Validation Sample size
Six Sigma – iSixSigma › Forums › Old Forums › General › Validation Sample size
 This topic has 7 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 5 months ago by Severino.

AuthorPosts

March 2, 2009 at 11:50 am #51937
CanonmanParticipant@Canonman Include @Canonman in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Hello,
How would you predict the required sample size to validate a new process when the process produces roughly 25,000 pieces per shift? I’d rather not have a large sample size and I just seem to be stuck.
Thanks,
0March 2, 2009 at 12:37 pm #181847Hi – this depends on what type of data you are capturing: Continuous or discrete. There are different sample size calculators for this.
Also, in case you have JMP, it will help you take into account power etc. Though others in the forum will be able to shed more light on this. :)
Thanks.0March 2, 2009 at 1:00 pm #181848
CanonomanParticipant@Canonoman Include @Canonoman in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Thanks MM,
I don’t have JMP but I do have MINITAB.0March 2, 2009 at 1:29 pm #181849Urw. Also, it will be helpful to know what you want to do with the sample. In case of normal audit, I think the sample size calcs should do.
In case, you want to do some specific test then use the following:
In minitab: Stats > Power and sample size
This may be useful to you. Read the help section if stuck.0March 2, 2009 at 3:16 pm #181854
CanonmanParticipant@Canonman Include @Canonman in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Thanks Again MM,
I also forgot to mention the data is continuous.
Canonman0March 2, 2009 at 4:04 pm #181858CanonMan
You will also need to know a few other items…such as…standard deviation of the process, risks you are willing to take, etc. You stated you have Minitab…use Mini’s help function…it will help immensely.
When you have specific questions, come back…
Obiwan0March 3, 2009 at 8:41 am #181887Try to identify first if you want to have a sample size for continuous or proportions data.
If continuous, need to know the metric, standard deviation and precision. For proportions, same as continuous but need to know the proportion of defectives.0March 3, 2009 at 11:30 am #181891
SeverinoParticipant@Jsev607 Include @Jsev607 in your post and this person will
be notified via email.CanonMan –
Your organizational procedures should set some form of standard for this. If your company has not established this, you should solve that problem before you begin worrying about a specific process. Otherwise, you may end up with lots of different criteria applied to different processes that can leave your validation program in a questionable state (it eliminates the temptation to pick an arbitrary sample size and then attempt to justify it after the fact).
An example of such a system might be as follows:For critical defects/characteristics: 95% confidence/99% reliability
For major defects/characteristics: 95% confidence/95% reliability
For minor defects/characteristics: 95% confidence/90% reliability
Once you have established these guidelines, there is a table in Montgomery that can be used to determine a k factor and sample size for continuous data (assuming a normal distribution) and you can utilize a binomial table for pass/fail data (it is a good idea to copy these into your validation procedures so that everyone in your organization is given the same information).
An alternative to the above, comes from Taylor (http://www.variation.com ; visit the tech library, article “Selecting Statistically Valid Sample Sizes”). If your organization has already established AQLs for your defects/characteristics (i.e. critical – .065%; major – 1.0%; minor – 2.5%, etc.) he advises using your AQL as your LTPD for the first three lots and then transitioning to a less severe sampling plan after validation is completed. He presents examples using attribute (binomial) data, but the same concept is easily applied to contiuous data.
The final method your organization may consider is to set Cpk goals for your validations (again these are typically proportional to the criticality of the characteristic) and then use an alpha to beta ratio to determine the sample size necessary to claim you have achieved it as a minimum. This procedure is also outlined in Montgomery.
Any of the above approaches would work and can be statistically justified. Just remember when dealing with continuous data you need to check your distributional assumptions to ensure the model (typically a normal distribution) you used when determining your acceptance criteria and sample sizes were correct.
0 
AuthorPosts
The forum ‘General’ is closed to new topics and replies.