Normality Test for Production Losses

Posted by: tthamblin Posted on: Sunday, 16th October 2005, 7:14 PM.

I am currently working on a project in a refinery enviroment to minimize production losses associated with a labor intensive part of the plant. My problem, like most, is doing most with what little data you have. The good news is that I have five years of process impacts (48 data points) detailing failed component and production losses per event. After running a Pareto on the data set it is evident that there is one component in the process that accounts for +30 percent of failure events and production rate loss. I have decided to pursue this particular component as my project and will address the other losses in a similar follow-up project. My problem is that when I analyze the production losses associated with this component I get a Pvalue <0.05% indicating that the data set is not normal. This is due to variation in the downtime associated with repairing the component during each associated repair (i.e. parts on hand, time of failure (weekend or week day, current production market incentives, severity of the failure, etc.). Is this a bad thing? Should I be approaching this from another angle? Thanks, TTH Posted by: jimmie65 Posted on: Monday, 17th October 2005, 8:03 AM.

Your data set should not be normal. I would guess if you chart the production loss distribution (histogram), you'll see a skewed distribution piled up at the left end of the chart (toward 0), whether you're measuring time, units, or dollars. That's because much of your variation is special (assignable) cause. Your project should address these special causes first. Eliminate or reduce special causes, then focus on reducing the variation in your repair time. As an aside, have you considered ways to eliminate failure of the component rather than reducing down time associated with its failure? jimmie65 Posted by: tthamblin Posted on: Monday, 17th October 2005, 9:22 AM.

Thanks for the comments. A large focus of this project is centered around a in-depth FMEA to determine root cause of recent failures. Several great recommendations have surfaced. Though, since my data has a non-normal distribution, I wasn't sure what I could do graphically within Minitab to drive additional conclusions? TTHamblin Jimmie Just curious on this, but wouldnt this be an idea situation for Box-Cox transformation due to his Non-Normal data set??? I have used it in similar situations with mixed results in the past, but this could be another way to compare his data sets. What do you think? Ct Posted by: jimmie65 Posted on: Monday, 17th October 2005, 9:43 AM.

On down-time projects (loss of production), I'll use a Pareto chart like you have, and usually a box plot (stratified by shift or machine, etc.; try various categories to look for specific causes) and sometimes a control chart or run chart to look for trends over a time period. If you note specific causes with a box plot, use a T test or ANOVA to see if there is significance. Posted by: CT Posted on: Monday, 17th October 2005, 10:23 AM.

Jimmie Just curious on this, but wouldnt this be an idea situation for Box-Cox transformation due to his Non-Normal data set??? I have used it in similar situations with mixed results in the past, but this could be another way to compare his data sets. What do you think? Ct Posted by: jimmie65 Posted on: Monday, 17th October 2005, 10:40 AM.

Ct Probably, especially if he needs to run a T test or ANOVA. I wasn't thinking far enough ahead when I suggested this. I'd run the box plots and run charts on non-tranformed data to identify special causes, then decide if I need any further analysis before transforming the data. Jimmie Posted by: thevillageidiot Posted on: Monday, 17th October 2005, 11:07 AM.

With the data you have (app. 50 data points) a control chart might prove more insightful and provide a valuable tool when coupled with the proposed FMEA for your control phase of DMAIC. Note: Always check for stability before shape (i.e. distribution type) Read up on your distributions. Understanding them will often tell you alot about your process, which you will miss if you default to an automatic transformation. Good luck.

Posted by: tthamblin Posted on: Monday, 17th October 2005, 10:31 PM.

All, Thanks for all the insight regarding my situation. I'm curious though as to what I would actually gain from transforming my non-normal data set using a Box-Cox transformation? After performing the fit, I get an estimated lamda of -0.33 which is rounded to -0.5 (transformation value of 1/y^0.5). Should I be using this transformed data set rather that my original data points of 48. Furthermore, now that I have drilled down far enough to realize that one of the eight major components account for 50% rate impact which will be my focus for this project. This narrows my data set to 12 points. Does this make things more complicated with fewer data points? Thanks in advance for all the help... TTHamblin

Posted by: jimmie65 Posted on: Tuesday, 18th October 2005, 7:27 AM.

I agree with you - what do you gain from the transforming the data at this point? You've analyzed your data enough to identify your "vital few". If you are comfortable with your results, then switch your focus to improvement. While you may need to go back and analyze some more to quantify the results of your improvement, there's no need for it right now. Statistics are simply a tool, not the aim, of Six Sigma. Good luck Jimmie Posted by: thevillageidiot Posted on: Tuesday, 18th October 2005, 10:10 AM.

Real basic here, forgive me if this is pedantic: Prior to gathering your data, always use a data collection plan to deterimine among other things, the dependendent variable you want to influence and the independent variables that might be causal inputs to the process (ie segments). Also, you will determine how you plan to analyze the data once collected (ANOVA, regression, HT, DOE, etc) and what sample plan will ensure proper representation and size, given set levels of CL, accuracy, power, and variation. Now you know what to data to collect, how much, and when. Now you got data. First determine if it is stable. Use a run chart when dealing with limited data or a control chart if you have more than 50 data points (app.) If stable, now determine the distribution type. The distribution is neither good or bad (ie normal v. non-normal), it is simply how the process works. Normality is useful, but not critical to your analysis. Transforming only changes the data mathmatically. It doesnt change the fact that the process is producing that distribution for a reason. For example, if you were measuring lead time, you would expect a lognormal distribution, not normality. It is perfectly natural. In short, transform if you want to, but know that it is not your best choice. A sample size of 12 is likely to be to small to be representative and/or provide you with a decent CL. Run it through MTB and find out. Good luck. Posted by: CT Posted on: Tuesday, 18th October 2005, 11:37 AM.

The only thing I would caution is to make sure that your main "X" factor does not have correlation between one of the other factors. This is the reason I usually try totransform the data. Transforming the data is has both pros and cons as the others have stated, and in this case since your main factor is so prevalent it is probably not needed. But with your other factors it may help to eliminate any noise, and help you determine if the data is meaningful or not. TVI makes a good point about the distribution being neither Non Normal or Normal it is simply what the process is. But Correlation between the factors my have a predictable distribution in which transforming the data will help determine. This is just some of my experience, and if you feel you dont need to transform then dont, I would only use it as means of Noise Determination when everything else fails. CT Posted by: thevillageidiot Posted on: Tuesday, 18th October 2005, 3:02 PM.

CT, Can you give a quick +/- for transformation? In particular the point of deconflicting autocorrelation? Thanks! Posted by: CT Posted on: Tuesday, 18th October 2005, 3:50 PM.

TVI This Posted by: thevillageidiot Posted on: Tuesday, 18th October 2005, 4:05 PM.

I am sure there is a pearl in there somewhere, but so far I aint seein' it, CT Posted by: CT Posted on: Tuesday, 18th October 2005, 5:26 PM.

TVI Sorry about that fat fingered the key, and then got a phone call. First of all looking at how he transformed the data was Wrong.......Using Box-Cox Transformation is not the best idea in this case. What he should have used was the Freeman-Tukey modification to the square root (sqrt C + sqrt C+1)/2 not 1/y**.5 because his data is from a nonconstant variance (poisson distribution) or count data. Once the transformation is complete the P-value will tell Posted by: joe Posted on: Tuesday, 18th October 2005, 12:08 PM.

Hi, Just a question out of curiosity, why are we trying to make the data normal ? whatever little I have worked with the downtime data they are always non normal what are we going to achieve by doing a box cox transformation ... we can use control charts to identify the assingnable causes instead. Cheers!!