RM13006 - Process Control Methods

Downloaded from SAE International by Souhail Chabat, Thursday, February 10, 2022
RM13006
Process Control Methods
An AESQ Reference Manual

Supporting SAE AS13100™ Standard
Revised September 7, 2021
RM13006
Process Control Methods
An AESQ Reference Manual

Supporting SAE AS13100™ Standard
AESQRM006202109
SAE Industry Technologies Consortia provides that: “This AESQ Reference Manual is published by the AESQ Strategy
Group/SAE ITC to advance the state of technical and engineering sciences. The use of this reference manual is entirely
voluntary and its suitability for any particular use is the sole responsibility of the user.”
Copyright © 2021 AESQ Strategy Group, a Program of SAE ITC. All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed, or transmitted, in any form or by
any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of AESQ
Strategy Group/SAE ITC. For questions regarding licensing or to provide feedback, please contact info@aesq.sae-itc.org.
Aerospace Engine Supplier Quality (AESQ) Strategy

Group
The origins of the AESQ can be traced back to 2012. The Aerospace Industry was, and still is, facing many
challenges, including:
• Increasing demand for Aero Engines

• Customers expecting Zero Defects
• Increasing supplier / partner engine content
• Increasing global footprint
The Aero Engine manufacturers Rolls-Royce, Pratt & Whitney, GE Aviation and Snecma (now Safran Aircraft
Engines) began a collaboration project with the aim of driving rapid change throughout the aerospace engine
supply chain, improving supply chain performance to meet the challenges faced by the industry and the need
to improve the Quality Performance of the supply chain.
Suppliers to these Engine Manufacturers wanted to see greater harmonisation of requirements between the
companies. Each Engine Manufacturer had Supplier Requirements that were similar in intent but quite different
in terms of language and detail.
This collaboration was formalized as the SAE G-22 Aerospace Engine Supplier Quality (AESQ) Standards
Committee formed under SAE International in 2013 to develop, specify, maintain and promote quality standards
specific to the aerospace engine supply chain. The Engine Manufacturers were joined by six major Aero Engine
suppliers including GKN, Honeywell, Howmet Aerospace, IHI, MTU and PCC Structurals. This collaboration
would harmonise the aerospace engine OEM supplier requirements while also raising the bar for quality
performance.
Subsequently, the Aerospace Engine Supplier Quality (AESQ) Strategy Group, a program of the SAE Industry
Technologies Consortia (ITC), was formed in 2015 to pursue activities beyond standards writing including
training, deployment, supply chain communication and value-add programs, products and services impacting
the aerospace engine supply chain.
AESQ Vision
To establish and maintain a common set of Quality Requirements
that enable the
Global Aero Engine Supply Chain
to be
truly competitive through lean, capable processes
and a
culture of Continuous Improvement.
i
The SAE G-22 AESQ Standards Committee published six standards between 2013 and 2019:
• AS13000 Problem Solving Requirements for Suppliers (8D)

• AS13001 Delegated Product Release Verification Training Requirements (DPRV)
• AS13002 Requirements for Developing and Qualifying Alternate Inspection Frequency Plans
• AS13003 Measurement Systems Analysis Requirements for the Aero Engine Supply Chain
• AS13004 Process Failure Mode & Effects Analysis and Control Plans
• AS13006 Process Control
In 2021 the AESQ replaced these standards, except for AS13001, with a single standard, AS13100.
The AESQ continue to look for further opportunities to improve quality and create standards that will add value
throughout the supply chain.
Suppliers to the Aero Engine Manufacturers can get involved through the regional supplier forums held each
year or via the AESQ website http://aesq.saeitc.org/.
ii
AESQ Reference Manuals

AESQ Reference Manuals can be found on the AESQ website at the following link:
https://aesq.sae-itc.com/content/aesq-documents
AESQ publishes several associated documents through the SAE G-22 AESQ Standards Committee supporting
deployment of AS13100. Their relationship with APQP and PPAP is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: AESQ Standards and Guidance Documents and the link to AS9145 APQP / PPAP
iii
RM13006 - Process Control Methods
INTRODUCTION
This Reference Manual (RM) has been developed by the AESQ Process Control Methods Working Group, a
group of Senior Industry Specialists from leading Aerospace companies, to promote the correct application of
process control. Aerospace products are such that quality issues can be high profile and cause reputational
damage to the producer, customer, and the industry. They also cause disruption to operations. Therefore,
specialists from the leading Aerospace companies collaborate to improve the industry’s adoption and
application of process control.
This Reference Manual includes both statistical and non-statistical tools for the application of control activities
in the factory, and a range of statistical methods for process study of stability and capability leading to process
improvement.
It also discusses process control from a principles level to help practitioners apply the techniques in the diverse
array of manufacturing processes and environments. Common pitfalls and barriers are also discussed.
Many of the graphics in this guidance are produced using Minitab - a recognized statistical software application.
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. THE IMPORTANCE OF PROCESS CONTROL .....................................................................5
2. KEY PRINCIPLES FOR PROCESS CONTROL .....................................................................5

2.1 Key Principles ........................................................................................................................5
2.1.1 Overview of Process Control ..................................................................................................7
3. APPLYING PROCESS CONTROL.........................................................................................8

3.1 Overview ...............................................................................................................................8
3.2 Process Control Activities ......................................................................................................8
3.3 Process Control in Process Design and Quality Planning .......................................................9
3.4 Process Control in Continuous Improvement........................................................................10
3.4.1 Communication and Workforce Engagement .......................................................................10
4. PROCESS CONTROL METHODS OUTLINE.......................................................................11

4.1 Nine Recognized Process Control Methods .........................................................................11
4.2 A Note on Automation ..........................................................................................................15
5. PROCESS CONTROL METHODS FURTHER EXPLANATION ............................................15

5.1 Error/Mistake Proofing .........................................................................................................15
5.2 Control Charts for Variable Data ..........................................................................................16
5.3 Run Charts with Non-Statistical Limits..................................................................................20
5.4 Pre-Control Charts ...............................................................................................................22
5.4.1 Background .........................................................................................................................22
5.4.2 Method ................................................................................................................................22
5.4.3 Pre-Control Example............................................................................................................23
5.5 Life/Usage Control ...............................................................................................................24
5.6 Control Charts for Attribute Data ..........................................................................................25
5.7 Visual Process Check and Checklist ....................................................................................30
5.8 First Piece Check.................................................................................................................31
5.9 Test Piece Evaluation ..........................................................................................................32
6. PROCESS CAPABILITY INDICES.......................................................................................33

6.1 Fundamentals for Variable data ...........................................................................................33
6.2 Process Stability in Practice .................................................................................................37
6.3 Process Capability for Attribute Data ....................................................................................40
7. GUIDANCE FOR NON-NORMAL DATA ..............................................................................42

7.1 Using Control Charts with Non-Normal Data ........................................................................46
7.1.1 Use Averages (Apply Central Limit Theorem). ......................................................................46
7.1.2 Data Transformation and Transformed Limits.......................................................................47
7.2 Capability Analysis for Non-Normal Data..............................................................................49
7.2.1 Method 1 - Identify a Distribution that Fits the Data Being Analyzed .....................................49
7.2.2 Method 2 - Apply a Transformation then Calculate Using Normal Capability Methods ...........50
8. COMMON SOURCES OF VARIATION ................................................................................52
9. SCENARIOS REQUIRING SPECIFIC ANALYSIS METHODS .............................................52

9.1 Assessing Control and Capability of Multiple Variable Features ............................................52
9.1.1 Scenario 1 - The Variations within the Group is Representative of the Overall Variation .......54
9.1.2 Scenario 2 - The Variations within the Group is Not Representative of the Overall Variation . 55
9.2 Assessing Control and Capability of Variable Data by Process or Part Family ......................59
9.2.1 Scenario - Housing Bushing Target I-MR Chart ....................................................................60
10. COMPUTER BASED SYSTEMS AND SOFTWARE.............................................................64
11. PROCESS CONTROL MATURITY REVIEW........................................................................65
2
12. BENEFITS OF STATISTICAL PROCESS CONTROL (SPC) ................................................68

12.1 Background .........................................................................................................................68
12.2 Benefits ...............................................................................................................................68
12.3 Resistance to SPC...............................................................................................................69
13. METHODS AND FORMULAE ..............................................................................................71
APPENDIX A PROCESS CONTROL METHODS ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST .........................................76

APPENDIX B PROCESS CAPABILITY PLAN - EXAMPLE FORM .............................................................79
APPENDIX C TRAINING SYLLABUS ........................................................................................................80
APPENDIX D ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................84
Figure 1 AESQ Standards and Guidance Documents and the Link for AS9145 APQP / PPAP ............ iii
Figure 2 A Traditional View of Quality (Anything within Tolerance is Equally Good) ..............................6
Figure 3 Taguchi’s Loss Function (Any Deviation from Target Incurs Some Loss) ................................6
Figure 4 A Simple Control System .......................................................................................................7
Figure 5 Process Control Overview......................................................................................................7
Figure 6 3 Step Process for Process Control........................................................................................9
Figure 7 The Deming (PDCA) Cycle ..................................................................................................10
Figure 8 A Control Chart ....................................................................................................................17
Figure 9 Variable Control Chart Selection ..........................................................................................18
Figure 10 Process Showing No Signs of Special Cause Variation ........................................................19
Figure 11 Tests for Special Cause Variation ........................................................................................20
Figure 12 Run Chart with Non-Statistical Limits ...................................................................................21
Figure 13 Pre-Control Chart for Bilateral Tolerance..............................................................................23
Figure 14 Pre-Control Chart for Unilateral Tolerance............................................................................23
Figure 15 Fuel Air Bracket Example.....................................................................................................24
Figure 16 Attribute Control Chart Selection ..........................................................................................26
Figure 17 P Chart of Defectives ...........................................................................................................27
Figure 18 P Chart with Varying Sample Sizes ......................................................................................27
Figure 19 C Chart ................................................................................................................................28
Figure 20 C Chart ................................................................................................................................29
Figure 21 Individuals Control Chart ......................................................................................................30
Figure 22 Process Checklist Format Example ......................................................................................31
Figure 23 Process Capability Index Cp/Pp ...........................................................................................34
Figure 24 Elements of Process Capability Index (Cpk/Ppk) ..................................................................35
Figure 25 High Capability - Practically Stable .......................................................................................38
Figure 26 Use of Ppk ...........................................................................................................................39
Figure 27 Points Well Outside Control Limits .......................................................................................40
Figure 28 Binomial Capability Study ....................................................................................................41
Figure 29 Poisson Capability Study .....................................................................................................41
Figure 30 A Non-Normal Distribution ...................................................................................................42
Figures 31 and 32 A Bimodal Process Due to Oscillation .......................................................................43
Figures 33 and 34 A Bimodal Process Due to Step Changes .................................................................43
Figures 35 and 36 Normality Assessment (Process Approximately Normal) ...........................................45
Figures 37 and 38 Normality Assessment (Non-Normal Process) ...........................................................45
Figures 39 and 40 Normality Assessment (Bimodal Distribution) ............................................................46
Figure 41 Effect of Taking Averages on a Flat (Uniform) Distribution ....................................................47
Figure 42 A Non-Normal (Skewed) Process Using an I-Mr Control Chart .............................................48
Figure 43 A Control Chart Using Transformed Data .............................................................................48
Figure 44 A Control Chart of Non-Normal Data with Appropriate Limits ................................................49
Figure 45 Distribution Identification Using Minitab Software .................................................................50
Figure 46 Process Capability Analysis Using a Weibull Distribution ......................................................50
Figure 47 Probability Plot of Original Data (Left) and Transformed Data (Right) ...................................51
Figure 48 Capability Analysis of Transformed Data. The Capability Is Not Ideal. ..................................51
Figure 49 Common Sources of Variation .............................................................................................52
Figure 50 Variation Within and Overall is Similar ..................................................................................54
Figure 51 Xbar-R Chart Produced with Data from Figure 50.................................................................54
Figure 52 Pattern of 20 Holes ..............................................................................................................55
Figure 53 X Bar and R Chart of Pattern of 20 Holes .............................................................................56
Figure 54 I-MR Chart with Pattern of 20 Holes .....................................................................................56
Figure 55 A 3-Way Control Chart with Pattern of 20 Holes ...................................................................57
Figure 56 Capability Analysis with Pattern of 20 Holes .........................................................................58
3
Figure 57 A Between/Within Capability Analysis ..................................................................................59

Figure 58 Target I-Mr Chart for the Bushing Process Example .............................................................61
Figure 59 Calculated Statistics for the Bushing Process Example ........................................................62
Figure 60 Normal Probability Plot ........................................................................................................63
Figure 61 Process Capability Analysis .................................................................................................63
Table 1 Overview of Recognised Process Control Methods ..............................................................11

Table 2 Variable Control Charts ........................................................................................................18
Table 3 Attribute Control Charts........................................................................................................26
Table 4 Expected Performance for Cpk ............................................................................................36
Table 5 Guidance for Non-Normal Processes ...................................................................................44
Table 6 Controlling Multiple Variables Using Average and Range Charts ..........................................53
Table 7 Part Family Approach ..........................................................................................................60
Table 8 Diameter Characteristics for Process Control Example.........................................................60
Table 9 Process Control Maturity Review .........................................................................................65
Table 10 Statistical Formulae for Variables Control Charts..................................................................71
Table 11 Statistical Formulae for Attribute Charts ...............................................................................73
Table 12 Statistical Formulae for Process Capability...........................................................................74
Table 13 Table of Statistical Constants ...............................................................................................75
4
1. THE IMPORTANCE OF PROCESS CONTROL
If a process is in state of statistical control, it is likely to behave in a stable and predictable manner. This means
that the process will perform at a reasonable performance level, provided the process’s capability is good, thus
providing benefit for the producer. The process will produce less ‘surprises,’ and many aspects of operational
planning can become more straightforward as a result.
Additionally, for product features that influence performance, a state of statistical control will offer the ability to
maintain the process around the optimal design nominal. Thus, providing benefit for customers and users of the
product.
Stability provides the potential for reliable planning. Instability causes un-predictable performance that is difficult
to plan for.
But a state of statistical control is not necessarily a natural state. Processes that are not maintained and
controlled will naturally decline over time. For this reason, methods of process control are needed.
2. KEY PRINCIPLES FOR PROCESS CONTROL
2.1 Key Principles
Process control tools can be used for a number of purposes such as performance calculations, root cause
analysis, stability assessments, etc. The tools can be very useful. However, it is their application for the control
of processes that maximizes their benefit, through being able to control quality proactively, thus avoiding quality
issues.
The following principles underpin the use of the tools. All are important:
Principle 1 - On Target with Minimum Variation
A process with excessive variation will invariably lead to problems. The sources of variation should be managed
proactively and in a systematic way. For all operations this will be through management of the process itself,
but also foundational activities such as maintenance of equipment, training and competency, standardization of
methods, correct measurement, etc. High quality tends to result from a well-managed and stable manufacturing
environment.
Many product features have a design nominal that, if deviated from, causes a loss in the performance of the
end product. For these features a process maintained ‘on target’ will perform better than one allowed to run ‘off
target’ regardless of the conformance to specification. This concept is known as Taguchi’s Loss Function (see
Figure 3).
Additionally, even processes without a performance related nominal will benefit from being ‘centralized’ between
specifications due to the reduced likelihood of non-conformance.
5
Figure 2 - A Traditional View of Quality (Anything within Tolerance is Equally Good)
Figure 3 - Taguchi’s Loss Function (Any Deviation from Target Incurs Some Loss)
Principle 2 - Move from Inspecting in Quality to Controlling Quality
Reliance on inspection does not provide the optimal conditions for quality control. Even when inspection is
introduced at the point of process, a ‘bad’ result is often detected too late to prevent further non-conformance
due to buildup of work in process (WIP) or inability to spot trends if the data format is not appropriate. Inspection
is rarely 100% effective due to gauging and process variations, and human factors.
To understand and control the process, it should be viewed using tools that offer the correct level of granularity
to highlight trends and events and manage variation ‘on target’. Tools such as SPC charts (variable control
charts) offer a far higher level of granularity than pass/fail inspection results.
Principle 3 - A Short Cycle Closed Loop Control System is Vital
A closed loop system (shown in Figure 4) involves the capture of information from the process, analysis of the
information, a decision against some criteria (typically on whether a process anomaly is present), and a reaction
to any such anomaly. The links between each of these activities need to be in place and be as short as possible
in order to make decisions and actions timely.
Such control systems can be operated manually or built into the manufacturing process using automation. An
example of an automated system is an in-cycle probing routine used in an NC machine tool.
6
Measure process Check for

process anomaly
Take action Decide on course

of action
Figure 4 - A Simple Control System
If the system is manually operated, ideally the measurer, decision maker and action taker will be the same
person. If not then necessary communication channels, roles, responsibilities will need to be defined, agreed,
and maintained.
Systems that are overly reliant on end of line inspection are compromised in all respects. They have severe
delays, reliance on distant communication that is almost always too late to achieve anything constructive. At
best, end of line inspection causes issues to be seen late, at the point where customer disruption is inevitable.
Principle 4 - The Operator Can Only Control if They Can See How the Process is Behaving
Often the process operator is in the possession of some process information. But if this information is not
presented in an appropriate manner the operator will be unable to see any changes and trends. Then they will
be unable to act on them. An example of information that is difficult to process is a Coordinate Measurement
Machine (CMM) inspection report. The operator can recognize non-conformances easily enough, however. the
amount of numbers and the discrete nature of each report means the data is not stitched together to show the
process behavior. This will result in the operator only being able to detect non-conformance thus making control
of the process reactive. On the other hand, a process control chart allows the operator to see the behavior of
the process, and if it changes significantly the operator can take appropriate action to address the issue.
2.1.1 Overview of Process Control
Process Control has three main facets that are: Product Capability, Process Control Methods, and Foundational
Activities (see Figure 5). High performance is not achievable without all three elements being in good order.
Figure 5 - Process Control Overview
7
2.1.1.1 Level 1 - Importance of Product Capability
Process Capability (and thus Product Capability) is designed in during the selection and development of the
manufacturing method. It is fundamental, because once designed in it can be very difficult to change. The
capability should be high enough in the short-term that inevitable drifts and shifts over time do not result in non-
conformance or deviations from the design nominal that result in a meaningful performance loss. Factors that
may result in additional variation and process movements include multiple machine tools, batch to batch
variations, operator to operator variations, tooling variations, raw material variations, etc.
The process designer should anticipate the potential effects of these factors when designing the process.
The better the short term capability the more tolerant the process will be to the sources of variation that affect
the process in the medium and long term. A high capability such as a Cpk of 2.0 will allow the process to drift
slightly without meaningful risk of non-conformance.
Process control will not fix an incapable process.
2.1.1.2 Level 2 - Importance of Process Control Methods
Once the manufacturing method is selected and the potential sources of variation have been determined, the
process designer will develop process control systems that detect anomalies when they occur. The process
and the product (process inputs and outputs) will be considered. A range of process control tools may be used
(statistical and non-statistical). In many situations, control of process inputs will be preferable to monitoring of
outputs, however this will be situation specific. These controls will ideally be closed loop systems.
2.1.1.3 Level 3 - Importance of Foundational Activities
The management of Foundational Activities provides the basis for stable operating conditions making process
control achievable. These activities include, but are not restricted to: machine tool capability, condition and
maintenance, standard methods, measurement systems, training and competence, factory environment, and
raw material quality. It is expected that these be appropriately managed.
Regardless of the process capability and process control system, a process deployed into an environment which
is unstable will cause significant problems. The result will likely be continual issues and frustration.
A stable environment will provide the conditions for anomalies to be the exception rather than the rule.
3. APPLYING PROCESS CONTROL
3.1 Overview
Process Control has planning, analytical, and operational aspects.
3.2 Process Control Activities
The Process Control Activities fall into three key steps (see Figure 6).
1. Process Control Method Selection - The selection of appropriate process control tools and methods for
each item in the Control Plan.
2. Process Analysis and Improvement - Analytical study of the process to prove the effectiveness of the
process controls described in the Control Plan. This involves the study of process stability, capability and
any actions needed to address shortfalls.
The analytical study involves the following:
• The planning of the data that will be used to understand process control and capability, and any predefined
acceptance criteria for control items. And the generation of a data collection plan.
• The execution of the data collection plan and application of visual tools to view initial data.
8
• The analysis of the process data using statistical techniques to describe process stability and capability,
study the effect of the sources of variation, and understand the nature of any shortfalls.
• The actions to address any shortfalls in process stability, capability, or input variation.
3. Process Monitoring and Control - The application of the controls during continued production to detect
issues and maintain process stability and capability.
Figure 6 - 3 Step Process for Process Control
3.3 Process Control in Process Design and Quality Planning
Process design and Quality Planning are concurrent activities. Process Control can be considered as much part
of the process design as it is part of the Quality Planning activity. This point is often missed when one views
tools such as PFMEA and Control Plans exclusively through a Quality Planning lens.
If the Quality Planning process is viewed without consideration for the process design activity, or one takes an
overly document centric view, one could conclude that process control is only decided after the PFMEA activity.
However, in reality one would begin to design the control system proactively as early as possible. This will often
be done through applying pre-existing methods and considering past experience, often reapplying methods
from similar products/processes.
Some controls will be based on part family standards and process best practices.
By the time the PFMEA is undertaken, the control system will mostly be decided upon. The controls provide the
basis for scoring the detection in the PFMEA. The development of improvements is then based on the risk
profile for the process. Additional controls and improvements may be developed based on this.
During process design and development, the capability of the process should be assessed to establish whether
the process has sufficient capability to be adequately controlled within the specification limits or close to a target
value. Ideally realistic tolerances will have been agreed during product development, based on customer needs
and historic capability information.
In this early stage of development, the producer will likely be running the process on a limited run of product
with fewer sources of variation present than would be expected in full manufacture. For example, a single
machine with limited strip and reset of the process, and little raw material changes.
For this reason, the producer will need to estimate the likely effects on the process capability when the process
goes into full manufacture, and judge the required capability for the initial proving run. Capability at the proving
run is of no use if it cannot be translated into capability in volume manufacture.
Once the capability and stability are proven the process will be operated in serial manufacture using the adopted
control system. The capability and stability may be assessed at various stages of product implementation and
production.
Choice of Capability Metric
For initial capability the process may typically be run on a single machine tool and the product will likely be run
on a continuous production run. For this reason, the capability may be reasonably well estimated by the Cp/Cpk
metrics which are based on the analysis of variation in the short term, within subgroups from part to part
variations of individuals.
9
For a full production run the data may have been derived from many subgroups (with sources of variation
between each subgroup) or over a longer time period in which some natural process drifts and shifts occur. In
this scenario the Cp/Cpk indices will be biased towards the short term (within subgroup) variation and may give
overly optimistic results. For this reason, while the Cp/Cpk capability metrics can be informative they should be
used in conjunction with the Pp/Ppk performance metrics which use an overall estimate of variation. In certain
cases the difference between the short term (within subgroup) variation and the overall variation are such that
a Between/Within capability study may be required.
For data involving multiple machine tools, the Cp/Cpk metrics may not make sense if the machines have
systematic differences between them. In this case again the Pp/Ppk metrics may be more appropriate. However,
there may be a case, where differences between machine tools are significant, to assess the capability of each
machine separately.
3.4 Process Control in Continuous Improvement
The development of the control system in improvement may be done proactively (for example as an outcome
of a PFMEA activity), or as a reaction to quality problems. When done proactively it follows a similar approach
to that taken in process design and development, however the process control system will more likely be
developed/refined following a process data study and PFMEA activity, to a pre-existing manufacturing process.
In problem solving it may be more or less regimented depending on the nature of the problem, the methodology
used and whether the cause of the problem is obvious or not.
In continuous improvement activity usually some type of methodology will be used. Most methodologies follow
a sequence of Plan, Do, Check, Act (known as the Deming cycle, see Figure 7). In the early phases, process
data may be examined to understand the nature of the problem and decide on a course of action. The stability
and capability of the process will be assessed. The work will be planned with an idea as to what the expected
outcome will be. Sometimes this will involve modification of the control system. Once the work has been done,
the result of the actions will be checked and compared against the expected outcome. Action will be taken
based on this. Usually some form of Adopt, Adapt or Abandon decision for the change. This will be a data driven
cycle.
Figure 7 - The Deming (PDCA) Cycle
3.4.1 Communication and Workforce Engagement
In certain situations, the closed loop system will involve multiple personnel. For instance, the person monitoring
the process may not be the person responsible for making adjustments. In these situations, the responsibilities
need to be made clear and particular attention will need to be given to the engagement of all personnel in the
process.
A RACI analysis may be worthwhile to clarify who is Accountable for the control systems operation, Responsible
for each activity within it and those Consulted and Informed periodically during its operation.
10
Process control and foundational activities are best sustained when the workforce is highly engaged in the
operation of the controls, understand the importance of them, and are involved in the improvement of the
systems.
4. PROCESS CONTROL METHODS OUTLINE
4.1 Nine Recognized Process Control Methods
The AESQ recognize the following Process Control Methods. Table 1 gives a simple summary. More
comprehensive guidance follows in Section 5.
These are listed in a sequence that roughly aligns with the robustness or precision of each method. But their
selection will depend on a number of factors. It is a case of selecting the right tool or tools for the job.
Table 1 - Overview of Recognised Process Control Methods
See
Method Application Example Also
Error/Mistake Proofing To avoid defects caused One-way fit of a die insert to Section
by inadvertent errors. prevent incorrect orientation 5.1
The most robust and during loading.
preferred method.
Use of a physical device to
Mistake Proofing
prevent installation of an oil-
devices build quality into
feed tube into the wrong
a process in order to
port.
prevent and/or detect
errors prior to defects Use of electrical devices
being made. such as proximity switches
and cameras to ensure
Typical reaction:
proper alignment and
Some error proofing orientation prior to the
devices prevent the operation proceeding.
possibility of entering an
error state, so no
Reaction Plan is
required.
Some error proofing
devices such as alarms
and buzzers require the
operator to stop and
investigate the error
cause. This reaction
may involve following a
prescribed recovery plan
that eliminates the error
condition or escalates
the situation to an
engineer or supervisor
to determine next steps.
11
See
Control Charts for Variable Data To monitor process Dimensional product Section
inputs or process features are plotted on 5.2
outputs that are Control Charts at the point of
continuous in nature for process and monitored by
the purpose of the operator. The operator
establishing and takes action to investigate
maintaining a state of and remedy issues when
statistical control (also special causes are detected.
referred to as process
The pressure drop in a
stability).
vacuum furnace is monitored
Typical reaction: on a Control Chart to warn of
developing issues. The
Variable Control Charts
operator responds to special
alert the operator to “out
causes by performing
of control” process
equipment diagnostic
behavior (special
checks.
causes). If these occur,
action is taken to identify
the causes and bring the
process back into
statistical control.
Recovery actions may
be prescribed, or
technical support may
be provided depending
on the situation.
Run Charts with Non-Statistical Limits To monitor process The viscosity of the slurry Section
inputs that require used in an investment 5.3
adjustment within casting process is
acceptable operating monitored. When a limit is
limits in response to reached, the operator adds
natural drift. Likely to be water to the mixture to
used when statistical correct for evaporation over
limits offer little practical time.
benefit or lead to false
A highly capable
signals of special cause.
characteristic of a machined
To control conditions part where tool wear is
that follow a specific expected and can be
“profile” during the tolerated to a point to
operation of the maximize its effective use.
process. The operator changes the
tool at a predetermined
Typical reaction:
dimension before the
Similar to Control Charts dimension becomes
these Run Charts will nonconforming.
have rules applied.
Furnace Run Charts tracking
Rules will typically be
thermocouple temperature
based on limits requiring
levels throughout a cycle for
some action (e.g., tool
heat treat and brazing
change). While these
processes. Each point in the
limits may not be
cycle will have a normal
statistically determined
operating window beyond
in the same way a
which investigation occurs.
Control Chart is, the
Most likely to use software
Reaction Plan is similar
enabled system linked to the
to the ones used for
equipment.
Variable & Attribute
Control Charts.
12
See
Pre-Control Charts To keep a capable Correct setup of a fuel Section
process on target when control valve grinding 5.4
the process has a process is confirmed by
tendency to move from running the process and
the nominal value. making adjustment until
Where processes are process is centered. Once
not sensitive to small centered, the process is
changes, the use of a monitored and only adjusted
statistical Control Chart when Pre-Control rules are
offers little additional broken.
value.
Monitoring of the outside
When simple operating diameter of an air cycle
rules are beneficial. machine shaft where the
operator controls
Typical reaction:
adjustments using a
Pre-Control Charts have machine offset in response
"warning limits". The to signals on the Pre-Control
action required is either Chart.
one of further monitoring
or action to investigate
the reason for the
process running off
target. The reaction will
depend on the ruleset
being used.
Life/Usage Control Processes that degrade A forging die is run for a Section
over time where the predetermined number of 5.5
useful life or usage is cycles before being removed
known. Limits to for refurbishment/disposal.
operation (time or The life and die change are
number of cycles) will be managed to coincide with
set conservatively to batch changes.
avoid nonconformances.
Cutting tools with known
Typical reaction: wear characteristics are run
for a specific cutting time.
The operator may be
The tool life is electronically
provided with a machine
monitored by the Computer
cycle counter. The
Numerical Control program
reaction is to change the
to prevent overuse.
item that has reached its
life limit at that point.
If cutting tool usage is
monitored electronically,
the machine may be
programmed with
control criteria, e.g.,
programmed not to
allow further use of the
tool after a certain
number of cycles or
hours use.
13
See
Attribute Control Charts For monitoring quality Inspectors counting solder Section
levels of product or defects on a printed circuit 5.6
process attributes where board use a chart that
the output is based on monitors the number of
counts (typically defects) defects per board. When a
or classification special cause is detected,
(typically defectives). the soldering process owner
Used for recognizing is informed and investigates
changes in quality level the cause of the issue. The
due to special causes of charts are reviewed by the
variation. operations management to
identify opportunities for
Typical reaction:
improvement, and to confirm
Similar to Variable results of improvement
Control Charts. The initiatives.
action may be to stop
the affected process or
to investigate and
resolve the problem.
Visual Process Check and Checklist Checking process A forging die is periodically Section
attributes and recording examined by an operator for 5.7
them as meeting the evidence of damage, wear,
requirements to run the or scoring. The operator
process. uses a checklist to record the
result of the check.
Typical reaction:
An operator of a process with
If the checklist cannot
a lengthy setup operation
be completed, action will
uses a checklist to confirm
be taken to correct the
each step of an operation is
gap. The process is not
completed before running the
started. The execution
machine. The checklist may
of the process check
also include safety items.
should be audited for
compliance.
First Piece Check To validate the setup A Coordinate Measuring Section

and quality of a process Machine check of the first 5.8
prior to the production part in a batch of parts off a
run. forming press is performed
following change of press
Typical reaction:
tooling. If the part meets the
If the criteria applied to requirements, the process is
the first-piece check are allowed to run, and is then
not met, the reason for controlled using other
the failure will be Process Control Methods
investigated. Once during the production run.
corrective action has
been implemented the
first-piece check will be
repeated to validate the
setup. Any activity of
this kind should be
documented for
traceability.
14
See
Test Piece evaluation Commonly used along A piece of test material Section
with process parameter processed along with a 5.9
control to provide batch of carburized gears in
validation of product a heat treatment cycle is
quality. Typically, a tested in a laboratory.
destructive examination.
Tensile strength destructive
examination of a test
It should be noted that a
specimen used in a heat
destructive examination
exchanger vacuum braze
processed with a batch
process.
of material is more
inspection than control;
so it needs to be used
along with effective
process input control.
Typical reaction:
For a test specimen that
does not meet
specifications upon the
test conducted, the
Reaction Plan will
typically instruct the test
operator to engage the
appropriate engineer
(e.g., Materials, Quality
or Manufacturing
Engineer) who will
investigate the cause of
the failure (process
parameter inputs,
furnace run schedule,
etc.) as for clues to why
the test specimen failed
to meet the test. The
product will be
quarantined.
4.2 A Note on Automation
Process Control Methods can be incorporated using automation to add reliability and access to information at
the earliest possible opportunity (e.g., in-cycle machine/part probing, automatic process compensations).
5. PROCESS CONTROL METHODS FURTHER EXPLANATION
5.1 Error/Mistake Proofing
Error proofing is the use of an automatic device or method that either makes error impossible or makes its
occurrence immediately apparent. Error proofing should be chosen when the process is at risk of human error.
The process risk analysis (PFMEA) should identify where human error is a potential cause of failure, where it
has a high impact (severity) or may not be easily detected (detection). Safety related risks often require mistake
proofed solutions.
Error proofing devices can take four forms. The hierarchy of these is:
1. Elimination - design the product or process hardware/software in such a way that an error is not possible.
2. Control - prevent an error being made by detecting it before it has an effect.
15
3. Signal - provide an immediate and obvious warning to prevent or highlight an error.
4. Facilitation - methods of guidance that make error less likely or will catch it.
NOTE: Error proofing methods are not industry specific. Some industrial sectors have a particularly well
developed mistake-proofing culture often extending into product as well as process design. The
automotive industry is very well known for its use of error proofing both from the manufacturing
processes to the operation of the final product.
Examples:
• Guide Pins used to assure a one-way fit of a tool, fixture, or part to prevent incorrect orientation.
• An alarm used to alert an operator that a machine cycle has been attempted with a misaligned tool. The
operator can take action to correct the problem.
• A limit switch used to detect correct placement of a work piece.
• Counters can be used to help an operator track the correct number of components needed in an assembly.
• A checklist used to assure all key steps are completed by the operator to prevent missing something that
could cause an escape and/or defect. This approach is also described further in Section 5.7 - Visual Process
Check & Checklist.
• Use of machine probing as either a control during manufacturing to check a size before final cut or as a
signal after final cut to detect an anomaly or identify that an adjustment may be needed.
• Use of a Stopper Gate (physical barrier) affixed to a Fan Compressor assembly fixture to ensure an oil fill
tube is installed in the correct port when there are multiple ports to choose from.
• Asymmetrical design of a nameplate that assures it is installed in only one possible orientation preventing
backwards or upside down installation.
• A left/right two button hand operated system with foot switch operation to ensure hands are free prior to
cycling a forging press.
• Automated weighing of a part or batch to ensure part is completely processed or batch is complete and
present before moving to the next operation.
To ensure error proofing devices are robust, it is good practice to check that the failure of the device does not
cause a problem (test to see what happens if the device fails to detect the error). Depending on the result (and
the criticality of failure), revisit the design and maintenance requirements of the device and improve it.
If it is not possible to have an automated error proofing device, some of the other methods included in this
standard may offer an adequate level of protection.
For further reading on the subject of Error/Mistake-Proofing the following may be referred to:
“Poka-Yoke,” by Productivity Press, ISBN 0-915299-31-3
“Mistake-Proofing for Operators: The ZQC System,” by Productivity Press, ISBN 1-56327-127-3
5.2 Control Charts for Variable Data
A control chart is a tool used to monitor and visually assess the behavior of a process over time. The control
chart shows process data and ‘control limits’ which provide an approximation of the natural range of the process
due to ‘common causes’ of variation. These limits (and other tests) are then used to detect abnormal events
and trends (‘special causes’ of variation). The response to common cause issues and special cause issues are
typically different, making the correct choice of approach important.
16
• Response to special causes of variation should be to immediately respond and investigate their cause.
Provided the process was previously ‘in control’ the question is usually one of understanding what has
changed.
• If common cause variation is behind the issue, then the fundamentals of the process should be understood,
and the process changed to improve its capability.
The ‘control limits’ are derived using the process data and not product or process tolerances, thus minimizing
the risk of responding in the wrong way (such as missing a signal to investigate or adjusting the process when
it was not needed).
Assuming the process is capable the control chart will allow special causes of variation to be detected even if
the data fall within the specification limits, meaning problems can be recognized earlier than if traditional
inspection methods were used.
Control Chart
Special Cause event 1
Upper Control Limit

Data Value
_
Average
Lower Control Limit
1 8 15 22 29 36 43 50 57 64 71
Observation
Figure 8 - A Control Chart
This section outlines four recognized control charts for variable data and provides guidance as to when they
may be used. The list is not exhaustive. There are many more types of control charts not covered here that may
be used for specific situations.
Figure 9 and Table 2 outline the basis for variable control chart selection.
17
Figure 9 - Variable Control Chart Selection
Table 2 - Variable Control Charts
Chart Its Use

Monitoring and control of characteristics on products being produced at a volume where
typically a sample (subgroup) will be taken periodically to maintain quality.
Example: From a high volume process, five parts per hour are sampled from the line and
measured. The average and range is plotted to understand if the process has changed (due
to moving off target or through an increase in variation).
Can also be used for multiple similar products where it can used to plot ‘deviation from
Xbar and R target’ thus avoiding the need for multiple charts.
Xbar and S The X bar chart displays the average of the subgroup. The R or S chart displays the
variation within the subgroup (either the Range or Standard Deviation).
An X-Bar and R chart is used for subgroups of 3 to 8.
An X-Bar and S chart is used when subgroup size exceeds 8.
NOTE: The variation within the subgroups is assumed to be representative of the overall
variation (no between batch effects expected). When this assumption is not met the process
may appear out of control when in fact it is not. Consult an experienced practitioner if this
appears to be the case.
Monitoring and control of characteristics on individual products being produced from

continuous processes at a rate where subgrouping of data is not feasible.
Monitoring and control of process characteristics.
Individual Can also be used for short run applications where there is product mix with similar
and characteristics (may be known as part families). In this situation the variability for all parts
Moving should be similar; used to monitor part families.
Range
The Individuals chart displays the actual measured value (or deviation from target).
(I-MR or
X-MR) The Moving Range chart plots the difference between consecutive points (short-term
variation).
NOTE: The variation from item to item is assumed to be representative of the overall
process variation (no batching effects or systemic drifts/wear expected). When this
assumption is not met the process may appear out of control when in fact it is stable.
Consult a process control specialist if this appears to be the case.
18
Chart Its Use

I-MR-R/S Characteristics where the variation within the subgroup is not representative of the overall
variation between them, usually the case when monitoring processes with ‘batching’ effects
or multiple characteristics (a group of identical features) within a part are studied where the
Xbar-MR- assumptions for an Xbar/R or S chart are not met.
R/S
The subgroup average is plotted on the Xbar chart.
The variation between consecutive subgroup averages is plotted on the Moving Range
Also chart.
known as
The Variation within the subgroup is plotted on the R or S chart.
Between/
NOTE: Higher subgroup sizes may lead to higher sensitivity to ‘special causes’ on R and S
Within
charts. Expected patterns within parts and batches can sometimes show signals that have
control
no practical significance. Guidance may be sought from an experienced SPC practitioner if
chart or
this appears to be the case.
‘Three
Way’ chart
There are eight industry standard tests for statistical control; to determine if the process data contains evidence
of special causes of variation.
A process can be judged to be in statistical control (i.e., only common causes of variation present) when there
is an absence of the patterns shown in Figure 11. An example of a stable process is shown in Figure 10. It
should be noted when seeking to improve a process that the more tests used, the more signals will be detected.
It may be worth using a selected few when starting out using control charts.
For process control purposes manufacturers often select the most appropriate tests for the process being
operated, taking into account the actions that would be needed when they occur. Tests most frequently used
by operators are Tests 1 and 5 (Figure 11), however, software applications make the use of all tests relatively
simple.
I-MR Chart of 'in control' process.

UCL
Individual Value
_
X
LCL
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28
Observation
UCL
Moving Range
__
MR
LCL=0
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28
Observation
Figure 10 - Process Showing No Signs of Special Cause Variation
19
Figure 11 - Tests for Special Cause Variation
5.3 Run Charts with Non-Statistical Limits
Some processes have characteristics that naturally drift in a certain direction as the process runs (i.e., the drift
is a ‘common cause’ in the process). These processes when viewed on commonly used control charts tend to
break tests for special cause long before the drift becomes a meaningful issue. Operation of traditional statistical
control limits may then provide little benefit when compared to the characteristics’ ‘loss function’ and the cost
and other implications of adjustment or reset. The more frequently the process is sampled the smaller the
differences between measurements, which tends to exacerbate the issue.
Processes where this behavior may exist naturally are chemical etching (concentration changes), investment
casting slurry control (through evaporation) and in some cases machining cutting tools (if they exhibit significant
wear/drift with use).
An approach to manage this variation is to set limits on a time series chart. This limit will be set such that it
detects drifts to avoid problems, but not so soon as it becomes uneconomic to adjust. This type of control is
generally only useful when operated at the process rather than at an end of line inspection.
With appropriately set limits this method can be used effectively to control quality even using simpler
measurement systems than downstream measurement equipment such as a CMM.
The following six step approach can be used:
1. Determine the variable to be monitored.
2. If the variable is an input or process variable, study, and quantify its relationship to the process outputs.
3. Establish the optimal process limits to be applied. In most cases this should be done using process data, to
best ensure the limits are not too wide to allow a non-conformance.
20
4. Establish the adjustment to be made when the limit is reached. For example, this may be to adjust towards
a lower limit, or an optimal setting, or in the case of a cutting tool, replace it. This reaction will be documented
in the Control Plan and process instructions.
5. Operate the process and plot the measurements.
6. If the process limit is reached, adjust/set the process (see step 4). Confirm the adjustment has had the
desired effect. If so continue. If not take action to understand why.
Figure 12 demonstrates how a chart of this type may be used. The process drifts upwards so a lower limit is not
discussed within this example (for simplicity). It may, however, be wise to have one to mitigate other risks.
Diameter
1 0.075
USL = 1 0.065
1 0.050
Process Limit = 1 0.04
When limit is
1 0.025 reached process
is reset to 'process
Diameter
set-point'
1 0.000
9.975
Process set-point = 9.96

9.950
LSL = 9.935
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Index
Figure 12 - Run Chart with Non-Statistical Limits
Process improvements can be made using the data from the run chart, for example in the following ways:
• Use process data and related process output to determine tighter reaction limits.
• Incorporation of automatic adjustments to the process to tighten the adjustment interval. This will decrease
the spread between the limits.
• Make changes to the process or tools that decrease the rate of change of the process variable being
controlled.
• Optimize the initial location for the process to increase the time between adjustments.
Features controlled in the way described should typically have a relatively flat ‘loss function’ when compared to
the cost of reset or adjustment. The designer should be consulted where implications of process drift is not
understood.
21
Process Capability
Processes with systematic drift and infrequent ‘large adjustments’ may produce distorted capability analysis.
There are two reasons for this.
1. The within subgroup range is typically small relative to the overall variation, resulting in Cp metrics being
overly optimistic and not representative of the spread of the process.
2. The distribution of the data may not fit a distribution well enough to make accurate capability predictions.
Both Cp and Pp derived capability may be inaccurate and alternative methods (e.g., non-normal methods
such as Johnson Transformation, Box-Cox Transformation (see Section 7. Guidance for Non-Normal Data)
may be required. If these methods do not help, then the process performance may need to be characterized
by other means.
5.4 Pre-Control Charts
5.4.1 Background
Pre-Control is a method for monitoring and controlling the process within specification limits. It may be
particularly useful when applied to process outputs or parameters that have a tendency to drift but for which the
process is not overly sensitive to small changes. For example, a measurement taken on a ground feature where
the grinding wheel wears over time.
Pre-Control may also be useful where it is important to maintain a capable process centered or ‘on target’, when
detection of process ‘special causes’ are less important.
NOTE: The use of Pre-Control dates back to the 1950s. The merits of its use are often debated, with some
favoring and some opposing its use. There are definitely valid arguments for and against which should
be considered.
Pre-Control uses a chart that monitors items by classifying the measurements into colored zones (Red, Yellow,
or Green). Decisions are made whether to adjust or stop the process based on where in these zones the
measurements lie.
The advantages of Pre-Control are its simplicity and that it drives behavior towards on-target thinking.
NOTE: It is commonplace for the bands to be set as follows (see Figure 13):
• Green - the central 50% of the tolerance band (or 50% tolerance around a specific target).
• Yellow - outer quartiles (or remainder) of the tolerance band.
• Red - outside the tolerance.
Where tolerance is unilateral, the chart will have a single green, yellow, and red zone (see Figure 14).
5.4.2 Method
Following setup, a qualification phase runs according to a predefined ruleset to ensure the process is ‘on target’.
Typically, qualification is passed after five consecutive units are produced in the green zone.
Three styles of Pre-Control exist:
1. Classical Pre-Control: Rules based around sampling two consecutive items periodically from a production
run:
• Single item in Yellow - continue to run (but check subsequent item).
• Both items in Yellow - stop and investigate. Correct the process.
• Single item in Red - stop and investigate. Correct the process.
22
2. Two Stage Pre-Control: Based on a single item being sampled periodically.
• A single measurement in the yellow zone triggers measurement of additional items.
• A single Red will trigger process to be stopped and corrected.
3. Modified Pre-Control:
• A standard control chart with colored zones applied as described for Classical Precontrol (but to
control limits, not tolerances).
With the exception of modified Pre-control, the limits and rules are not statistically derived. Opponents argue
there is a risk of process tampering (over-control), if applying Pre-Control to an incapable process; or missing
special causes that would be detected by statistical control charts. It is therefore not advisable to use Pre-
Control on processes with poor capability or in situations where small changes in process need to be
recognized.
Figure 13 - Pre-Control Chart for Bilateral Tolerance
Figure 14 - Pre-Control Chart for Unilateral Tolerance
NOTE: If analyzing the capability of a process that uses Pre-Control methods, a statistical control chart should
be constructed to ensure the process is stable prior to analysis of capability and communication of
capability indices such as Cp/Cpk.
Despite the concern of an unstable process on capability, a measure of goodness such as extended period in
green zone on a Pre-Control Chart may serve as satisfactory evidence of capability to meet customer
requirements if the customer permits this. This is more likely for minor characteristics than for KCs or special
characteristics such as those categorized as Major or Critical.
For further reading on the subject of Pre-Control refer to Implementing Six Sigma (2nd Edition) - Breyfogle 2003.
ISBN 0-471-26572-1).
5.4.3 Pre-Control Example
An aerospace manufacturer produces a Fuel Air Bracket (see Figure 15) with a key feature having an
engineering tolerance of 0.386 ± 0.005 inches. The central 50% of the total tolerance (±0.0025 inches) defines
the green zone.
23
KEY
Figure 15 - Fuel Air Bracket Example
The engineer defines the zones on the Pre-Control chart. The edges of the green zone are known as Upper
and Lower Pre-Control limits (UPC and LPC).
UPC limit = 0.386 + 0.0025 = 0.3885 inches.
LPC limit = 0.386 - 0.0025 = 0.3835 inches.
The control method selected is two stage Pre-Control.
Set-Up Procedure
Following successful setup, the process operator runs five parts and records the dimensions of the features
being controlled. If all five parts fall within the green zone on the Pre-Control chart (UPC = 0.3885 inches and
LPC = 0.3835 inches) the setup is judged to be targeted properly and sample measurements are taken at a
frequency of 20% (check every 5th part). This measurement frequency is for the purpose of maintaining process
control and does not relate to product inspection frequency.
Executing the Pre-Control Monitoring Technique
The 10th piece comes up for inspection. It has a measured value of 0.387 inches. This is within the Pre-Control
(UPC and LPC) limits, and the operator continues with production. The next piece to be inspected is the 15th.
Its measurement is 0.3854 inches, well within the Pre-Control limits so the operator continues. The 20th part
measures 0.3892 inches. This value is outside the UPC limit. The reaction plan referenced in the Control Plan
determines that the operator now measures the next part produced, in this case the 21st. This part measures
0.3867 inches, again outside the UPC limit. The operator stops the process and investigates according to the
prescribed reaction plan.
Pre-Control Rule 1: If the measured value is within the green zone (Pre-Control limits UPC and LPC) the
operator may continue to check every 5th part (apply a 20% monitoring frequency).
Pre-Control Rule 2: When two consecutive measured values fall outside the same Pre-Control limit (UPC and
LPC), the operator should react making an appropriate process adjustment. The reaction plan reference in the
Control Plan (refer to AS13004) should describe the actions required.
Pre-Control Rule 3: When one measurement violates one Pre-Control limit and the following part violates the
opposite Pre-Control limit, the variability may have increased. The operator should investigate the cause
engaging support if needed (e.g., Quality/Manufacturing Engineer). The reaction plan referenced in the Control
Plan (refer to RM13004) should describe the actions required.
5.5 Life/Usage Control
Processes may have factors that are dynamic in nature and change through use or over time. Such processes
may require control methods that prevent the process (or its factors) reaching a condition that will adversely
affect the product of the process. Such controls can be placed on, e.g., chemicals, wearable items such as
cutting tools, and other consumables.
24
The control criteria for life/usage controls may be defined in many ways. Control is often not simply a question
of ‘how old’. Examples of control criteria are: number of parts processed, total running time, number of cycles,
once opened use by date, weight of parts processed and surface area processed.
Examples of control application include:
• A cutting tool has a maximum operating time. The tool life is recorded on a machine readable chip. The
machine program includes code that checks the life of the tool prior to use. When cutting tips are replaced
and the tool is set a pre-setting operation resets the readable chip to zero.
• A peening operation has media that is controlled based on the total equipment running time. A timer is
installed on the equipment to indicate how close the process is to a media change. In addition to this method
of control, the process also has assessment for media quality and uses test pieces to qualify the process
for correct operation.
• The concentration of a chemical etch bath is routinely maintained with an auto-dosing system. However,
once a month the entire system is emptied, cleaned out, and refilled. To keep the planning of this control
simple this is done at a defined time regardless of use - for example the morning of the first Monday in every
month.
A life/usage limit may also incorporate a check and reset. For example, a wearable item may be tested after a
number of cycles and found to have not reached a point where change is required. The tool may be returned
for use for a defined number of cycles. It should be noted that this does not imply the tool will be run to the point
of failure.
The life/usage limits should ideally be determined to maximize the process quality. Statistical studies and
experiments will allow the life to be optimized for other factors such as cost. These studies may be performed
on test pieces and scaled to the production process. The life/usage limits should be validated however usually
at process qualification.
NOTE: These guidelines and examples do not replace specific process standards or customer requirements
that may exist to govern the life/usage controls.
5.6 Control Charts for Attribute Data
Attributes are characteristics, or conditions characterized as present or not-present or counted, typically through
some form of inspection or check. A number of charts may be used depending on the attribute being studied.
NOTE: Process control via attributes is less effective than variable methods. Some checking methods may
provide attribute data despite being variable in their nature. An example is a hole size, that may be
checked via variable methods or attribute (e.g., plug gauge). If an attribute method were selected based
on its speed and simplicity, it should be on the basis that the process is proven capable, because an
attribute go/no-go gauge will not give early warning of emerging issues, the way a variable gauge does.
A robust control strategy in the case of hole size may be to use a variable tool measurement device
such as a presetter to assure the quality of the tool, and an attribute style plug gauge as a quick
conformance check but with a periodic sample taken from production for variable measurement.
Figure 16 and Table 3 outline the basis for attribute control chart selection.
25
Figure 16 - Attribute Control Chart Selection
Table 3 - Attribute Control Charts
Control Type
Scenario When to Use (which chart) Example
A process that Appropriate: P Chart Plot the monthly percent defective
observes discrete rate of a critical supplier; plot the
values, such as When it is important to control Plot the percent On Time Delivery performance of a
pass/fail, go/no-go, the number or % of defects over defective - critical supplier.
present/absent, or a given time period, lot to lot, or classifying product
conforming/non- unit to unit such as measuring as good or bad with
conforming. improvement over time, when changing or
go/no-go gauges are employed constant subgroup
For example, a circuit or when visual inspections are size.
card could consist of a used.
number of solder joints NP Chart A machining cell produces fuel
that either conform or Not Appropriate:
control valves in standard lot sizes
do not conform to a Cannot be used for establishing Plot the number of 50. Final Inspection performs a
set standard. process control or process defective - 100% inspection of the product and
capability in the same way as classifying parts as plots the number of valves that are
variables data due to the scale good or bad with determined to be nonconforming.
not being continuous. Measures constant subgroup
of performance and stability can size.
be undertaken with a view to
directing improvement activities, C Chart An aerospace manufacturer
but true process control needs produces one type of heat
Plot the count of exchanger for a customer. After
to be done through process
defects based vacuum braze a leak check is
variables, inputs, and
where the same performed. A C chart is used to
foundational activities.
area of opportunity plot the number of leaks requiring
Not appropriate for rare events. (constant subgroup weld repair.
size) exists.
U Chart An aerospace manufacturer

operating Production Part Approval
Plot Defects Per Process (PPAP) tracks the DPU on
Unit (DPU) based a monthly basis for all the
on counts and inspected PPAP packages. An
varying or constant accompanying Pareto Diagram
area of opportunity suggests the categories driving the
(changing or
DPU rate are poor PFMEAs, part
constant subgroup marking errors and poorly written
size) the defects Control Plans. Projects are
come from. established to address these
issues in order to reduce the
overall DPU rate shown on the
Uchart.
26
Examples:
P Chart Example:
P Chart of Defective(%)
0.09
UCL=0.08423
0.08
0.07
0.06
Proportion
0.05
0.04
0.03
_
P=0.022
0.02
0.01
0.00 LCL=0
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28
Sample (N=50)
Figure 17 - P Chart of Defectives
Example: The non-conformities from a series of batches of 50 parts are monitored by the manufacturer on a P-
Chart (Figure 17). The manufacturer observes an overall defective rate of 2.2%. The manufacturer concludes
from the control chart that - despite the variability from batch to batch - the rate of defectives is statistically stable
over time.
P Chart of % Yield
1 .00 1 1
1 1 1
0.95
UCL=0.9429
Proportion
0.90 _
P=0.8873
0.85
LCL=0.8317
1 1
1 1
0.80
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34
Sample
Tests are performed with unequal sample sizes.
Figure 18 - P Chart with Varying Sample Sizes
27
Example: A manufacturer monitors the yield % in their goods produced per week on a P Chart (Figure 18). The
weekly output varies. The manufacturer concludes that the process yield is not stable over time and seeks to
understand the cause of the ‘bad’ weeks.
C Chart Example:
C Chart of Visual defects per period

1
20
15
UCL=13.08
Sample Count
10
_
C=5.83
5
2 2
2
2
0 LCL=0
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28
Sample
Figure 19 - C Chart
Example: A manufacturer produces a similar quantity of product each day. The number of defects noted from a
visual inspection area is plotted on a C Chart (Figure 19) in order to understand the process performance and
behavior over time. In this case the supplier notes a run of improved performance between days 12 and 22, and
an increase in defects on day 30. In reaction to the defect rate on day 30 the manufacturer launches a problem
solving activity.
NOTE: The use of NP charts and U charts are not illustrated in this document. Implementing Six Sigma -
Breyfogle 2003. ISBN 0-471-26572-1 may be referred to for explanation and examples of their use.
The tests for special causes of variation for attribute control charts are as follows:
• One or more points beyond a control limit.
• A run of eight or more points on the same side of the center line.
• Six points in a row increasing or decreasing.
• Fourteen points in a row alternating up and down.
It is considered good practice to use a Pareto chart to support attribute methods to allow further prioritization
and insight on the defects/defectives within the attributes plotted.
Assumptions for Attribute Charts
Attribute control charts have assumptions that need to be met in order for the chart to function correctly. If these
assumptions are not met, then the control limits for the chart may be incorrect.
A C chart works best with a minimum average defect rate per subgroup of approximately 4, and a minimal
number of zero values. Where this is not met the chart’s usefulness will be compromised.
28
The calculations for the control limits for a C chart are based on the Poisson distribution.
A P Chart and NP Chart assume that the defectives are randomly dispersed and independent. In situations
where defectives are generated in clusters the limits generated may be too narrow to reliably represent the
common cause variation of the process.
The calculations for the control limits for the P Chart are based on the binomial distribution.
Use of Variable Methods for Attributes
In some scenarios, attribute data may be monitored quite adequately using variables control charts. For
example, the Right First Time measure of a manufacturing operation whilst based on an attribute (good/bad),
may be expressed as a ratio and plotted on a simple individual’s control chart. In many cases an Individuals
chart is simpler to interpret and construct than attributes charts. Also of consideration is the sample sizes used,
that when large may result in tighter control limits that result in the majority of data showing as ‘out of control
especially when defective items occur naturally in clusters. The individual’s chart may help put the process in a
better perspective.
A Note on Rare Events
For rare/infrequent events, attribute control charts can give less definitive results. The absence of
events/defects/failures for example will have an adverse effect on the control limits and averages. In these
cases, a time between failures may be a more useful measure to track. Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) is
a commonly used measure of equipment reliability for example.
C Chart of failures per day

1 .2
UCL=1.049
1 .0
0.8
Sample Count
0.6
0.4
0.2
_
C=0.1
0.0 LCL=0
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91
Sample
Figure 20 - C Chart
29
Example - A manufacturer plots the failures of a machine tool, counting how many failures were experienced
over a 100 day period (Figure 20). The chart is not very informative.
Individuals chart of time between failures

18
16 UCL=16.27
14
12
Individual Value
10
_
8 X=7.7
0
LCL=-0.87
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Observation
Figure 21 - Individuals Control Chart
Example: The manufacturer plots the time between failures for the data on an Individuals chart (Figure 21). The
chart is much more informative. The average days between failures of 7.7 days and the control limits can help
guide the manufacturer on equipment reliability and maintenance activity planning.
5.7 Visual Process Check and Checklist
A visual process check provides positive confirmation of goodness either prior to allowing a process to run, or
during its operation.
The process checks need to become part of routine operation. The personnel conducting the check will ideally
understand the importance of the check and also understand the reaction if the check fails against the criteria.
In many cases the check will confirm that a particular step of the sequence has been done correctly.
The checks may be conducted by a single person, however on important items or high consequence failure
items the method may use two persons who jointly confirm that the correct condition is achieved. An example
of this approach is the standard pre-flight checks that are undertaken by pilot and co-pilot when preparing for a
flight. One pilot calls out the check, the other performs the check and confirms as correct, and then the first
records the check on a checklist before proceeding.
An example is shown in Figure 22.
To increase robustness, a “double scrutiny” and/or “buddy check” may involve two personnel to positively
confirm an action or result of a check; or the check may be performed by someone independent of the operation.
A single person check may have some inherent risks of error. A preferred approach is automation or error
proofing devices, (see Section 5.1 - Error/Mistake Proofing). Prior to finalizing the check, it is advisable to
confirm the PFMEA risk level - as the method of control relates to the detection score in the PFMEA (refer to
RM13004 for guidance).
30
Pre-Operation Process Checklist

Note to operator: Use this checklist prior to execution of the process operation and sign off each item
below.
Part No: 123456-78 Process operation number: 110
Run date: 08/12/2016 Process step name: Machine air holes
in Fuel/Air
bracket
Check Check item Result of Reaction (if Fail) Sign off
item check (initial and date)
number (Pass/Fail)
1 Health/Safety check Stop and isolate
equipment. Contact cell
leader
2 Work instructions are Contact Manufacturing
latest version Engineer - obtain
instructions
3 Machine asset care Raise issue with cell leader
checks complete and
correct
4 Gages in calibration Contact Quality engineer
5 Fixture damage check Contact Manufacturing
Engineer
6 CNC programme correct Contact Manufacturing
(as per instruction) Engineer
7 FOD check Raise issue with cell leader
8 Etc.
Figure 22 - Process Checklist Format Example
5.8 First Piece Check
The objective of a first piece check is to validate the set-up and quality of a process prior to the full production
run. Alongside other controls it serves to verify and confirm the integrity of the production system (man, machine,
fixture, tool, NC program, etc.) at a point in time, and hence to avoid economic damage of non-conformance
(through timely action to ensure process conformance).
Prerequisite to a first piece check should be the adherence and confirmation that all other foundational control
requirements are met (e.g., calibration, machine tool diagnostics, tooling within prescribed life limits, acceptable
parameter settings, consumables level, etc.) typically approved through positive confirmation (see Section 5.7).
As a general rule, all manufacturing processes can be subject to first piece inspection.
It may be called out in a control strategy:
• Whenever a new production lot is started.
• Following maintenance/repairs of measurement systems and production equipment, as well as after

software updates of production equipment control systems.
• At a defined interval (e.g., at the start of each shift).
• When tools used to produce the component contour are replaced (e.g., diamond rolls, profiled
grinding/cutting wheels, etc.).
31
First-piece checking/inspection may be independent from the production method in a number of ways:
• Inspection by an operator other than the person having performed the operation (two person rule); thus,
avoiding risks due to bias and other human factors.
• Inspection using another inspection tool or inspection method (where possible); thus avoiding/highlighting
measurement discrepancies.
If independent inspection is to be used the method should be at least as good as the production method, free
from bias and have adequate resolution to make the decisions valid. Tighter limits may apply to first piece
checks, and this should be considered when evaluating such measurement equipment.
In order that the process is correctly judged as sufficiently good to continue additional criteria may be applied.
Such criteria should have a rational and/or scientific basis for its application. For instance, a process capability
study or designed experiments.
Example 1: A machined dimension with a known adequate level of capability, achieved at first part check may
be deemed sufficient if within 50% of process tolerance; a measurement close to normal limits of operation may
result in adjustment and further measurement to bring the process on target.
Example 2: A process with a tendency towards upward drift may have a zone in the lower region of the
specification band that provides a standard for process acceptance of the first item. Continued conformity as
the process drifts naturally through use is provided by a tool life/usage control. The zone has been determined
through a previous tool wear study. If the measurement is outside this zone, the operator refers to a process
guidance document (referenced in the Control Plan) to determine appropriate action (e.g., tool replacement, or
adjustment to the tool life/usage standard).
A first piece check strategy may extend to multiple parts - depending on process risk and behavior. For example,
a very large batch of parts, a rapidly cycling process or high cost parts may require inspection of the first five
parts (Pre-Control may be beneficial (see Section 5.4)).
It is good practice to require formal record keeping for approval of first piece checks (e.g., a signature, and/or
countersignature/inspection report).
NOTE: The method should be used in conjunction with other methods to make the control strategy robust to
variations that may occur as production continues.
NOTE: First Piece Check should not be confused with First Article Inspection (FAI). For further information in
FAI, refer to AS9102.
5.9 Test Piece Evaluation
Some characteristics and properties that are created or changed through processing may not be directly
measurable other than through destructive or damaging testing. Use of test pieces processed alongside the
product may help to determine the result of the process and also its stability. These test pieces are tested
following processing to validate the products of the process and/or confirm the effectiveness of the other process
controls.
Such processes should be highly controlled through process parameter controls and monitoring and may be
categorized as ‘fixed processes’ or ‘special processes’ often with regulatory control requirements.
A test piece/coupon should be to a defined standard (thus minimizing the variation in the test material itself).
In some instances a test piece may be operated within a first piece check to qualify the process setup prior to
the full production run (see Section 5.8).
Examples of processes that use representative test pieces include the following:
• Heat treatment operations
• Surface treatment operations such as shot peening
32
Examples of evaluation of test pieces include:
• Mechanical property testing using test bars
• Surface contamination coupons in heat treat or thermal processes
• Coupons determining material removal rates in etch and electro-polish processes
• Cast coupons determining chemical analysis of parts from melts
• A forging that has extra material outside the finished part envelope that will be removed for testing
Once a result has been obtained from a test piece the result can be analyzed with a variety of process control
tools such as control charts (variable and attribute) and run charts.
Acceptance of process results by the use of test specimens or coupons is typically approved and agreed to by
the customer.
NOTE: There may be regulatory, customer, product specifications, and other requirements that address the
extent to which test piece evaluation, or requirements are permissible and established as part of
process qualification. Equivalence between test piece and physical product should be understood.
6. PROCESS CAPABILITY INDICES
Process Capability is the ability of a process/product to consistently meet a specification or customer

requirement.
Various indices are computed to assess the Process Capability of a given product characteristic.
The definition and calculation of these is often misunderstood and thus misinterpreted. The methods described
within this section are based on recognized industry methods. Software tools such as Minitab calculate
capability in line with these methods and additionally cater for some specific scenarios that exist such as batch
processing where information may be sought about the capability both within and between batches of
production.
Process Capability can be assessed for Variable and Attribute data.
6.1 Fundamentals for Variable data
At the heart of capability for variable data, is the need to manage process variation and location to align with
customer specification to ensure that requirements can be continually met.
Variability of the process is calculated through statistical methods; these methods aim to anticipate the total
process variation rather than just the range seen in the data collected for the capability study. A process spread
of six standard deviations is used to represent this spread. This six standard deviation range theoretically covers
99.73% of the area under a normal distribution curve. Data is assumed to be normally distributed (symmetrical,
bell shaped).
Many processes have a tendency - even naturally - to periodic drift or shift. Therefore, borderline capability is
not desirable for either supplier or customer. A capability of 1.33 is often seen as a minimum to assure continued
conformance while allowing for minor process drift. However, depending on the process, a higher level of
capability may be required. Products with large numbers of characteristics that cannot be controlled
independently may require some additional margin for small drifts that may occur through production.
For any capability calculation to be reliable, it is important that the process be in a state of statistical control thus
behaving in a predictable manner - otherwise any perceived goodness may be short-lived. It is possible for a
process with a ‘good’ capability index to be producing non-conforming product if a state of control is not reached.
Process stability is therefore a prerequisite to capability calculation.
33
Capability Indices Cp and Pp
Cp and Pp indices are simply a ratio of specification width to process variation thus calculating the ‘potential of
the process if centered’. The indices increase if variation is reduced. A Cp or Pp of exactly 1.0 indicates that six
standard-deviations of process variation match the width of the specification. Such a process if centralized within
the specification would be intolerant to even minor drift over time. Not an ideal situation.
LSL USL
Tolerance = USL - LSL
6σ
Figure 23 - Process Capability Index Cp/Pp
The process shown in Figure 23 has a Cp or Pp>1. The process is less variable than allowed by the
specification.
Cp and Pp use different methods for estimating process variability. Cp uses ranges of the data within subgroups
(or difference between individual values) to estimate the process variation. A statistical constant d2 is used to
adjust for the subgroup size. This method estimates the standard deviation of the process rather than calculating
by the more involved ‘root sum of squares’ method (which is used to calculate Pp).
The average range over d2 method generates the estimate denoted by sigma hat (Equation 1).
(Eq. 1)
The root sum of squares method generates the standard deviation denoted by s (see Equation 2).
∑𝑛𝑛
𝑖𝑖=1(𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 −𝑥𝑥̅ )
2
𝑠𝑠 = � (Eq. 2)
𝑛𝑛−1
Cp is typically used to assess short term (within subgroup) capability whereas Pp is used to assess longer term
(overall) capability.
34
These are incorporated into the formulae (Equations 3 and 4) as follows:
(Eq. 3)
(Eq. 4)
For a stable continuous process behaving in a random manner, Cp, and Pp calculations can be expected to
deliver similar values.
Capability Indices Cpk and Ppk
In order to estimate the likely performance - against a specification - of the process Cpk and Ppk indices are
used. These indices are similar ratios to Cp and Pp but additionally take into account the process location.
Cpl and Cpu, and Ppl and Ppu measure capability against each of the specification limits. The ‘l’ and ‘u’ indices
will be equal only if the process is centered. The Cpk or Ppk is the smaller of the upper and lower values.
The ‘l’ and ‘u’ indices can be used to determine how the process is located relative to specifications, however,
a visual assessment of the capability histogram is usually preferred to understand this situation.
The formulae for these indices is shown (Equations 5 to 10).
(Eq. 5) (Eq. 8)
(Eq. 6) (Eq. 9)
(Eq. 7) (Eq. 10)
LSL USL
Distance to LSL Distance to USL
3σ 3σ
Figure 24 - Elements of Process Capability Index (Cpk/Ppk)
35
The process shown in Figure 24 has a Cp of approximately 1.0 but due to being too close to the upper
specification limit (with the tail of the distribution outside it) the Cpk is <1 If the process average is outside the
specification, the Cpk will be negative.
NOTE: It will not be possible to calculate Cp or Pp indices for processes with unilateral (single sided) tolerances
as the tolerance width cannot be defined. However, Cpk and Ppk can be calculated from the Cpl/Ppl or
Cpu/Ppu (whichever can be calculated).
Table 4 provides guidance on approximate expected performance levels at various levels of Process Capability.
The performance rates assume a process perfectly centered between two specification limits. This table
assumes a normal distribution.
Table 4 - Expected Performance for Cpk
CPK Sigma %YIELD REJECT RATE %YIELD REJECT RATE

Level (assumes Parts Per Million (assumes “non- Parts Per Million
“centered” (assumes “centered” centered” process with (assumes “non-centered”
process) process) 1.5 sigma shift) process with 1.5 sigma
shift)
0.50 1.5 86.64 133614 49.87 501350
0.67 2.0 95.45 45500 69.16 308417
0.80 2.4 98.36 16395 81.59 184108
1.00 3.0 99.73 2700 93.32 66811
1.20 3.6 99.97 318 98.21 17865
1.33 4.0 99.994 63 99.377 6227
1.50 4.5 99.9993 6.8 99.865 1350
1.67 5.0 99.99994 0.57 99.977 232
1.80 5.4 99.999993 0.067 99.9952 48
2.00 6.0 99.9999998 0.002 99.99966 3.4
For the Cpk and Ppk calculations in this section, the process is assumed normally distributed. If the data are
non-normal (skewed for example) alternative methods can be used (see Section 7 - Guidance for Non-Normal
Data).
NOTE: The descriptions in this section are fundamentals. Some additional methods for specific situations are
described in Section 9 - Scenarios requiring specific analysis methods.
Some characteristics may benefit from being ‘targeted’ to a particular nominal value. These are usually
characteristics that influence performance of the product, that have a loss associated with deviation from target
even within the specification. These characteristics may have additional requirements communicated by the
customer. For these types of characteristics, it is important to examine the location of the process relative to
this target. It should be noted that due to the calculation methods, high Cpk/Ppk indices do not necessarily imply
the process is on target as their calculations use the distance of the process mean to the specification limits.
The nominal location is not considered in the calculation.
A target-based process capability index (Cpm) may be used in these situations. Cpm is not covered in this RM
but is described in statistical texts and provided in statistical software applications.
Data Collection and Sample Size Considerations (Added)
A process capability index can mathematically be produced on any dataset with two samples or more. However,
the confidence one would have in the capability metric will depend on the amount of data that has been gathered
and how representative it is of the study in question.
The studies that are more likely are the initial process study and the ongoing performance study.
36
Consideration should be given to the following
• The items and the period over which the data will be collected
• The method of collection (either manual or automatic)
• The inspection method
• Interim review to act on obvious signals and trends (prior to full statistical analysis)
• Any operating instructions required
Data should be collected from production runs in time sequence at the production source or as close to it as
possible. As data is being collected, a graphical assessment may be performed to view the process behavior
and recognize where immediate actions are needed.
For initial process studies the capability study will be a short term one. The sample sizes may be as low as 20
items.
For full production run studies data should be collected over a long enough time period to represent the natural
variability over time (e.g., day to day, shift to shift, lot to lot). Typically, this should be a minimum of 30 samples.
There may be benefit in earlier calculation in situations where data collection will take considerable time. In
these situations, capability indices provide an approximation and can be refined as more data is gathered.
In situation where small lot production runs produce limited amounts of data, short run or part family approaches
may be used (see Section 9.2 - Assessing Control and Capability of Variable Data by Process or Part Family).
6.2 Process Stability in Practice
Whilst a state of perfect statistical control is desirable, it is uncommon for manufacturing processes to maintain
complete statistical control over long periods. Failure of tests for special causes can occur despite the process
being reasonably stable. The important thing is that the capability metric does allow reliable prediction of future
performance.
Therefore, some process capability analysis on processes which contain minor out of control points may be
necessary on occasions where out of control conditions are not considered to be of practical significance (looks
at whether the difference is large enough to be of value in a practical sense).
Examples include rare instances of out of control conditions and instances where control limits are broken by
negligible amounts.
Processes with points well beyond the control limits (such as beyond 4 sigma), should not be considered stable
for capability calculations.
To mitigate the effect an out of control process can have on the capability calculation, it is recommended to
calculate Ppk, since it includes all sources of variation and thus be a more reliable statistic than Cpk for overall
performance.
In situations such as these, the advice of a process control specialist should be obtained.
37
In Figure 25 there are several points beyond the control limits but looking at the capability histogram the control
limits are far from the spec limits, so using practical considerations the process control specialist could consider
it stable and recommend use of Ppk.
Figure 25 - High Capability - Practically Stable
38
In Figure 26 there are two points shown slightly beyond the control limits. The process control specialist could
consider it stable and recommend use of Ppk. In the capability histogram the red “overall” curve is a better fit
than the black “within” curve, considering the most important region to the right (closest to the spec limit),
demonstrating the value of using Ppk over Cpk.
Figure 26 - Use of Ppk
39
In Figure 27 there are points that are well beyond the control limits, so this process cannot be considered stable,
and the capability values displayed are not a good prediction of future performance.
Figure 27 - Points Well Outside Control Limits
6.3 Process Capability for Attribute Data
Process and product attribute data differs from variable data in that measurement is not done on a continuous
scale (as is usually the case for geometric requirements). For attribute data the use of indices such as Cpk or
Ppk do not make sense. However, the stability of the process can be demonstrated by control charts specific to
attribute data, and the performance against standard can be quantified in a number of ways.
It is important that the process is stable (in a state of statistical control). This is done using the appropriate
attribute control chart.
It is also important when measuring performance that the rate or proportion of defects has reached a level where
it has stabilized and is accurate. This is done by plotting the cumulative defective proportion. As more data is
collected the cumulative proportion should stabilize (flatten out) indicating enough data has been collected for
the capability assessment to be reliable.
The specific type of capability analysis will depend on the nature of the data:
• When examining performance, where the measure is proportion defective, the data is expected to follow a
binomial distribution. A binomial capability study is appropriate using a P or nP chart to assess the capability.
• If the data is measuring the number of defects per item (or group of items) the data is expected to follow a
Poisson distribution. A Poisson capability study is appropriate using a C or U chart to assess the capability.
40
Binomial Process Capability Report for Defectives

P Chart Binomial Plot
0.06 3
UCL=0.05391
Expected Defectives
0.04 2
Proportion
0.02 1
_
P=0.01190
0.00 LCL=0 0
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 0.0 1 .5 3.0
Sample Observed Defectives
Cumulative %Defective Histogram

Target
2.0 Summary Stats
(95.0% confidence) 16
%Defective: 1 .1 9
1 .5 Lower CI: 0.77
Upper CI: 1 .75 12
Target: 0.00
%Defective
Frequency
PPM Def: 1 1 905
1 .0
Lower CI: 771 9
8
Upper CI: 1 7524
Process Z: 2.2602
0.5 Lower CI: 2.1 078
4
Upper CI: 2.4220
0.0
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0.0 1 .2 2.4 3.6 4.8
Sample %Defective
Figure 28 - Binomial Capability Study
Figure 28 shows a Binomial Capability Study. The proportion defective from 35 batches of parts. The proportion
defective is stable and is running at 1.19%.
Poisson Process Capability Report for Defects

U Chart Poisson Plot
6
UCL=5.703
4.5
Sample Count Per Unit
Expected Defects
4
3.0
2 _
U=1.743 1 .5
0 LCL=0 0.0
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 0 2 4
Sample Observed Defects
Cumulative DPU Histogram

Target
Summary Stats
(95.0% confidence)
12
2.0 Mean Def: 1 .7429
Lower CI: 1 .3331
Upper CI: 2.2388 9
Frequency
1 .5
Mean DPU: 1 .7429
Lower CI: 1 .3331
DPU
Upper CI: 2.2388 6

Min DPU: 0.0000
1 .0 Max DPU: 5.0000
3
Targ DPU: 0.0000
0.5 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 1 2 3 4 5
Sample DPU
Figure 29 - Poisson Capability Study
Figure 29 shows a Poisson Capability Study. The capability is expressed as Defects Per Unit (DPU). The
capability is 1.74 DPU (represented by ῡ on the U chart shown).
NOTE: For the analysis to be effective there are some underlying assumptions with regard to the distribution
of defectives and defects within the sample. These assumptions are covered in various SPC texts. In
summary of these, the user should ensure defectives are random and independent (not occurring in
clusters). And defects or defectives within a sample subgroup are not so infrequent as to make the
analysis of stability meaningless. If this cannot be avoided then other approaches can be used for rare
events (see Section 5.6: Note on Rare Events). Subgroup size is an important consideration to ensure
the assumptions are met.
41
7. GUIDANCE FOR NON-NORMAL DATA
The capability methods discussed for variables data (in Section 6) are based on an assumption that the
underlying data distribution is Normal (i.e., follows a Normal Distribution Curve).
Where data fails to meet this assumption, capability indices can lead to wrong conclusions. For example, a
predicted defect rate may be inaccurate, or a Cpk/Ppk level may be judged to be adequate when it shouldn’t
be. In extreme cases a seemingly adequate Cpk may produce a large proportion of defects. Figure 30 shows
data following a non-normal distribution. There is a discrepancy between the observed level of non-conformance
(4%) and that expected based on an analysis that assumes normality (0.63%). This may lead to incorrect
estimates for cost of poor quality, factory flow, capacity and lead time, and related planning.
Process Capability Report for Flatness
LB USL
Overall Capability
Pp *
PPL *
PPU 0.83
Ppk 0.83
Cpm *
Potential (Within) Capability
Cp *
CPL *
CPU 0.90
Cpk 0.90
-0.06 0.00 0.06 0.1 2 0.1 8 0.24
Performance
Observed Expected Overall Expected Within
% < LB 0.00 * *
% > USL 4.00 0.63 0.33
% Total 4.00 0.63 0.33
Figure 30 - A Non-Normal Distribution
Causes of non-normality include:
• A natural skew caused by a boundary condition that cannot be exceeded (e.g., flatness, roundness, runout)
• Data are calculated from two (or more) components of variation (e.g., the true position of a hole derived
from x and y coordinates)
• A cyclic process behavior
• A process with a natural tendency to drift
• Selective or biased measurements
• Process instability - lack of control
• Lack of resolution in measurement systems or rounding
• Reworking non-conformances prior to measurement
• Human factors (e.g., purposely stopping at a maximum limit when machining down to a size)
• Two distributions being present within the data (i.e., bi-modal).
• Biasing the sample of data (e.g., selectively removing parts of certain dimensions)
42
Some of these should be addressed by investigating the process, measurement system or data sampling issue.
However, some of these causes are genuine and unavoidable and the analyst will need to find ways of using
alternative methods to assess control and capability. Further guidance follows.
Figures 31 and 32 show the effect on capability analysis caused by a bi-modal process. In this case one with
oscillation present between data points. There is a discrepancy between the expected overall and within
subgroup capability. Here the total non-conformance estimate may be overly pessimistic. It should be noted
that this obvious pattern of behavior should ideally be recognized in the analysis of the process stability.
I-MR Chart Process Capability Report

1 .0
UCL=0.839 LSL USL
Overall
0.5 Within
Individual Value
_ Overall Capability
0.0 X=0.058 Pp 1 .00
PPL 1 .1 2
PPU 0.89
Ppk 0.89
-0.5 Cpm *
LCL=-0.722 Potential (Within) Capability
1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 Cp 0.64
CPL 0.72
Observation
CPU 0.57
Cpk 0.57
1 .00
UCL=0.959
0.75
Moving Range
0.50
__
MR=0.293 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
0.25
Performance
0.00 LCL=0
% < LSL 0.00 0.04 1 .59
1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 % > USL 0.00 0.39 4.48
% Total 0.00 0.43 6.07
Observation
Figures 31 and 32 - A Bimodal Process Due to Oscillation
Figures 33 and 34 show the effect on a capability analysis due to step changes in the process. This should
ideally be recognised during a stability assessment. Note that the Cpk index is a misleading 1.4 despite the
process generating defects. Because the process is out of statistical control, the value of Cpk is not reliable.
I-MR Chart Process Capability Report

1 1
1
0.30 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1
1 LSL USL
UCL=0.1796 Overall
0.1 5
Individual Value
Within
_ Overall Capability
0.00 X=-0.0203 Pp 0.57
PPL 0.53
-0.1 5 PPU 0.61
Ppk 0.53
LCL=-0.2202 Cpm *
1
-0.30 Potential (Within) Capability
1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 Cp 1 .50
Observation CPL 1 .40
CPU 1 .60
Cpk 1 .40
1
0.4
1
1 1
0.3
Moving Range
UCL=0.2456
0.2
0.1 __
MR=0.0752 Performance
0.0 LCL=0
% < LSL 0.00 5.46 0.00
1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 % > USL 3.33 3.33 0.00
% Total 3.33 8.79 0.00
Observation
Figures 33 and 34 - A Bimodal Process Due to Step Changes
43
Table 5 - Describes some of the actions that can be taken in some of the scenarios described in this section.
Table 5 - Guidance for Non-Normal Processes
Scenario Guidance
The process is out of statistical control Capability analysis cannot adequately describe or predict
with no pattern to the data or to the future process behavior.
signals of special cause.
Conduct improvement activity, problem solving, and
standardization and use process control charts to confirm
stability has been achieved before undertaking capability
analysis. Consider containment to protect customer.
The process has a natural skew that Explore the following alternative methods for capability
can be explained either due to a natural analysis:
boundary or the type of characteristic
Identify an alternative distribution that is the closest fit to the
being measured.
data and conduct a non-normal capability analysis based on
that distribution (see 7.2.1).
Use data transformation methods (see 7.2.2).
The process has a ‘batching effect’ and Confirm the cause of this behavior and confirm it is a natural
exhibits a variation due to within batch and unavoidable consequence.
variability and a step change due to
If the batch averages are stable (when viewed on an I-MR
variation from batch to batch.
control chart) a Between/Within capability analysis may be
possible (discussed in Section 9.1). This type of analysis
considers both sources of variation to make more accurate
prediction of conformity level. Data should be taken from a
number of batches to ensure the process location is of
adequate precision.
Bimodal data due to oscillation or due to Understand the cause of the bimodal process behavior and
differences in tooling, machines, etc. attempt to limit it (e.g., two machines may be aligned differently
- calibration may rectify this).
In the event that eliminating the source is not possible, the
data may be analyzed by population group to assess capability
(such as each machine analyzed separately).
Note: For certain characteristics variations of this nature can
affect product performance. The customer may be consulted to
confirm that any such behavior is not detrimental to the
function of the product.
Assessing Normality
Assessing a process distribution is easily performed using computer software applications. The examples used
within this standard are created with a software application called Minitab.
A normal probability plot (for example Figure 35) helps determine if the data is a good fit to the selected
distribution. The data is plotted against a line of best-fit and its confidence interval and an assessment made. If
the data deviates significantly from the interval, then the population is judged to be non-normal. If nearly all the
data lies within the confidence interval a capability analysis using the selected distribution would be appropriate.
In addition to the visual assessment, statistical software applications include statistical tests such as the
Anderson Darling which assesses normality and generates statistics such as a ‘p-value’. It is commonplace to
reject normality if the p-value is less than 0.05 (this threshold allows a 5% chance of accepting non-normality
incorrectly - an error known as alpha risk).
44
Figures 35 to 40 show some possible outcomes of this analysis.
Figures 35 and 36 - Normality Assessment (Process Approximately Normal)
A process following an approximately normal distribution is shown in Figure 36. When plotted on a probability
plot (Figure 35) most data points fall within the confidence interval. P-Value 0.228 indicates support for normality
since it’s greater than 0.05.
Figures 37 and 38 - Normality Assessment (Non-Normal Process)
45
A non-normal distribution is shown in Figure 38. When plotted on a normal probability plot (Figure 37) the data
does not follow the line of best fit and the data has a knee and goes beyond the confidence interval. The user
would infer from this that the data is non-normal. Additionally, the p-value can be seen to be much lower than
0.05. A capability analysis with the assumption of a normal distribution should not be performed. Distribution
identification or data transformation methods would be appropriate.
Figures 39 and 40 - Normality Assessment (Bimodal Distribution)
A bimodal set of data is shown in Figure 40. When plotted on a normal probability plot (Figure 39) the data
deviates completely from the line of best-fit and two clusters are clearly visible. The user would conclude that
the data is non-normal. A capability analysis with the assumption of a normal distribution should not be
performed. This type of behavior should be visible through simpler histogram or control chart analysis, and an
approach may be decided upon without the need for further and more complex distribution identification or data
transformation.
7.1 Using Control Charts with Non-Normal Data
Control charts such as I-MR are reasonably robust to slight deviations from normality. However, in some cases
control charts based on non-normal data distributions can lead to limits that do not accurately represent the
natural variation of the process. This results typically in control charts with ‘false signals’ of special causes.
Two common strategies of dealing with this situation are as follows:
7.1.1 Use Averages (Apply Central Limit Theorem).
The distribution of averages is known to tend towards normality as the sample size increases (known as central
limit theorem). If the process is such that items can be subgrouped and averages plotted then this may be
adequate to avoid the use of more complex methods. An X-Bar and R chart may be used.
Figure 41 shows the effect using a uniform distribution. The distribution of averages becomes normally
distributed (and less variable) as the sample sizes increases
46
Figure 41 - Effect of Taking Averages on a Flat (Uniform) Distribution
7.1.2 Data Transformation and Transformed Limits
In certain cases, applying a mathematical transformation to each data value (e.g., x²) may result in the
distribution changing shape. If the resulting distribution is approximately normal a regular control chart may be
used to assess the stability of the process.
However, for process monitoring these transformed values may not make sense to the operator. And if the
operator is plotting the chart manually, introducing any calculation into the process adds complexity. It would be
most desirable for the operator to plot the actual measurements. For this to work, the control limits will need to
be set in advance by initially transforming a set of gathered data to assess stability and establish limits for the
transformed data, then define limits that can be used with the actual untransformed data through a reverse
transformation. These limits may then be deployed as a ‘blank’ control chart with a set of appropriate limits that
the operator then works to.
NOTE: Alternatively in some situations a simpler method such as Pre-Control may be useful.
The user should consider the benefits of using transformations against the potential for confusion brought about
by complexity. Alternative methods may be used if more practical. For more information Statistical Process
Control (SPC) - AIAG ISBN 1605341088 may be referred to.
Figure 42 shows a non-normal (heavily skewed) process using a regular I-MR Control chart. In this example the
lower limit <0 and the upper control limit does not take into account the skewed distribution. This chart would
trigger some inappropriate reaction to ‘special cause’ signals.
47
I-MR Chart of Flatness

0.3 1
1
1
0.2 UCL=0.2151
Individual Value
0.1 _
X=0.0577
0.0
-0.1 LCL=-0.0996
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91
Observation
0.24
1 1 1
UCL=0.1933
0.1 8
Moving Range
0.1 2
__
0.06 MR=0.0592
0.00 LCL=0
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91
Observation
Figure 42 - A Non-Normal (Skewed) Process Using an I-Mr Control Chart
Figure 43 shows a control chart for the process shown in Figure 42 but with the data transformed; in this case
by raising each data point to the power 0.5, i.e., taking the square root. The transformation parameter (in this
case 0.5) is known as Lambda λ. Software can be used to derive the optimal lambda value or other
transformation. The process can be seen to be stable - however the data and the Y scale on the chart makes
little or no sense to the user.
I-MR Chart of Flatness

Using Box-Cox Transformation With λ = 0.50
0.6
UCL=0.5598
Individual Value
0.4
_
0.2 X=0.2117
0.0 LB=0
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91
Observation
0.45
UCL=0.4276
Moving Range
0.30
__
0.1 5 MR=0.1309
0.00 LCL=0
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91
Observation
Figure 43 - A Control Chart Using Transformed Data
48
Figure 44 shows a control chart using the original measured values. The control limits are derived from the limits
based on the transformed data from Figure 43. The upper control limit (UCL) is calculated by reversing the
transformation. In this case squaring the limit from the transformed chart (UCL = 0.55982 = 0.3134). The operator
may now continue to plot the measured values against this limit and react appropriately to special causes.
Control Chart of Flatness (with transformed control limits)

0.35
UCL= 0.31 34
0.30
0.25
0.20
Flatness
0.1 5
0.1 0
0.05 Xbar=0.0577
0.00 LCL= 0
1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1 00
Index
Figure 44 - A Control Chart of Non-Normal Data with Appropriate Limits
NOTE: A number of transformation functions may be possible. Statistical software can identify the optimal
transformation to be applied. The examples in this document use Minitab software.
7.2 Capability Analysis for Non-Normal Data
A number of methods exist for analysis of non-normal data for capability purposes. Two are described in brief
for awareness. For further information a specialist should be consulted.
When these analyses are performed it should be declared in any reports to ensure analysis transparency.
7.2.1 Method 1 - Identify a Distribution that Fits the Data Being Analyzed
This method involves using probability plots for a range of possible distributions and finding the distribution with
the best fit. The capability will then be calculated using this distribution. The interpretation of probability plots is
essentially the same for other distributions as the methods used for assessing normality.
In the example shown in Figure 45 the data is not normal but seems to fit three other distributions available. In
this example the user continues with a Weibull distribution capability analysis shown in Figure 46. Either of the
other two distributions shown on the chart appear suitable alternatives as the data aligns with their confidence
intervals. The user may seek further guidance on distribution selection. Some distributions are known to fit
certain scenarios well, as described in Implementing Six Sigma - Breyfogle 2003. ISBN 0-471-26572-1.
For practicality this method requires the use of analytical software.
49
Probability Plot for Flatness

Goodness of Fit Test
Normal - 95% CI Exponential - 95% CI
99.9 99.9
Normal
99 90 AD = 4.31 1
50 P-Value < 0.005
Percent 90
Percent
10 Exponential
50
AD = 0.378
10 P-Value = 0.682
1
1 Weibull
0.1 0.1 AD = 0.305
-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 P-Value > 0.250
Flatness Flatness
Gamma
Weibull - 95% CI Gamma - 95% CI AD = 0.286
P-Value > 0.250
99.9 99.9
99
90 90
50 50
Percent
Percent
10 10
1 1
0.1 0.1
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Flatness Flatness
Figure 45 - Distribution Identification Using Minitab Software

Calculations Based on Weibull Distribution Model
LB USL
Process Data Overall Capability
LB 0 Pp *
Target * PPL *
USL 0.3 PPU 0.73
Sample Mean 0.0577495 Ppk 0.73
Sample N 1 00
Shape 0.97091 3 Exp. Overall Performance
Scale 0.0570221 PPM < LB *
PPM > USL 6650.45
Observed Performance PPM Total 6650.45
PPM < LB 0.00
PPM > USL 0.00
PPM Total 0.00
0.00 0.04 0.08 0.1 2 0.1 6 0.20 0.24 0.28
Figure 46 - Process Capability Analysis Using a Weibull Distribution
7.2.2 Method 2 - Apply a Transformation then Calculate Using Normal Capability Methods
If a transformation can be found that fits a normal distribution, then methods based on the normal distribution
as described in Section 3 can be used.
In the example shown in Figure 47 software has been used to perform a Box-Cox transformation on the data.
The transformation performed is to raise the data values to power of lambda where λ = 0.26. The transformed
data has been checked against a probability plot to ensure it is approximately normal, and then a capability
analysis (Figure 48) has been performed.
50
Probability Plot for Flatness

Goodness of Fit Test
Normal - 95% CI Normal - 95% CI
Normal
99.9 99.9
AD = 4.31 1
P-Value < 0.005
99 99
Box-Cox Transformation
AD = 0.383
95 95
P-Value = 0.391
80 80
Percent
Percent
50 50
20 20
5 5
1 1
0.1 0.1
-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75
Flatness Flatness
After Box-Cox transformation (λ = 0.26)
Figure 47 - Probability Plot of Original Data (Left) and Transformed Data (Right)

Using Box-Cox Transformation With λ = 0.26
LB* USL*
Process Data transformed data Overall
LB 0 Within
Target *
USL 0.3 Overall Capability
Sample Mean 0.0577495 Pp *
Sample N 1 00 PPL *
StDev(Overall) 0.057041 4 PPU 0.78
StDev(Within) 0.0524398 Ppk 0.78
Cpm *
After Transformation
LB* 0
Target* * Cp *
USL* 0.731 424 CPL *
Sample Mean* 0.42862 CPU 0.75
StDev(Overall)* 0.1 30041 Cpk 0.75
StDev(Within)* 0.1 34083
-0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Performance
Observed Expected Overall* Expected Within*
% < LB 0.00 * *
% > USL 0.00 0.99 1 .20
% Total 0.00 0.99 1 .20
* Calculated with LSL*, USL*
Figure 48 - Capability Analysis of Transformed Data. The Capability Is Not Ideal.
Problems Caused by Zero Values
Zero values can present some problems when conducting certain transformations and alternative distribution
analysis (Weibull for example). In this case a ‘data shift’ may be performed. A method known as ‘McAdam’s
Zero Shift’ involves adjusting all zero values upwards by 20% of the data resolution (i.e., if the measurement
resolution is 0.0001 inch substitute all zero values with 0.00002 inch). The analysis should record that this
adjustment has been performed.
51
8. COMMON SOURCES OF VARIATION
Figure 49 describes some of the common causes of variation for manufacturing processes. It is not an
exhaustive list but may offer some areas of focus when considering a control strategy.
Figure 49 - Common Sources of Variation
9. SCENARIOS REQUIRING SPECIFIC ANALYSIS METHODS
The following section discusses a few situations that are perceived a challenge in certain manufacturing
environments. It does not provide an exhaustive list but offers some ideas that may also be transferrable. The
examples attempt to improve effectiveness of efficiency of the analysis.
9.1 Assessing Control and Capability of Multiple Variable Features
When dealing with products with groups of characteristics (e.g., patterns of holes) assessing control and
capability of each characteristic separately can be both time consuming and runs the risk of missing important
aspects of control of the process/product.
The following methods can be used in these situations. They could be modified according to the specific
situation. Table 6 summarizes the methods and their uses.
52
Table 6 - Controlling Multiple Variables Using Average and Range Charts
Scenario When to Use Control Type (Which Chart) Use in Monitoring
When multiple Appropriate: When the variation within the The Xbar chart shows the trend
identical group of features on a part is of averages and special causes
This method may be
features are to roughly similar to the variation relating to them. Signals on this
employed when it can
be controlled between parts an Xbar-R chart should be investigated
be shown that there is
(for example a chart may be used. This chart from a perspective of “a source
a logical rationale for
large pattern of will plot the average of the of variation between averages
the features to be
holes on a characteristics on the Xbar contributing to the total
grouped.
casing). chart, and the range within the variation.” For example, a
Not Appropriate: feature group on the R chart. setup related issue or machine
An example is discussed in alignment.
When the features are
6.1.1.
grouped from a The R chart plots the variation
definition perspective, When the variation within the within the groups. Signals on
but not from a group of features on a part is this chart should be
manufacturing one. less than the variation investigated from the
For example, features between parts an Xbar-R perspective of “a cause
produced at different chart will lead to false signals affecting the variation within the
operations. on the Xbar chart. In this case group”. For example, distortion
an I-MR-R/S (also known as a on a large casing or a
3-way control chart) can be misalignment of a pattern of
used. This chart plots the holes where position of the
average of the characteristics holes is being monitored (and
on the Xbar chart, the moving this misalignment causes a
range between the averages systematic pattern such a ‘sine
on the MR chart, and the wave’ to be introduced. Also, a
range within on the R chart. single outlying characteristic or
An example is discussed in a shift in characteristics mid-
6.1.2. way through the production
cycle (for example caused by a
NOTE: In many cases the
tool damaged mid cycle).
Xbar-R chart will not work in
practice because the The MR chart shows the trend
assumption that the variation between parts and signals
within and between subgroups unusually large fluctuations
is not met. A stable process between parts and emerging
may appear out of control. trends caused by increasing (or
Due to the theory that decreasing) overall variation.
variation in averages Signals on this chart do no not
decreases as sample sizes necessarily result in signals on
increase the Xbar-R chart the Xbar or R charts but may
becomes less useful as the do in certain circumstances.
number of characteristics
becomes high. In these cases,
a 3-way control chart is useful.
Examples of analysis
53
9.1.1 Scenario 1 - The Variations within the Group is Representative of the Overall Variation
Time Series Plot of Pattern of 20 holes (over 1 5 parts)

7.5 Subscripts
Part 01
Specification limit Part 02
5.0 Part 03
Part 04
Part 05
Part 06
2.5 Part 07
Measurement
Part 08
Part 09
0.0 Part 1 0
Part 1 1
Part 1 2
Part 1 3
-2.5 Part 1 4
Part 1 5
-5.0
Specification limit
1 30 60 90 1 20 1 50 1 80 21 0 240 270 300

Index
A product with 20 identical characteristics is analyzed (Figure 50) and found to have a level of variation within
each part that represents the overall variation fairly well (i.e., the process location does not appear to shift
significantly between parts). In this case the control limits on an Xbar-R chart (Figure 51) with subgroup size set
to 20 (i.e., the number of identical features in the group) provide a good approximation of the natural process
variation.
Figure 50 - Variation Within and Overall is Similar
Xbar-R Chart of Pattern of 20 holes (over 1 5 parts)

0.8
UCL=0.717
0.4
Sample Mean
__
0.0 X=-0.007
-0.4
LCL=-0.732
-0.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Sample
UCL=6.398
6
5
Sample Range
_
4 R=4.036
2
LCL=1.674
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Sample
Figure 51 - Xbar-R Chart Produced with Data from Figure 50
54
9.1.2 Scenario 2 - The Variations within the Group is Not Representative of the Overall Variation
A second product with 20 identical characteristics is analyzed (Figure 52) and found to have a level of variation
within each part which does not represent the overall variation well (i.e., the process location appears to shift
between parts by a greater amount than the change from feature to feature within the part). In this case the
control limits on an Xbar-R chart (Figure 53) become too narrow to represent the natural variation between parts
and in this case all the points on the Xbar chart fall outside the limits. This is due to the limits on the Xbar chart
being derived from the range within the subgroup (in this case set at 20 to demonstrate the effect). This chart
will be of no use in practice.
An I-MR chart also is of little use (Figure 54) due to limits being based typically on short term ‘point to point
variation.
A three way style control chart shown (Figure 55) is more useful. The R chart allows the user to examine the
variation within the part. The MR chart shows the state of control between part averages that allows the user to
detect any unusual shifts and the Xbar chart allows the user to see when the process goes outside its normal
range, or drifts over time.
Time Series Plot of Pattern of 20 holes (over 1 5 parts)

7.5 Subscripts
Part 01
Specification limit Part 02
5.0 Part 03
Part 04
Part 05
Part 06
2.5 Part 07
Measurement
Part 08
Part 09
Part 1 0
0.0
Part 1 1
Part 1 2
Part 1 3
-2.5 Part 1 4
Part 1 5
-5.0
Specification limit
1 30 60 90 1 20 1 50 1 80 21 0 240 270 300

Index
Figure 52 - Pattern of 20 Holes
In Figure 52 the variation within the group of features can be seen to be less than the variation from part to part.
This is natural behavior in this context as setup variation is not present within part but causes variation from part
to part. Using control charts that calculate their control limits based on variation within the group can lead to
incorrect limits. As shown in the charts Figures 53 and 54.
55
Xbar-R Chart of Pattern of 20 holes (over 1 5 parts)

1
1
1
2 1 1
Sample Mean
1
__
UCL=0.905
X=0.564
LCL=0.223
0 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
1
-2 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Sample
3.0 UCL=3.009
2.5
Sample Range
_
2.0
R=1.898
1 .5
1 .0
LCL=0.787
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Sample
Figure 53 - X Bar and R Chart of Pattern of 20 Holes
In Figure 53 the data are plotted on an Xbar-R chart. The resulting limits are much narrower than is appropriate.
The process is varying normally (but with different levels of ‘within’ and ‘between’ variation). In this situation an
Xbar-R chart is not useful.
I-MR Chart of Pattern of 20 holes (over 1 5 parts)

1
4 1111 1 111
1 1
1 1 111 1 1
1 12 11 1 1 11 1 1 1
22 1 112 211 1222 12122 21 22 2 2
22 2 222 2 2 2 2 22 2 UCL=2.220
Individual Value
2 2 22 222
2 2 22 22
2 2222222
22 _
2 2 2
X=0.564
2
0 22 22 2
2 2222 22
222 2 2
2 2 222 22 22 2 2222 22
2222 2 2 2
2 22
1 1 11 1 2 1
2 2 2
1
LCL=-1.092
1 1 11 1 1
-2 11 111 1 1
11 11 1
11 1
1 1 11
1 31 61 91 1 21 1 51 1 81 21 1 241 271
Observation
1
3 1
1
Moving Range
2 UCL=2.034
1 2 __
2 MR=0.623
222
0 22 2 LCL=0
1 31 61 91 1 21 1 51 1 81 21 1 241 271
Observation
Figure 54 - I-MR Chart with Pattern of 20 Holes
In Figure 54 an I-MR chart illustrates the issue of using such a chart when the ‘within’ and ‘between’ variation
is different. The chart is giving many false signals due to the limits not being representative of the natural process
variation.
56
I-MR-R/S (Between/Within) Chart of pattern of 20 holes (over 1 5 parts)

UCL=4.832
4
Subgroup Mean
_
X=0.564
0
-4 LCL=-3.705
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
UCL=5.244
MR of Subgroup Mean
__
2
MR=1.605
0 LCL=0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
UCL=0.7347
Sample StDev
0.6 _
S=0.4932
0.4
LCL=0.2516
0.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Sample
Figure 55 - A 3-Way Control Chart with Pattern of 20 Holes
In Figure 55 where the pattern of 20 holes is plotted on a 3-way control chart, the process can be seen to be
stable. The average values show only random behavior on the I chart, as does the moving range chart (between
parts) and the S chart (within parts).
Capability Assessment for Multiple Identical Feature Groups
Capability assessment for this scenario may present some added complications beyond the generic method
described in Section 6.
Often in situations where multiple identical features are being analyzed, the variation within the feature group is
not representative of the overall process variation due to other sources of variation (setups, tool changes,
material variation). In these situations, the ‘short term’ estimate for capability provided by typical Cpk
calculations provides an overly optimistic view of the capability that cannot be relied upon.
Figure 56 shows this effect using the data discussed in the previous section on Figure 52. The capability indices
Cp and Cpk are not representative of process performance. The Pp and Ppk indices appear to be a better
representation. Performance is estimated at 54 parts per million defectives.
57
Process Capability Report for Pattern of 20 holes (over 1 5 parts)
LSL USL
Overall
Within
Overall Capability
Pp 1 .43
PPL 1 .56
PPU 1 .29
Ppk 1 .29
Cpm *
Cp 4.01
CPL 4.39
CPU 3.63
Cpk 3.63
Performance
PPM < LSL 0.00 1 .41 0.00
PPM > USL 0.00 52.45 0.00
PPM Total 0.00 53.86 0.00
Figure 56 - Capability Analysis with Pattern of 20 Holes
In many situations an assessment of Ppk will provide adequate information on the overall process capability.
This is due to the fact that the method of calculation recognizes the variance from the average for each data
point, whereas the Cpk method only looks at variation within the subgroups.
Occasionally a scenario may present itself that warrants a more complex assessment to take into account both
‘within’ and ‘between’ variation. This may be most relevant in cases of borderline capability.
The method for calculating capability in this scenario involves calculation of the ‘within’ group variability and the
‘between’ group variability and taking the square root of the sum of the variances to achieve a total variability
known as ‘between/within’ (the concept is illustrated in Equation 11). This is then used as the variation
component in a regular Cpk calculation. This type of analysis is shown in Figure 57.
σB / W = SQRT (σ2Between + σ2Within) (Eq. 11)
58
Between/Within Capability Report for Pattern of 20 holes (over 1 5 parts)
LSL USL
Overall
B/W
Overall Capability
Pp 1 .43
PPL 1 .56
PPU 1 .29
Ppk 1 .29
Cpm *
B/W Capability
Cp 1 .33
CPL 1 .46
CPU 1 .21
Cpk 1 .21
Performance
Observed Expected Overall Expected B/W
PPM < LSL 0.00 1 .41 6.35
PPM > USL 0.00 52.45 1 49.90
PPM Total 0.00 53.86 1 56.25
Figure 57 - A Between/Within Capability Analysis
Using the data from the previous scenario (from Figure 56), a Between/Within capability analysis produces a
Cpk of 1.21 which is more representative of process performance. The expected PPM defective is estimated at
156 as opposed to 54 produced by Ppk analysis using a regular method of calculation.
From a practical perspective, where capability is clearly at a high level, a regular Ppk calculation will usually
suffice, however, for borderline situations the method that considers between and within capability is advisable.
Statistical software such as Minitab is capable of running ‘Between/Within’ capability analysis.
A more comprehensive treatment of capability methods can be found in Implementing Six Sigma - Breyfogle
2003. ISBN 0-471-26572-1.
9.2 Assessing Control and Capability of Variable Data by Process or Part Family
Process based studies may be acceptable to allow qualification by similarity to be undertaken, e.g., similar parts,
geometries, tolerances, and design characteristics. The supplier should liaise with their purchaser to confirm
suitability for this approach.
59
Table 7 - Part Family Approach
Scenario When to Use Control Type (Which Chart) Use in Monitoring
When a Appropriate: Where geometric Prior to accepting the

characteristic requirements are identical, use of the control chart,
This method may be
exists on a range the actual measured values confirmation should be
employed when it can be
of products and is may be used. made that the
shown there is a logical
considered not standardized data are all
rationale for the process Where nominal values differ
product specific. (within reason) from a
or part family approach. the ‘deviation from nominal’
single distribution. If not,
Potentially a low for each characteristic may
When the geometry and the limits on the control
volume be used.
tolerances are similar chart may give rise to
environment
across the products. Generally speaking, the false signals. This
where a statement
selection of control chart is assessment may be
of capability is not Not Appropriate:
then no different from the done with analysis of
feasible from the
When the features have guidance within other variance (ANOVA)
sample sizes
widely differing tolerances sections of this standard. techniques or in certain
available.
and geometry. cases simple graphical
For individual values, use the
analysis.
Parts with obvious “Target IX-MR Chart” (see
differences in process of scenario in 9.2.1). For
manufacture. subgroup averages (n= 3, 4,
5, or 6) use what is called a
“Target Xbar-R Chart”.
9.2.1 Scenario - Housing Bushing Target I-MR Chart
For manufacturers practicing cellular manufacturing of part families, Target I-MR Charts can be more efficient
than operating separate product specific charts. Rather than implement control charts for each distinct part
number, a supplier may choose to combine similarly made part numbers on the same chart. The basic
assumptions of this method are that these similar products share common processing methods and exhibit
similar process behavior and variation. Tolerances & materials will likely be similar as differences may give rise
to differing levels of capability. What follows is an illustrated example.
An aerospace manufacturer produces a variety of machined products for several aerospace engine customers.
The company recently reorganized its operations into cells making common products formulated into part
families. The part families are a collection of specific products with common material specifications,
characteristic tolerances as well as sharing similar process operations. One family is the Housing Bushing
family. The bushings are made out of brass and press fitted into customer housings. The supplier selects a
control chart as the control method for the outside diameter of the parts.
The original process control approach utilized an I-MR Control Chart for each specific part number. With smaller
lot sizes being manufactured to reduce inventories, the manufacturer decides to utilize the Target I-MR Chart
for the part family. Table 8 shows a list of diameter characteristics in a part family manufactured in a cell:
Table 8 - Diameter Characteristics for Process Control Example
Nominal
Part Identifier Part Number Feature Feature Size Dimension
A 890150-1 Outside Diameter 0.250 ± 0.005 0.250 inch
B 890160-1 Outside Diameter 0.500 ± 0.004 0.500 inch
C 890170-1 Outside Diameter 0.975 ± 0.005 0.975 inch
60
Methodology
The Target I-MR Chart, Figure 58 (showing both Individuals and Moving Ranges) illustrates the initial 20 piece
production run executed during the week. The number of consecutive parts made for each part number is lower
than would be required for individual control charts per part number (e.g., 3, 4, 5, etc.). This is due to the quick-
change set-up methods employed by the manufacturer enabling production of individual items as opposed to
batches of parts.
The data plotted on the I chart are the deviations from the nominal value for the part being measured.
The values plotted on the MR chart are the absolute differences between consecutive deviations (from the I
chart). This means there are no negative values on this chart.
This type of chart is a variation of the standard Individuals & Moving Range (I-MR) Chart (see Section 5.2).
For each part produced, the deviation from the nominal value for that part number is calculated and plotted (on
the I chart). Next the moving ranges between each point on the Individuals chart are calculated. These values
are plotted on the moving range chart (MR).
An example of data calculation is illustrated in Figure 58 (row 1 to 4).
The control limits are then calculated in the same way as a regular I-MR Chart.
Thus, all actual values that are measured are “normalized” by their nominal values. This allows different part
numbers with different feature nominals to be combined on the same chart.
Chart No.: 1 of 1
PART A: PART B: PART C: PART D:
890150-1
PART NUMBER: ______________ 890160-1
PART NUMBER: ______________ 890170-1
PART NUMBER: ______________ PART NUMBER: ________________
DESCRIPTION: _______________ DESCRIPTION: _______________
BUSHING BUSHING DESCRIPTION: _______________
BUSHING DESCRIPTION: _________________
USL: __________
.255 LSL: ________
.245 USL: __________
.504 LSL: ________
.496 USL: __________
.980 LSL: ________
.970 USL: __________ LSL: __________
NOMINAL: ___________________
.250 INCH NOMINAL: ___________________
.500 INCH NOMINAL: ___________________
.975 INCH NOMINAL: _____________________
PART: A A A B B B B B C C C C A A A B B B C C
DATE/TIME:
NOTES:
1 VALUE: .252 .249 .250 .501 .498 .500 .502 .497 .976 .977 .974 .974 .250 .250 .249 .502 .500 .498 .975 .974
2 NOMINAL: .250 .250 .250 .500 .500 .500 .500 .500 .975 .975 .975 .975 .250 .250 .250 .500 .500 .500 .975 .975
VALUE-NOMINAL
3 (ROW 1 - ROW 2) .002 -.001 0 .001 -.002 0 .002 -.003 .001 .002 -.001 -.001 0 0 -.001 .002 0 -.002 0 -.001
__ .003 .001 .001 .003 .002 .002 .005 .004 .001 .003 0 .001 0 .001 .003 .002 .002 .002 .001
4 MOVING RANGE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
+.006
(X) +.004 UCLx
VALUE - NOMINAL
+.002
0
-.002
LCLx
-.004
-.006
.008
(MR)
.006
MOVING RANGE
UCLr
.004
.002
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Figure 58 - Target I-Mr Chart for the Bushing Process Example
61
It can be seen on the Target I-MR Chart in Figure 58 that the bushing process is in a state of statistical control.
This assures the manufacturer that the process is stable. All three part numbers exhibit a similar level of variation
(precision) and process location (average).
The calculations for the Target I-MR Chart control limits, Moving Range control limits, and Process Capability
Indexes Cp & Cpk are illustrated in Figure 59.
NOTE: The chart uses standard I-MR control limit calculations. Care should be taken for the calculation of Cpk.
For capability of the ‘normalized’ values to make sense the tolerances should also be normalized (i.e.,
expressed as deviation from nominal). For example, the lower specification limit for Part A would be -
0.005 not 0.245 and the upper specification limit 0.005 not 0.255.
Note Comments Worksheet for Target IX-MR Chart
k = Number of Subgroups = 20
ET (Part A) = .010” ET (Part C) = .010”
ET (Part B) = .008" ET (Part D) = _____

R CHART X CHART
Total of MR values Total of Row 3 values
R= X =
CENTRAL k-1 No. of subgroups
LINE
R = .037/19 = .0019 X = -.002/20 = -.0001
UPPER UCL R = D4 x R UCL X = X + 3 O

CONTROL UCL X = -.0001 + 3(.0017)
LIMIT UCL R = 3.27*.0019 = .0062 UCL X = .0050
Is the process in control? YES __X___ NO _____
LOWER LCL X = X - 3O
Unilateral Tolerance? YES _____ NO __X__ LCL R = 0
CONTROL LCL X = -.0001 - 3(.0017)
LIMIT LCL X = -.0052
PROCESS CAPABILITY
Cp Cpk CONTROL CHART FACTORS FOR n = 2: R
O = = .0019/1.128 = .0017
ET = Engineering Tolerance = USL - LSL Cpu = (USL-X)/3 O = D4 = 3.27, d 2 = 1.128 d2
NT = Natural Tolerance = 6 O Cpl = (X-LSL)/3 O =
Cp = ET/NT = (USL-LSL)/6 O * Cpk = MIN {Cpu, Cpl}
PART
INDEX PART A PART B PART C PART D
Cp .010/6(.0017) = .98 .008/6(.0017) = .78 .010/6(.0017) = .98
Cpk
Check one:
-.0001 - (-.005) -.0001 - (-.004) -.0001 - (-.005)
= .96 = .76 = .96
Cpl X_ 3 * .0017 3 * .0017 3 * .0017
Cpu ___
Figure 59 - Calculated Statistics for the Bushing Process Example
Interpretation of Results
In Figure 58 the process appears to be in a state of statistical control due to the absence of patterns that indicate
special causes of variation. The supplier concludes that the three different part numbers are ‘in family’ and that
grouping on the same chart is valid. However, the process capability shown in Figure 59 shows need for
improvement. The tightest tolerance part, which is Part B, has a Cp = 0.78 and a Cpk = 0.76 while parts A and
C, that share the same tolerance band, have a Cp = 0.98 and Cpk = 0.96. Given the goal of having a process
Cpk of minimum 1.33, and the fact the overall process is stable and centered, an investigation will be required
on the common cause sources of variation to see what can be changed to improve the overall process capability.
NOTE: Prior to calculating control limits and process capability indexes it is good practice - because the data
displayed are individual values - to perform a normality test. This is easily done using statistical
software. Figure 60 shows the Probability Plot illustrating that the data can be judged to be a normal
distribution (p-value 0.114 is greater than the 0.05 threshold typically used - assuming a 5% alpha risk
is acceptable).
62
Probability Plot of Delta

Normal
99
Mean -0.0001
StDev 0.001447
95 N 20
AD 0.584
90
P-Value 0.114
80
70
Percent
60
50
40
30
20
10
1
-0.004 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004
Delta
Figure 60 - Normal Probability Plot
The capability of the process can be calculated from the deviation from target provided the process is stable. It
is wise to analyze both Cpk and Ppk indices in this situation to check that they are similar as seen in Figure 61
for the two bushings that share the ±0.005 inch tolerance.
Process Capability of Delta
LSL USL
P rocess D ata W ithin
LS L -0.005 Ov erall
Target *
USL 0.005 P otential (Within) C apability
S ample M ean -0.0001 Cp 0.97
S ample N 20 C P L 0.95
S tD ev (Within) 0.00172639 C P U 0.98
S tD ev (O v erall) 0.00144732 C pk 0.95
O v erall C apability
Pp 1.15
PPL 1.13
PPU 1.17
P pk 1.13
C pm *
-0.004 -0.002 0.000 0.002 0.004

O bserv ed P erformance E xp. Within P erformance E xp. O v erall P erformance
% < LS L 0.00 % < LS L 0.23 % < LS L 0.04
% > U S L 0.00 % > U S L 0.16 % > U S L 0.02
% Total 0.00 % Total 0.38 % Total 0.06
Figure 61 - Process Capability Analysis
63
10. COMPUTER BASED SYSTEMS AND SOFTWARE
Many of the methods used in this standard can be implemented using traditional ‘pencil and paper’ solutions.
Control charting is a relatively simple task requiring nothing more complex than calculation of averages and
basic multiplication and division.
Control charts can be manually created and plotted, and many suggest this lends a level of understanding and
engagement to the deployment.
However, there are drawbacks as the use of these tools becomes more mature and demand increases:
• The need to manually plot and annotate the chart
• Failed tests for special cause are not automatically highlighted
• The risk of errors being made both in data capture and computation
• The cost of administration keeping the manual charts up to date and replenished when complete
• The limit to the time available for analysis, more so with complex product with multiple characteristics
• The lack of timely access to historical information.
SPC systems make the task much easier and have the following advantages:
• Direct linkage to gauging for data input (either via interfaces such as RS232 standard interface or wireless
technologies)
• Direct analysis to computer-controlled devices such as CMM’s.
• More advanced capability analysis methods (feature groups, and non-normal process capability analysis)
• More accurate predictions (projected defect rates for example)
• Easier use of data for process simulation.
Systems tend to fall into categories of data collection and process monitoring (real time) and offline analytics.
Additionally, tools are available that provide configurable management information dashboards containing Yield,
Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) and other performance trends, Pareto, and other defect analysis in real
time.
Systems may be provided by metrology vendors to provide functionality to their systems or as standalone. The
benefits of equipment manufacturers’ proprietary systems include the ability to simply interface with their
offerings whilst the benefits of offerings by independents tend to be flexibility; the ease of configuration to
multiple data formats from different equipment vendors.
Generally speaking, a computer-based solution tends to be more robust than a paper based one.
64
11. PROCESS CONTROL MATURITY REVIEW
Table 9 contains some questions that can be used to assess the health of process control within a factory. The
question set is not exhaustive.
Table 9 - Process Control Maturity Review
Category Enablers Suggested Questions

Leadership Management provides the Discuss process control with business management
necessary leadership, Is process control built into the business management
infrastructure and system and procedures?
environment for a robust
Do they champion the focus on process control (adoption
process control system.
of PFMEA, Control Plan)?
Management is able to see Are they making changes to enable better process
and deal with performance control (e.g., systems and software solutions both in
trends. process and for offline analysis)?
Have they undertaken training themselves to ensure they
are conveying correct messages?
Are systems/governance in place to view issues and
performance trends (e.g., Right First Time, Process
Yield, and Defect Rate) and is there evidence they are
acted on?
Control Plan The Control Plan is View the Control Plan

complete, comprehensive, Is it in place and does it cover all aspects of the process
and utilized as part of the routing?
running of the
Does it relate to the control methods declared in the
manufacturing operation.
PFMEA?
There is linkage to the Is it focused on process control (as opposed to
process risks via the inspection)?
PFMEA.
Is the reaction plan explicit and detailed?
Are the control items traceable to the appropriate
technical instruction?
Are all aspects declared in the Control Plan covered
adequately in the work instructions and related
documentation (for example: The acceptance criteria and
the reaction plan)?
Process Work Work instructions will View the work instructions relating to specific
Instructions contain control activities at controls declared within the Control Plan
a sufficient level of detail to Do they contain all the necessary information required to
allow consistent conduct the process step?
application.
Is there evidence of clarification of the standard method
within the work instruction or standard operating
procedure?
Do the instructions call out any special items or care
points?
Ask the operator how the controls are used
Is the process control activity part of a closed loop
system where action can be taken in a timely manner?
Can the operator describe why standardized items are of
importance?
65
Table 9 - Process Control Maturity Review (Continued)

Data Collection The data collection is Go to the operation
System sufficient to maintain Is data collected in a way that is sustainable in the longer
process control and term?
capability and is versatile
Is the data collection scalable to other parts and across
enough to meet future
the facility?
demands.
Are there plans to improve the way data is collected?
Ask the personnel

Can the data be analyzed quickly enough to make timely
decisions?
Process The operator is engaged in Go to the point of process

Monitoring process control and takes Is the control at the point of process as opposed to being
timely action when remote (at a later operation)?
required.
Is the process monitoring being done with measurement
systems of adequate quality? Is there MSA to confirm
this?
Are the rules of operation available, clear, and concise?
Is there evidence of positive action to special events?
Are visual standards adequate?
Reaction Plan The actions required when Review the Control Plan and supporting documents
control criteria are not met
Is there evidence that any exceptions to process control
are clear, understood, and
criteria are actioned appropriately?
embedded.
Does the reaction plan call for any immediate actions to
be carried out to determine the cause of the problem
(recovery actions) and also when further advice should
be sought?
Is there a called out method of issue escalation (e.g., for
repeated issues)?
Visual The operators and Go to the shop floor

Management management can easily Are controls set up with visual 'status at a glance'
see the status of control. philosophy?
The process can be
Are control charts visible and up to date?
understood by all.
Are care items, foundational control activities, and other
checks visible and complied with?
Is there evidence of action to maintain control or react to
special cause events?
66

Training & Skills The necessary process Ask the local leader
control skills & proficiencies Do they have a mechanism in place to control the
have been provided and competence and training needs of their workers? Does
are being practiced this include process control?
routinely.
Looking to the future, are they taking specific actions to
develop further?
Ask the technical and quality personnel

Are they knowledgeable about control principles and
methods?
Have they undertaken training courses to develop their
knowledge? If so, are those training courses available to
their peers and leaders?
View evidence of their work. Is a data driven approach
evident?
Are they using methods they are using adequate for the
types of product/process? For instance, high complex
processes requiring optimization may benefit from
application of Design of Experiments knowledge.
Ask the operator

Are training courses available and being used by
personnel to support the deployment and operation of
process control?
Do they have local support/coaching?
Data Analysis Process capability data is Ask the technical personnel and local leadership
used to improve product Can the capability data be readily retrieved?
quality.
Is there evidence that the capability data is being used to
prioritize, drive improvement, and validate those
improvements (i.e., before/after capability)?
Has adequate effort been made to understand the

causes of process variation when defining the Control
Plan Items, methods, and criteria? For instance. Design
of Experiments for process screening and optimization of
parameters.
Where Non-Statistical tools are used, have the

acceptance criteria for those controls been based on any
scientific study as opposed to being arbitrarily selected?
Foundational The organization effectively Is the handling, storage, and packaging of parts well
Activities demonstrates foundational enough defined to avoid risk of damage, including
process control activities. application of 5S principles for workplace organization
(i.e., sort, set in order, shine, standardize, and sustain)?
Do the process control activities extend to Machines,
Fixtures, Tooling, and Raw Materials? Are the standards
appropriate to the product tolerances required?
67

Sub-tier AS13100 process control Are the requirements formally instructed?
Deployment requirements are
Has engagement been adequate to gain full engagement
implemented at sub-tiers.
with the spirit and intent of process control (as opposed
to putting a 'tick in the box')?
12. BENEFITS OF STATISTICAL PROCESS CONTROL (SPC)
12.1 Background
The overall objective of Statistical Process Control (SPC) is to operate processes economically with minimum
disruption due to stoppages and non-conformances.
The term ‘statistical control’ can be considered from two perspectives:
• The use of statistical tools - and others, within a closed loop system to manage process variation.
• The state of statistical control, when a process behaves in a random and predictable way within its natural
range.
It is hard to see how a state of statistical control can be achieved without the use of process control techniques.
Processes have a tendency to behave in an unstable manner unless they are managed into a state of control;
and to be effective this management needs to be early (in cycle/point of process) as opposed to after the event
(e.g., final inspection).
Statistical Process Control techniques are not new, being originally used in the early 1920’s. Some other
techniques, such as mistake proofing go back much further.
Industry uses process control extensively to control quality. The benefits are easy to see; total cost of quality is
reduced, and the process can be depended on to consistently deliver conforming product.
SPC tools have the following objectives:
a. To increase knowledge of the process.
b. To steer the process to behave in the desired way, often towards a specific target.
c. To reduce product/process variation, or in other ways improve performance.
With correct process control, end of line inspection moves from being an exercise of sorting good and bad
product to one of routine validation of goodness ‘as expected’.
For SPC to be most effective it needs to operate within an inherently stable environment. The relevant
Foundational Activities should be in place and managed, to underpin the control strategy. Without these
fundamentals in place SPC will fail.
12.2 Benefits
Financial benefits of Process Control and SPC tools come from:
• Reduced costs due to scrap, screening, rework, repair, downtime, and material outages.
• Reduced costs incurred during the total lifecycle of the product.
• Cost saving through reduced inspection levels.
• Customer loyalty and retention.
68
• Improved product design through the feedback of manufacturing capability information.
• The ability to maintain a process to a target value where deviation from the target results in some loss
(typically in performance) - a concept known as Taguchi’s Loss Function.
• More immediate problem resolution.
12.3 Resistance to SPC
SPC is sometimes seen as an automotive/mass production tool. This assumption is incorrect. Considering the
quality revolution that automotive has undergone in its history it is worth reflecting on, and learning from, the
automotive application of process control rather than creating a counter argument against its use.
Resistance to implementing SPC techniques is not uncommon. Common reasons given for not implementing
are:
a. “We already inspect everything we make”
Over reliance on ‘end of line’ inspection leads to quality becoming an exercise of ‘sorting product good from
bad’. It is not possible to reach a level of 100% conformance through inspection alone; all that can be done
is to react to non-conforming product and investigate. The approach drives a culture of firefighting and
results in higher product non-conformance than would be the case had ‘point of process’ statistical control
been in place. SPC benefits both the supplier and the customer.
b. “SPC is not suitable for low volume manufacture”
Management of variation is not exclusive to high volume. Most manufacturing problems have variation at
their source; and most low volume operations have high consequence of failure, whether that be cost or
time to replace or rework defective items. A rigorous process control strategy, inputs, parameters, and setup
standards is vital to maintain conformance. These items can be controlled before the operation is performed
using statistical or non-statistical techniques to prevent non-conformance rather than managing after the
event.
c. “SPC is only suitable for simple products”
Complex products tend to have large numbers of characteristics. One may argue against running SPC on
all of these characteristics. Strategies can be employed that enable proper selection of ‘controlling’
characteristics (input or output) that give indication of the health of a process. These characteristics are
included in the control strategy. Variation studies can be performed on feature groups collectively to reduce
the burden of analysis (see 9.1 - Assessing Control and Capability of Multiple Variable Features).
NOTE: On some products, sources of variation exist that affect the variation between features ‘within part’.
For example, groups of features in large components affected by distortion and material stress relief
during processing can display characteristics of ‘out of round’. This type of behavior can be better
understood using ‘Between/Within’ charting strategies. This type of behavior is typically difficult to
detect using traditional inspection output such as CMM reports or single feature by feature analysis
(see 9.1 - Assessing Control and Capability of Multiple Variable Features).
d. “SPC is not suitable for high product mix situations”
For high product mix situations, it is often useful to focus on characteristics that are common to the process
rather than measure and monitor separate products by different mechanisms. Short run or part family
approaches may be used in which the deviation from target is monitored (see 9.2 - Assessing Control and
Capability of Variable Data by Process or Part Family).
SPC analysis allows the manufacturer to see if differences between products are evident, thereby
prioritizing improvement.
69
e. “We have tried SPC before and failed”
There are many pitfalls in SPC deployment and criticism of it is often based on historic issues and past
experience of poor deployment. Causes of issues in deployment of SPC can be due to:
Poor engagement of those recording and monitoring the data.
Failure to do anything useful with the data (e.g., failure to investigate and correct special causes).
Failure to development an adequate control strategy (e.g., SPC not being ‘closed loop’ and timely).
SPC done in isolation, with inadequate attention given to the ‘fundamentals’.
Failing to develop the SPC approach as experience grows.
f. “SPC is only useful once we have 30 data points”
It is true that confidence in the accuracy of control limits and capability indices is higher as more data is
gathered, but to wait for an arbitrary number of points before review may result in a missed opportunity for
improvement. This is not to say that process tampering (making unnecessary adjustments), is to be
encouraged, but obvious issues may be seen with relatively few data points, e.g., a process that is running
significantly off target may be corrected without initial need for control limits, but once on target control limits
can be used to recognize when corrections are necessary, thus keeping the process stable. Initial
assessment may be as simple as using a run chart or Pre-control chart in the early stages of production.
g. “SPC is only applicable to variable measurements”
SPC can be used to monitor rate, frequency, proportion, and count for attribute type characteristics and
defects. The benefit of monitoring these attributes through control charts is that change in the rate,
frequency or incidence of the attributes can trigger positive (and prescriptive) action rather than relying on
subjective ‘gut feel’ decisions or no action at all.
Attributes that can be monitored statistically are for example:
• Proportion of defective parts
• Number of attribute defects (either per batch or per item)
• Rate of rare event type defects (similar to mean time between failure for machinery)
Knowledge is also an enabler to success. The following publications contain additional information (technical
and non-technical) relating to the application of statistical methods for quality improvement and control:
Advanced Product Quality Planning (APQP), Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG), ISBN 1605341371
Statistical Process Control (SPC), Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG), ISBN 1605341088
Implementing Six Sigma 2nd Edition, Breyfogle 2003. ISBN 0-471-26572-1
Understanding Variation - The Key to Managing Chaos. Donald J. Wheeler. Published by SPC Press, ISBN: 0-
945320-53-1
“Poka-Yoke”, by Productivity Press, ISBN 0-915299-31-3
“Mistake Proofing for Operators: The ZQC System”, by Productivity Press, ISBN 1-56327-127-3
70
13. METHODS AND FORMULAE
The statistical formulae provided in Tables 10 and 11 can be used for calculating the center lines and control
limits on commonly used control charts. Other methods may be used depending on the application.
Table 12 provides formulae for Process Capability.
Table 10 - Statistical Formulae for Variables Control Charts
I-MR Chart
Centre Line (Individual’s Chart)
(Eq. 8.1)
Centre Line (Moving Range Chart)
Note: N is the number of moving range values (Eq.

8.2)
Upper Control Limit (Individual’s Chart)
(Eq. 8.3)
Lower Control Limit (Individual’s Chart)
(Eq. 8.4)
Upper Control Limit (Moving Range
Chart)
(Eq. 8.5)
Lower Control Limit (Moving Range
Chart)
(Eq. 8.6)
Only used if the range is calculated over a number of data
points. This will default to 0 for moving range between
consecutive data points.
Xbar and R chart

Centre Line (Xbar Chart)
(Eq. 8.7)
Centre Line (Range Chart)
Note: N is the number of range values (Eq. 8.8)

Upper Control Limit (Xbar Chart)
(Eq. 8.9)
Lower Control Limit (Xbar Chart)
(Eq. 8.10)
Upper Control Limit (Range Chart)
(Eq. 8.11)
Lower Control Limit (Range Chart)
(Eq. 8.12)
71
Xbar and MR-R/S

Centre Line (Xbar Chart)
(Eq. 8.13)
Centre Line (MR Chart)
Note: N is the number of moving range values (Eq. 8.14)

Centre Line (R Chart)
Note: N is the number of range values (Eq. 8.15)

Upper Control Limit (Xbar Chart)
(Eq. 8.16)
Lower Control Limit (Xbar Chart)
(Eq. 8.17)
Upper Control Limit (MR Chart)
(Eq. 8.18)
Lower Control Limits (MR Chart)
(Eq. 8.19)
Upper Control Limit (R Chart)
(Eq. 8.20)
Lower Control Limit (R Chart)
(Eq. 8.21)
72
Table 11 - Statistical Formulae for Attribute Charts
P Chart
Centre Line (P Chart)
(Eq. 8.22)
Upper Control Limit
(Eq. 8.23)
Lower Control Limit
(Eq. 8.24)
nP Chart
Centre Line
(Eq. 8.25)
Upper Control Limit
(Eq. 8.26)
Lower Control Limit
(Eq. 8.27)
C Chart
Centre Line
(Eq. 8.28)
Upper Control Limit
(Eq. 8.29)
Lower Control Limit
(Eq. 8.30)
73
U Chart
Centre Line
(Eq. 8.31)
Upper Control Limit
(Eq. 8.32)
Lower Control Limit
(Eq. 8.33)
Table 12 - Statistical Formulae for Process Capability
Sigma (Standard Deviation) for

Control Charts
(Eq. 8.34)
Sample Standard Deviation
∑𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑖=1(𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 − 𝑥𝑥̅ )2
𝑠𝑠 = �
𝑛𝑛 − 1
(Eq. 8.35)
Cp
(Eq. 8.36)
Cpu
(Eq. 8.37)
Cpl
(Eq. 8.38)
Cpk
(Eq. 8.39)
Pp
(Eq. 8.40)
Ppu
(Eq. 8.41)
74
Ppl
(Eq. 8.42)
Ppk
(Eq. 8.43)
Table 13 is used as reference to determine the relevant value of the statistical constants in the formulae provided
Table 13 - Table of Statistical Constants
Subgroup
Size A2 A3 d2 D3 D4 B3 B4
2 1.880 2.659 1.128 0 3.267 0 3.267

3 1.023 1.954 1.693 0 2.574 0 2.568
4 0.729 1.628 2.059 0 2.282 0 2.266
5 0.577 1.427 2.326 0 2.114 0 2.089
6 0.483 1.287 2.534 0 2.004 0.030 1.970
7 0.419 1.182 2.704 0.076 1.924 0.118 1.882
8 0.373 1.099 2.847 0.136 1.864 0.185 1.815
9 0.337 1.032 2.970 0.184 1.816 0.239 1.761
10 0.308 0.975 3.078 0.223 1.777 0.284 1.716
11 0.285 0.927 3.173 0.256 1.744 0.321 1.679
12 0.266 0.886 3.258 0.283 1.717 0.354 1.646
13 0.249 0.850 3.336 0.307 1.693 0.382 1.618
14 0.235 0.817 3.407 0.328 1.672 0.406 1.594
15 0.223 0.789 3.472 0.347 1.653 0.428 1.572
16 0.212 0.763 3.532 0.363 1.637 0.448 1.552
17 0.203 0.739 3.588 0.378 1.622 0.466 1.534
18 0.194 0.718 3.640 0.391 1.608 0.482 1.518
19 0.187 0.698 3.689 0.403 1.597 0.497 1.503
20 0.180 0.680 3.735 0.415 1.585 0.510 1.490
21 0.173 0.663 3.778 0.425 1.575 0.523 1.477
22 0.167 0.647 3.819 0.434 1.566 0.534 1.466
23 0.162 0.633 3.858 0.443 1.557 0.545 1.455
24 0.157 0.619 3.895 0.451 1.548 0.555 1.445
25 0.153 0.606 3.931 0.459 1.541 0.565 1.435
75
APPENDIX A - PROCESS CONTROL METHODS ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST
The following checklist is designed to assist in assessing the quality of implementation of this standard and the
user’s compliance to key requirements. An editable format is available through the following link. Users should
download the document each time they plan an assessment as the website version will have the latest
improvements incorporated from user and customer feedback.
Process Control Assessment Checklist
EXPORT CONTROL CLASSIFICATION NOT

Export Control Data not technical
COMPLETE ON COVER PAGE Form Rev. 9 Jan 2020
Appendix A - GD13006 Process Control Methods Assessment Checklist

Company: Date
Location: By:
Checklist Complies
Ref.
Number Category Question Yes No N/A Comments
Has this guidance document (GD13006) been applied to products and processes in
1
conjunction with a control plan?
Applicability
2 Is the default application of process control product specific (reference AS13100)?
Is there a documented process within the organization's quality management system

to meet the process control requirements of AS13100 and the associated guidance
3
document GD13006 to manage, coordinate and validate variation management
activities?
Does your organization have a documented audit procedure to confirm compliance to

4 the process control requirements of AS13100 and the associated guidance document
Organizational (Quality)
GD3006 and address shortcomings?
System Requirements
Have records of these assessments been maintained for customer review (reference
5
AS13100)?
Has your organization ensured the flow down of process control requirements per the
AS13100 standard and GD13006 guidance document to any associated suppliers that
6
manufacture and/or process products related to application of this standard and
guidance document?
Does your organization employ or have access to a Process Control practitioner, who
can lead the deployment of the process control requirements specified wthin the
7 Training and Competency AS13100 standard and GD13006 guidance document, and was trained by a
competent training provider, using material that contains the minimum Training
Syllabus documented in Appendix C of GD13006?
Have the measurement systems used been proven capable in accordance with
8 customer requirements and GD13003 (Measurement Systems Analysis Guoidance
Document)?
Process Control Has your organization identified key product and process characteristics, in addition
9 Prerequisites to customer defined KCs and CI’s?
Has your organization created Control Plans, consistent with GD13004, which include
10 all KC’s and CI’s or equivalent prior to the process control requirements of AS13100
and the AS13006 Proces Control Methods Guidance Document?
Has your organization determined the appropriate Process Control Methods for each
11
item on the Control Plan per GD13006?
Where the type of risk to be mitigated justifies the need for more than one Process
12 Process Control Method Control Method, have the methods been declared separately in the Control Plan
Selection (reference GD13004)?
Has your organization created and deployed any work instructions necessary to
13
operate the controls declared in the Control Plan (refernce GD13004 and GD13006)?
76
Process Control Assessment Checklist (Continued)
EXPORT CONTROL CLASSIFICATION NOT

Export Control Data not technical
COMPLETE ON COVER PAGE Form Rev. 9 Jan 2020
Appendix A - GD13006 Process Control Methods Assessment Checklist

Company: Date
Location: By:
Checklist Complies
Ref.
Number Category Question Yes No N/A Comments
Plan data collection (reference GD13006, Section 4.1)
Has your organization planned data collection in order to demonstrate the
effectiveness of the controls used (i.e., process stability and capability), considering:
- The items and period over which data will be collected?
14
- The method for collection (either manual or automatic)?
- The inspection method?
- Interim review to act on obvious trends or signals (prior to full statistical analysis)?
- Any operational instructions required?
Does data collection apply to all KCs and Cis per the process control requirements of
15
AS13100 and guidance document GD13006?
Generate Process Data (reference GD13006)
16 Has your organization created and deployed work instructions necessary to support
the collection of data (reference GD13006, Section 2.1)?
Has data been collected from production run(s) in time sequence at the production
17
source or as close as possible (reference GD13006, Section 2.1)?
Has data been collected over a period long enough to adequately represent the
18
natural variability over time (reference GD13006, Sections 5.2 & 5.6)?
For variable characteristics does data include a minimum of 25 subgroups (reference

19
GD13006, Section 5.2)?
For attribute characteristics does data comprise a minimum of 25 subgroups? (total

20 number of samples within each subgroup should be large enough that the number of
subgroups with zero defects/defectives is minimal; reference GD13006, Section 5.6)
Analyze Data
Has the state of statistical control been assessed using relevant techniques (e.g.,
21
control charts) prior to calculation of process capability (reference GD13006, Section
Process Analysis and 5.2)?
Improvement Have control limits been computed using industry recognised methods (reference
22
Section 13, GD13006)?
Have special causes been identified using standard tests (reference GD13006,
23
Section 5.2)?
Has the distribution of variable data been assessed for normality prior to capability
24 analysis? Where data is found to be non-normal have methods for distribution
identification and normality testing been used? (reference Section 7, GD13006)
Once process stability has been confirmed, has the process capability been
25
calculated for the product characteristics (reference Section 6, GD13006)?
Is the process stable and capable with a minimum capability index Cpk of 1.33
26
(reference Section 6.0, GD13006)?
For process parameters, does your organization ensure limits for acceptance criteria
27
are appropriate to ensure product conformance?
Conduct Improvement
If the process is not stable or capable, has the organization identified and
28
implemented improvement activities to address the shortfall (reference Section 5.2 &
6.0, GD13006)?
Has the Control Plan been updated whenever any controls are modified or added
29
(reference GD13004)?
Following corrective actions has data collection been repeated for affected
30 characteristics to establish process stability and capability (reference Section 5.2 &
6.0, GD13006)?
If process capability has reached a point where it cannot be improved further (or
further improvement is prohibitively costly) but does not meet the minimum capability,
31
has a containment plan been developed that assures the customer receives
conforming product without supply disruption (reference Section 6.0, GD13006)?
77
Process Control Assessment Checklist (Continued)
78
APPENDIX B - PROCESS CAPABILITY PLAN - EXAMPLE FORM
In cases when the process capability does not meet the minimum threshold the organization needs to inform its
customer and make its containment plan available. If the customer does not have a defined communication
method, the following link provides an example form that may be used:
Process Capability Plan Form
Appendix B - Process Capability Plan Form - GD13006 Process Document No.

Part Number
Control Methods Engr. Drw. Rev.
Export Data not technical Jurisdiction Classification Associated Documents
such as MSA study, Control Plan,
Control Capability 6-pack
Form rev. 9 Jan 2020
Critical
Sheet Grid Feature Tolerance GR&R Statistical Current Process Analysis
No. Nominal LSL USL Major Action Plan
No. Ref. Description Type (% of tol) Control Status Capability Period
Minor
Work with Tool Design to investigate a more rigid type of
0 2 D1 Outside Diameter Bilateral 0.210" 0.208 0.212 Minor 5.0% Out of Control Cpk = 0.71 2018 Q1
tooling.
New collet set ordered; Maintenance of spindle scheduled
0 3 G9 Runout to Dia. A Unilateral Max 0 n/a 0.004 Minor 12.2% In Control Cpk = 0.85 2018 Q2
5/15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
etc.
Manufacturing Engineering Name: Signature: Date:
Engineering Name: Signature: Date:
Quality Name: Signature: Date:
Name: Signature: Date:
Copyright @ AESQ Strategy Group, a Program of SAE ITC. This material is provided by SAE "AS IS" and may be reproduced, used and modified under the condition that the user hereby holds SAE harmless from user's manipulation
of the forms and indemnifies SAE from any and all claims or damages caused by use, modification or applications thereof.
79
APPENDIX C - TRAINING SYLLABUS
This section provides a training syllabus to support competence in the application of this standard. This syllabus
may be adapted to meet any additional needs (e.g., advanced Control Charting techniques).
Some of these necessary competencies may be achieved through traditional quality and improvement training
such as Six Sigma accreditation programs (e.g., Green Belt, Black Belt, and Master Black Belt) or professional
institution recognized accreditation (e.g., ASQ Certified Quality Engineer).
It should be noted that competency is only truly achieved and maintained through practical application. The
following link provides the minimum content that a Process Control Methods training syllabus needs to contain:
1. TARGET AUDIENCE
This training is intended for aerospace practitioners who work in job roles related to manufacturing process
design, quality planning and product introduction, quality control and quality improvement, etc.
2. PRE-REQUISITES
Learners should be proficient in basic arithmetic and statistics, have a good knowledge of quality
management systems and customer requirements for the application of process control.
3. TRAINING KEY FOCUS AREAS
The following themes reflect the process control activities within this standard:
3.1 The importance of Process Control
3.2 Process Control in context of quality planning
3.3 Selection of Process Control Methods
3.4 Data Collection
3.5 Process Capability Analysis
3.6 Basic Root Cause Analysis and Process Improvement
3.7 Application of Control Charts
3.8 Error-Proofing
3.9 Other relevant techniques (optional)
4. TRAINING DETAIL
The Training Syllabus below provides details of the various themes and content to be covered in the training.
80
Training Syllabus
Theme Outcomes Minimum Content

The importance of Appreciation of customers’ needs and the • Examples and discussion on
Process Control benefits to the organization, industry, and process control failures
society.
• Reputational impact
• Effect on the Aerospace
Learning Objective: Learner will be able to industry
describe the importance of process control
including how it benefits company, industry, and • Benefits of achieving design
society. nominal (Taguchi’s Loss
Function)
• Understanding and
importance of a closed loop
control system
• Effectiveness of in process
control over end-of-line
inspection
Process Control in Understanding of the linkages between the • Linkage between PFMEA,
Context of Quality quality planning activities. Control Plans, and work
Planning instructions
Learning Objective: Learner will be able to
explain the purpose of Control Plans, what they • Purpose and content of a
contain, and their use in developing work Control Plan
instructions.
describe how Control Plans link to Process
FMEA.
Selection of Ability to select the most appropriate control(s). • Basic overview and
Process Control explanation of the various
Methods control methods
analyze a situation and select the most
appropriate process control method(s).
Data Collection Ability to collect data that is appropriate and • Importance of time sequence
reliable.
• Importance of reliable
Learning Objective: Learner will be able to measurement systems
identify the important components of reliable
data collection and how to develop a data • Importance of non-biased
collection plan. data and operational
definition for data collection
• Sample size considerations
81
Training Syllabus (Continued)

Process Capability Ability to select and correctly apply the • Basic statistical terms (Mean,
Analysis appropriate analysis tool and draw Standard Deviation, Range)
correct conclusions.
• Process Stability assessment using
control charts
Learning Objective: Learner will be able • Special Cause versus Common
to evaluate a situation, select the Cause Variation
appropriate analysis tool for that
situation, and correctly apply that tool. • Tests for Special Causes Variation
• Process Capability assessment (Cp,
Cpk, Pp, Ppk)
• Incorrect assumption that a high Cpk
is on-target
• Process Capability prerequisites
(e.g., Stability, Normality check)
• Handling non-normal data
(Distribution identification or data
transformation)
• Relevant statistical software
Basic Root Cause Ability to understand potential • Appropriate reaction to special

Analysis and improvement options and appropriately causes of variation versus common
Process confirm their effectiveness. cause variation
Improvement
Learning Objective: Learner will be able • Options for confirmation of change
to distinguish special causes of effectiveness (e.g., Process Control &
variation from common cause variation. Capability Analysis including before
Learning Objective: Learner will be able versus after comparison)
to explain the available options for
confirming change effectiveness.
Application of Ability to use control charts for process Use of the following tools:
Control Charts analysis and in-operation process
I-MR Chart
control.
Rational Subgrouping
Learning Objective: Learner will be
able to identify the appropriate control X-Bar/ & R Chart - including
chart tool from a list of tools based on a assumptions.
definition provided.
I-MR-R/S - Between/Within (3 Way
Learning Objective: Learner will be able Chart)
to apply control charts for process
analysis and in-operation process Attribute charts (P, C, NP, U) including
subgroup sizes and assumptions
control using the appropriate control
chart. Charts for Rare Events
Short run principles (e.g., deviation to
target charts)
• PreControl Charts
82
Training Syllabus (Continued)

Error Proofing Ability to understand and apply • Error proofing principles, devices and
error proofing to the process. strategies
Learning Objective: Learner • Levels of error proofing
will be able to explain and/or
give examples of error proofing • Examples of error proofing application
including principles, levels, and • Automated Control systems
automated control systems.
Other relevant Awareness of other techniques • Design of Experiments

techniques (optional) as needed.
• Hypothesis testing
• Measurement Systems Analysis (including
awareness of AS13003)
5. ASSESSMENT OF LEARNING
Training should include a valid method of assessing learner’s mastery of each learning objective.
Recommended assessment methods include:
• An exam that uses multiple choice, fill-in-the-blank, or matching type questions with a formal pass
criteria (e.g., 70%)
• Completion of practical exercises within the structure of the course
• Competency judged on evidence of workplace application (e.g., workplace project)
83
APPENDIX D - ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This reference manual represents the consensus of the members of the AESQ. The Team members who
developed this guidance and whose names appear below, wish to acknowledge the many contributions made
by individuals from their respective organizations.
Organization Representative
Pratt & Whitney Pete Teti - Team Leader
Pratt & Whitney Andrew Stout - Team Co-Leader
Rolls-Royce Ed Briggs - Team Co-Leader
MTU Rudolf Braunieder
Safran Nicolas Reignier
Honeywell Ray Prather
GE Bob Caudill
GKN Stefan Lund
PCC Paul Gorg
84
CHANGE HISTORY
Revision Date Description of Change
March 2021 Initial Release

September 7,
Revised to change all references from AMC to RM.
2021
For more information or to provide feedback:
AESQ Strategy Group

400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096
Email: info@aesq.sae-itc.org
85

RM13006 - Process Control Methods

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RM13006 - Process Control Methods

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Downloaded from SAE International by Souhail Chabat, Thursday, February 10, 2022

An AESQ Reference Manual

An AESQ Reference Manual

Aerospace Engine Supplier Quality (AESQ) Strategy

• Increasing demand for Aero Engines

• AS13000 Problem Solving Requirements for Suppliers (8D)

AESQ Reference Manuals