Process capability index

The process capability index, or process capability ratio, is a statistical measure of process capability: the
ability of an engineering process to produce an output within specification limits.[1] The concept of process
capability only holds meaning for processes that are in a state of statistical control. This means it cannot
account for deviations which are not expected, such as misaligned, damaged, or worn equipment. Process
capability indices measure how much "natural variation" a process experiences relative to its specification
limits, and allows different processes to be compared to how well an organization controls them. Somewhat
counterintuitively, higher index values indicate better performance, with zero indicating high deviation.

Example for non-specialists

A company produces axles with nominal diameter 20 mm on a lathe. As no axle can be made to exactly
20 mm, the designer specifies the maximum admissible deviations (called tolerances or specification limits).
For instance, the requirement could be that axles need to be between 19.9 and 20.2  mm. The process
capability index is a measure for how likely it is that a produced axle satisfies this requirement. The index
pertains to statistical (natural) variations only. These are variations that naturally occur without a specific
cause. Errors not addressed include operator errors, or play in the lathe's mechanisms resulting in a wrong
or unpredictable tool position. If errors of the latter kinds occur, the process is not in a state of statistical
control. When this is the case, the process capability index is meaningless.

Introduction
If the upper and lower specification limits of the process are USL and LSL, the target process mean is T,
the estimated mean of the process is and the estimated variability of the process (expressed as a standard
deviation) is , then commonly accepted process capability indices include:
 Index Description

Estimates what the process is capable of producing if the process mean

were to be centered between the specification limits. Assumes process
output is approximately normally distributed.

Estimates process capability for specifications that consist of a lower limit

only (for example, strength). Assumes process output is approximately
normally distributed.
Estimates process capability for specifications that consist of an upper
limit only (for example, concentration). Assumes process output is
approximately normally distributed.

Estimates what the process is capable of producing, considering that the

process mean may not be centered between the specification limits. (If the
process mean is not centered, overestimates process capability.)
if the process mean falls outside of the specification limits.
Assumes process output is approximately normally distributed.

Estimates process capability around a target, T. is always greater

than zero. Assumes process output is approximately normally distributed.
is also known as the Taguchi capability index.[2]

Estimates process capability around a target, T, and accounts for an off-

center process mean. Assumes process output is approximately normally
distributed.

is estimated using the sample standard deviation.

Recommended values
Process capability indices are constructed to express more desirable capability with increasingly higher
values. Values near or below zero indicate processes operating off target ( far from T) or with high
variation.

Fixing values for minimum "acceptable" process capability targets is a matter of personal opinion, and what
consensus exists varies by industry, facility, and the process under consideration. For example, in the
automotive industry, the Automotive Industry Action Group sets forth guidelines in the Production Part
Approval Process, 4th edition for recommended Cpk minimum values for critical-to-quality process
characteristics. However, these criteria are debatable and several processes may not be evaluated for
capability just because they have not properly been assessed.

Since the process capability is a function of the specification, the Process Capability Index is only as good
as the specification. For instance, if the specification came from an engineering guideline without
considering the function and criticality of the part, a discussion around process capability is useless, and
would have more benefits if focused on what are the real risks of having a part borderline out of
specification. The loss function of Taguchi better illustrates this concept.

At least one academic expert recommends[3] the following:

 Recommended minimum process Recommended minimum process
Situation
capability for two-sided specifications capability for one-sided specification

Existing process 1.33 1.25

 New process 1.50 1.45
Safety or critical
parameter for existing 1.50 1.45
process

Safety or critical
parameter for new 1.67 1.60
process

Six Sigma quality

2.00 2.00
process

However where a process produces a characteristic with a capability index greater than 2.5, the
unnecessary precision may be expensive.[4]

Relationship to measures of process fallout

The mapping from process capability indices, such as Cpk , to measures of process fallout is straightforward.
Process fallout quantifies how many defects a process produces and is measured by DPMO or PPM.
Process yield is the complement of process fallout and is approximately equal to the area under the
probability density function if the process output is approximately normally

distributed.

In the short term ("short sigma"), the relationships are:

Area under the Process fallout

Cp Sigma level probability density function Process (in terms of

(σ) yield
DPMO/PPM)

0.33 1 0.6826894921 68.27% 317311

0.67 2 0.9544997361 95.45% 45500

1.00 3 0.9973002039 99.73% 2700

1.33 4 0.9999366575 99.99% 63

1.67 5 0.9999994267 99.9999% 1

2.00 6 0.9999999980 99.9999998% 0.002

In the long term, processes can shift or drift significantly (most control charts are only sensitive to changes
of 1.5σ or greater in process output). If there was a 1.5 sigma shift 1.5σ off of target in the processes (see
Six Sigma), it would then produce these relationships:[5]
 Area under the Process fallout
Adjusted
Cp probability density Process (in terms of
Sigma level (σ) yield
function DPMO/PPM)

0.33 1 0.3085375387 30.85% 691462

0.67 2 0.6914624613 69.15% 308538

1.00 3 0.9331927987 93.32% 66807

1.33 4 0.9937903347 99.38% 6209

1.67 5 0.9997673709 99.9767% 232.6

2.00 6 0.9999966023 99.99966% 3.40

Because processes can shift or drift significantly long term, each process would have a unique sigma shift
value, thus process capability indices are less applicable as they require statistical control.

Example
Consider a quality characteristic with target of 100.00 μm and upper and lower specification limits of
106.00 μm and 94.00 μm respectively. If, after carefully monitoring the process for a while, it appears that
the process is in control and producing output predictably (as depicted in the run chart below), we can
meaningfully estimate its mean and standard deviation.

If and are estimated to be 98.94 μm and 1.03 μm, respectively, then

 Index

The fact that the process is running off-center (about 1σ below its target) is reflected in the markedly
different values for Cp , Cpk , Cpm, and Cpkm.

See also
Process (engineering)
Process capability
Process performance index

References
1. "What is Process Capability?" (http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/pmc/section1/pmc16.
htm). NIST/Sematech Engineering Statistics Handbook (http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handb
ook/index.htm). National Institute of Standards and Technology. Retrieved 2008-06-22.
{{cite web}}: External link in |work= (help)
2. Boyles, Russell (1991). "The Taguchi Capability Index" (http://www.asq.org/pub/jqt/). Journal
of Quality Technology. Vol. 23, no. 1. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: American Society for Quality
Control. pp. 17–26. ISSN 0022-4065 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0022-4065).
OCLC 1800135 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1800135).
3. Montgomery, Douglas (2004). Introduction to Statistical Quality Control (https://web.archive.o
rg/web/20080620095346/http://www.eas.asu.edu/~masmlab/montgomery/). New York, New
York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. p. 776. ISBN 978-0-471-65631-9. OCLC 56729567 (https://ww
w.worldcat.org/oclc/56729567). Archived from the original (http://www.eas.asu.edu/~masmla
b/montgomery/) on 2008-06-20.
4. Booker, J. M.; Raines, M.; Swift, K. G. (2001). Designing Capable and Reliable Products.
Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. ISBN 978-0-7506-5076-2. OCLC 47030836 (https://www.w
orldcat.org/oclc/47030836).
5. "Sigma Conversion Calculator | BMGI.org" (https://web.archive.org/web/20160316152655/ht
tp://bmgi.org/tools-templates/sigma-conversion-calculator). bmgi.org. Archived from the
original (http://bmgi.org/tools-templates/sigma-conversion-calculator) on 2016-03-16.
Retrieved 2016-03-17.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Process_capability_index&oldid=1100894391"