Solutions To Even Problems

SOLUTIONS TO EVEN-NUMBERED PROBLEMS
CHAPTER 8
2. The general conclusion that can be reached for Imagimatrix from inspecting the
data is that costs for internal and external failure are larger than they should be
(totaling 47% of quality costs). Improvements that have been made to date have
probably involved increasing prevention and appraisal costs that now stand at
more than 50% of the total quality costs. Since appraisal costs are a large per-
centage of costs, and internal failures are a larger percentage than external fail-
ures, it is likely that quality is being inspected in, and many defective items
are being taken out and reworked after being caught by inspection. More
money and time needs to be invested in prevention, which will reduce defects
and costs in other areas in a fairly short time.
4. An Excel chart can be constructed to show details on Product B sales and cost
of quality presented in the problem, along with information on the percentage
of total quality cost attributable to each cost category (external, internal,
appraisal, and prevention). This problem contains time-phased data, unlike
problem 1. Thus it is possible to calculate an index base and quarterly indices
for the various cost categories. The data showthat the external and internal fail-
ure indices, as well as the appraisal index, are declining, while the prevention
index is increasing. The overall quality cost index as a percent of sales is also
declining. This is an ideal situation in which managers of the B product line are
continuing to put more emphasis on prevention and attempting to reduce costs
in other categories.
6. The data can be rearranged as follows:
Type of Cost Cost Category $ Cost % of COQ
Inspection and retest Appraisal 340,000 38.9
Scrap Int. failure 330,000 37.8
Customer returns Ext. failure 90,000 10.3
Repair Int. failure 80,000 9.2
Quality equipment design Prevention 25,000 2.9
Supplier quality surveys Prevention 8,000 0.9
$ Costs % of COQ
Internal failure 410,000 47.0
External failure 90,000 10.3
Appraisal 340,000 38.9
Prevention 33,000 3.8
873,000
Although scrap is part of the process, Smith Company needs to minimize the
amount of scrap produced, just as if it were making a product. The total cost of
quality is $873,000. Although the categories are not completely clear, the
assumed categories are listed in the revised table above. Internal failure (scrap
and repair) total 47% of quality costs, and external failure in the form of cus-
tomer returns adds another 10.3%. Only 3.8 % of total costs are being applied to
prevention. Apparently, based on high internal failure and appraisal costs, this
organization is attempting to screen out bad product and scrap or repair it.
Solutions to Even-Numbered Problems S-1
82286_16_Solution.qxd 12/12/06 4:54 PM Page S-1
Also, on this batch, they didnt accomplish their goal of 60% of book value goal
because (1,700,000 873,000)/1,700,000 = 48.65 %.
8. Miami Valley Aircraft Service Companys data show rapidly decreasing total
quality costs (except for a slight rise in the 4th quarter), possibly due to a con-
certed quality effort. The decrease in both internal and external quality costs, as
a percentage of total quality and labor costs, while the prevention costs per-
centage is rising, is good. The only recommendation would be to increase pre-
vention costs even more rapidly, while holding the line on appraisal costs
However, the caution is that doing so may increase total quality costs in the
short run, as may have happened in the 2nd quarter.
Percentages Quarterly Quality/Labor Costs
1 Qtr. 2 Qtr. 3 Qtr. 4 Qtr.
External failure 5.13 4.74 4.52 3.82
Internal failure 17.95 17.11 14.29 11.58
Appraisal 4.62 6.32 5.48 4.53
Prevention 2.05 2.63 2.62 4.21
Total Quality/Labor Cost 29.74 30.79 26.90 24.13
10. Spreadsheet data and the Pareto chart for Repack Solutions, Inc. show that the
company is spending too much on appraisal and internal failure cost and too
little on prevention. Checking boxes, machine downtime, and packaging waste
need immediate improvement to have the greatest impact on quality costs
because they constitute almost 82% of quality costs. However, it should be done
with caution because checking boxes represents appraisal costs designed to
screen out poor quality and prevent it from reaching the customer.
Repack Solutions, Inc. Quality Cost & Percentages
Quality Cost
Percent Cumulative % Cost ($) Category
Checking boxes 48.80 48.80 710,000 Appraisal
Mach. downtime 27.84 76.63 405,000 Int. Fail.
Pkg. waste 5.15 81.79 75,000 Int. Fail.
Income. insp. 4.12 85.91 60,000 Appraisal
Other waste 3.78 89.69 55,000 Int. Fail.
Cust. complaints 2.75 92.44 40,000 Ext. Fail.
Error corrn. 2.75 95.19 40,000 Int. Fail.
Qual. train. assoc. 2.06 97.25 30,000 Prevent.
Improv. proj. 1.37 98.63 20,000 Prevent.
Typo corrn. 0.69 99.31 10,000 Int. Fail.
Quality planning 0.69 100.00 10,000 Prevent.
Total 1,455,000
Note that costs could also be classied by aggregating them into the four cate-
gories of internal and external failure, prevention, and appraisal costs, instead
of the categories listed in the table.
12. For HiTeck Tool Company, the largest costs are internal failure (56.6%) and
appraisal (27.1%). More must be done in quality training, a component of pre-
vention (currently 7.8%), if failure, appraisal, and overall quality costs are to be
controlled. External failure costs are 8.6% of quality costs, so screening methods
are working fairly well. Note that the proportions are fractions of the total quality
costs of $247,450.
S-2 Solutions to Even-Numbered Problems
Quality Cost Categories
Cost Elements Costs ($) Subtotal Proportion
APPRAISAL
Incoming test & inspection 7,500
Inspection 25,000
Test 5,000
Laboratory testing 1,250
Design of Q.A. equipment 1,250
Material testing & insp. 1,250
Insp. equipt. & calibration 2,500
Formal complaints to vendors 10,000
Setup for test & inspection 10,750
Laboratory services 2,500
$67,000 0.271
PREVENTION
Quality training 0
Quality audits 2,500
Maintenance of tools and dies 9,200
Quality control admin. 5,000
Writing proced. & instr. 2,500
$19,200 0.078
INTERNAL FAILURE COSTS
Scrap 35,000
Rework 70,000
Correcting imperfections 6,250
Rework due to vendor faults 17,500
Problem solvingprod. engrs. 11,250
$140,000 0.566
EXTERNAL FAILURE COSTS
Adjustment cost of complaints 21,250
$21,250 0.086
Total costs $247,450
14. The data for Beechcom Software Corporation show that the three categories of
rejected disks (loaded), returns, and system downtime account for 74.64 percent
of the defects. These appear to be completely under the control of the rm, so
steps should be taken to analyze root causes for these problem areas in order to
correct them as quickly as possible.
Beechcom Software Corporation Quality Costs and Percentages
Percent Cumulative % Cost ($)
Rej. disks (load.) 39.34 39.34 360,000
Returns 20.22 59.56 185,000
Sys. Downtime 15.08 74.64 138,000
Rej. disks (blank) 9.73 84.37 89,000
Trng./sys. improve. 7.32 91.69 67,000
Rework costs 3.28 94.97 30,000
Insp.Out 3.06 98.03 28,000
Insp.In. 1.97 100.00 18,000
Total Costs 915,000
16. This is a very challenging problem, even for advanced students. Although you
may t a linear regression equation to the set of data given in the problem, t-
ting a curvilinear model would provide a higher R-squared value. This requires
a more complex solution process. There is no cut and dried answer to what
level of additional quality improvement effort would be best, of course.
A number of what if questions and scenarios could be raised. Some of
these might include the following:
1. What if the sample of hotel guests was not representative of the general popu-
lation of guests?
2. What if the site manager was simply interested in reducing, rather than
eliminating, dissatised customers?
3. What if her objective was to eliminate the competition, then go back to the
previous level of quality?
4. What are the disadvantages of tting a linear model to the data? (Note: In using
Excel 4.0 when this solution was developed, it appears that there is a bug in
the module that calculates the equation for the graph. Therefore, the add-in
Excel model was used to get the equation and the R-squared value, as follows.)
Excelsior InnReturn on Quality
Svc. Improvemt. Percent of Customers Predicted
Effort$ 000 Dissatised YRegression Line
0 0.200 0.1075
50 0.150 0.1046
150 0.100 0.0987
260 0.076 0.0922
290 0.067 0.0905
300 0.059 0.0899
450 0.052 0.0811
600 0.045 0.0723
750 0.040 0.0635
900 0.035 0.0547
1050 0.031 0.0459
1200 0.027 0.0371
1350 0.024 0.0283
1500 0.021 0.0195
1650 0.017 0.0107
1800 0.014 0.0019
1950 0.010 0.0070
2100 0.007 0.0158
Partial Summary Output
Excel Regression Analysis
Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.795781742
R Square 0.633268581
Adjusted R Square 0.610347868
Standard Error 0.031875396
Observations 18
Coefcients
Intercept 0.107507099
X Variable 1 5.87234E-05
Equation: y 0.10751 .0000587 x
i
Assume that we use the calculated value of y 0 (no dissatised customers).
The model tells us that we will have:
0 0.10751 0.0000587 x
i
So x
i
0.10751/0.0000587 $1831.5 thousand
We can calculate the net present value, using standard present value table
figures of:
Year PV Factor for 10% Cost Present Value ($000)
1 0.909 1831.5 1664.83
2 0.826 1831.5 1512.82
3 0.751 1831.5 1375.46
Total Net Present Value 4553.11
The return on quality of: ROQ Annual prot increase/discounted present
value of investment
ROQ (2.5 points market share increase $600)/4553.11 32.9%, which is a
very healthy return on investment
CHAPTER 10
2. The defect rate is 65/1000 = 0.065. This is the same as: 0.065 1,000,000 = 65,000
dpmo. From Table 10.1, we see that this is slightly better than 3 sigma with off
centering of 1.5 sigma.
4. We use 3/1054 to get the number of defects per unit (DPUs). However, there are
2 opportunities per injection (wrong drug, wrong dosage) to make an error.
They must be considered to calculate dpmo.
dpmo (3/1054) 1,000,000/2 1423.1, which is slightly less than 4.5 sigma
with off centering of 1.5 sigma.
6. To calculate the overall dpmo and sigma level, we have:
dpmo (6/5000) 1,000,000/5 240, which is approximately 5 sigma with off-
centering of 1.5 sigma.
But for the one characteristic, we have:
dpmo (2/5000) 1,000,000 400, which is still good, but somewhat less than
5 sigma with off centering of 1.5 sigma.
ASix Sigma project should be launched to determine root causes for the defects
from this one characteristic.
CHAPTER 11
2. The following results were obtained from the Staunton Steam Laundry Data
Column1
Mean 34.280
Median 25.500
Mode 19.000
Standard Deviation 32.412
Sample Variance 1050.507
Kurtosis 3.847
Skewness 1.756
Range 169.000
Minimum 1.000
Maximum 170.000
Sum 3428.000
Count 100.000
Largest(1) 170.000
Smallest(1) 1.000
Condence Level(95.0%) 6.431
The conclusion that can be reached from looking at the summary statistics and
the histogram is that these data are exponentially distributed, with descending
frequencies. These data may show errors, by category, which are best repre-
sented by a histogram.
4. Descriptive statistics for the Harrison Metalwork foundry are shown in the
following chart:
Descriptive Statistics
Mean 38.6320
Median 38.6000
Mode 38.4000
Range 2.6000
Minimum 37.3000
Maximum 39.9000
Sum 3863.2000
Count 100.0000
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
15 30 45 60 75 90 105 More
Measures
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
Frequency
Frequency Histogram
The conclusion that can be reached from looking at the summary statistics and
the histogram is that these data are fairly normally distributed, with some slight
skewing to the right.
6. For Georgia Teas bottling process, the values for the 1% cutoff and the standard
deviation are:
x 1990 ml; 15 ml
For a total probability of 1% for overlling:
Using the Normal Table, Appendix A, z = 2.33
z
x
1990
2.33
15
1955.05 ml
The process mean should be 1955.05 ml, so that there is only a 1% probability
of overlling.
8. The mean for the Kiwi Blend product is = 927.5; the standard deviation,
15, x = 950.
z =
x
950 927.5
1.50
15
P(x > 950) 0.5000 P(0 < z < 1.5)
P(z > 950) 0.5000 0.4332 0.0668
(Results are based on the Standard Normal Table, Appendix A.)
10. Given that the process mean filling weight is = 16.8 oz for the Martin salt
containers,
By looking up 0.5000 0.0250 = 0.4775, we nd z = 1.96
z 1.96
16 16.8
= 0.4082 oz.
(Results are based on the Standard Normal Distribution Table, Appendix A.)
P x P
x
( > u fill limit) pper

1
]
1
0 5000 .

00 5000 4900 0 01 . . .
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
37.5 37.8 38.1 38.4 38.7 39.0 39.3 39.6 39.9
Cell Boundaries
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
Frequencies
Frequency Distribution
12. Adj. Cell
Midpoints Frequencies fx fx
2
Cell 1 37.35 1 37.35 1395.02
Cell 2 37.65 3 112.95 4252.57
Cell 3 37.95 8 303.60 11521.62
Cell 4 38.25 23 879.75 33650.44
Cell 5 38.55 25 963.75 37152.56
Cell 6 38.85 23 893.55 34714.42
Cell 7 39.15 10 391.50 15327.23
Cell 8 39.45 6 236.70 9337.82
Cell 9 39.75 1 39.75 1580.06
3858.90 148931.73
b. Answer may be found in Problem 11-3.
c. A normal probability plot shows that the data are approximately normally
distributed, with an R square value of 0.947.

a.
fx
n
3858.90
100
38.589 (vs. 38.670 fro x

mmthe data in problem11-3)
s
fx
n
fx

2
1
( )
22 2
1
148931 73
99
3858 9 100
99
0 4572
/ / n
n

. ( . )
. ((versus 0.4556 fromthe spreadsheet data)
37
38
39
40
41
0 20 40 60 80 100
Sample Percentile
Y
Normal Probability Plot
14. Specication for answer time for the Tessler utility is:
H
0
: Mean response time:
1
0.10
H
1
1
> 0.10
x
1
0.1023, s
1
= 0.0183
and the t-test is:
Specication for service time is:
H
0
: Mean service time:
2
0.50
H
1
2
> 0.50
x
2
= 0.5290, s
2
= 0.0902
and the t-test is:
t
x
s n
2
0 50 0 529 0 50
0 0902 30
0 029
0 0165

. . .
.
.
. /
1 761 1 699
29 05
. , .
,.
t

t
x
s n
1
0 10 0 1023 0 10
0 0183 30
0 0023
0 0

. . .
.
.
. / / 0033
0 697 1 699
29 05
. , .
,.
t
Because t
29,.05
= 1.699, we cannot reject the null hypothesis for t
1,
but we can
reject the hypothesis for t
2
. Therefore, there is no statistical evidence that the
mean response time exceeds 0.10 for the answer component, but the statistical
evidence does support the service component.
Note: Problems 1519 address sample size determination and refer to theory
covered in the Bonus Material for this chapter as contained on the student
CD-ROM.
16. Thesizeof thepopulationisirrelevant tothiscustomer satisfactionsurvey, although
it is good to knowthat it is sizable. Therefore, make the following calculations:
n (z
/2
)
2
p(1 p)/E
2
(1.96)
2
(0.04)(0.96)/(0.02)
2
368.79, use 369
18. Using the formula: n (z
/2
)
2
p(1 p)/E
2
, the engineer at the Country Squire
Hospital can solve for z
/2
as follows:
800 = (z
/2
)
2
(0.10)(0.90)/(0.02)
2
800 = (z
/2
)
2
(225)
(z
/2
)
2
= 800/225
(z
/2
)
2
= 3.556 = 1.886; use 1.87
From the Standard Normal Distribution table, Appendix A, we find a proba-
bility of 0.4693 for z = 1.87. Because it is only one tail of the distribution, we
multiply the area by 2 to get the confidence level of 0.9386. Thus, the man-
agement engineer can only be almost 94% confident of her results based on
this sample size.
20. The process engineer at Sival Electronics can calculate the main effects as follows:
Signal
High (18 + 12 + 16 + 10)/4 = 14
Low (8 + 11 + 7 + 14)/4 = 10
High Low = 4
Material
Gold (18 + 12 + 8 + 11)/4 = 12.25
Silicon (16 + 10 + 7 + 14)/4 = 11.75
Gold Silicon = 12.25 11.75 = 0.5
Temperature
Low (18 + 16 + 8 + 7)/4 = 12.25
High (12 + 10 + 11 + 14)/4 = 11.75
Low High = 12.25 11.75 = 0.5
The main effects of the signal far outweigh the effects of material and tem-
perature, indicating that these factors are insignicant. Therefore, interaction
effects will be negligible.
CHAPTER 12
2. With the new data given for Fingersprings potential customers, a partial House
of Quality for the design of the PDAcan be built. Note that there are strong rela-
tionships between customer requirements and associated technical require-
ments of the PDAdesign.
The inter-relationships of the roof may be sketched in. For example, they
would show a strong inter-relationship between size and weight.
The analysis suggests that Fingerspring should try to position itself between
Springbok and Greenspring in price and features. It should build on the strength
of the customers reliability concern, keeping battery life near 35 hours and use a
proven operating program, such as PalmOS. Enough features (10) should be
offered to be competitive. If Fingerspring can design a high-value PDAand sell it
at an attractive price (say, $350 or less), it should be a very protable undertaking.
4. With the new data given for Berthas customers, a partial House of Quality for
the design of the burritos can be built. Note that the relationships between cus-
tomer requirements (avor, health, value) and associated technical require-
ments (% fat, calories, sodium, price) of the burrito design are strong.
The inter-relationships of the roof may be sketched in. For example, they
would show a strong inter-relationship between fat and calories.
Berthas Big Burritos technical requirements must be placed on a more equal
basis, which would best be shown as units/ounce, except for the percent fat
value. These are shown in the following:
Company Price/oz Calories/oz Sodium/oz % Fat
Grabbys $0.282 80 13.63 13
Queenburritos $0.300 85 12.67 23
Sandys $0.292 90 13.33 16
Although Berthas is low in price per ounce, calories, and percent fat, this analy-
sis suggests that Berthas should try to increase its size and visual appeal, while
continuing to reduce the cost per ounce. At the same time, it should build on the
strength of the nutrition trend by keeping the sodium and percent fat low, as did
Grabbys, and slightly reducing the number of calories per ounce to be even more
competitive. If Berthas can design a avorful, healthy, 7-oz burrito and sell it at
an attractive price (say, $1.85 or less), it should be a very protable undertaking.
6. The following table can be used to sketch the reliability function.
Failure Rate CurveProblem 12-6
Cumulative Failures Hours Lambda = Cum. Failures/Hrs.
20 10 2.000
28 20 1.400
29 30 0.967
29.5 40 0.738
30 50 0.600
35 60 0.583
40 70 0.571
50 80 0.625
65 90 0.722
90 100 0.900
8. a. P(x > 875) = 0.5 P(750 < < 875)
Therefore, P(x > 875) = 0.5 0.4332 = 0.0668 or 6.68% should survive
beyond 875 days.
b. ( < 700) = <
650 750
50
( < P x P z P z

_
,
2.0)
P x P z P (750 < < 875) =
875 750
50
= (0 <

_
,
< < 1.5) = 0.4332 z

d. Let x
w
be the limit of the warranty period.
P(x < x
w
) = 0.10; z = 1.28, for z =
x 750
= 1.28,
50
x
w
= 686 hours for the warranty limit.
10. Massive Corporations motors have a failure rate of:
12. The MTTF is = 1; so, = 40000
R(T) = e
T/
= e
15000/40000
= e
0.375
= 0.687 or 68.7% probability of surviving
14. Supplier 1: R
a
R
bc
= (0.97) [1 (1 0.85)(1 0.95)] = 0.963
Supplier 2: R
a
R
bc
= (0.92) [1 (1 0.90)(1 0.93)] = 0.914
Supplier 3: R
a
R
bc
= (0.95) [1 (1 0.90)(1 0.88)] = 0.939
Therefore, choose Supplier 1.
16. a. R
a
R
b
R
c
= (0.98)(0.95)(0.93) = 0.866
b. R
a
R
bc
= (0.98) (0.95) [1 (1 0.90)(1 0.90)] = 0.922
Yes, this will provide better than the minimum required system reliability.
18. Spreadsheets for descriptive statistics can be used to structure details for this
solution.
Accuracy of: Scale A Scale B
Scale Ais more accurate.
The frequency distribution, taken from the Excel printout, shows that Scale B is
more precise than Scale A.
100
114
114
0 035 100
115 92

Abs[113.96 ] Abs[
. %
.

114
114
1 685
]
. %

+ + +

3
3 600 100 175 350
3
2425
0 001237
[( ) ]
. fail lures/hour
X = 875 X = 750
= 50
Therefore, P(x < 880) = 0.5 0.4772 = 0.0228 or 2.28% should survive less than
650 days.
c. This distribution looks approximately like:
20. Detailed calculations for the rst operator are as follows:
x
1
= (M
ijk
)/nr = 48.48/30 = 1.616
R
1
= (M
ij
)/n = 1.33/10 = 0.133
Use this method to calculate values for the second operator:
x
2
= 46.74/30 = 1.558;
R
2
= 1.58/10 = 0.158
Also, use this method to calculate values for the third operator:
R R = ( )/m= (0.133 + 0.158 + 0.061)/3 = 0 i ..117
= 2.574; = = (2.574) (0.1
4 R 4
D UCL D R 117) = 0.3012, all ranges below
= 3.05;
1
K K
22
1
= 3.65 (fromTable 12.3)
= = (3.05 EV K R )) (0.117) = 0.3569
= ( ) /
2 D
2
AV K x EV nr ( )
2
00 1424
0 3843
2 2
.
( ) ( ) . RR EV AV +
x R
3 3
47.05/30 = 1.568; = 0.610/10 = 0.061
xx x x
D i i
max { } min { } = 1.616 1.558 = 0 ..058
SCALE A FREQUENCY TABLE FOR PROBLEM 12-18(a)
Upper Cell
Boundaries Frequencies Standard Statistical Measures
Cell 1 112.00 3 Mean 113.96
Cell 2 112.67 0 Median 114.00
Cell 3 113.33 5 Mode 114.00
Cell 4 114.00 9 Standard deviation 1.14
Cell 5 114.67 0 Variance 1.29
Cell 6 115.33 6 Max 116.00
Cell 7 116.00 2 Min 112.00
Range 4.00
SCALE B FREQUENCY TABLE FOR PROBLEM 12-18(b)
Upper Cell
Boundaries Frequencies Standard Statistical Measures
Cell 1 114.00 3 Mean 115.92
Cell 2 115.33 5 Median 116.00
Cell 3 116.00 10 Mode 116.00
Cell 4 117.33 5 Standard deviation 1.12
Cell 5 118.00 2 Variance 1.24
Max 118.00
Min 114.00
Range 4.00
Scale B is a better instrument because it is likely that it can be adjusted to
center on the nominal value of 0.
Equipment variation = 100(0.3569/0.40) = 89.23%
Operator variation = 100(0.1424/0.40) = 35.60%
R & R variation = 100(0.3843/0.40) = 96.08%
Note that the range in sample 7 exceeded the control limit of 0.301 by for the
first operator. This point could have been due to a misreading of the gauge.
If so, this sample should be thrown out, another one taken, and the values
recomputed.
Repeatability (EV) 0.3579
Reproducibility (AV) 0.1423
Repeatability and Reproducibility (R&R) 0.3851
Control limit for individual ranges 0.3020
Note: Any ranges beyond this limit may be the result
of assignable causes. Identify and correct. Discard
values and recompute statistics.
Tolerance
analysis
89.47%
35.58%
96.28%
Average range 0.117
X-bar range (x
D
) 0.058
The recommendation is to concentrate on reducing equipment variation.
Note also that the calculator values, shown in the detailed calculations, and
computer values do not match precisely because a greater number of decimal
places are used by the computer to carry out calculations. All formulas are
identical, however.
22. The Taguchi Loss Function for Partspalaces part is: L(x) = k(x T)
2
$10 = k(0.025)
2
k = 16000
L(x) = k(x T)
2
= 16000(x T)
2
24. The Taguchi Loss Function is: L(x) = k(x T)
2
a. $5 = k(0.025)
2
k = 8000
L(x) = k(x T)
2
= 8000(x T)
2
b. L(x) = 8000(x T)
2
L(0.015) = 8000(0.015)
2
= $1.80
26. For a specication of 180 5 ohms:
a. L(x) = k(x T)
2
$100 = k(5)
2
k = 4
b. EL(x) = k(
2
+ D
2
) = 4(2
2
+ 0
2
) = $16
28. For a specication of 2.000 .002 mm and a $5 scrap cost:
Analysis of the dataset for problem 1229 provides the following statistics:
x = 2.00008; D = 2.00008 2.00 = 0.00008

= 0.00104
a. L(x) = k(x T)
2
$5 = k(0.002 )
2
; k = 1,250,000
b. EL(x) = k(
2
+ D
2
) = 1,250,000 (0.00104
2
+ 0.00008
2
) = $1.36
30. a) The Taguchi Loss function is: L(x) = k(x T)
2
300 = k(30)
2
k = 0.333
So, L(x) = 0.333 (x T)
2
b) $2.25 = 0.333 (x 120)
2
6.76 = (x 120)
2
(x T)
Tolerance
= 6.76 = 2.60 volts
x = 122.60
32. For the AirPort 778 plane parts:
Specications are 24 3 mm
L(x) = 60,000 (x T)
2
For a typical calculation:
L(0.21) = 60,000(0.21 0.24)
2
= $54.00
Weighted loss = 0.12 $54.00 = $6.48
Problem 12-32
AirPort Airplane Co.
Calculation of Taguchi Loss Values
Process P Weighted Process Q Weighted
Value Loss ($) Probability Loss ($) Probability Loss ($)
0.20 96.00 0 0.00 0.02 1.92
0.21 54.00 0.12 6.48 0.03 1.62
0.22 24.00 0.12 2.88 0.15 3.60
0.23 6.00 0.12 0.72 0.15 0.90
0.24 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.30 0.00
0.25 6.00 0.12 0.72 0.15 0.90
0.26 24.00 0.12 2.88 0.15 3.60
0.27 54.00 0.12 6.48 0.03 1.62
0.28 96.00 0 0.00 0.02 1.92
Expected Loss 20.16 16.08
Therefore, Process Q incurs a smaller loss than Process P, even though some
output of Q falls outside specications.
34. For sample statistics of:
x = 0.5750; = 0.0065 and a tolerance of 0.575 0.007

C
p
=
UTL LTL
=
0.582 0.568
= 0.359; not capable, unsatisfactory
6 6(0.0065)
36. a. Data set 1:
x = 1.7446; s = 0.0163; 3s = 0.0489

Data set 2:
x = 1.9999; s = 0.0078; 3s = 0.0234

Data set 3:
x = 1.2485; s = 0.0052; 3s = 0.0156

Part 1 will not consistently meet the tolerance limit because its 3s value is
greater than the tolerance limit. Parts 2 and 3 are well within their tolerance
limits because their 3s values are smaller than the stated tolerances.
b)
Process limits: 4.9930 3(0.0188) or
4.9366 to 5.0494 vs. specication limits of
4.919 to 5.081 for a condence level of 0.9973.
The parts will t within their combined specication limit with a 0.9973 con-
dence level.
38. a.
Conclusion: The process is centered on the mean, but it does not have adequate
capability at this time.
C
pk
= min (C
pl
, C
pu
) = 0.903
Because of the shift away from the target, capability is lower.
Conclusion: The process is skewed and still does not have adequate capability
at this time.
c.
2
new
= 0.4 (1.44) = 0.576

new
= 0.759
C
p
=
UTL LTL
=
28.25 21.75
= 1.427
6 6(0.759)
C C
p modified
2
/ mean target) / / + + 1 1 427 1
2
[( ] . [[( . . ) . ] . 25 0 25 0 0 759 1 427
2 2
/
C
C
pu
pl

UTL x
3
x LTL
28 25 23 0
3 1 2
1 458
. .
( . )
.
33
,

23 0 21 75
3 1 2
0 347
. .
( . )
. ; min( C C C
pk pl pu
)) . 0 347
b.
UTL LTL
x
C
p

23 1 2
6
28 25 21 75
6
; .
. .
(( . )
.
1 2
0 903 This result has not changged.
/ 1 [(mean target) /
modified
2
C C
p
+
2
] + 0 903 1 23 0 25 0 1 2 0 584
2 2
. / [( . . ) . . /
x
C
p

25 0 1 2
6
25 0 21 75
6 1 2
. ; .
. .
( . )
UTL LTL
00 903
1 0 903 1
2
.
[( ] . [ C C
m p
+ + / mean target) / /
2
(( . . ) . ] .
.
25 0 25 0 1 2 0 903
28 25
2 2

/
UTL
3
C
x
pu
221 75
3 1 2
0 903
3
25 0 21 75
3 1
.
( . )
.
. .
(

C
x
pl
LTL
.. )
.
2
0 903
x s s s
T
Estimated Process + +
4 9930
1
2
2
2
3
2
. ;
00 0163 0 0078 0 0052 0 0188
2 2 2
. . . . + +
If there is no shift away from the target, capability is equal to C
p
.
Reducing the variance brings the C
pl
and C
pu
to the point of adequacy, provided
the process can remain centered.
CHAPTER 13
2. The important quality characteristics for this drive-through window are the
machinery, materials, methods, and people (manpower). The machinery must
work well (e.g., most important is the speaker system by which the order is
transmitted and received), the bell and its operating system must work well, the
menu sign must be readable and conveniently placed, the order computer/cash
register must be working properly to give the total bill, and all the necessary
equipment in the food preparation area must also be working properly. The
materials used in order taking are few. However, the sign must be kept up-to-
date with the latest prices and selection of menu items. The method currently
being used is shown on the owchart (Figure 13.23), and possible improve-
ments are discussed in the next paragraph. The people who take the order must
be trained to be courteous, friendly, accurate, and knowledgeable, or the
systems quality will suffer.
Possible improvements to the system might include installation of a second
window, so that the order is taken at the rst window, money is collected there,
and the pickup is made at the second window. A radio transmit/receive unit
linking the customer at the sign to the employee wearing a headset could
increase the ability of the employee to hear the order and to move around to
assemble the order while the customer is driving through. Automatic order
entry of standard selections might be built into the menu board with push but-
tons (similar to an automated teller machine in a drive-through banking opera-
tion). This would probably need to be coupled with personal assistance from
employees for special orders via a speaker system.
4. a. The C-E diagram for this process analysis shows that possible major causes
relating to client dissatisfaction (the effect) may be classied into three cate-
gories: employees, processing method, and client procedures.
b. The supervisor might use flowcharts, check sheets, and Pareto analysis to
classify the types of defects and their frequencies. Then, training, cross-
checking for errors, and work redesign might be done in order to remove
40.
UTL LTL
Ther C
p

6
2 0
5 80 5 00
6
0 8
6
.
. . .
; eefore,
UTL
3 3
Th

0 0667
5 80
2 0
.
.
. ; C
x x
pu
eerefore, we get:
LTL
3
x
C
x x
pl

5 4
5 00
3
.
.

2 0 5 4 . ; . Therefore, we get: x
C
C
pu
pl

28 25 25 0
3 0 759
1 427
25 0 21 75
3
. .
( . )
.
. .
(( . )
.
min( , ) .
0 759
1 427
1 427
C C C
pk pl pu
those error causes. Once the process is under control, control charts might
be used to hold the gains.
6. The scatter diagram shows that the employees accuracy improves for approxi-
mately the rst 25 weeks. After that, it basically levels off. The differences dont
appear to be signicant after about 30 weeks.
8. The scatter diagram shows the packing time for a standard size package is lowest
for the rst group of 20 packers, who average 13.85 minutes, although Packers #20
and 21 are considerably higher than the lower time group members. The pack-
ing time for a standard size package is higher for the second group of 20 packers,
who average 19.25 minutes, which is considerably longer. This suggests that some
workers are able to perform the task much faster than the norm (mean of 16.55). If
the output quality is the same for the faster group, as well as the slower one, then
the production coordinator should attempt to nd the root cause, by observing the
methods of both groups, as well as testing to see if there are any signicant differ-
ences in abilities between the group members. If the methods used by the rst
group can be taught to the slower group members, this could increase productiv-
ity, reduce cost, and perhaps even improve quality, simultaneously.
10. It is obvious from the table and Pareto chart that may be constructed that the
rst two categories, accounting for 68% of the errors, need improvement.
Ace Printing Company
Quality Errors and Percentages
Percent Cumulative % Frequency
Setup delays 37.40 37.40 245
No press time 30.53 67.94 200
No paper 12.21 80.15 80
Design delays 9.16 89.31 60
Order info error 4.43 93.74 29
Cust. chg, delays 3.05 96.79 20
Lost order 3.21 100.00 21
Total 655
12. The medication administration process offers numerous possibilities for error at
every step. The physician may not write legibly (probably the most frequent
source of physician error), or even specify the wrong drug or dosage. The sec-
retary may not transcribe the order correctly. The reviewing nurse may approve
an order that is not correct. The pharmacist may not read or interpret the pre-
scription correctly, or may mix up orders. And the attending nurse may give the
wrong medication, or the wrong amount, to the patient.
A Medication Error Committee at one hospital identied the highest ranked
problemsthat weredeemedtobethemost critical incausingsevereerrorsasfollows:
Having lethal drugs available on oor stocks.
Mistakes in math when calculating doses.
Doses or ow rates calculated incorrectly.
Not checking armbands (patient identity) before drug administration.
Excessive drugs in nursing oor stock.
To reduce possible critical errors at the point of medication, these poka-yokes
could be applied:
Remove lethal and excessive drugs from oor stock.
Standardize infusion rates and develop an infusion handbook
Educate nurses to double-check rates, protocols, and doses
14. From the Pareto diagram that can be constructed, we can conclude that 55% of the
problems are with long delays and another 25.2% are due to shipping errors, for a
total in the top two categories of 80.2%. These categories should be improved rst.
DOT.COM Apparel House
Quality Errors and Percentages
Percent Cumulative % Frequency
Long delays 54.98 54.98 5372
Shipping errors 25.18 80.16 2460
Delivery errors 7.69 87.85 752
Electronic charge errors 6.65 94.50 650
Billing errors 5.50 100.00 537
Total 9771
16. The data on the syringes that may be graphed show a suspicious pattern that
indicates that the process may be unstable. Ten values, from samples 20 to 29,
are alternating above and below the average, indicating that some instability
may be found in the system, if it is carefully investigated.
CHAPTER 14
2. Results from 50 samples of 5 for Mount Blanc Hospitals customer service project
show that the R chart is obviously out of control. On the x
chart, means for sam-

ples 6 and 7 are on, or almost on, their control limits. Assignable causes should
be determined and eliminated, and control limits should be recalculated.
For the Center Lines, CL
x
: x
=
= 22.62; CL
R
: R
= 1.94
Control limits for the x
- chart are: x
=
A
2
R
UCL
x
= x
=
+ A
2
R
= 22.62 + (0.577) 1.94 = 23.74

LCL
x
= x
=
A
2
R
= 22.62 (0.577) 1.94 = 21.49

For the R-chart: UCL
R
= D
4
R
= (2.114) 1.94 = 4.11

LCL
R
= D
3
R
= 0
4. a. Descriptive statistics for Babbage Chips, Inc., based on all 50 samples, are
shown in the following. The histogram, when drawn, shows the classic
bell-shaped curve.
Descriptive Statistics for Problem 14-4
Mean 9.046
Median 9.011
Mode 9.215
Kurtosis 0.323
Skewness 0.071
Range 5.716
Minimum 6.341
Maximum 12.057
Sum 2261.440
Count 250.000
Conf. Level(95.0%) 0.137
b. Results from rst 30 samples of 5 for Babbage show that both the x
and R
charts are apparently in control.
x
: x
=
= 9.170; CL
R
: R
= 2.543
- chart are: x
=
A
2
R
UCL
x
= x
=
+ A
2
R
= 9.170 + (0.577) 2.543 = 10.64

LCL
x
= x
=
A
2
R
= 9.170 (0.577) 2.543 = 7.70

For the R-chart:
UCL
R
= D
4
R
= (2.114) 2.543 = 5.38

LCL
R
= D
3
R
= 0
c. Using these control limits to monitor the last 20 samples, there is one unusual
occurrence, with seven out of the last eight samples below the centerline,
indicating a probable out-of-control condition. Note to instructors: The tem-
plates for the x
and R charts had to be modied to show the control limits,

based only on the rst 30 samples, and the data for the additional 20 samples
were then added to the table and as shown as follows.
6. For the Quality Service Companys center lines, CL
x
= x
=
= 8.0; CL
R
: R
= 2.0
chart are:
x
=
A
2
R
= 8.0 (0.483) 2.0 = 7.03 to 8.97

R
= D
4
R
= 2.004(2.0) = 4.01
LCL
R
= D
3
R
= 0
Estimated = R
/d
2
= 2.0/2.534 = 0.79
8. We can see from the initial control charts [labeled as x-bar chart (A) and R-chart
(A)], for the Hertz Company that there are two out-of-control points, one on the
x
-chart and one on the R-chart. We must throw out outliers #16, #23, and revise
the chart to yield the results shown in part b.
x
: x
=
= 402.92; CL
R
: R
= 33.20
-chart are:
x
=
A
2
R
= 402.92 1.023(33.20) = 368.96 to 436.88

R
= D
4
R
= 2.574(33.20) = 85.46
LCL
R
= D
3
R
= 0
For the revised x
- chart:
x
=
A
2
= 400.29 1.023(30.96) = 368.62 to 431.96
For the revised R-chart: UCL
R
= D
4
R
= 2.574 (30.96) = 79.69

LCL
R
= D
3
R
= 0
10. For 50 samples of 5 given for Beta Sales Corp., we obtain the following control
limits. We can conclude from the x
- and R charts that the process is probably in

control because the points seem to be randomly distributed in both charts.
x
: x
=
= 0.011; CL
R
: R
= 1.372
-chart are:
x
=
A
2
R
= 0.011 0.577 (1.372) = 0.78 to 0.80

R
= D
4
R
= 2.11 (1.3718) = 2.89

LCL
R
= D
3
R
= 0
12. Interpretation of each of the control charts reveals:
a. Two points outside upper control limit.
b. Process is in control.
c. Mean shift upward in second half of control chart.
d. Points hugging upper and lower control limits.
14. a. Center Lines, CL
x
: x
=
= 5.100; CL
R
: R
= 1.083
-chart are:
x
=
A
2
R
= 5.100 0.729 (1.083) = 4.31 to 5.89

R
= D
4
R
= 2.282(1.083) = 2.47
LCL
R
= D
3
R
= 0
b. We can see from the x
-chart that points 19 and 21 are out of control and the

R-chart shows point 18 is out of control on the range. We obtain the fol-
lowing control limits and related charts after dropping these 3 points:
New Center Lines: Center Lines, CL
x
: x
=
= 5.037; CL
R
: R
= 1.057
- chart are:
x
=
A
2
R
= 5.037 0.729(1.057) = 4.266 to 5.808

R
= D
4
R
= 2.282 (1.057) = 2.412

LCL
R
= D
3
R
= 0
The x
and R-charts now show that the process is in control.

c. The additional data from the database show that the process is still operating
within control limits.
16. a. CL
x
: x
= 0.1115; CL
R
: R
= 0.0124
(with a 4-period moving average)
Estimated=R
/d
2
=0.0124/2.059=0.0060; actual =0.0055, closetotheestimate.
x
3
est
= 0.1115 3 (0.0060) = 0.0935 to 0.1295;
for x
3 = 0.1115 3 (0.0055) = 0.0950 to 0.1280

These limits apply to individual items only. Individual items can only be plot-
ted on x
-charts. See the following chart on individuals and the previous prob-
lem for a more thorough discussion.
b. The detailed comparisons of process capability using estimated can be seen
in a table on the spreadsheet template.
Although individual values must be plotted on x
-charts, as shown earlier,

students need to understand their relationship to x
-chart and R-chart results

for comparison with the charts for individuals.
For the x
-chart:
x
=
A
2
R
= 0.1115 0. 0.729(0.0092) = 0.1048 to 0.1182

R
= D
4
R
= 2.282 (0.0092) = 0.0210

LCL
R
= D
3
R
= 0
These limits apply to sample groups of 4 items each.
c. The calculations of process capability using the estimated value are shown
on the following table.
Estimated = R
/d
2
= 0.0124/2.059 = 0.0060; actual = 0.0055, as shown in part
a, above.
18. For the Center Lines, CL
x
: x
=
= 69.147; CL
R
: R
= 21.920
-chart are:
x
=
A
2
R
= 69.147 0.577 (21.920) = 56.50 to 81.80

R
= D
4
R
= 2.114 (21.920) = 46.34

LCL
R
= D
3
R
= 0
These limits apply to sample groups of 5 items each.
Estimated = R
/d
2
= 21.920/2.326 = 9.423
The problem asks that students perform a process capability analysis. This is
only justied if the process is in control. The fact that the process is thought to
be normally distributed does not establish that it is in control. The x
-chart
shows that the process is, in fact, out of control because 4 out of 5 samples
within samples 610 are on one side of the center line. The % outside calculation
can be performed as follows. Note the warning, however.
Percent outside Specication Limits (45 to 95)
Therefore, the percent outside is calculated as 0.83%
Although the % outside calculations seem to show that the process has a rel-
atively small % outside specications, it should be noted that the x
-bar chart
shows that the process is not in control. Hence, the % outside calculation is
going to generate questionable results.
20. With data from Problem 14 and using USL = 6.75, LSL = 3.25, from the template
spreadsheet we see:
%
.
.
.
BelowLSL: z
LSL

x
z
45 69 147
9 423
2 56;; . ) ( . . )
.
P z ( <
that

2 56 0 5 0 4948
0 0052 iitems will exceed lower limit
%Above USL : USL
( > 2.74
z x
z P z

95 69 147
9 423
2 74
.
.
. ; ))
that items will e

( . . )
.
0 5 0 4969
0 0031 xxceed upper limit
Average 0.1115 Cp 1.1190
Standard Deviation 0.0092 Cpu 1.0071
Cpl 1.2309
Cpk 1.0071
Nominal specication 0.110
Upper tolerance limit 0.125
Lower tolerance limit 0.095
Note that the spreadsheet uses an estimated standard deviation of:
Estimated = R
/d
2
= 1.057/2.059 = 0.5134
From this, we obtain:
Percent outside Specication Limits (3.25 to 6.75)
*Note: This was taken from an outside table because Appendix Aextends only
to z = 3.09.
Therefore, the percent outside is calculated as 0.07%
These calculations show that the process has a relatively small % outside
specications. In problem 14b, points that showed assignable causes were elim-
inated, so the process should be in control. The process still needs some ne
tuning in order to become more capable (ideally the Cp should be 2.0, or
better) as shown by the % outside calculation and the capability indexes. The
modied control limits are:
URL
x
= US A
m
R
= 6.75 (0.728) (1.057) = 5.98

LRL
x
= LS + A
m
R
= 3.25 + (0.728) (1.057) = 4.02

22. See the following data and control charts and a template spreadsheet for details
on the Moby Molding Co.s plastic molding process.
a. For the Center Line, CL
x
: x
=
= 0.0093; CL
R
: R
= 0.1037
- chart are:
x
=
A
2
R
= 0.0093 0.729 (0.1037) = 0.0663 to 0.0849

R
= D
4
R
= 2.282 (0.1037) = 0.2366

LCL
R
= D
3
R
= 0
b. We can see from the x
-chart (and possibly the R-chart) that the process is hug-

ging the center line creating an out-of-control condition on the means and
their ranges. The cause for this condition may be judged from the structure of
%
. .
.
BelowUSL:
USL
z
x
z
6 75 5 037
0 5134
33 33 0 4995 . ; . P z ( < 3.33) (0.5 )
0.0005 th

aat items will exceed upper limit
%
. .
.
BelowLSL:
LSL
z
x
z
3 25 5 037
0 5134
33 48 0 4998 . ; . * P z ( < 3.48) (0.5 )
0.00002

tthat items will exceed lower limit
Upper specication 6.75 Cp 1.137
Lower specication 3.25 Cpl 1.113
Nominal specication 5.00 Cpu 1.161
Cpk 1.113
the data. It appears that each of the heads on the molding machine has a sep-
arate distribution of data. Thus, control charts should be prepared for each
head, rather than treating the data as if it came from the same population.
24. See control charts for Wilmer Machine Co. and template spreadsheet for details.
a. For the center line, CL
x
: = 3.526; CL
s
: s
= 0.359
-s charts are:
x
=
A
3
s
= 3.526 1.954 (0.359) = 2.825 to 4.227

For the s-chart: UCL
s
= B
4
s
= 2.568 (0.359) = 0.922

LCL
s
= B
3
s
= 0
The x
chart shows an out-of-control condition, with points 11 through 18 below

the center line. Causes must be investigated and the process must be brought
under control before x
-s charts can be used for process monitoring.

26. The data and control charts from the template spreadsheet show that.
For the Hertz Co. data from problem 14-7, the center line, CL
x
:
x
=
= 400.290; CL
s
: s
= 16.404
- s charts are:
x
=
A
3
s
= 400.290 1.954(16.404) = 368.263 to 432.344

For the s-chart: UCL
s
= B
4
s
= 2.089 (16.404) = 42.127

LCL
s
= B
3
s
= 0
Because the revised data from problem 14-7 (b) with 23 samples was used, the
process is under control, with no apparent problems.
28. Using data from problem 14, Slobay Co. as individual measures, with 5 sample
moving ranges, the calculations for the x-chart for individuals and R-chart show:
From the data shown below, : x
= 0.0762; R
= 0.0050
Control Limits on x:
UCL
x
= x
+ 3 (R
/d
2
) = 0.0762 + 3 (0.0050)/2.326 = 0.0827
LCL
x
= x
3 (R
/d
2
) = 0.0762 3 (0.0050)/2.326 = 0.0698
Control limits on R: UCL
R
= D
4
R
= 2.114(0.0050) = 0.0106
LCL
R
= D
3
R
= 0(0.0050) = 0
The process is probably out of control, with points 2536 hugging the center
line on the x-chart and points 3360 on the Moving Range Chart above the
center line. Reasons for the out-of-control condition need to be sought out and
corrected.
30. Control limits for Yummy Candy Company are as follows:
Control limits:
UCL
p
= p
+ 3 s
p
UCL
p
= 0.0333 + 3(0.0207) = 0.0954
CL
s p p n
s
p
p
p

75 2250 0 0333
1
0 0333
/
/
.
[( )( )]
( . ))( . ) / . 0 9667 75 0 0207
LCL
p
= p
3 s
p
LCL
p
= 0.0333 3(0.0207) = 0.0288, use 0
32. The data and control chart for Quality Printing Companys plant from the tem-
plate spreadsheet show:
CL
p
= 0.06
Control limits:
UCL
p
= p
+ 3 s
p
= 0.06 + 3(0.0336) = 0.1608
LCL
p
= p
3 s
p
= 0.06 3(0.0336) = 0.0408 use 0
The process appears to be under control.
b. When the additional data is added, while the process is being monitored
using the previously calculated control limits, the process starts to go out of
control, with samples 29, 30, and 31 being the rst indicators. Two out of three
of these are more than 2 away from the mean, p
. Later, four out of ve sam-

ples between 37 and 41 are more than 1 away from the mean, p
. Finally,
sample 48 exceeds the upper control limit. The process should have been
stopped and corrected when the rst indications were seen. If these were
missed, it is certain that sample 48, which was above the control limits, should
have been spotted, and the process should have been stopped.
34. The spreadsheet for Full Life Insurance Co., when constructed from the tem-
plate, shows:
a. Initially, based on the sum of the p values for the 25 samples,
Throw out #9 and #23, out-of-control values, and revise.
b. Revised
CL
p
= 0.480/28 = 0.0171
Control limits:
UCL
p
= p
+ 3 s
p
= 0.0171 + 3(0.0130) = 0.0561
LCL
p
= p
3 s
p
= 0.0171 3(0.0130) = 0.0219, use 0
The conclusion is that the process is now in control.
36. The template spreadsheet for AtYourService.com shows:
The average sample size = 15755/30 = 525.17
s p p n
p
[( )( )]/ [( . )( . )]/ . 1 0 0171 0 9829 100 0 013 30
CL
p p p
N
CL
s p
p
p
p
+ + +

1 2 3
0 63 30 0 0210
1
. / .
[( )( pp n
p
p
)]/ [( . )( . )]/ .
+
0 0210 0 979 100 0 0143
3 UCL . ( . ) .
.
s
p s
p
p
+

0 0210 3 0 0143 0 0640
0 02 LCP 3 110 3 0 0143 0 0220 ( . ) . , use 0
s p p n
p
[( )( )]/ [( . )( . )] . 1 0 06 0 94 50 0 0336 /
CL
p
= 202/15755 = 0.0128
UCL
p
= p
+ 3 s
p
= 0.0128 + 3(0.0049) = 0.0275
LCL
p
= p
3 s
p
= 0.0128 3(0.0049) = 0.0019, use 0
All points fall within the control limits.
38. The template spreadsheet, using data from problem 1434, can be used to con-
struct the np-chart for the Full Life Insurance Company, yielding the following
results:
CL
np
= n p
= 100(0.021) = 2.1
Control limits:
UCL
np
= np
+ 3 s
np
= 2.1 + 3(1.434) = 6.402
LCL
np
= np
3 s
np
= 2.1 3(1.434) = 2.202, use 0
As was shown in the previous control chart for problem 14-34, values for sam-
ples 9 and 23 are out of limits. Eliminating these points, we get revised control
limits shown for the nal control chart (follows). Note that the two values of 6
or more were dropped.
Problem 38Revised
So, CL
np
= np
= 100 (0.0171) = 1.71

Control limits:
UCL
np
= np
+ 3 s
np
= 1.71 + 3(1.296) = 5.598
LCL
np
= np
3 s
np
= 1.71 3(1.296) = 2.178, use 0
40. Center line for the c-chart: c
= 1000/40 = 25
42. Data for defects per pizza in a new store being opened by Robs Pizza Palaces is
used to construct a c-chart. The chart shows:
Number defective = 84; number of samples = 25
Center Line for the c-chart: c
= 84/25 = 3.36
The process appears to be in control.
44. For the c-chart: Center Line: c
(average number of defects) = 18

c c 3 18 3(4.24) 18 12.72 5.28 to 30 72 .
c c 3 3.36 3 3.36 = 3.36 5.50
= 2.14

tto 8.86, use 0 for lower control limit.
c c 3 to 30 3 25 30 15 15 45
s n p p
np
[ ( )( )] ( . )( . ) . 1 100 0 0171 0 9829 1 296
s n p p
np
[ ( )( )] ( . )( . ) . 1 100 0 021 0 979 1 434
s p n
p
[( )( )]/ [( . )( . )]/ . 1 0 0128 0 9872 525 17 0 p ..0049
46. The appropriate sample size for detecting shifts in means is simply an exercise in
reading values from the curves to t required conditions.
a. For a 1 shift and a 0.80 probability, use n = 15 (if rounded to next higher value).
b. For a 2 shift and a 0.95 probability, use n = 8 (rounded to next higher value).
c. For a 2.5 shift and a 0.90 probability, use n = 3 (rounded to next higher value).
48. The stabilized p-chart diagram, based on the post ofce example, plots the
transformed z statistic instead of p, and it shows the process is in control. To
verify calculations from the spreadsheet, for example, the rst data point is:
Note that p
(1 p
) is not divided by n because this is the estimated process stan-

dard deviation, not the sample standard deviation. Thus variations in sample
and lot sizes can be tolerated here, where they might cause problems with the
standard p-chart.
50. The control chart for the EMWA versus observed values shows that, with an
= 0.8, the process is under control, and the EMWAestimate fairly closely antic-
ipates the next observed value. The conclusion is that a better forecast of future
values may be obtained for volatile values such as these if a larger value is
used to give greater weight to more recent values.
For problems 52 through 54, see the Statistical Foundations of Control Charts
Section in the Bonus Materials folder on the CD-ROM.
52.
Therefore, z
0.02
= 1.64 or 1.65 because it is equidistant (0.4495 and 0.4505, respec-
tively) between the closest table values to 0.4500.
54. Using the binomial formula:
Probability (acceptance) and
x
n

f x f x
n
( ) (
0
)) ( ) ( )
( . ) .

x p p
x n x
in a row
1
11 0 5 0 04
11
99
11
11
10
0 5 0 5 11 0 5
10 1
%
( . ) ( . ) ( . ) of 11

_
,

111
9 2
0 539
9
11
9
0 5 0 5 55
_
,

. %
( . ) ( . ) ( of 11 00 5 2 695
8
11
8
0 5 0 5
11
8 3
. ) . %
( . ) ( . )
_
,
of 11
_
,
165 0 5 8 085
7
11
7
0 5
11
7
( . ) . %
( . ) ( of 11 00 5 330 0 5 16 17
4 11
. ) ( . ) . %
9 out of 11 pointss are statistically significant (p < 0.05)..
2
0 10
2
0 05
.
. ; Fromthe normal probability ttable, ) P z ( . 0 4500
z
p p
p
0 03 0 022
0 1467
0 0545
. .
.
.
p p p 0 022 0 022 1 0 022 0 146 . . ( . ) .
process
(1 ) 77

Solutions To Even Problems

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Solutions To Even Problems

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

SOLUTIONS TO EVEN-NUMBERED PROBLEMS

< < 1.5) = 0.4332 z

x = 2.00008; D = 2.00008 2.00 = 0.00008

x = 0.5750; = 0.0065 and a tolerance of 0.575 0.007

x = 1.7446; s = 0.0163; 3s = 0.0489

x = 1.9999; s = 0.0078; 3s = 0.0234

x = 1.2485; s = 0.0052; 3s = 0.0156

chart, means for sam-

= 22.62 + (0.577) 1.94 = 23.74

= 22.62 (0.577) 1.94 = 21.49

= (2.114) 1.94 = 4.11

= 9.170 + (0.577) 2.543 = 10.64

= 9.170 (0.577) 2.543 = 7.70

= (2.114) 2.543 = 5.38

and R charts had to be modied to show the control limits,

= 8.0 (0.483) 2.0 = 7.03 to 8.97

= 402.92 1.023(33.20) = 368.96 to 436.88

= 2.574 (30.96) = 79.69

- and R charts that the process is probably in

= 0.011 0.577 (1.372) = 0.78 to 0.80

= 2.11 (1.3718) = 2.89

= 5.100 0.729 (1.083) = 4.31 to 5.89

-chart that points 19 and 21 are out of control and the

= 5.037 0.729(1.057) = 4.266 to 5.808

= 2.282 (1.057) = 2.412

and R-charts now show that the process is in control.

3 = 0.1115 3 (0.0055) = 0.0950 to 0.1280

-charts, as shown earlier,

-chart and R-chart results

= 0.1115 0. 0.729(0.0092) = 0.1048 to 0.1182

= 2.282 (0.0092) = 0.0210

= 69.147 0.577 (21.920) = 56.50 to 81.80

= 2.114 (21.920) = 46.34

= 6.75 (0.728) (1.057) = 5.98

= 3.25 + (0.728) (1.057) = 4.02

= 0.0093 0.729 (0.1037) = 0.0663 to 0.0849

= 2.282 (0.1037) = 0.2366

-chart (and possibly the R-chart) that the process is hug-

= 3.526 1.954 (0.359) = 2.825 to 4.227

= 2.568 (0.359) = 0.922

chart shows an out-of-control condition, with points 11 through 18 below

-s charts can be used for process monitoring.

= 400.290 1.954(16.404) = 368.263 to 432.344

= 2.089 (16.404) = 42.127

. Later, four out of ve sam-

= 100 (0.0171) = 1.71

(average number of defects) = 18

) is not divided by n because this is the estimated process stan-

Вам также может понравиться