difference between "enumerative" and "analytical" studies. This concept was well-documented by Deming. Whatever Improvement Ninja level you possess, please demote yourself by two belts, Grasshopper. Your data obviously shows a shift - another clue. So, calculating control limits the proper way from all the data does not complete the analysis. In fact, the Mean and Control Limits for such an out-of-control situation are, in fact, meaningless! The system is obviously not showing a "reasonable degree of statistical control" and should be split into at least two separate periods and the limits recalculated (properly) for each. I'll stop now, before I hyperventilate. Sorry if I seem harsh, but you need to properly educate yourself before writing articles for public view.
  • Reply

Add new comment

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
Please login to comment.
      

© 2025 Quality Digest. Copyright on content held by Quality Digest or by individual authors. Contact Quality Digest for reprint information.
“Quality Digest" is a trademark owned by Quality Circle Institute Inc.

footer
  • Home
  • Print QD: 1995-2008
  • Print QD: 2008-2009
  • Videos
  • Privacy Policy
  • Write for us
footer second menu
  • Subscribe to Quality Digest
  • About Us
  • Contact Us