A graphical exploration of SPC

Quality Progress

Volumn 29, Issue 6, 1996, Pages 57-64

  Hoyer, Robert W ^a,b   Ellis, Wayne C ^c,d  

^a Decision Dynamics Inc   (United States)

^b VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GRAPHIC METHODS; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STANDARDS;

SHEWHART CONTROL CHARTS;

STATISTICAL PROCESS CONTROL;

EID: 0030167971     PISSN: 0033524X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (4)

1. Any argument in support of the mathematical accuracy of this relative comparison of sensitivities will be vulnerable to the counterargument that the measurement scale for pattern sensitivity is probably not a ratio-level scale.
2. See Thomas P. Ryan, Statistical Methods for Quality Improvement (New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1989), pp. 102-104.
3. For other perspectives on this issue, see Robert B. Davis and William H. Woodall, "Performance of the Control Chart Trend Rule Under Linear Shift," Journal of Quality Technology, Vol. 20, No. 4, October 1988, and Andrew C. Palm, "Tables of Run Length Percentiles for Determining the Sensitivity of Shewhart Control Charts for Averages with Supplementary Runs Rules," Journal of Quality Technology, Vol. 22, No. 4, October 1990.
4. For other perspectives on this issue, see Robert B. Davis and William H. Woodall, "Performance of the Control Chart Trend Rule Under Linear Shift," Journal of Quality Technology, Vol. 20, No. 4, October 1988, and Andrew C. Palm, "Tables of Run Length Percentiles for Determining the Sensitivity of Shewhart Control Charts for Averages with Supplementary Runs Rules," Journal of Quality Technology, Vol. 22, No. 4, October 1990.