Statistical Process Control

null

Sep 3 2024

Using Regression to Improve Quality | Part I – What for?

In quality, regression serves to identify substitutes for true characteristics that are hard to observe and to find the root causes of technically challenging process problems. It is a major topic in data science, but oddly, the most extensive coverage I could find in the literature on quality is in Shewhart’s first book, from 1931! Later books, including Shewhart’s second, discuss it briefly or not at all. The ASQC, forerunner of the ASQ, published an 80-page guide on how to use regression analysis in quality control in 1985, but has not updated it since.

Regression analysis has been around for almost 140 years and has grown massively in scope, capabilities, and dataset size. Perhaps, it is time for professionals involved with quality to take another look at it.

Continue reading…

By • Data science, Tools • 1 • Tags: , ,

Oct 27 2023

Is SPC Still Relevant? | D.C. Fair & S. Hindle | Quality Digest

“Today’s manufacturing systems have become more automated, data-driven, and sophisticated than ever before. Visit any modern shop floor and you’ll find a plethora of IT systems, HMIs, PLC data streams, machine controllers, engineering support, and other digital initiatives, all vying to improve manufacturing quality and efficiencies.

That begs these questions: With all this technology, is statistical process control (SPC) still relevant? Is SPC even needed anymore? Some believe manufacturing sophistication trumps SPC technologies that were invented 100 years ago. But is that true? We the authors believe that SPC is indeed relevant today and can be a vitally important aid to manufacturing.”

Source: QualityDigest

Continue reading…

By • Press clippings • 2 • Tags: ,

Dec 10 2017

Is SPC Obsolete? (Revisited)

Six years ago, one of the first posts in this blog — Is SPC Obsolete? — started a spirited discussion with 122 comments. Reflecting on it, however, I find that the participants, including myself, missed the mark in many ways:

  1. My own post and comments were too long on what is wrong with SPC, as taught to this day, and too short on alternatives. Here, I am attempting to remedy this by presenting two techniques, induction trees and naive Bayes, that I think should be taught as part of anything reasonably called statistical process control. I conclude with what I think are the cultural reasons why they are ignored.
  2. The discussions were too narrowly focused on control charts. While the Wikipedia article on SPC is only about control charts, other authors, like Douglas Montgomery or Jack B. Revelle, see it as including other tools, such scatterplots, Pareto charts, and histograms, topics that none of the discussion participants said anything about. Even among control charts, there was undue emphasis on just one kind, the XmR chart, that Don Wheeler thinks is all you need to understand variation.
  3. Many of the contributors resorted to the argument of authority, saying that an approach must be right because of who said so, as opposed to what it says. With all due respect to Shewhart, Deming, and Juran, we are not going to solve today’s quality problems by parsing their words. If they were still around, perhaps they would chime in and exhort quality professionals to apply their own judgment instead.

Continue reading…

By • Data science • 3 • Tags: , , ,