Accendo Reliability

Your Reliability Engineering Professional Development Site

  • Home
  • About
    • Contributors
    • About Us
    • Colophon
    • Survey
  • Reliability.fm
  • Articles
    • CRE Preparation Notes
    • NoMTBF
    • on Leadership & Career
      • Advanced Engineering Culture
      • ASQR&R
      • Engineering Leadership
      • Managing in the 2000s
      • Product Development and Process Improvement
    • on Maintenance Reliability
      • Aasan Asset Management
      • AI & Predictive Maintenance
      • Asset Management in the Mining Industry
      • CMMS and Maintenance Management
      • CMMS and Reliability
      • Conscious Asset
      • EAM & CMMS
      • Everyday RCM
      • History of Maintenance Management
      • Life Cycle Asset Management
      • Maintenance and Reliability
      • Maintenance Management
      • Plant Maintenance
      • Process Plant Reliability Engineering
      • RCM Blitz®
      • ReliabilityXperience
      • Rob’s Reliability Project
      • The Intelligent Transformer Blog
      • The People Side of Maintenance
      • The Reliability Mindset
    • on Product Reliability
      • Accelerated Reliability
      • Achieving the Benefits of Reliability
      • Apex Ridge
      • Field Reliability Data Analysis
      • Metals Engineering and Product Reliability
      • Musings on Reliability and Maintenance Topics
      • Product Validation
      • Reliability by Design
      • Reliability Competence
      • Reliability Engineering Insights
      • Reliability in Emerging Technology
      • Reliability Knowledge
    • on Risk & Safety
      • CERM® Risk Insights
      • Equipment Risk and Reliability in Downhole Applications
      • Operational Risk Process Safety
    • on Systems Thinking
      • Communicating with FINESSE
      • The RCA
    • on Tools & Techniques
      • Big Data & Analytics
      • Experimental Design for NPD
      • Innovative Thinking in Reliability and Durability
      • Inside and Beyond HALT
      • Inside FMEA
      • Institute of Quality & Reliability
      • Integral Concepts
      • Learning from Failures
      • Progress in Field Reliability?
      • R for Engineering
      • Reliability Engineering Using Python
      • Reliability Reflections
      • Statistical Methods for Failure-Time Data
      • Testing 1 2 3
      • The Manufacturing Academy
  • eBooks
  • Resources
    • Accendo Authors
    • FMEA Resources
    • Glossary
    • Feed Forward Publications
    • Openings
    • Books
    • Webinar Sources
    • Podcasts
  • Courses
    • Your Courses
    • Live Courses
      • Introduction to Reliability Engineering & Accelerated Testings Course Landing Page
      • Advanced Accelerated Testing Course Landing Page
    • Integral Concepts Courses
      • Reliability Analysis Methods Course Landing Page
      • Applied Reliability Analysis Course Landing Page
      • Statistics, Hypothesis Testing, & Regression Modeling Course Landing Page
      • Measurement System Assessment Course Landing Page
      • SPC & Process Capability Course Landing Page
      • Design of Experiments Course Landing Page
    • The Manufacturing Academy Courses
      • An Introduction to Reliability Engineering
      • Reliability Engineering Statistics
      • An Introduction to Quality Engineering
      • Quality Engineering Statistics
      • FMEA in Practice
      • Process Capability Analysis course
      • Root Cause Analysis and the 8D Corrective Action Process course
      • Return on Investment online course
    • Industrial Metallurgist Courses
    • FMEA courses Powered by The Luminous Group
    • Foundations of RCM online course
    • Reliability Engineering for Heavy Industry
    • How to be an Online Student
    • Quondam Courses
  • Calendar
    • Call for Papers Listing
    • Upcoming Webinars
    • Webinar Calendar
  • Login
    • Member Home
  • Barringer Process Reliability Introduction Course Landing Page
  • Upcoming Live Events
You are here: Home / Articles / How do I Implement SPC for Short Production Runs (Part II)?

by Steven Wachs Leave a Comment

How do I Implement SPC for Short Production Runs (Part II)?

How do I Implement SPC for Short Production Runs (Part II)?

In Part I of this article, we introduced the concept of utilizing Deviation from Nominal (DNOM) control charts for short production runs.  These charts allow us to monitor process characteristics over time even when the units being controlled have varying nominal values.  DNOM charts assume that the process variability (i.e. standard deviation) does not vary significantly by part type.  However, often this assumption does not hold.  Characteristics with larger nominal values tend to have more variation than characteristics with smaller nominal values.  In Part II we discuss how to test whether or not significant differences in variability exist and if so, how to modify the DNOM methods and charts to handle this situation.

Testing for Variation Differences

A statistical test may be performed to test whether the differences observed in the standard deviations (or variances) of multiple groups represent a statistically significant difference.  Statistically significant differences mean that it is very unlikely that the magnitude of the differences occurred by chance.

Recall the data we presented in the example in Part I of the article:

When only two groups are being tested, an F test is performed (if each group follows a normal distribution) or a Levene’s Test is performed (if the normality assumption does not hold).

When more than two groups are being tested, a Bartlett’s test is performed (if the groups follow a normal distribution) or a Levene’s Test is performed (if the normality assumption does not hold).

The above graphic illustrates the results of the hypothesis test for equal variances for the 3 part types shown in the previous data.  The relatively large p values (> 0.05) indicate that we do not have sufficient evidence to conclude that the variances are different (with 95% confidence).

In this case, a regular DNOM chart (and S chart) would be appropriate.

Variation Differences

Now, we consider the case where the groups do not share a common degree of variation.  Data on Inner Diameter on 3 Part Types is shown below.  A statistical test is performed to test for equality of variances.

Clearly more variation exists for the larger diameter parts than for the smaller diameter parts.  The very small p-values (< 0.0005) indicate that the differences in group variances are statistically significant.  You can also see this by noticing that the estimated standard deviations of each group fall outside the confidence intervals for the other groups’ estimated standard deviations.

What if we hadn’t checked and just constructed a regular DNOM and S chart?  Can the 3 part types (segregated by the dashed vertical lines) be adequately monitored on these charts (on the next page)?

Standardized DNOM and Standardized S Charts

Since the control limits are based on the observed variation, we need a method to account for the variation differences between the groups.  The solution to the problem is a Standardized DNOM chart (to monitor location) and Standardized S chart (to monitor variation).

The Standardized DNOM chart plots the number of standard deviations each sample average is from the nominal value.  This is found simply by computing the deviation from nominal (as before) and dividing it by the estimated standard deviation for that part type.  Since each plotted sample statistic accounts for its specific group standard deviation, the data can be combined onto one chart.  The Standardized S Chart plots the ratio of the Sample Standard Deviation to the Group Standard Deviation.  The following table illustrates the required calculations.

The standardized DNOM is in the next to last column and the standardized S statistic is in the last column.  The notation, key statistics, and control limits for both charts are shown below.

Standardized DNOM and Standardized S Notation and Control Chart Calculations

pastedGraphic_5.png

pastedGraphic_6.png

pastedGraphic_7.png

 

 

Standardized DNOM and Standardized S charts based on the above data and calculations are shown below.

Summary

This article completes the 2-part series describing control charts for short production runs.  This article presented methods to test whether or not significant differences in variability among the part types exist.  When significant differences in variability exist, Standardized DNOM and S charts should be utilized.

[display_form id=419]

Filed Under: Articles, Integral Concepts, on Tools & Techniques

About Steven Wachs

Steven Wachs has 25 years of wide-ranging industry experience in both technical and management positions. Steve has worked as a statistician at Ford Motor Company where he has extensive experience in the development of statistical models, reliability analysis, designed experimentation, and statistical process control.

« Should We Call it Precision Maintenance?
Asset Management Systems for Small Groups »

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Articles by Steven Wachs, Integral Concepts
in the Integral Concepts article series

Join Accendo

Receive information and updates about articles and many other resources offered by Accendo Reliability by becoming a member.

It’s free and only takes a minute.

Join Today

Recent Articles

  • Gremlins today
  • The Power of Vision in Leadership and Organizational Success
  • 3 Types of MTBF Stories
  • ALT: An in Depth Description
  • Project Email Economics

© 2025 FMS Reliability · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service · Cookies Policy