Cp/Cpk vs. Pp/Ppk?
Six Sigma – iSixSigma › Forums › Old Forums › General › Cp/Cpk vs. Pp/Ppk?
- This topic has 10 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 7 months ago by
Dr. Scott.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 6, 2007 at 12:23 pm #48603
New ATIParticipant@New-ATIInclude @New-ATI in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Please explain the main differences?
When to use each?
thanks and regards0November 6, 2007 at 1:56 pm #164449November 6, 2007 at 5:37 pm #164454
Dr. ScottParticipant@Dr.-ScottInclude @Dr.-Scott in your post and this person will
be notified via email.ATI,
Look at the reading Pete recommended. Also, think of it this way:
Cpk used to be called “short-term” capability, now it is more appropriately called “potential” by Minitab. The reason is how std. dev. is calculated. The std. dev. for Cpk uses the R-bar/d2 method.
Ppk used to be called “long-term” capability, now it is more appropriately called “overall” by Minitab. Ppk uses the “standard” long for calculating the standard deviation, hence overall. It ignores between or within point to point variation (for the most part), and instead considers the overall standard deviation.
Try this demonstration. Run a capability analysis on the following sets of data. The first is a simple random set of data, and the second is the exact same data but sorted.
84.23680.61983.50777.15991.22368.94169.78094.82966.31165.18566.27182.47259.55266.65355.09384.10088.99274.08877.048101.31476.66673.67475.80689.21764.46886.64165.58882.49274.31978.62394.11075.44861.48257.15959.33080.07161.05059.04053.21878.73171.33878.72877.07184.17871.14777.88174.12776.685
and,
53.21855.09357.15959.04059.33059.55261.05061.48264.46865.18565.58866.27166.31166.65368.94169.78071.14771.33873.67474.08874.12774.31975.44875.80676.66676.68577.04877.07177.15977.88178.62378.72878.73180.07180.61982.47282.49283.50784.10084.17884.23686.64188.99289.21791.22394.11094.829101.314
You will notice a huge difference in the two estimates even though the data are the same.
Let me know if you have any more questions on this.
Good Luck,
Dr. Scott0November 6, 2007 at 6:11 pm #164456Also be advised that older versions of Minitab (not MTB 15) and some other SPC packages will adjust standard deviation overall by the the bias correction factor “c4” which lead to a slightly different statement of overall standard deviation in Minitab’s Graphical Summary and the standard deviation calculation in the Capability Analysis. Some users would be puzzled by why the two standard deviations were not exactly the same.
0November 6, 2007 at 7:54 pm #164465
New ATIParticipant@New-ATIInclude @New-ATI in your post and this person will
be notified via email.That is excellent,thank you
0November 6, 2007 at 8:36 pm #164467
Dr. ScottParticipant@Dr.-ScottInclude @Dr.-Scott in your post and this person will
be notified via email.ATI,
First, you are more than welcome. Second, my example is a much exaggerated reason of why process control should be checked before capability.
Does that make sense?
Regards,
Dr. Scott0November 7, 2007 at 2:27 am #164475More drivel … “short term” and “long term” are meaningless. Research the origins of these terms in Harry’s rubbish on the Z shift.
0November 7, 2007 at 3:18 pm #164484
New ATIParticipant@New-ATIInclude @New-ATI in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Thank You.
I believe yo can be a good teacher .
I believe in st & lt Sigma0November 7, 2007 at 6:58 pm #164498
Dr. ScottParticipant@Dr.-ScottInclude @Dr.-Scott in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Vader,
I agree which is why I said that the terms “potential” and “overall” were better.
But the meaning of potential and overall is definitely not rubbish, particularly if you find large differences between the two.
Regards,
Dr. Scott0November 7, 2007 at 7:26 pm #164500
New ATIParticipant@New-ATIInclude @New-ATI in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Agree
It is becomuing usual to attack those concepts for “no good” reasons ,just because of envy against mikel Harry.
What a shame?0November 7, 2007 at 7:35 pm #164501
Dr. ScottParticipant@Dr.-ScottInclude @Dr.-Scott in your post and this person will
be notified via email.ATI,
I wanted to add a couple of thoughts (clarifications) to avoid a misunderstanding. I disagree with the use of short and long term capability. I prefer to call them what they are, potential (or within) capability and overall capability.
As far as short-term and long-term variation or sigma level goes, I dont really buy into that; specifically as it relates to the use of the 1.5 shift adjustments when determining sigma levels.
Thanks,
Dr. Scott0 -
AuthorPosts
The forum ‘General’ is closed to new topics and replies.