March 2005

www.asq.org/sixsigma






Capability Analysis with Non-Normal Data

by Keith M. Bower


To assess the ability of a process to meet specifications, Six Sigma practitioners may
be required to perform a capability study. In many analyses the assumption of
sampling from a Normal (Gaussian) distribution may be invalid. This article
addresses strategies to obtain valid capability estimates using continuous data under
such a scenario.
1


Process Capability Analyses

To assess the ability of a process to meet specifications for future production,
capability estimates such as
p
C

and
pk
C

are widely employed. Associated confidence

intervals may be useful as they take into consideration the amount of data used in
the study.
2
Invalidly assuming a Normal distribution as an adequate model for the
process can result in seriously misleading capability estimates.
3


Evidence of Stability

A key criterion for obtaining valid estimates of future productive capability is the
assumption of sampling from a stable (constant-cause) system. A probability
distribution (Normal or non-Normal) may then be usefully employed.

The requirement for stability is essential; we cannot validly estimate future
productive capability if there is no evidence of current stability. That is why control
charts are an integral element of capability analyses.

At the start of a Six Sigma project the assessed process may be unstable and may
not adequately meet specifications. Capability estimates then computed have little or
no theoretical grounding - though would merely indicate the "obvious, that the
process requires improvement. This part of the Six Sigma project would occur in
Phase I of a control charting scheme, when the analyst is attempting to understand
the system, possibly for the first time.
4


This article considers the time frame during Phase II of control charting. The process
has provided evidence of stability, and a mathematical model for the process may be
meaningfully sought. The statistical tools employed in a capability study, for example
confidence intervals, which are based on enumerative principles, may have
legitimacy for this type of analytic study when the process is stable.
5




www.asq.org/sixsigma
2

The Modeling of Processes

Generally speaking, control charting procedures are designed to allow for the
identification of uneconomic situations. The underlying probability distribution of the
process is typically not addressed.
6
One reason is that, as discussed by Walter
Shewhart, Tchebycheffs Theorem suggests that the probability of falling beyond
three standard deviations from the mean will be "small for many distributions,
including, of course, the Normal distribution.
7


A major concern with capability analyses, however, is that a good approximation of
the underlying distribution is required for valid estimates of future nonconforming
product. The quality practitioner must consider both the recorded measurements and
the amount of data collected to assess process behavior and consider an appropriate
distribution.

In "Guiding the Use of Capability Estimates - Keep it Simple! Terry Weight suggests
that a practitioner will never be in a position to state a mathematical model that
would generate "exact proportions nonconforming.
8


It is of course true that the underlying model will never be exactly known in practice.
However, this should not prevent practitioners from attempting to understand the
witnessed distribution and make intelligent estimates of the distributional form (at
least, in Phase II). Indeed, a useful model for a given process may be suggested by
scientific theory.


The Use of "Raw" Nonconforming Proportions

In his article, Mr. Weight suggests adopting the approach of reporting solely the
"raw proportion nonconforming from some indeterminate length of study. This
argument seems more appropriate for Phase I analyses as opposed to the Phase II
analyses here under discussion.

In particular, a key argument against the "raw proportion methodology concerns the
amount of data used for assessment. Reporting the "raw proportion comes into
question when one acknowledges the considerable widths of confidence intervals for
capability indices, even when relatively large amounts of data are used. Employing
confidence intervals in capability analysis reports thus becomes all the more
appropriate, rather than assuming the point estimate of the proportion
nonconforming is the "correct answer.


Non-Normal Distributions

This discussion proposes two key assumptions:

(a) The assessed process exhibits stability

(b) A non-Normal distribution is a sensible fit




www.asq.org/sixsigma
3


If criteria (a) and (b) are met, several options may be available, including:

(1) Transforming the dataset to become approximately Normal using approaches
such as the Box-Cox
9
and Johnson
10
procedures, widely available in statistical
software packages

(2) Identifying a non-Normal distribution that is a useful fit

For an illustration of approach (1) consider the following example.


Example

A toothpaste manufacturer is required to fill its tubes to a set mass (115g). At the
start of the cycle the tubes are consistently under-filled and then approximately
meet 115g after a short while. Assume that this non-Normal distribution is both
acknowledged and well understood, and the distributional form witnessed can be
expected on a consistent basis; that is, this process has exhibited "stability.

As shown in Figures 1 and 2, the assumption of Normality would be unreasonable
owing to the non-linear Normal probability plot, in conjunction with the Anderson-
Darling test for Normality exhibiting a very low P-value. Clearly, the distribution is
negatively skewed.


Figure 1

115.2 115.0 11+.8 11+.6 11+.+ 11+.2
Nedian
Nean
115.000 11+.975 11+.950 11+.925 11+.900
A nderson-Darling Normality Test
v ariance 0.05
Skewness -2.09502
Kurtosis +.97763
N 120
Ninimum 11+.07
A -Squared
1st Quartile 11+.88
Nedian 11+.97
3rd Quartile 115.0+
Naximum 115.26
95 C onfidence !nterv al for Nean
11+.88
8.0+
11+.96
95 C onfidence !nterv al for Nedian
11+.95 11+.99
95 Confidence !nterv al for StDev
0.19 0.2+
P-v alue < 0.005
Nean 11+.92
StDev 0.21
95% Confidence Intervals
Summary for Mass


www.asq.org/sixsigma
4

Figure 2

Mass
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
115.6 115.+ 115.2 115.0 11+.8 11+.6 11+.+ 11+.2 11+.0
99.9
99
95
90
80
70
60
50
+0
30
20
10
5
1
0.1
Nean
<0.005
11+.9
StDev 0.2138
N 120
AD 8.036
P-value
Probability Plot of Mass
Normal



For these data the Box-Cox procedure does not find an adequate transformation to
Normality. In addition, none of the frequently used models, such as Weibull, provides
an adequate fit to the data. However, the Johnson procedure does provide an
adequate transformation, as indicated in the results of Figure 3.

As shown in Figures 3 and 4, the actual model used to transform the toothpaste data
into an approximate Normal distribution is rather complicated; note that it includes
the hyperbolic arcsine function. Crucially, however, it appears to be a useful
transformation to obtain approximately Normal results.

Using 114.9g and 115.1g as the lower and upper specification limits, respectively, we
obtain:

(i) The estimate of Pp is 0.31, with lower and upper 95% confidence limits of 0.27
and 0.35, respectively.

(ii) The estimate of Ppk is 0.17 with lower and upper confidence limits of 0.11 and
0.24, respectively.
11



www.asq.org/sixsigma
5

Figure 3

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
115.5 115.0 11+.5 11+.0
99.9
99
90
50
10
1
0.1
N 120
AD 8.036
P-value <0.005
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
+ 0 -+
99.9
99
90
50
10
1
0.1
N 120
AD 0.+39
P-value 0.289
Z Value
P
-
V
a
l
u
e

f
o
r

A
D

t
e
s
t
1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.+ 0.2
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.8
Ref P
P-v alue for Best Fit: 0.289+9+
Z for Best Fit: 0.8
Best Transformation Ty pe: SU
Transformation function equals
0.877200 + 1.039++ * A sinh( ( X - 115.059 ) f 0.0825881 )
Probability Plot for Original Data
Probability Plot for Tr ansfor med Data
Select a Transformation
(P-value = 0.005 means <= 0.005)
Johnson Transformation for Mass



Figure 4

2 1 0 -1 -2
LSL* USL*
transformed data Process Data
Sample N 120
StDev 0.2138+7
Shape1 0.8772
Shape2 1.039++
Location 115.059
LSL
Scale 0.0825881
After Transformation
LSL* -0.588593
Target* *
USL* 1.37308
Sample Nean*
11+.9
-0.03+1706
StDev* 1.06389
Target *
USL 115.1
Sample Nean 11+.923
Overall Capability
PPU 0.++
Ppk 0.17
Lower CL 0.11
Upper CL 0.2+
Pp 0.31
Lower CL 0.27
Upper CL 0.35
PPL 0.17
Observed Performance
PPN < LSL 283333
PPN > USL 100000
PPN Total 383333
Exp. Overall Performance
PPN < LSL 301138
PPN > USL 92959
PPN Total 39+097
Process Capability of Mass
Johnson Transformation with SU Distribution Type
0.877 + 1.039 * Asinh( ( X - 115.059 ) f 0.083 )
(using 95.0 confidence)



www.asq.org/sixsigma
6

Summary

Performing capability analyses with Normality assumed incorrectly may result in
highly misleading capability estimates. To obtain meaningful estimates when a
process exhibits stability but the distribution may not be adequately modeled by a
Normal distribution, alternative strategies require consideration. This article has
provided some general guidelines for subsequent analyses.


References

1. For a description of continuous data see Keith M. Bower, "Non-Traditional
MSA with Continuous Data, ASQ Six Sigma Forum, Dec. 2003,
http://www.asq.org/forums/sixsigma/articles/mbb/mb_non_trad_msa1.html.
2. For information on confidence intervals for capability indices, see Keith M.
Bower, "Confidence Intervals for Capability Indices, International Society of
Six Sigma Professionals: EXTRAOrdinary Sense 2, no. 4 (2001): 6-7.
3. For information regarding the effect on widely used capability indices when
Normality is incorrectly assumed, see Steven E. Somerville and Douglas C.
Montgomery, "Process Capability Estimates and Non-Normal Distributions,
Quality Engineering 9, no. 2 (1996): 305-316.
4. For more information on Phase I and Phase II studies, see William H. Woodall,
"Controversies and Contradictions in Statistical Process Control, Journal of
Quality Technology 32, no. 4 (2000): 341-350.
5. For a discussion of enumerative and analytic studies, see Keith M. Bower,
"Why Divide By n-1? ASQ Six Sigma Forum, Feb. 2005,
http://www.asq.org/forums/sixsigma/articles/bb/bb_divide_by_n-1.html.
6. For more information on distributional assumptions and control charting,
especially in Phase II, see Douglas C. Montgomery, An Introduction to
Statistical Quality Control, 5
th
ed. (New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
2004): 237.
7. Walter A. Shewhart, Economic Control of Quality of Manufactured Product
(New York: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1931): 176.
8. The ASQ Six Sigma Forum published Terry Weights article on June 5, 2003.
See the section "Failure to Achieve the Ideal Situation.
9. George E. P. Box and David R. Cox, "An Analysis of Transformations, Journal
of the Royal Statistical Society, B, 26 (1964): 211-243.
10. Norman L. Johnson, "Systems of Frequency Curves Generated by Methods of
Translation," Biometrika, 36 (1949): 149-176.
11. For more information on Pp and Ppk and the relation to Cp and Cpk, see
Douglas C. Montgomery, An Introduction to Statistical Quality Control, 5
th
ed.
(New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2004): 349. Note in this example that
Pp and Ppk do not have the usual interpretation (i.e., using the "overall
standard deviation). This is because the Johnson transformation is
transforming each observation and in this case computing "equivalent
capability values.



www.asq.org/sixsigma
7

About the Author

Keith M. Bower is a statistician and webmaster for www.KeithBower.com, a site
devoted to providing access to online learning materials for quality improvement
using statistical methods. He received a bachelors degree in mathematics with
economics from Strathclyde University in Great Britain and a masters degree in
quality management and productivity from the University of Iowa in Iowa City, USA.
He is a member of ASQ and the Six Sigma Forum.


Copyright 2005 American Society for Quality. All rights reserved.