home > library

Frequently-Asked Questions about Capability

1. Are Cpk & Ppk acronyms? If so, what do they actually mean or represent?
2. What is the difference between Cp and Pp?
3. What is the difference in the formulas for Cpk and Ppk?
4. Are there maximum values for Cp, Cpk, Pp and Ppk?
5. How can I improve Cpk value, when it is less than 1.0?
6. Is it possible to have a Ppk value of 10 and a Pp number of 5?
7. What do the letters in Cp and Cpk stand for?
8. Why do capability indices formulas divide by 3?
9. What is an ideal Cpm value?
10. Can I compare two processes based on only the Cpk values of each of them?
11. Can the process performance index Ppk be applied on the ongoing process? If yes, how?
12. Why would I have Cp and Cpk indices well over 1 when some readings are outside the
specification limits?

Are Cpk & Ppk acronyms? If so, what do they actually mean or represent?
Since their introduction, there has been a lot of speculation as to meaning. Here is my two cents
worth.
Cp has always been know as capability of the process since I became aware of it and it has been
around for some time. My connection with Cpk came through the Ford "Continuous Process
Control and Process Capability Improvement Manual" probably more than 20 years ago. In the
Ford manual, a k value was used to represent the number of standard deviations between the
Target and the . I would assume that the Cpk came literally from Cp with a k factor adjustment.
In reference to the Pp and Ppk, the reference from the beginning has been to Process
Performance as opposed to Process Capability.

Gordon Constable Ph.D

What is the difference between Cp and Pp?

The technical difference is that the 6 sigma used for the Cp calculation (or the 3 sigma used for
the Cpk calculation) comes from the estimate of sigma based on the average range, and the 6
sigma used for Pp calculation (or 3 sigma used for the Ppk calculation) comes from the estimate
of sigma based on using all the data and the classical formula for the standard deviation. The
formulas for Cp and Cpk are here; formulas for Pp and Ppk are here.
In general, if the process is in control and normally distributed (standard assumptions when
doing capability analysis), both values should be close. However, since most processes wander
around a little bit (and are in control), an intuitive interpretation is that the Cpk is what you could
be doing and Ppk is what you are doing.
Gordon Constable Ph.D

What is the difference in the formulas for Cpk and Ppk? The only difference I see is the i
and r after the sigma symbol. What are these referring to?
The six sigma used for the Cpk calculation comes from the estimate of sigma based on the
average range (r). The six sigma used for the Ppk calculation comes from the estimate of sigma
based on using all the Individual data (i) and the classical formula.
In general, if the process is in control and normally distributed (standard assumptions when
doing capability analysis), both values should be close. However, since most processes wander
around a little bit (and are still in control), an intuitive interpretation is that the Cpk is what you
could be doing and Ppk is what you are doing.
Gordon Constable Ph.D

Are there maximum values for Cp, Cpk, Pp and Ppk?

No. As long as the spec range does not change and you continually reduce the variation, you will
increase these indices. I have seen as high as 36 and have heard of higher.
Gordon Constable Ph.D

How can I improve Cpk value, when it is less than 1.0?

First, compare Cpk to Cp. If Cpk is less than Cp and Cp is greater than one, center the process in
the specification. This should make Cpk comparable to Cp. If Cp and Cpk are less than one,
there are two actions you can take. The first (an unadvisable one) is to widen the specification
particularly on the side that has the spec limit closest to the center of the process ( ). The second
and more advisable answer is to improve the process by reducing variation in the process. If the
process is off-center, it would be advisable to try to center it as you try to improve it.
Gordon Constable Ph.D

Is it possible to have a Ppk value of 10 and a Pp number of 5?

This should not occur. You might have a negative number for the Ppk that is larger in absolute
value then the Pp number. This implies that the process mean lies outside the specification limits.
Gordon Constable Ph.D

What do the letters in Cp and Cpk stand for?

There is no authoritative answer. Cp has been around for a long time and many believe it stands
for Capability of the Process. Others say Process Capability, but that would reverse the letters.
As for Cpk, in the literature that I first saw about Cpk, k was the amount of the difference in the
target value and in standard deviations (the number of standard deviations that the process is off
target). Before you ask, Pp generally is said to be Process Performance.
Gordon Constable Ph.D

Why do capability indices formulas divide by 3?

When calculating Cp you divide the specification range by six sigma. This is plus and minus
three sigma on each side of the mean of the process which would include about 99.7% of the
distribution of output if the process is normal. Cp considers only the spread and not the centering
of the process. Consequently, you can have a capable process (Cp > 1) and not be making any
good product. Cpk considers the mean of the process and calculates two values ([Cp-usl = (USL
- )/3] and [Cp-lsl = ( - LSL)/3]). Since the specification has been split into two pieces, the
process spread is split into two as well [(6 )/2 = (3 )].
Gordon Constable Ph.D

What is an ideal Cpm value?

Generally there is no "ideal." Bigger is always better. The difference in Cpm as defined in
SQCpack is in the calculation of the stand deviation or variance term. The standard deviation for
Cpm is based on using the target value rather than the mean which will make sigma(pm) larger
and Cpm smaller when the process is not centered on the target value. You could say "ideally"
the process should be centered in the specification making Cpm = Cp. However, Cp might only
be 0.80 which clearly is not "ideal."
Gordon Constable Ph.D

Can I compare two processes based on only the Cpk values of each of them? Is there any
other tool by which I can say that one process is better than other?
It depends on what you mean by better. If the processes are producing the same product
dimension, then you can compare them more or less directly.
Cpk includes a centering factor as well as the variation factor. Unless you want to compare
centering as part of the two processes, use Cp.
Gordon Constable Ph.D

Can the process performance index Ppk be applied on the ongoing process? If yes, how?
The capability indices are designed to be applied to on going processes. They are an indication of
what a customer can expect in terms of quality from a particular process.
If you have a control chart on a characteristic for a process, SQCpack or CHARTrunner will
calculate these values for you if you enter the specifications. If you do not have either of these
programs, the Capability Analysis article series provides information on calculating capability.
Gordon Constable Ph.D

Why would I have Cp and Cpk indices well over 1 when some readings are outside the
specification limits?
My first guess would be that if you look at a control chart of the data, it is out of control. Before
you can do capability analysis, the process should be predictable and that requires that it be
stable (in-control). For a more detailed discussion, see How can Cpk be good with data outside
the specification?

Gentlemen, start your gages: R&R and variability

A number of factors affect the ability of a measurement system to discriminate among the units it
measures. These factors can be categorized generally into those that affect central location and
those that affect the variability (spread) of the measurements. Variability factors measured by
repeatability and reproducibility are the more familiar, while factors related to the central
location of the measurements (stability, bias, and linearity) are relatively new approaches. Both
approaches may need clarification. In addition, methods of measurement must be developed
along with standards for indicating their acceptability. In a series of articles, these concepts will
be addressed. The first of these will deal with repeatability and reproducibility and combining
them into the R&R component. The next article will take this R&R component and calculate
R&R percentages based on study variation, process variation, and tolerance.The Measurement
Study (classic) typically utilizes one to three appraisers for one measuring instrument that is
measuring a single characteristic. Each appraiser measures five to ten units selected from a
process two or three times (replications). Before proceeding with the analysis of the study, the
ranges for the replications of the measurements made by each appraiser on each part are
determined and used to calculate control limits for the range chart. Then each range is checked to
determine if it falls inside the limits. Those measurements that result in a range outside the limits
should be excluded from further analysis or should be redone. Operative assumptions include:
1. The measuring instrument stays in calibration (central location does not change);
2. Appraisers use the same method of measurement;
3. Parts are measured in the same place. (If the assumption that the parts are measured in the
same place is incorrect, the possibility of within-part variation will need to be
considered.)
Repeatability refers to the variation in measurements for one characteristic made with one
measuring instrument by one appraiser on the same part. An estimate of repeatability is obtained
by first determining the average range ( ) of the repeated measurements of the same
characteristic, using the same measuring instrument for several parts. Note: if more than one
appraiser is used in the study, the average range is the combination for all appraisers, e.g., [If
there are three appraisers, a, b, and c, you would determine the average range using ( = a + b
+ c )/3]. Next, the standard deviation for the repeatability (se) is estimated by dividing by d*2.
A 99% (-2.575 < z < +2.575) interval for repeatability is determined by multiplying 5.15 by
(se).Reproducibility refers to the difference in the average of the measurements on one
characteristic made by different appraisers using the same measuring instrument on the same
part(s). Note: if there is only one appraiser using the gage, there will be no reproducibility
(appraiser variation). Again, the assumptions are that the instrument stays in calibration, the
appraisers use the same method of measurement, and the part is measured in the same place. An
estimate of reproducibility is obtained by determining the mean of all the measurements made by
each appraiser e.g., [If there are three appraisers, a, b, and c, you would determine the average
range using ( = a + b + c )]. The range estimate for the operators (Ro) is obtained by
subtracting the minimum i from the Maximum i.Next, the standard deviation for
reproducibility (so) is estimated by dividing (Ro) by d*2. Again, a 99% (-2.575 < z < +2.575)

interval for repeatability is determined by multiplying 5.15 by (so).Since the measuring

instrument is used in making the measurements, it is a contributing factor to the calculation of
reproducibility. Therefore, the calculation of reproducibility needs to be adjusted by subtracting a
portion of repeatability. The adjusted appraiser variation is given by:
Where:
n = number of parts used in the study
r = number of times each part is used
R&R is the combination of repeatability and reproducibility variation and frequently is
considered as the total measurement variation excluding within part variation and variation in
central location. R&R studies can be done easily and accurately using software products like
GAGEpack.
How do you conduct an R&R Study?
The objective of a simple R&R study, which can be done using software such as GAGEpack, is
to determine whether the measurement system in use can adequately distinguish between or
among units. There are a number of factors that affect the ability of a measurement system to
discriminate among the units it measures. These factors may be categorized as those that
typically contribute to any process variation: machine (the gage), operator (appraiser), method
(method of measurement followed), material (units being measured), and environment. In
conducting a simple study, an attempt is made to minimize or hold most of these factors constant.
(Note: the study should replicate as much as possible the conditions under which the process
measurement is occurring. This essentially means that if production operators are making the
measurements, the study should use production operators under the same conditions that exist
when they are "normally" measuring the output. The study should not be conducted using quality
technicians in a lab.) Therefore:
1. One gage is used. (No inter-gage variation)
2. One method of measurement is employed by all of the appraisers involved. (No variation
due to the appraisers using different methods.)
3. The same dimension on each part is measured each time. A further assumption is that
each part is measured in the same place to eliminate the possibility of within-part
variation. (No variation introduced due to different characteristics or because the
measurements have been taken at different locations on the part.)
4. The study is conducted under the same type of conditions that exist when the parts are
normally measured. (No variation introduced by the location or environmental concerns
of where the measurements are taken.)

The two items that are specifically varied are the number of appraisers and the number of units
measured. The selection of these two factors is critical to meeting the objective of an R&R study.
The first one addressed is the number of appraisers. The appraisers should be selected from those
individuals who are currently measuring the output. If there is only one appraiser, then only one
should be used in the study. If there are two or three, use two or three. If there are more than 4 or
5, use two or three "typical" appraisers.
The second is the number of parts, generally between 5 and 10. The major factor to consider in
selecting the parts is that they need to represent the total variation for the characteristic being
studied for the process producing them. This means that going down to the line and pulling 5 to
10 consecutive parts or going to a bin and selecting 5 to 10 parts, is a not acceptable. The
selection of the parts must be spread out over time so that the parts represent the "typical"
variation in the process.
The final parameter is the number of replications, generally 2 or 3. A single replication will not
allow for separate estimates for equipment variation and appraiser variation. Too many
replications complicate the study without adding much value to the analysis. To be statistically
sound, take measurements randomly (see note below). This confounds the factor of time,
different in these repeated measurements, from appraisers and parts. As a practical matter, it
often comes down to making sure that the appraiser does not know which part is being measured
(randomizing the order of measurement) and no appraiser completes two replications before the
others finish one replication. For example:
Appraiser 1 measures all five parts once.
Appraiser 2 measures all five parts once.
Appraiser 3 measures all five parts once.
Appraiser 2 measures all five parts a second time.
Appraiser 3 measures all five parts a second time.
Appraiser 1 measures all five parts a second time.
Note: Do not always measure parts in the order of 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10
This results in something like Table 1 below once the data are organized.
Appraiser
John
John

Part 1
2.112
2.114

Part 2
2.112
2.106

Part 3
2.071
2.073

Part 4
2.101
2.097

Part 5
2.114
2.130

Mary
Mary

2.112
2.112

2.117
2.107

2.084
2.082

2.098
2.099

2.110
2.108

Gerry
Gerry

2.108
2.110

2.116
2.124

2.102
2.086

2.110
2.104

2.108
2.093

If you enter this type of information in GAGEpack as an R&R event, GAGEpack will calculate
R&R percentages. A free 30-day trial of GAGEpack is available at pqsystems.com.
How do you interpret an R&R Study?
After performing an R&R study, which can be done using software such as GAGEpack, there are
a number of ways to interpret the results. Frequently, since R&R is done in response to a
customer requirement, the customer will indicate how to interpret the results. The most common
here is the AIAG (Automotive Industry Action Group) standards, which are based on the R&R
percentage given under study results. These results may be calculated as a percent of study
variation, percent of specification, or percent of process variation.
For percent of study, the process variation is based on the spread of the parts (P) determined by
. This is considered a range and using the /d2 relationship, a sigma for the process is
estimated. This is then used to calculate the percentages.
A second method is to use the spread of the specs (USL - LSL). Now this must be compared to
the estimate of the measurement error (R&R). However, one needs to multiply the sigma of the
measurement by 5.15 (old method) or by 6.0 (new method) to compare the total measurement
spread with the spec spread. (An alternative method is to divide the spec range by the respective
numbers given above.)
The third method uses the information from an chart on the process and characteristic being
studied. In this case, enter the , the , and the sample size. This is used to estimate the process
spread.
Ideally the measurement error (R&R%) is less than 10% of whatever method is used (process
spread or spec spread). It is usable in some cases when the R&R percentage is between 10 and
30%. More than 30% suggests that one should not be using it. [page 60 of MSA Manual 2nd
edition or page 77 of MSA Manual 3rd edition]
If the number of distinct categories is 5 or more, it can be considered a capable measurement
system. Wheeler and Lyday use a concept closely aligned with distinct categories called
discrimination ratio, for which greater than four is satisfactory. The differences, in a nutshell, are
that the distinct categories is a truncated number (no rounding or fraction used) and the
discrimination Ratio assumes that appraiser variation has been reduced to zero and carries the
fractional part as well.
Stability and linearity: Keys to an effective measurement system
Knowing that a measurement system is stable is a comfort to the individuals involved in
managing the measurement system. If the measuring process is changing over time, the ability to

use the data gathered in making decisions is diminished. If there is no method used to assess
stability, it will be difficult to determine the sensitivity of the measurement system to change and
the frequency of the change. Calibrations and R&R studies provide some information about
changes in the measurement system, but neither of these provides an accurate picture of what is
happening to the measurement process over time.
Stability is the key to predictability. In terms of measuring equipment, stability is determined by
using a control chart. Repeated measurements are obtained using a measurement device on the
same unit (frequently called a master) to measure a single characteristic over time. As
measurements are taken, points within the limits indicate that the process has not changed and
the prediction is made that it is not likely to change in the future.
The appropriate time interval is often a major consideration when analyzing the measurement
system. Knowledge of the circumstances and conditions in which the equipment is used will help
identify special causes when the system is unstable. Action should be taken to make the
measurement system robust to the conditions that cause instability. The more likely it is that the
measurement system will change, the shorter the interval should be between measurements.
In addition to using control charts and understanding the concept of stability for the measurement
system, determining the linearity of the measurement system and understanding its impact on the
measured values will contribute to the effectiveness of the measurement system. Linearity is the
difference in the accuracy values through the expected operating range of the equipment. The
linearity can be determined by selecting parts throughout the entire operating range of the
instrument. The accuracy of those parts is determined by the difference between the master
measurement and the observed average measurement. The accuracy of these parts can be
determined by plotting the accuracy values from the smallest size (closed position) to the largest
size (open position). The linearity of the equipment is represented by the slope of a "best fit" line
through these points. This best fit line is determined by using least squares regression.
If equipment demonstrates non-linearity, one or more of these conditions may exist
1. Equipment not calibrated at the upper and lower end of the operating range;
2. Error in the minimum or maximum master;
3. Worn equipment;
4. Possible review of internal equipment design characters.
Product and process conformance are determined by measurements that are taken by a
measurement system. Errors in these measurements have a direct bearing on conformance as
defined within the system. A clear understanding of the results of the measurement system
requires an understanding of the possible error within the system. To understand this error, one
needs to understand the terminology, and in particular the concepts of stability and linearity. Both
stability charts and linearity plots can easily be accomplished using software products like
GAGEpack.