A Graphical Exploration of SPC
Editor’s note: This article is the first of a two-part illustrated discussion of the definitions and practices of process control, especially
those practices that are supported by the construction and interpretation of Shewhart control charts. The first article addresses issues
related to the structure of control charts. The second article (to be published in June) will focus on the interpretation of control
charts, with special emphasis on the sensitivity of seven rules that are commonly used to help quality professionals “hear the voice of
the process.”
I
T IS WELL KNOWN THAT DURING THE 1920S,
Walter Shewhart made significant contribu-
tions to a scientific basis for economically
controlling the quality of manufactured
products. In 1931, he published Economic
Control of Quality of Manufactured Product, in
which he described many of the statistical tools he
developed and used during the previous decade.1
The content of that book is the foundation of what
is now called statistical process control (SPC).
Part 1: SPC’s Imagine an automobile design engineer from
the 1930s walking into a design laboratory in
definitions 1996, with the intention of putting in a day’s work.
and After recovering from the shock of encountering
so much new equipment, new technology, new
procedures materials, new manufacturing principles, much
greater vehicle complexity, and substantially
changed customer expectations, it would probably
take the engineer several years before he or she
could make significant contributions to the process
of designing a modern automobile.
Now imagine an industrial physicist from the
by 1930s magically transported to a physics laborato-
Robert W. Hoyer ry today. Again, even if the physicist successfully
and adjusted to the vast physical differences between
the two labs, it would take years of education and
Wayne C. Ellis training to enable the person to make even the
most basic contributions to his or her new col-
leagues’ activities.
It is easy to envision similar scenarios in biolo-
gy, chemistry, communications, telecommunica-
tions, atomic energy, or aeronautics; the differ-
ences between state-of-the art expertise 65 years
ago and today is so remarkable that it is difficult to
imagine anyone making the intellectual transition
in a reasonable amount of time. On the other hand,
if Shewhart were magically transported from his
job at Bell Labs in 1931 to any quality control
department in the world today, he might find his
first few days on the job a bit disconcerting and it
might take him a week to learn how to use his
computer effectively, but he would certainly be in
his element in less than two weeks.
This conjecture about Shewhart’s behavior is
not a statement about his intellectual ability
(although his brilliance is unquestionable). Rather,
it is a statement about the intellectual poverty of
the quality sciences during the past 65 years. Not
only has the technology of the quality sciences
changed very little at the level where it matters
most—namely, at the in-plant, practical (or
applied) level—but many of those who are respon-
sible for using the methodology to improve quality
often struggle to understand even the most basic
statistical and probabilistic principles.
For example, in training workshops devoted to
elementary SPC—workshops that are frequently
attended by engineers and quality professionals—
it is rare to find anyone who can provide a reason-
ably precise definition of an in-control process,
describe the fundamental decomposition of the
total variation of process output into its component
parts, or understand the basic principles underlying
the use of control charts to signal the presence of
special-cause variation. When supervisors and
managers are quizzed about the fundamental prin-
ciples of process control, their understanding of the
basic issues is practically nonexistent. (If this claim
is difficult to believe, engage any randomly select-
ed colleague from any of the previously mentioned
groups in a discussion of process control and
observe just how quickly the notions of process
control and process capability become hopelessly
entangled.)
The intention of this two-part series is certainly
not to critique the quality sciences. Rather, the
objective is to examine the structure, use, and
abuse of the X chart as a tool for tracking the cen-
ter of a process over time and to define and discuss
the probability structure of the standard rules used
to identify out-of-control processes. This will be
done by:
• Defining and discussing what is meant by an in-
control process (covered in part 1)
• Defining the basic Shewhart control chart and
describing the constraints for its use (part 1)
• Discussing rules that signal the presence of spe-
cial causes of process variation (part 1)
/
Quality Progress May 1996 65

Figure 1. Coil Spring Compression Output
Figure 2. In-Control Process
• Presenting the sensitivities (probabilities) of the rules used to
detect special causes (part 2)
• Examining the robustness of the X chart (part 2)
• Suggesting how to bend the rules when certain assumptions
required for using an X chart are not satisfied (part 2)
Process control
To illustrate the principles of process control, a hypothetical
process whose output is a small coil compression spring will be
examined. The process characteristic of interest is the compres-
sion distance, X, when a 50-lb. load compresses the spring. The
lower specification limit (LSL) and upper specification limit
(USL) for X are LSLX = 5 cm and USLX = 7 cm. The target
value, T, is TX = 6 cm. The distribution of process output for
this characteristic at any particular moment in time is the nor-
mal distribution displayed in Figure 1.
Notice that the process is somewhat off target. Its process
capability (Cpk) is fair (Cpk = 1.33), but it could be improved to
Cpk = 1.67 by centering it at X = 6 cm and without having to
use procedures designed to reduce the variation of the compres-
sion distances. While the capabilities of both the process and
process output are interesting, it is the control status of the
process that is the focus here.
To determine whether the coil compression spring process is
in control, its behavior must be assessed in a time continuum.
66 /
Quality Progress May 1996
Using the graphical equivalent of a strobe light, the behavior of
the process is captured in eight different situations, as shown in
Figures 2 through 9. These figures show the compression dis-
tances of the springs, but the springs are being processed by
eight different machines. The output of the machines is sup-
posed to be identical, but a close examination reveals that it is
not. Hence, there are actually eight different processes.
The process depicted in Figure 2 is in control and on target.
The fact that the process is on target is interesting but not actu-
ally relevant to its control status. Notice that the process dis-
played in Figure 3 is also in control, even though it is substan-
tially off target.
The process pictured in Figure 4 is out of control. Over time,
it changed in a way that caused the compression distance to
decrease. The variation of process output remained constant,
but the process center gradually migrated in the direction of
smaller values. Perhaps the temperature of the oven in which
the springs were tempered gradually increased, causing an asso-
ciated decrease in the average compression distance of the steel
coils. Typically, this is described as tool wear, an effect that
causes process output to gradually change as the tool wears out.
The process displayed in Figure 5 is also out of control but
for an entirely different reason. The sudden shift in the center of
the process from one value (in this case, the target value) to a
larger value was the result of a sudden shock to the process.
Perhaps process input was changed; the new steel bars from
which the springs were manufactured might have had a greater
lead content than did the steel bars that were purchased from a
different supplier.
The out-of-control behavior of the process depicted in
Figure 6 suggests a cyclical pattern that might be the result of
changes in humidity in the plant. For example, it might be the
case that, as the humidity increases during the day, the compres-
sion distance of the springs produced at that time decreases; all
other things being equal, as the humidity decreases at night, the
compression distance of springs made at that time increases. In
any event, there is a distinct change in the center of the process
over time.
Figure 3. In-Control, Off-Target Process

Figure 4. Out-of-Control Process Trend
acteristic has a normal distribution. This information indicates
something about the process characteristic but, because there
are infinitely many normal distributions, the particular normal
distribution of interest is not known. But suppose that, in addi-
tion to knowing the distribution is normal, one knows that the
process’s mean (
) is
X = 6.2 cm. While this sheds even more
light on the distribution of the process characteristic, there are,
nevertheless, infinitely many normal distributions that are cen-
tered at
X = 6.2 cm. If one also knows that the standard devia-
tion () of the process characteristic is X = 0.2 cm, there is
only one normal distribution that fits that description (see
Figure 1). In other words, a normal distribution is completely
characterized by its mean and variance or by its mean and stan-
dard deviation.

Figure 5. Out-of-Control Process Shift

The process shown in Figure 7 is a quality nightmare.

Concurrent with an unwanted decrease in the center of the
process over time is an unwanted increase in process variation.
In this case, the process owner should search for root causes
that induce trends rather than shifts. This type of process behav-
ior, while not uncommon, is very difficult to detect and remedy.
Being out of control isn’t always bad. For example, the
processes displayed in Figures 8 and 9 demonstrate patterns of
process improvement even though both are out of control. In
other words, there is often a positive explanation for being out
of control. W. Edwards Deming often stated that any company
engaged in continuous improvement strategies will be able to
substantiate its improvements by observing a large number of
associated out-of-control processes.2
At this point, a number of processes have been examined and
classified as either in control or out of control. Based on this Figure 6. Out-of-Control Cyclical Process
examination, the following definition of “in control” can be
made:
A process is in control if and only if the distributions of all
of its measurable characteristics are constant over time.
Because many important probability distributions—including
normal distributions—are completely characterized (i.e., deter-
mined) by their mean and variance, it is possible to use the fol-
lowing less precise but more practical definition:
A process is in control if and only if the centers of all of its
measurable characteristics are constant over time and the
variances of all of its measurable characteristics are con-
stant over time.
Do not, however, confuse the issues of process control and
process predictability. If a process is in control, it follows that,
subject to the constant variation of the distribution of its output
at each moment in time, its behavior will be predictable. On the
other hand, many processes that exhibit predictable behavior are
simply not in control (Figure 6, for example). Although this
issue is much more complex than is suggested here, the second,
less precise definition is adequate for most quality profession-
als’ purposes.
Suppose it is known that a certain measurable process char-

/
Quality Progress May 1996 67
 Figure 7. Nightmarish Out-of-Control Process Trend Figure 8. Out-of-Control Process Improvement

Finally, if one knows that the process characteristic is nor-

mally distributed, that its mean is
X = 6.2 cm, that its standard
Figure 9. Another Out-of-Control Process Improvement
deviation is X = 0.2 cm, and that it is in control, then one
knows precisely how that characteristic is behaving at the pre-
sent time and for as long as the process remains in control.

Variance decomposition
To illustrate the concept of variance decomposition, the out-
of-control process depicted in Figure 6 will be revisited. To
evaluate 100% of the process output during this time period, the
output has been projected to the upper right-hand corner of the
illustration in Figure 10. Because the projected distribution
resides in the margin of the display, it is called the marginal dis-
tribution of process output. This projection depicts the total
variation of process output during the time period of the display.
By comparing this total variation with the smaller variation of
process output at a specific point in time (see Figure 11), it is
easy to see that:
[Total variation] = [Variation at a specific point in time]
+ [Some nonnegative number]
Furthermore, it is apparent that the more out-of-control the
process is, the larger the nonnegative number must be in order
to maintain this equality. If a process were in control (such as patterns of the statistic with the occurrence of one or more spe-
that in Figure 2), the projection of all process outputs to the cial causes of variation.
upper right-hand margin would yield a combined output whose
total variation is identical to the variation at a specific point in The control chart
time. In other words, the nonnegative number would be zero. Any quality professional who is responsible for evaluating
This equation, called the fundamental equation of SPC, can processes could have easily determined the control status of
be expressed as follows: those depicted in Figures 2 through 9. Unfortunately, most qual-
[Total variation] = [common-cause variation] + [special- ity professionals don’t have such a complete picture of the
cause variation] process at their disposal. Usually, the process is producing
Since the total variation of process output can be decom- numerous units of output, and quality professionals attempt to
posed into the component parts of common- and special-cause track the distributions of the measurements of important charac-
variation, control charts based on that decomposition can be teristics by sampling a small number of units at specifically des-
used to help bring processes into control. A control chart is a ignated time or production intervals (e.g., every hour or every
picture of the common-cause variation of a process. Having 5,000 units). For example, the recommended sample size, n, for
such a picture enables the process owner to associate unusual variable data is usually between n = 1 and n = 10. The fact that
68 /
Quality Progress May 1996
 Figure 10. Total Variation of Process Output
SPC provides a great deal of information about processes with
such a meager investment in data is the primary justification for
its status as one of the most powerful and efficient process
improvement tools.
In any event, if the distribution of measurements of a product
or service characteristic can be completely determined by its
mean and standard deviation (or by its mean and range), then at
the designated time or production interval, relatively small sam-
ples of data can often be used to determine how the process is
behaving. Figure 12, for example, is the distribution of the
weight (in kilograms) required to compress the spring a fixed
distance (in this case, 5 cm). The natural variation in the
weights is the common-cause variation. Assuming that the
process output is fairly uniform over time, samples of n = 5
springs are taken every 30 minutes and the mean, X , and stan-
dard deviation, sX, are computed for each sample. Figure 13
Figure 11. Comparison of the Total Variation With the
Variation at a Specific Point in Time
Two Common Misconceptions About SPC
Most quality professionals recognize the following equa-
tion as the fundamental equation of statistical process con-
trol (SPC):
[Total variation] = [common-cause variation] +
[special-cause variation]
In Out of the Crisis, W. Edwards Deming said 94% of the
total variation of processes that he encountered could be
attributed to common causes, with the remaining 6% being
due to special causes.1 Based on this conjecture, he con-
cluded that 94% of all process variation is the responsibility
of management, with the balance being the responsibility
of process owners (production workers).
Deming’s observation that most reductions in common-
cause variation necessitate a significant investment of
resources and, hence, depend on higher-level decision
making is appreciated. Nevertheless, it is easy to imagine
that he purposely exaggerated the focus of responsibility
in this instance to make a very important point: that
process owners can be held responsible for only a small
portion of the total variation in a typical production environ-
ment. On the other hand, achieving quality superiority
using continuous improvement is invariably an all-one-
team endeavor, so to suggest that variance reduction ini-
tiatives can be partitioned and assigned to different strata
in the organizational hierarchy distorts an equally important
point: that variance reduction is the responsibility of the
entire team.
Another implication of Deming’s numbers—assuming
that they describe the typical process today—concerns
the effectiveness of process control as a continuous
improvement strategy. Because the whole point of process
control (of which SPC is a significant part) is to remove all
root causes of special-cause variation, SPC actually
attacks only 6% of the total variation in a typical process. In
other words, if SPC were 100% effective, the typical
process would retain more than 90% of its original varia-
tion.
Some companies that have implemented SPC have
complained that they made significant investments in
process control but seemed to have gotten very little in
return. They had unrealistic expectations. Other compa-
nies that have implemented SPC, however, believe that it is
the critical difference between marginally acceptable qual-
ity and outstanding quality.
Reference
1. W. Edwards Deming, Out of the Crisis (Cambridge, MA:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced
Engineering Study, 1986), pp. 314-316.

contains the five observations per sample (the white dots) and
the means of the samples (the black dots) over 10 time periods
from a process that is in control.
While it is difficult to depict the standard deviations in this
illustration, one could fairly easily envision each sample’s
range, RX, as the largest distance between a pair of white dots in
the sample. Notice, for example, that the range of the third sam-
ple is fairly small and the range of the fourth sample is relative-
ly large.

/
Quality Progress May 1996 69

Figure 12. Distribution of Compression Weights
Figure 13. Samples (n  5) and Means From an
In-Control Process
In a real-world situation, it is usually impossible to observe
the distribution of X (i.e., the measurements of process output
that have been depicted in Figure 13). The only available infor-
mation about the process is the 50 white dots, so the quality pro-
fessional must use that relatively small amount of information to
determine how the entire process is behaving. In Figure 14, only
the sample data and the means have been displayed for each of
the 10 time periods. (Although the actual marginal distributions
of X and X would be unknown to the quality professional, they
are known in this situation because this is a constructed exam-
ple.)
To appreciate the nature of the two marginal distributions,
imagine that this process has been in control for a long time. At
each time period, a sample of n = 5 measurements has been
obtained and plotted. The sample mean, X , has also been calcu-
lated and plotted. Now, if all of the values of X (the white dots)
are pushed up the target axis to the upper right-hand margin and
stacked and if a smooth curve is drawn through them, that curve
would be the marginal distribution of X. In this instance, the
marginal distribution of X is identical to the distribution of
process output at each time period (see Figure 13) because the
process is in control (i.e., there is no special-cause variation).
The marginal distribution of X is obtained in a similar man-
ner. All of the X values (the black dots) are pushed up the target
axis to the upper right-hand margin and stacked. Then, a
smooth curve is drawn through the stack. This curve is the mar-
ginal distribution of X .
70 /
Quality Progress May 1996
Don’t think that constructing these marginal distributions is
an esoteric statistical exercise that has no practical value.
Marginal distributions are valuable for three reasons:
1. Customers want a picture of the marginal distribution of X
because that is precisely what will be shipped from the suppli-
er’s plant (or will be delivered to the next worker on the assem-
bly line). While the supplier cares about the behavior of its
processes, customers do not purchase processes—they purchase
process output.
2. Knowledge of the marginal distribution of X —including
knowledge of the mean and standard deviation of X—is instru-
mental in the construction of the X chart. One should be careful
to avoid casual use of terms like “three sigma.” There are so
many important and different standard deviations (sigmas) in a
basic discussion of SPC that misunderstandings will result if
someone fails to ask, “To which three sigma are you referring?”
In this discussion, the standard deviation of X is of interest. In
other discussions, the standard deviation of RX, the standard
deviation of p, or the common-cause standard deviation might
be of interest. For that reason, it is always important to complete
the phrase, “the standard deviation of ________.”
3. There is no possibility that anyone could understand the
usual rules for reading and interpreting a control chart without
understanding the marginal distribution of the statistic that is
plotted in the chart. (This topic will be discussed in much
greater detail in the second article next month.)
To track the center and dispersion of the in-control process
displayed in Figure 14, simple time-series plots of X and sX are
used (see Figure 15). Standard practice dictates that certain
guidelines be used to interpret the information in the chart.
Naturally, the mean, X , of the values of X that have been plot-
ted in the chart serves as a standard against which to compare
those values. In addition, for no better reason than it was
Shewhart’s choice in the 1920s, a distance of three standard
deviations of the statistic on either side of the mean defines the
outer boundaries of acceptable values of the statistic when the
Figure 14. Data, Means, and Marginal Distributions
From an In-Control Process

Figure 15. X and s Chart for Compression Weight
pling distribution of B has a mean,
B, and standard deviation,
B. Since there are usually relatively few sample observations
available, B and sB are calculated from the sample data, and
these values serve as estimates of
B and B, respectively.
Now, according to Shewhart, “We usually choose a symmet-
rical range characterized by limits,
B
tB, symmetrically
spaced in reference to
B....We are still faced with a choice for
the value of t. Experience indicates that t = 3 seems to be an
acceptable economic value. Hence the method for establishing
allowable limits of variation in a single statistic, B, depends
upon theory to furnish the expected value,
B, and the standard
deviation, B, of the statistic. It depends upon empirical evi-
dence to justify the choice of limits,
B
3B.”3
In other words, the limits in all control charts have been set at

B
3B because, in 1931, Shewhart’s experience indicated
that it was “an acceptable economic value.” While it is probably
not worth making an issue of it, 3B is a rather peculiar choice,
especially since it would have been more intuitively plausible
and less misleading to use a probability confidence interval
about the center of the statistic (say, a 99% confidence interval
or a 99.8% confidence interval about
B). Instead of making
control limits symmetric in distance from the center as mea-
sured in standard deviations, it would have been somewhat
more useful to have made them symmetric in distance from the
center as measured in probability. Then, for every control
chart—no matter what statistic is plotted in it—the probabilities
associated with each of the rules for detecting special causes of
variation would be comparable.

Figure 16. Normal Distribution Probabilities

process is in control. Virtually all control charts used in industri-

al and service settings share the same characteristics.
To avoid confusion when important characteristics of a con-
trol chart are discussed later, it is useful to describe exactly what
is meant by the term “control chart.” The description here will
be framed in terms of a generic “Blob,” or B, chart. As is the
case with all charts, the B chart gets its name from the fact that:
• Samples are obtained from a process at specific points in
time.
• From each sample, a value of B (whatever that is) is
computed.
• The values of B are plotted in the chart.
Specifically, the generic B chart consists of five lines:
• A vertical scale of B values
• A horizontal scale that designates sequential points in time or
in a progression of the number of units produced
• A centerline (CL), where CLB = B
• A lower control limit, where LCLB = B  3sB
• An upper control limit, where UCLB = B + 3sB
Calculations to determine the values of the chart’s centerline
and control limits must use data that have been obtained when
the process was not subject to special-cause variation. With that
in mind, it should be apparent that a control chart for a process
characteristic is a picture (a model) of the common-cause varia-
tion of the process characteristic.
Using terminology similar to that used by Shewhart, the sam-

/
Quality Progress May 1996 71
 Figure 17. Distributions of X for Normal, Uniform, and Exponential Process Distributions
Normal distributions
In many (but hardly all) circumstances, the marginal distribu-
tion of the statistic plotted in a control chart is very close to a
normal distribution. For that reason, it is useful to review some
of the characteristics of normal distributions:
• There is an infinite number of different normal distributions.
• The normal distribution is a two-parameter distribution. In
72 /
Quality Progress May 1996
other words, knowing only two parameters—the mean and
standard deviation—provides complete knowledge of the
distribution. Two normal distributions with the same mean
and standard deviation are identical in every respect.
• Normal distributions are unimodal and symmetric.
Therefore, the mean and median of a particular normal distri-
bution are identical.
• Normal distributions are bell-shaped. (The importance of this
fact, however, should not be exaggerated.) There are many
other distributions besides normal distributions that are bell-
shaped (e.g., all of the t distributions). More than a few data
analysts have been misled and have misled others by erro-
neously assuming that all bell-shaped distributions are nor-
mal distributions.
The distribution displayed in the three parts of Figure 16 is a
normal distribution for which a number of useful probabilities
have been displayed. The tick marks on the X axes are at the
mean,
X, and at points that are one, two, and three standard
deviations, respectively, on either side of the mean (i.e., at
X

1X,
X
2X, and
X
3X.
The quality professional’s interest in normal distributions
stems from two important applications:
1. Normal theory. This theory states that if the measure-
ments of an in-control process characteristic are normally dis-
tributed, then, no matter what sample size is chosen, the distrib-
ution of X based on samples of that size will also be normally
distributed.
Even when n = 1, the marginal distribution of the values of
X in an X chart will be normally distributed, provided that the
process is normally distributed and in control. Thus, it is not
necessary to invoke the central limit theorem in this situation.
2. Central limit theorem. This theorem states that if the
measurements of an in-control process are not normally distrib-
uted, then, for a “large” sample size, the distribution of X based
on samples of that size will be approximately normally distrib-
uted.
Needless to say, the important, practical question to ask when
using the central limit theorem is, “How large is ‘large?’” The
answer is certainly not as clear cut as is implied in elementary
statistics textbooks. For example, if the distribution of process
output is symmetric and unimodal, relatively small samples,
say, n = 5, are adequate. On the other hand, if the process output
is seriously skewed (which often occurs in plating processes, for
example), even samples as large as n = 25 might not be suffi-
cient.
The normal theory and central limit theorem are illustrated in
Figure 17. In the first column, the process output is normally
distributed; in the second column, it has a uniform distribution;
and in the third column, the measured characteristic is exponen-
tially distributed. The three distributions of X displayed in each
column are based on samples of size n = 5, n = 10, and n = 25.
The distributions in the first column illustrate the normal theory.
The distributions in the second and third columns demonstrate
the central limit theorem.
It is noteworthy that, had the process output been uniformly
distributed (i.e., not even close to bell-shaped), samples as small
as n = 5 would have ensured that X would be normally distrib-
uted. If the process output had been exponentially distributed,
the distribution of X would still be skewed to the right, even
with samples as large as n = 25.
This discussion of normal distributions can be concluded by
noting that:
• Nothing about normal distributions makes them “optimal” as
compared to other distributions of process output. While the
natural distributions of many processes are normally distrib-
uted, there are thousands of processes whose measurable
characteristics are not normally distributed—and some of
those distributions are seriously skewed. For example, the
distributions of measurements of plate glass strength, nickel
plating thickness, tank leakage, or length of time required to
resolve a customer’s complaint are all likely to be skewed.
• There is no substitute for knowing the data and then being
able to assess the process and the process output accordingly.
Because quality professionals are essentially in the continu-
ous improvement business, it is imperative that they develop
creative ways of displaying and assessing processes.
Nevertheless, when customers back their trucks up to their
suppliers’ shipping docks, they expect to load process output,
not the process itself, into their trucks. Quality—defined as
satisfying or exceeding customer needs and expectations—
dictates that every quality professional who had or will have
a vested interest in that process output should have complete
knowledge of what will be loaded into those trucks.
Until next time...
Part 1 of this SPC series started with the unsubstantiated
claims that the technology of the quality sciences has been
intellectually dormant for the past 65 years and that the techni-
cal content of quality improvement is largely misunderstood by
many quality professionals. In the ensuing discussion, an in-
control process was defined, the decomposition of the total vari-
ation of process output into common-cause variation and spe-
cial-cause variation was described, the basic structure of a con-
trol chart was outlined, normally distributed marginal distribu-
tions of process output and control chart statistics were
explained, and the normal theory and central limit theorem were
stated and illustrated.
This discussion sets the stage for an extended examination of
those principles and procedures that enable quality profession-
als to use control charts to hear the voice of the process. That is
the topic of the second article in this two-part series, which will
appear next month.
References
1. Walter A. Shewhart, Economic Control of Quality of
Manufactured Product (New York, NY: D. Van Nostrand Company,
Inc., 1931).
2. W. Edwards Deming, Out of the Crisis (Cambridge, MA:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced
Engineering Study, 1986), pp. 322-323 and pp. 337-338.
3. Shewhart, Economic Control of Quality of Manufactured
Product, pp. 275-277.
Robert W. Hoyer is the president of Decision Dynamics Inc. in Ann
Arbor, MI. He received a doctorate in statistics from the Virginia
Polytechnic Institute in Blacksburg.
Wayne C. Ellis is a professor of statistics at Eastern Michigan
University in Ypsilanti. He received a doctorate in mathematics from
the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.
What did you think about this article?
Quality Progress needs your Excellent Circle #321
feedback. On the postage-paid
reader service card inserted toward Good Circle #322
the back of this magazine, please
circle the number that corresponds Fair Circle #323
with your opinion of the preceding Poor Circle #324
article.
/
Quality Progress May 1996 73