Talk:Process capability index: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 12:28, 18 September 2009

Latest revision as of 11:53, 8 February 2024

(21 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|

I corrected the notation for "variability of the process" to standard deviation to avoid confusion between sigma and sigma squared, variance/variability, and standard deviation.

{{WikiProject Business|importance=Low}}

Hyoga 11/26/2007

{{WikiProject Statistics|importance=Low}}

----

}}

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=Talk:Process capability index/Archives/|format=Y|age=26297|index=yes|archivebox=yes|box-advert=yes}}

----

There is no point in listing an equation if you are not going to define what the variables mean. Namely, what on earth is do USL and LSL stand for? Even sigma should be defined for those who do not know what they are looking at.

:Fixed. --mabahj 11:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

USP - Upper Specification Limit

LSL - Lower specification Limit

These are related to statistical process control (SPC).

-- Manaf 28 June 2007 (EST)

== ... and how are these interpreted? ==

It would be ''really'' helpful, I think, if someone could add a sentence or two for each measure to say what a "good" value is ... e.g., 1.0 is good, higher is better, things like that. [[User:Sn14534|Sn14534]] 13:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

== C<SUB>pk</SUB> ==

I have noticed that the Ckp value equation has an mistake; there shoud be T instead of µ (targed instead of estimated/calculated mean). If µ is used, the result is PPk. Could someone make the correction, please.

Antti 29th Aug 2007 <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/192.130.237.254|192.130.237.254]] ([[User talk:192.130.237.254|talk]]) 06:57, August 29, 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:*C<SUB>pk</SUB> does not take the target, T, into account according to NIST (http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/pmc/section1/pmc16.htm) or Montgomery (http://he-cda.wiley.com/WileyCDA/HigherEdTitle/productCd-0471656313.html). Perhaps you're thinking of a variant on C<SUB>pk</SUB> that does? — [[User:DanielPenfield|DanielPenfield]] 16:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a missing word in the following clause? 'is', maybe? And is this English? I'd much prefer "Because the process capability..."

<blockquote>

Being the process capability a function of the specification

</blockquote>

--[[Special:Contributions/71.10.226.43|71.10.226.43]] ([[User talk:71.10.226.43|talk]]) 12:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)