The Analysis of Means (ANOM) for Signal and Noise

NEIL R. ULLMAN

County College of Morris, Randolph, New Jersey 07869

The methodology of the design of experiments has primarily been used to study the effects of a set
of factors on the mean response. Two principal techniques used in such analyses are the Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) and the Analysis of Means (ANOM), the latter being primarily a graphical method.
While variability in expl:lriments has been studied to some extent, e.g. use of a components of variance
analysis, it is only recently that the purpose of some experiments has been the systematic study of
variability. Taguchi and others have introduced the use of SN or signal-to-noise ratios as the response
variable and this has encouraged research into alternative statistics to study processes. T aguchi has
stressed the use of combined level/variation statistics; others have argued for transformations of the
data andlor separate analyses of mean and variation. This paper presents a simple extension of the
ANOM, designated "Analysis of Ranges-ANOR," for the analysis of dispersion effects and the
interactive relationships of mean and variation. Tables are provided for simplifying the computation
of limits for ANOR.

Introduction transformations as a more appropriate technique.

TATISTICAL design techniques such as the ANOVA
Another alternative is to separately analyze location
and dispersion effects and then simultaneously eval
and the ANOM (see Ott [1967, 1975]) are used to
uate them. Nair and Pregibon (1986) present one such
examine the average response of a process with the
approach; this paper presents a simple alternate pro
purpose of either determining the process settings
cedure.
which optimize the average output or the variables
which influence the average response. The major in Analysis of Means-(ANOM)
terest in the variability has been limited to either
Ott (1967) proposed a simple graphical alternative
checking on the homogeneity of variance assumptions
to the Analysis of Variance for comparing means from
or to locate the major sources of variation in the re
planned factorial experimental designs. The proce
sponse (components of variance analysis). Tests such
dure uses an extension of a Shewhart control chart
as Cochran's, Bartlett's, and others are used to check
where the data are not assumed to occur in time-de
whether the variance is constant over treatment com
pendent fashion. In a one-way layout, all the sample
binations. When the variance is not constant, then
means are compared by the use of "decision limits"
variance stabilizing transformations are often used
which are similar to control limits but account for the
(see Scheffe [1959]). In the ANOM procedure a range
simultaneous comparison of all the means.
control chart can be used to determine when the con
stant variance assumption is reasonable. Larger factorial designs can also be analyzed; in
such designs all sample means for each factor are av
Recently, there has been increasing interest in
eraged at each level and graphically compared. Mul
studies to determine the process settings that minimize
tiple readings at each treatment combination are re
variability (Taguchi and Wu [1985]). The use of "SN"
quired in order to obtain an estimate of within-sample
or Signal to Noise ratios in various forms (Taguchi
variation (although Schilling [1973] does develop a
[1986], Kackar [1985]) has been suggested as the ap
technique to use when multiple readings are not
propriate statistic to use in the study of process vari
available). The decision limits are based upon the
ability. Much of the concern has been on whether to
number of comparisons to be made, the size of the
use a single preferred statistic, such as the SN ratio
samples, and the degrees of freedom of the variance
(Phadke et al. [1983]), or to analyze both signal and
estimate. Two-way interactions can also be evaluated.
noise separately. Box (1988) has proposed the use of
The Analysis of Means for variables data with mul
Mr. Ullman is a Professor of Mathematics and Mechanical tiple readings obtained at each treatment combination
Engineering Technology. He is a Senior Member of ASQC. involves the following:

Vol. 21, No. 2, April 1 989 1 1 1 Journal of Quality Technology

1 12 NEIL R. ULLMAN

1. Determine an estimate of experimental error. the estimate of the standard deviation of an obser
This is generally found by averaging the ranges of vation,
each of the subgroups and computing
u = 4.54/2.08 = 2.18 (where d = 2.08, and has
U = R/d dj -- 0.9(p)(k)(r - 1) = 0.9(4)(2)(3) = 21.6).
(where d*2 is found, for example in Ott [1975]). To
Note that this compares very closely to V5.07 2.25
test homogeneity of variance, the ranges can be plot
=

which is the estimate of u found from the residuals

ted on a range "control chart," using, the Da and D4
in the ANOVA presented in Snedecor and Cochran
control chart factors (ASTM [197J).
(1980). A "control chart" for ranges would show no
2. Compute the overall mean, X.
unusual values.
3. For each main effect, the average response for
2. The overall average or grand mean is X = 21.4.
each level is computed and graphed.
3. For each factor the average response is deter
4. The decision limits for the comparison of means
mined for each level:
are
low high
Ott (1975)
Ammonia 18.9 23.9
or Salt 18.9 23.8
X h"uxVCk - l)/k Schilling (1973) Dung 20.4 22.4.
where Ha and ha are found in the indicated references 4. Since each level has a total of 16 readings,
and
Ux = 2.18/Y16 = 0.545.
Ux = u/VPr
The number of comparisons are k = 2, and we find
(pr number of values at each level, where p num
= =
from Ott (1975)
ber of samples being averaged for each level and r
= number of replicates in each sample). Note that H" Hom = 1.48 and Hom = 2.01.
h,,/Vk where k number of levels or means
Limits are:
= =

being tested.
5. Usually 5% and 1% limits are computed and UDL = Upper Decision Limits = X + Haux
points lying outside any limit implies that these effects
are significant. LDL = Lower Decision Limits = X - Haux

Example 1 UDLoo" = 21.4 + 0.8 = 22.2

Consider the full 23 factorial design replicated 4
LDLo.tJr, 21.4 - 0.8 20.6
times (in 4 blocks) in Snedecor and Cochran (1980).
= =

The experiment involved treatments of ammonia (A), UDLoOI = 21.4 + 1.1 = 22.5
salt (S), and dung (D) applied to crops of mangold
plants. The data are shown in Table 1. LDLool = 21.4 - 1.1 = 20.3.
Following the above steps: The points and limits are plotted in Figure 1a. Ob
1. The average range, R = 4.54, is computed using serve that the effects for all three factors are statis
the eight treatment combinations. From this we find tically significant. Interactions can also be tested.

TABLE 1 . Yields of Mang old R o ots

Ammonia None 0.6 cwt/acre

Salt None 5 cwt/acre None 5 cwt/acre

Dung None lOT/a, None lOT/a. None lOT/a, None lOT/a,

1 9.2 20.8 1 8.9 22.2 20.6 26.8 25.3 27.7

15.5 1 8.5 20.2 18.6 16.9 1 7.8 27.6 28.6
17.0 20.1 1 6.7 22.3 1 9. 5 18.6 29.1 28.7
11.7 1 9.2 20.7 21 . 1 21.9 1 9.0 25.4 28.5

J ournal of Quality Technology Vol. 2 1 , No. 2, April 1 989

 THE ANALYSIS OF MEANS (ANOM) FOR SIGNAL AND NOISE
MEANS
25
24
23
22
"a
Gi
): 21
20
19
18
+ + +
Ammonia Salt Dung
FIGURE 1 a.
Extension to Analysis of Ranges
Ott (1975, pp. 260-264) proposed that the ANOM
approach could be used to compare variability. This
section suggests a procedure which can be used to
examine whether variability varies with factor levels.
In this procedure the sample ranges for each level of
each main effect are averaged and compared to see if
significant differences exist. The procedure can be
used to find combinations of factor levels for which
variability is smallest.
The method uses the ANOM approach to analyze
the average ranges. Two alternative methods are pre
sented for determining the decision limits; in the first
the limits are based on a normal approximation and
in the second they are based on a more exact proce
dure using a beta approximation to the distribution
of mean ranges.
Nonnal Approximation
It is known from the central limit theorem that
means, even from very non-normal distributions, rap
idly approach normality as the sample size increases.
Thus, while the range is not normally distributed, the
means of ranges would be approximately normal. For
each factor in a two- or higher-way factorial design
with replication there will be several sample ranges
from which an average range can be obtained. For
example, in a 23 experiment there are four treatment
combinations (groups) within each level. For each
group a range can be computed from the replicates
yielding four sampIe ranges for each level of the three
factors. The four ranges are averaged together for each
of the two levels and then compared.
The analysis procedure is as follows:
Vol. 2 1 , No. 2, April 1 989
1 13
1. Compute the average range R. This was done as
part of the ANOM.
2. Determine the estimated standard error for the
range UR' This is a function of the number of replicates
r and is given by
.01
.05
where DR is provided in Table 2. This table is an ex
.05
.01 panded version of the one presented in Ott (1975, Ta
ble 13-10) or the Biometrika Tables (Pearson and Hartley
[1954, pg 46]) where these are listed as the standard
error of the range estimator of u.
3. The average range is found for each level of each
main effect and is plotted.
4. Decision limits for the "Analysis of Range Chart"
are found essentially in the same way as for the
ANOM. First we calculate UIi, the estimated standard
error for the average range, as
UIi = UR/VP = DRR/VP
where p is the number of subgroups or ranges in each
average range.
Then the decision limits are
RH"UIi
or
where the H" is the same as previously defined.
Beta Approximation
In the Appendix a beta approximation to the dis
tribution of the mean range ratios is developed and
used to provide decision limits for the mean range. A
table of factors for determining the upper and lower
decision limits for the mean range is given in Table
12. These factors are labeled Hu and HL, respectively,
and depend on the number of replications (r), the
number of samples in each average range (p), and the
TABLE 2. DR Fact ors f or ANOR
Number of Replicates r
2 0.756
3 0.524
4 0.428
5 0.371
6 0.335
7 0.308
8 0.288
9 0.272
10 0.259
Journal of Quality Technology
1 14 NEIL R. ULLMAN

number of comparisons (k). The decision limits for These decision limits are shown in Figure lb. From
the ANOR are then found as Table 12 with r = 4, P = 4, k = 2, the critical factors
using the beta approximations are
UDL = HuR
HL Hu
LDL = HLR.
0.05 0.709 1.291
Example 1 (Continued)
0.01 0.623 1.377.
We analyze, in Example 1, the average ranges for
each factor, first using the limits based on the normal When multiplied by R, these yield
approximation and then using the beta approxima LDL UDL
tion.
0.05 3.22 5.86
1. The average range is R = 4.54.
0.01 2.83 6.25.
2. The estimated standard error of the range is
These provide slightly tighter limits and are indicated
Ui/ 0.428(4.54) = 1.94.
in the margin of Figure 1b as alternate limits.
=

3. The average range at each level for each factor We will refer to this as the Analysis of Ranges here
is after abbreviated ANOR. The ANOR graph shows that
Low High at the 0.05 level the only significant difference in the
ranges is for the salt factor. Thus, we see that the
Ammonia 4.38 4.70
addition of salt significantly increases the yield and
Salt 5.95 3.12
reduces the variability. Ammonia significantly in
Dung 5.08 4.00.
creases the yield but has no affect on variability while
These are plotted in Figure lb. the presence of dung reduces the variability but not
4. The estimated standard error of the average significantly. (One other possibility is that there may
range is be some outliers among the data.)

Analysis of Ranges as a Test

The HOOG and Ho.ol values are as before and the decision for Consistency of Variation
limits using the normal approximation are
The Analysis of Ranges can be used to examine
0.05 level 4.54 1.48 (0.97) = 4.54 1.44 nonuniformity in variation. Its application will be
0.01 level 4.54 2.01 (0.97) = 4.54 1.95 demonstrated through two examples, one dealing with
an outlier and the other for evaluating the need and
or
success of a variance stabilizing transformation.
UDL LDL

0.05 3.10 5.98 Example 2

0.01 2.59 6.49.
The first, example two, from Snedecor and Cochran
(1980, p. 280) is a simple one-way analysis consisting
RANGES of four treatment levels of one factor (in four blocks)
which contained a suspected outlier. The data are
7 ,------,
provided in Table 3. An analysis of the data by Sne
.01
6 .05 decor and Cochran using a statistic called the MNR
showed an apparent outlier (p < 0.01) whose value is
5 1.04, The ANOR procedure can be used even though
it is an extreme case (we have only one range for each
4 level of the single factor).
1. The ranges for the four levels are 0.03, 0.31, 0.04,
3 .05
and 0.07. The average range is R = 0.112 (with dj
.01
- 0.9(4)(3) 10.8).
=

2-r--_.----r_--._--_r--_.
+ +
2. Each sample consists of one range, therefore p
+
Ammonia Salt Dung = 1 and

FIGURE lb. Ui/ = 0.428(0.112)/VI = 0.0479.

J ournal of Quality Tec hn ology V ol. 2 1 , No. 2, April 1 989

 THE ANALYSIS OF MEANS (ANOM) FOR SIGNAL AND NOISE 115

TABLE 3. Example 2-Ratio of Dry to Wet Grain TABLE 4. Example 3-Survival Times
Nitrogen Applied at Different Times
Original Data Transformed Data
Remedies Remedies
None Early Middle Late

A B C D A B C D
0.72 0.73 0.73 0.79
0.72 0.78 0.72 0.72
Poison
0.70 1 . 04 0.76 0.76
0.31 0.82 0.43 0.45 3. 226 1 .220 2.326 2.222
0.73 0.76 0.74 0.78
0.45 1.10 0.45 0.71 2.222 0.909 2.222 1.408
0.46 0.88 0.63 0.66 2. 1 74 1 .136 1.587 1.515
0.43 0.72 0.76 0.62 2.326 1.389 1.316 1 . 61 3

Since HO.05 = 2.58 and HO.01 = 3.43, the decision limits II 0.36 0.92 0.44 0.56 2.778 1 . 087 2.273 1 .786
are 0.29 0.61 0.35 1.02 3.448 1.639 2.957 0.980
0.40 0.49 0.31 0.71 2.500 2.041 3.226 1.408
UDLo05 = 0.112 + 0.124 = 0.236 0.23 1 .24 0.40 0.38 4.348 0.806 2.500 2.632

III 0.22 0.30 0.23 0.30 4.545 3.333 4.348 3.333

UDLo01 = 0.112 + 0.164 = 0.276
0.21 0.37 0.25 0.36 4:762 2.703 4.000 2.778
LDLo.05 = 0.112 - 0.124 = 0 0.18 0.38 0.24 0.31 5.556 2.632 4. 1 67 3.226
0.23 0.29 0.22 0.33 4.348 3.448 4.545 3.030
LDLo.01 = 0.112 - 0.164 = O.

Note, the lower limit cannot be less than O.

A technique used to stabilize variability is to per
Alternately, if we refer to Table 12 to obtain the
0.05 and 0.01 values of HL and Hu which are 0.282, form some type of transformation on the data. This
0.200,2.023,and 2.254,respectively,then the decision is usually appropriate when the means and variances
(or standard deviations) are correlated. The ANOR
limits using the beta approximation are
technique can be used to determine if such (j trans
UDLo.,Jr, = 2.023(0.112) = 0.227 formation is needed and then to evaluate whether it
was successful in stabilizing the variance.
UDLoo] = 2.254(0.112) = 0.252
Example 3
LDLoo" = 0.282(0.112) = 0.032
Example three is taken from Section 7.7 of Box,
LDLoo] = 0.200(0.112) = 0.022. Hunter, and Hunter (1978). The survival times of an
Figure 2 is an ANOR plot. The second point is well imals given three poisons and four treatments (which
beyond the 0.01 significance level limit confirming the I will call remedies to avoid confusion with treatment
result cited above. Using the alternate limits, we also effects) are presented. This is analyzed as a 3 X 4 rep
find that one value is significantly low. Again, we can licated factorial experiment (4 replicates). The data
see the advantage of the ANOR in that it not only are listed in Table 4. Both main effects of poisons and
indicates that something is significant but it points remedies and the interaction between poisons and
out where the significance lies. remedies were significant. A reciprocal transformation
was then used which resulted in an increase in the
significance of the main effects and the elimination
0.40 of the significance of the interaction.
The ranges and averages over the four replicates
0.30 for each factor level are given in Table 5. Computa
.01
tions for the ANOM and the ANOR limits are shown
., .05 in Table 6 for both the original data and the trans
Cl
c 0.20
01
a:
formed values.
The ANOM for the original means is displayed in
0.10
Figure 3a and shows the significant poisons and sig
.05
nificant remedies. In Figure 3b an ANOR is provided
0.00 .01
for the same data set. Note that the magnitudes of the
None Early Middle Late
ranges and hence the variances are significantly dif
Times ferent for different poisons (p < 0.01) as well as rem
FIGURE 2. edies (p < 0.05). The authors, recognizing that the

Vol. 2 1 , No. 2, April 1 989 Journal of Quality Te chn ology

116 NEIL R. ULLMAN

variability may be dependent on the mean level, used TABLE 6. ANOM and ANOR Calculations for Example 3
a reciprocal transformation and reanaiyzed the data.
df - 0.9(k)(r - 1) = 0.9(12)(3) 32 d; = 2.07
=
An examination of the ANOM and the ANOR charts
Comparisons (k) 3 4
in Figures 3a and 3b shows that there is a degree of 2.04 2.28
HOD5
parallelism or consistency between the two charts, Ho.OI 2.58 2.85
indicating that the level of variability may be depen
dent on the mean. Means

In Figure 3c and 3d are the ANOM and ANOR charts Original Transformed
for the transformed values. Observe that the same U = R/d2 0.253/2.07 = 0.122 1.014/2.07 = 0.490
type of significance occurs in the means chart for the
original and transformed data, except that the points Ui = u/Vp;.
and lines are mirror images of one another in the two Poisons 0.122/m = 0.031 0.122
Remedies 0.122/v12 0.035 0.141
charts owing to the reciprocal transformation. How =

ever, the range chart for the transformed data now Limits: X H.ui
shows no points beyond the limits as the transfor Poisons
mation has removed or reduced the dependence be 0.05 0.416-0.542 2.371-2.869
tween the mean and the variance. 0.01 0.399-0.559 2.305-2.935

Remedies
Examining Signal and Noise 0.399-0.559 2.299-2.941
0.05
Considerable work in the analysis of experimental 0.D1 0.379-0.579 2.305-2.935
designs is now being undertaken in a format proposed
Ranges
by Taguchi (1986) based on the use of replicated frac
tional factorial designs. The results are analyzed by ua = DaR = 0.428R 0.108 0.434
computing sample averages, estimated standard de Uii =uRVP
viations, and a signal to noise ratio (SN) which may Poisons 0.054 0.217
Remedies 0.062 0.251
be a function of log(x/s). Several different SN func
tions have been proposed (Kackar [1985]) with the se Limits
lection depending on whether the objective is to re Poisons
0.05 0.143-0.363 0.571-1.457
duce the mean (smaller is better), increase the mean
0.01 0.114-0.392 0.454-1.574
(larger is better), or aim for a target. The means and Remedies
the SN values are then subjected to ANOVA calcula 0.05 0.112-0.394 0.442-1.586
tions and special graphs plotted. 0.D1 0.076-0.430 0.299-1.729

As an alternate approach, the means and the vari Alternate Method for finding limits for ANOR Charts
ances can be analyzed separately through the use of Poisons (k = 3, P = 4)
0.05 0.614(0.253) 0.155 = 0.622
ANOM and ANOR charts. This is appropriate, since
1.434(0.253) = 0.363 1.454
0.01 0.540(0.253) 0.137 = 0.548
1.536(0.253) 0.389 = 1.558
TABLE 5. Averages for Various Factor Levels Remedies (k = 4, P = 3)
for Example 3 0.05 0.529(0.253) = 0.134 0.536
1.576(0.253) = 0.399 1.598
Original Transformed 0.01 0.453(0.253) = 0.115 0.459
1.708(0.253) = 0.432 1.732
Factor Mean Range Mean Range

Poison
I 0.618 0.280 1.80 0.839 there are multiple readings for each treatment com
II 0.544 0.422 2.27 1.422 bination. Furthermore, although we can consider the
III 0.276 0.058 3.80 0.782 ANOM chart for studying the mean response or signal
Remedy and the ANOR chart for studying the response vari
A 0.314 0.123 3.52 1.369 ability or noise separately, it would be more efficient
B 0.677 0.407 1.86 0.844 to examine the two charts together. We then find five
C 0.392 0.163 2.95 0.836 possible situations for each main effect:
D 0.438 0.320 2.16 1.007
Case 1. Neither signal nor noise are significant.
Average 0.479 0.253 2.62 1.014
Case 2. Only Signal is significant.

J ournal of Qualify Tec hn ology Vol. 2 J, No. 2, April J 989

 THE ANALYSIS OF MEANS (ANOM) FOR SIGNAL AND NOISE 117

Means Original Ranges Transformed

0.7 2 ------,

.01
0.6 .01 .05
.05
0.5
c X Q)
III Cl
R
Q) C
:E III
a:
0.4 .05
.01
.05
0.3
.01

0.2 O'----r---.---'-------'-
II III A B c D II III A B C D
Poison Remedy Poison Remedy

FIGURE 30. FIGURE 3d.

Case 3. Only Noise is significant.

Range Original
Case 4. Both are significant in a "complementary"
0.50 way. By complementary it is meant that the signal
.01 and noise change in such a way as to possibly provide
0.40 .05 an enhanced effect. Thus, if a decrease in signal level
is desirable (or easily adjusted for through another
Q) 0.30 factor) and the noise decreases at the same time along
Cl
c with the signal, this is a desirable coupling of the signal
III
a:
0.20 and noise. However, if the SN is computed as a mean
(signal) over noise (variation), this ratio may not show
.05
0.10 significant differences in either signal or noise. In such
.01
situations significant factors may be overlooked.
0.00 Case 5. Both are significant but in an "interactive"
II III A B c D or inverse way. A decrease in noise is generally con
Poison Remedy sidered desirable. If on the other hand the signal acts
in an opposite or less desirable way (which will depend
FIGURE 3b.
on the goals of the experiment), the combination may
vary in such a way that the root cause is difficult to
assess. Furthermore, the SN ratio may become ex
aggerated. The ratio of a small mean and large vari
Means Transformed
ation would yield a small SN; increasing the mean
4 ------
and simultaneously decreasing the variation might
then create a significant increase in the SN ratio.

.01
It is not intuitively clear how SN ratios for Cases 4
3 and 5 can be used if the objectives are "smaller is
.05
X better" or "larger is better" and the subsequent SN
.05 functions are not just ratios of the mean and variation.
2 .01 This will be pointed out again in the examples. Two
examples will be considered here.
Example 4
Example four comes from Quinlan (1985). In this
II III A B C D
experiment, an LI6 orthogonal array which is a frac
Polson Remedy
tional factorial design was used to evaluate 15 factors
FIGURE 3c. for their effects on the shrinkage of a speedometer

Vol. 27, No. 2, April 7989 Journal of Quality Te chn ology

1 18 NEIL R. ULLMAN

TABLE 7. Test Levels and Results for Example 4

Run A B C D E F G H J K L M N 0 Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Mean Range

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.49 0.54 0.46 0.45 0.485 0.09

2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.55 0.60 0.57 0.58 0.575 0.05
3 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.08 0.088 0.04
4 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 0.16 0.16 0.19 0.19 0.175 0.03
5 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 0.13 0.22 0.20 0.23 0.195 0.10
6 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 0.16 0.17 0.13 0.12 0.145 0.05
7 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 0.24 0.22 0.19 0.25 0.225 0.06
8 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 0.13 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.175 0.06
9 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 0.06 0.10 0.14 0.18 0.120 0.12
10 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 0.07 0.04 0.19 0.18 0.120 0.15
11 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 0.48 0.49 0.44 0.41 0.455 0.08
12 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.54 0.535 0.01
13 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 0.13 0.17 0.21 0.17 0.170 0.08
14 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 0.28 0.26 0.26 0.30 0.275 0.04
15 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 0.34 0.32 0.30 0.41 0.342 0.11
16 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.58 0.62 0.59 0.54 0.582 0.08
0.2914 0.0719

casing. Four samples were taken at each of the 16
combinations of settings and SN ratios were calculated
for each of these sets of conditions. In this case smaller
is "better" since we want to minimize shrinkage.
Quinlan analyzed -10 log[l/n y2] using analysis of
variance. Box (1988) used this data set to argue that
it would be more appropriate to transform the data
prior to analysis. His results differed from Quinlan's
regarding which of the factors might be interpreted
as being significant.
The ANOM and ANOR can be applied to this type
of data. In Table 7 the layout of the design array, the
test values, and the mean and range for each set of
conditions is presented. For each factor the average
response and average range at the low and high
levels respectively are presented in Table 8.
The ANOM and ANOR limits are listed in Table 9
and the graphs are provided in Figures 4a and 4b.
Note that the limits for the ANOM are based on sam
ples of size 32 (each mean based on 32 values) while
the ANOR limits are computed from the averages of
eight values.
TABLE 9. ANOM and ANOR Limits for Example 4

R = 0.0719 dj - 43.9 d = 2.07 U = 0.0719/2.07 = 0.0345

TABLE 8. Average Means and Average Ranges
k 2 H.o" = 1.43 HOI = 1.91 X = 0.2914
for Each Factor Level-Example 4
=

Ui = 0.0345/\"32 = 0.0061
Means Ranges
ANOM:
.05 UDL 0.2914 + 1.43(0.0061) 0.2914 + 0.0087 0.3001
1 (-) (+) 1 (-) (+)
= = =
Factor 2 2
LDL = 0.2914 - 1.43(0.0061) 0.2914 - 0.0087
= = 0.2826
0.1 UDL 0.2914 + 1.91(0.0061) = 0.3031
A Liner O.D. 0.258 0.325 0.060 0.084
=

LDL = 0.2914 - 1.91(0.0061) 0.2797

0.319 0.264 0.071 0.072
=
B Liner Die
C Liner Material 0.337 0.246 0.065 0.079 ANOR:
D Liner Line Speed 0.261 0.322 0.085 0.059 UR = 0.428(0.0719) = 0.0308 p = 8 Uji = 0.0308/Vs = 0.0109
E Wire Braid Type 0.414 0.168 0.071 0.072
F Braiding Tension 0.328 0.255 0.090 0.054 0.05 UDL 0.0719
= + 1.43(0.0109) 0.0719 + 0.0156 0.0875
= =

G Wire Diameter 0.362 0.221 0.059 0.085 LDL 0.0719

= - 1.43(0.0109) = 0.0719 - 0.0156 = 0.0563
H Liner Tension 0.260 0.323 0.085 0.059 0.01 UDL = 0.0719 + 1.91(0.0109) = 0.0927
I Liner Temp 0.313 0.270 0.071 0.072 LDL = 0.0719 - 1.91(0.0109) = 0.0511
J Coating Material 0.291 0.292 0.070 0.074
Alternate ANOR limits: (r = 4, k = 2, P = 8)
K Coating Die Type 0.258 0.325 0.074 0.070
L Melt Temp 0.305 0.278 0.071 0.072 0.05 UDL = 1.208(0.0719) = 0.0869
M Screen Pack 0.278 0.305 0.082 0.061 LDL 0.792(0.0719) 0.0569
= =

N Cooling Method 0.288 0.295 0.064 0.080 0.01 UDL = 1.271(0.0719) = 0.0914
0 Line Speed 0.295 0.288 0.078 0.066 LDL = 0.729(0.0719) 0.0524 =

J ournal of Quality Tec hn ology Vol. 2 J, No. 2, April J 989

 THE ANALYSIS OF MEANS (ANOM) FOR SIGNAL AND NOISE 119

Means

0. 4 0 -

0.01
030
. __ X
0.01

0.2 0

- + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - +
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N o

FACTORS
FIGURE 4a.

Ranges

1. 00

0.01
0.9 0
0.05

0.8 0
r!i
e s
.-
0.7 0 R
:;;:...l

0.60
0.05
05
. 0 0.01

0. 40

- + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - +
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N o

FACTORS
FIGURE 4b.

Vol. 2 1 , No. 2, Ap ril 1 989 J ournal of Quality Tec hnology

120
TABLE 10. Significant Effects for Example 4
Case 1. Neither-J, L, M, N, 0
Case 2. Signal-Very Significant-E
Significant-C, K (B and I just significant)
Case 3. Noise-none alone
Case 4. Complementary-Very Significant Effect F (both
significant)
A (Signal is just significant, noise is
near significant)
Case 5. Interactive-G-This is very significant for signal and
near significant for noise in an
offsetting way
Since smaller is better, we search for conditions
which decrease the absolute shrinkage as well as the
variability of the shrinkage value. Initially the charts
are examined separately to observe which factors
might be significant. On the signal or means graph
(4a) two factors,E(wire braid) and G (wire diameter),
are highly significant. Eight additional factors are sta
tistically significant at the p < 0.01 level, but show
relatively small effects compared to E and G. (Two
other factors,Land M, are also just barely significant
at the p < 0.01 level.) The ANOR chart, which iden
tifies noise effects, shows one factor F as highly sig
nificant (p < 0.01), and four other factors (A, D,G, and
H) as close to significant at the p = 0.05 level.
The joint evaluation of the ANOM and ANOR is
shown in Table 10. Quinlan listed the order of impor
tance of the factors to be
E (most important), G, K, A, C, and F (slight).
Box (1988) suggested only E and G as important fac
tors.
With the ANOM/ANOR analysis, E is also found to
be the most important effect. Factor G, wire diameter,
is an important signal effect but there is an unclear
choice of optimum level since using level 2,the larger
diameter, decreases the magnitude of the shrinkage
but at the same time may cause an increase in the
variation. Factor F, braiding tension,is also important,
significantly affecting both the amount and variation
of shrinkage in a complementary way.
Although the assignment of appropriate levels for
these and the other factors yield essentially the same
results as reported by Quinlan, the basis for making
decisions on the levels to choose are more intuitive.
In addition, we have the opportunity to see any re
lationships between the signal and noise.
Journal of Quality Te chn ol ogy
NEIL R. ULLMAN
Example 5
Example five comes from Phadke et al. (1983)
(hereafter abbreviated as Phadke). An L81 design was
arranged to study the pre- and post-etch line widths
of microprocessor chips. The effects of the eight fac
tors (three at two levels and five at three levels) and
one interaction were estimated. Eighteen experiments
were performed with two wafers produced for each
condition and five readings taken on each wafer.
Since each condition has multiple readings,we are
able to apply the ANOM and ANOR to this data. The
ANOM follows the standard procedures described
previously. Each wafer is treated as a separate sample
and the range of the five readings is used in the ANOR
analysi&.
Figure 5 shows the graphs for the pre-etch values.
Since some of the factors have two levels and others
have three, the number of samples averaged for each
point varies. Thus, the width of the decision limits
varies. In addition,the "BD" interaction includes only
three combinations of the two levels of Band D with
the result that the two levels of Band D do not have
equal sample sizes.
The relative importance of signal, noise, or their
combination were examined for each factor. The ob
jective is to have the mean on target and the variation
as small as possible. In Phadke the SN was computed
as a function of mean/standard deviation. Observe
that a Case 4 effect can end up with a SN ratio which
does not vary for the two levels, while a Case 5 effect
will greatly exaggerate the SN ratio. The joint ex
amination of the two graphs together can avoid such
confusion. Table 11 summarizes the significant factors
for this example.
Phadke found that factors A, B, and C have signifi
cant effects on the mean pre-etch value while A and
F affect the SN. Except for factor G, for which the
mean (or signal) appears to be almost as significant
as C, and the ability to see the interactive relationship
between signal and noise for factor A,the two analyses
yield similar results. Nair and Pregibon (1986) also
found similar relationships using another type of lo
cation-dispersion plot.
An analysis was also performed on the post-etch
data. The factors are the same as before except for
the addition of I, etch time. Figure 6 shows the ANOM
and ANOR for these results. The significant effects for
signal are A (smaller than the rest), C, G, H, and B
(again after separation from BD). Four, or possibly
five, factors show significant noise effects-A,F, G, H,
Vol . 2 1 , No. 2, April 1 989
 THE ANALYSIS O F MEANS (ANOM) FOR SIGNAL AND NOISE 12 1

SIGNAL
3. 00

290
.
(115)
2.80
0.01
2.70 X
0.01
2.60
(110)

2.50

2.40

23
. 0
(56)

220
.

12 1 2 3 12 3 123 123 123 123 12 12

A BD C E F G H B D
FACTORS
FIGURE 50.

0.36 NOISE

03
. 4 0.01

0.32- 0.05

0.30 (11)

0.28
.g
E
en

R
0.26 .g .
;(....:1
02
. 4

02
.2
0.05

020
.
0.01

01
. 8

12 12 3 123 123 123 23 1 23 12 1 2

A BD C E F G H B D

FACTORS
FIGURE 5b.

Vol. 2 1 , No. 2, April 1 989 Journal of Quality Te chnology

122 NEIL R. ULLMAN

TABL 11. Significant Effects for Example 5

a. Organized by Results Pre-Etch Post-Etch

1. Neither- I
2. Signal-Highly BD (B, D), G, G B, G
Slightly- H E
3. Noise-Highly F F
Slightly- E
4. Complementary-Highly- A G (Somewhat), H
5. Interactive- A, D
h. Organized by Factor Pre-Etch Post-Etch

A Mask Dimension "S & N complementary "S & N interactive

GSpin Speed "S "S very signif
E Bake Time N barely significant S barely signif
F Aperture " N signif-S barely N somewhat signif
G Exposure Time "S "S & N signif , complement
H Developing Time Neither significant 'S & N signif, complement
I Etch Time Neither

BD Viscosity Bake Temp Signal

Band D separated from the BD effect-the limits on the graph must be examined
carefully since the sample sizes are not the same for each level.

B Viscosity Signal-Probably very significant

D Bake Temp Signal

and possibly D. The particular set of noise factors dis
covered here differs greatly with the conclusions of
Phadke, who found no factors affecting SN-his ver
sion of the variation effect. Three of these factors, A,
G, and H are thus significant for both signal and noise.
We can also see that for factor A the signal and noise
act i the same way while for factors G and H, the
signal and noise act in opposite ways.
If we compare the pre- and post-etch graphs we
find that the signal effects operate in almost identical
fashion. This does not happen with the noise effects
however. For factor A with the pre-etch data, the noise
at the low level is significantly low in value while
with the post-etch data, the noise at the low level is
significantly high. Factor F is unchanged from pre
etch to post-etch. Factors G and H were hot significant
in the pre-etch but are significant in the post-etch.
Although Phadke states that "ideally the signal fac
tor should have no effect on the SN," we might take
this as meaning that there should be no effect of signal
on the variation. In the post-etch analysis the signif
icant noise effect due to G was missed, probably due
to using an ANOVA for SN where the error term was
very large (and all factors had mean squares less than
the error mean square).
Concluding Remarks
The ANOM and ANOR have been studied primarily
for cases with balanced experimental designs. How
ever, work is being done to examine cases where the
number of samples or sample sizes vary for each level,
as well as for cases in which there are missing data.
These problems were evident in studying the Phadke
data, especially for the Band D factors.
Further work is being done to investigate the use
of standard deviations rather than ranges. Tables for
use with standard deviations are being developed.
However, in spite of the current availability of com
putational equipment which makes calculating very
simple, a compelling reason for the continued use of
the range is the ease of understanding it by the prac
titioner or more casual user. Furthermore, the sample
sizes used in the Taguchi experiments typically are
no greater than four or five and in these small sample
size cases the range is a highly efficient estimator of
the standard deviation.
It is important that we provide useful but simple
statistical techniques for general use. Industry has
undertaken major training programs in the broad use
of control chart methodologies. There is now a resur-

Journal of Quality Technology Vol. 21, No. 2, April 1989

 SIGNAL
3.70

36
. 0

35
. 0

3.4 0

33
. 0 0.01
X
32
. 0 0.01

3. 10

3. 00

2.90

2.8 0

12 23 123 23 23 23 123 23 12 12
A SD C E F G H I S D

FACTORS
FIGURE 60.

06
. 0 0.01
0.05

05
. 0

0.4 0
0.05
0.01

03
. 0

12 23 123 123 23 123 23 23 12 12

A SD C E F G H I S D

FACTORS
FIGURE 6b.

Vol. 2 J, No. 2, April J 989 123 Journal of Quality Te chn ology

 TABLE 12. ANOR Limits Using Beta Approximation

Replicates = 2

k
Com parisons 2 3 4 5 6 7

1) L U L U L U L U L U L U

1 0.05 0.156 1.844 0.068 2.438 0.053 2.795 0.044 3.058 0.038 3.263 0.034 3. 431
0.01 0.061 1.939 0.027 2.650 0.207 3.125 0.017 3.474 0.015 3.745 0.014 3.965
2 0.05 0.334 1.666 0.206 2.073 0.178 2.286 0.160 2.440 0.148 2.558 0.138 2.653
0.01 0.202 1.798 0.126 2.284 0.108 2.564 0.097 2.761 0.090 2.911 0.085 3.030
3 0.05 0.436 1.564 0.305 1.886 0.272 2.046 0.251 2.159 0.236 2.246 0.225 2.316
0.01 0.305 1.695 0.214 2.076 0.190 2.280 0.176 2.423 0.166 2.530 0.158 2.614
4 0.05 0. 503 1.497 0.375 1.770 0.341 1.900 0.319 1.992 0.303 2.063 0.292 2.119
0.01 0.377 1.623 0.282 1.941 0.256 2.106 0.240 2.219 0.228 2.304 0.220 2.371
5 0.05 0.550 1.450 0.427 1.690 0.393 1.801 0.371 1.880 0.355 1.939 0.343 1.987
0.01 0.432 1.568 0.336 1.846 0.309 1.985 0.292 2.058 0.279 2.151 0.270 2.208
6 0.05 0.587 1.413 0.468 1.630 0.434 1.728 0.413 1.797 0.397 1.850 0.385 1.892
0.01 0.474 1.526 0.379 1.774 0.352 1.895 0.331 1.978 0.322 2.040 0.312 2.089
7 0.05 0.615 1.385 0.502 1.583 0.468 1.671 0.447 1.734 0.432 1.781 0.420 1.818
0.01 0.509 1.491 0.415 1.717 0.387 1.826 0.370 1.900 0.357 1.955 0.347 1.998
8 0.05 0.639 1.361 0.529 1.545 0.497 1.626 0.476 1.683 0.461 1.726 0.449 1.760
0.01 0.537 1.463 0.445 1.671 0.418 1.770 0.400 1.837 0.387 1.887 0.378 1.926
10 0.05 0.675 1.325 0.573 1.486 0.542 1.557 0.522 1.605 0.507 1.642 0.496 1.672
0.01 0.582 1.418 0.494 1.560 0.467 1.684 0.449 1.742 0.437 1.784 0.427 1.817
12 0.05 0.703 1.297 0.606 1.443 0.577 1.506 0.557 1.549 0.543 1.582 0.532 1.608
0.01 0.616 1.384 0.532 1.547 0.505 1.622 0.488 1.672 0.475 1.709 0.466 1.738
14 0.05 0.724 1.276 0.633 1.410 0.604 1.466 0.585 1.506 0.572 1.535 0.561 1.559
0.01 0.642 1.358 0.562 1.506 0.536 1.573 0.519 1.618 0.507 1.652 0.498 1.678
16 0.05 0.741 1.259 0.654 1.383 0.627 1.435 0.609 1.471 0.596 1.498 0.586 1.520
0.01 0.664 1.336 0.587 1.473 0.561 1.534 0.545 1.575 0.533 1.606 0.524 1.629
20 0.05 0.768 1.232 0.688 1.342 0.663 1.387 0.646 1.418 0.633 1.442 0.624 1.461
0.01 0.698 1.302 0.626 1.422 0.602 1.475 0.586 1.510 0.575 1.536 0.567 1.557

Replicates = 3

k
Comparisons 2 3 4 5 6 7

P L U L U L U L U L U L U

1 0.05 0.343 1.657 0.215 2.055 0.186 2.263 0.168 2.412 0.155 2.527 0.146 2.620
0.01 0.211 1.789 0.133 2.265 0.115 2.536 0.104 2.728 0.096 2.873 0.090 2.989
2 0.05 0.511 1.489 0.383 1.757 0.349 1.884 0.327 1.973 0.312 2.041 0.300 2.096
0.01 0.386 1.614 0.291 1.925 0.265 2.085 0.248 2.195 0.237 2.278 0.228 2.343
3 0.05 0.594 1.406 0.476 1.618 0.443 1.714 0.421 1.782 0.405 1.833 0.393 1.874
0.01 0.483 1.517 0.388 1.760 0.360 1.878 0.328 1.959 0.330 2.020 0.320 2.067
4 0.05 0.645 1.355 0.537 1.535 0.504 1.614 0.483 1.669 0.468 1.711 0.457 1.745
0.01 0.545 1.455 0.454 1.659 0.426 1.755 0.408 1.821 0.395 1.869 0.386 1.907
5 0.05 0.681 1.319 0.580 1.477 0.549 1.546 0.529 1.594 0.514 1.630 0.503 1.659
0.01 0.589 1.411 0.502 1.589 0.474 1.671 0.457 1.727 0.445 1.768 0.435 1.801
6 0.05 0.708 1.292 0.613 1.435 0.583 1.496 0.564 1.538 0.550 1.570 0.539 1.596
0.01 0.622 1.378 0.539 1.537 0.512 1.610 0.495 1.659 0.483 1.695 0.474 1.723
7 0.05 0.729 1.271 0.639 1.402 0.611 1.458 0.592 1.496 0.579 1.525 0.568 1.548
0.01 0.649 1.351 0.569 1.497 0.543 1.562 0.526 1.606 0.514 1.639 0.505 1.664
8 0.05 0.746 1.254 0.660 1.376 0.633 1.427 0.615 1.462 0.602 1.488 0.592 1.509
0.01 0.670 1.330 0.593 1.464 0.568 1.524 0.552 1.564 0.540 1.594 0.531 1.617
10 0.05 0.772 1.228 0.694 1.335 0.668 1.380 0.651 1.410 0.639 1.433 0.630 1.452
0.01 0.704 1.297 0.632 1.414 0.608 1.466 0.593 1.500 0.582 1.526 0.573 1.546
12 0.05 0.792 1.208 0.719 1.305 0.695 1.345 0.679 1.373 0.667 1.393 0.658 1.409
0.01 0.728 1.272 0.661 1.377 0.639 1.423 0.624 1.454 0.613 1.477 0.605 1.494
14 0.05 0.807 1.193 0.738 1.282 0.716 1.319 0.701 1.343 0.690 1.362 0.681 1.377
0.01 0.748 1.252 0.684 1.349 0.663 1.390 0.649 1.418 0.639 1.439 0.631 1.455
16 0.05 0.819 1.181 0.754 1.264 0.733 1.297 0.719 1.320 0.708 1.337 0.700 1.351
0.01 0.764 1.236 0.703 1.326 0.682 1.364 0.669 1.389 0.659 1.408 0.652 1.423
20 0.05 0.838 1.162 0.779 1.235 0.759 1.265 0.746 1.285 0.736 1.300 0.729 1.312
0.01 0.788 1.212 0.733 1.290 0.713 1.324 0.701 1.346 0.692 1.362 0.685 1.375

Journal of Quality Technology 124 Vol. 21, No. 2, April 1989

 TABLE 12-Conti nued

Replicates = 4

k
Comparisons 2 3 4 5 6 7

P L U L U L U L U L U L U

1 0.05 0.446 1.554 0.315 1.869 0.282 2.023 0.261 2.133 0.246 2.217 0.235 2.285
0.01 0.315 1.685 0.223 2.056 0.2 2.254 0.185 2.391 0.175 2.495 0.167 2.576
2 0.05 0.595 1.405 0.477 1.617 0.444 1.712 0.422 1.779 0.407 1.83 0.395 1.871
0.01 0.484 1.516 0.389 1.758 0.361 1.876 0.344 1.957 0.331 2.016 0.322 2.064
3 0.05 0.665 1.335 0.561 1.502 0.529 1.576 0.509 1.626 0.494 1.665 0.483 1.696
0.01 0.569 1.431 0.48 1.619 0.453 1.708 0.435 1.768 0.423 1.812 0.413 1.847
4 0.05 0.709 1.291 0.614 1.434 0.584 1.495 0.565 1.537 0.551 1.569 0.54 1.594
0.01 0.623 1.377 0.54 1.536 0.513 1.608 0.496 1.657 0.484 1.693 0.475 1.721
5 0.05 0.739 1.261 0.651 1.387 0.623 1.44 0.605 1.477 0.592 1.504 0.582 1.526
0.01 0.661 1.339 0.583 1.478 0.557 1.54 0.541 1.582 0.529 1.613 0.52 1.637
6 0.05 0.761 1.239 0.679 1.353 0.653 1.4 0.636 1.433 0.623 1.457 0.613 1.477
0.01 0.689 1.311 0.615 1.436 0.591 1.491 0.575 1.528 0.564 1.555 0.555 1.577
7 0.05 0.778 1.222 0.701 1.326 0.676 1.369 0.66 1.399 0.648 1.421 0.638 1.439
0.01 0.711 1.289 0.614 1.403 0.617 1.453 0.602 1.486 0.591 1.511 0.583 1.53
8 0.05 0.792 1.208 0.719 1.305 0.695 1.344 0.68 1.371 0.668 1.392 0.659 1.408
0.01 0.729 1.271 0.662 1.376 0.639 1.422 0.625 1.453 0.614 1.475 0.606 1.493
10 0.05 0.814 1.186 0.747 1.272 0.725 1.306 0.711 1.33 0.7 1.348 0.692 1.362
0.01 0.757 1.243 0.695 1.336 0.674 1.375 0.66 1.402 0.65 1.421 0.643 1.437
12 0.05 0.83 1.17 0.768 1.248 0.748 1.279 0.734 1.3 0.724 1.316 0.716 1.329
0.01 0.778 1.222 0.72 1.306 0.7 1.341 0.687 1.365 0.678 1.382 0.67 1.396
14 0.05 0.842 1.158 0.785 1.229 0.765 1.257 0.752 1.277 0.743 1.291 0.736 1.303
0.01 0.794 1.206 0.739 1.283 0.72 1.315 0.708 1.336 0.699 1.352 0.692 1.364
16 0.05 0.853 1.147 0.798 1.214 0.78 1.24 0.767 1.258 0.758 1.272 0.751 1.282
0.01 0.807 1.193 0.755 1.264 0.737 1.294 0.725 1.313 0.717 1.328 0.71 1.339
20 0.05 0.868 1.132 0.819 1.191 0.802 1.214 0.791 1.23 0.782 1.242 0.776 1.251
0.01 0.827 1.173 0.78 1.235 0.763 1.261 0.752 1.279 0.744 1.291 0.738 1.301

Replicates = 5

k
Comparisons 2 3 4 5 6 7

p L U L U L U L U L U L U

1 0.05 0.510 1.490 0.383 1.757 0.349 1.884 0.327 1.974 0.312 2.042 0.300 2.097
0.01 0.386 1.614 0.290 1.926 0.264 2.086 0.248 2.196 0.236 2.279 0.227 2.344
2 0.05 0.645 1.355 0.536 1.535 0.504 1.615 0.483 1.670 0.468 1.712 0.456 1.746
0.01 0.544 1.456 0.453 1.659 0.425 1.756 0.408 1.821 0.395 1.870 0.385 1.908
3 0.05 0.708 1.292 0.612 1.436 0.583 1.497 0.564 1.539 0.550 1.571 0.539 1.597
0.01 0.622 1.378 0.538 1.537 0.512 1.610 0.495 1.659 0.483 1.696 0.473 1.724
4 0.05 0.746 1.254 0.660 1.376 0.633 1.427 0.615 1.462 0.602 1.489 0.592 1.510
0.01 0.670 1.330 0.593 1.464 0.568 1.524 0.552 1.565 0.540 1.594 0.531 1.618
5 0.05 0.772 1.228 0.693 1.336 0.668 1.380 0.651 1.411 0.639 1.434 0.629 1.452
0.01 0.703 1.297 0.632 1.414 0.608 1.466 0.592 1.501 0.581 1.526 0.573 1.546
6 0.05 0.792 1.208 0.718 1.306 0.694 1.346 0.679 1.373 0.667 1.393 0.658 1.410
0.01 0.728 1.272 0.661 1.378 0.638 1.424 0.624 1.454 0.613 1.477 0.605 1.495
7 0.05 0.807 1.193 0.738 1.283 0.715 1.319 0.700 1.344 0.689 1.363 0.681 1.377
0.01 0.748 1.252 0.684 1.349 0.662 1.391 0.648 1.419 0.638 1.439 0.630 1.455
8 0.05 0.819 1.181 0.754 1.264 0.733 1.297 0.718 1.320 0.708 1.338 0.700 1.351
0.01 0.764 1.236 0.703 1.326 0.682 1.364 0.669 1.390 0.659 1.409 0.651 1.423
10 0.05 0.838 1.162 0.779 1.236 0.759 1.265 0.746 1.285 0.736 1.3CO 0.729 1.312
0.01 0.788 1.212 0.732 1.291 0.713 1.324 0.701 1.346 0.691 1.363 0.684 1.375
12 0.05 0.852 1.148 0.797 1.215 0.779 1.241 0.767 1.259 0.758 1.273 0.751 1.293
0.01 0.806 1.194 0.755 1.265 0.736 1.295 0.724 1.315 0.716 1.329 0.709 1.341
14 0.05 0.863 1.137 0.812 1.198 0.795 1.223 0.783 1.239 0.774 1.252 0.768 1.261
0.01 0.820 1.180 0.772 1.245 0.755 1.272 0.743 1.290 0.735 1.303 0.729 1.314
16 0.05 0.872 1.128 0.824 1.185 0.807 1.208 0.796 1.223 C.788 1.235 0.782 1.244
0.01 0.832 1.168 0.786 1.229 0.770 1.254 0.759 1.271 0.751 1.283 0.745 1.292
20 0.05 0.885 1.115 0.842 1.166 0.827 1.185 0.817 1.199 0.809 1.209 0.804 1.217
0.01 0.849 1.151 0.808 1.204 0.793 1.226 0.783 1.241 0.776 1.251 0.770 1.260

Vol. 2 1 , No. 2, April 1 989 125 Journal of Quality Technology

 TABLE 12-Continued

Replicates = 6

k
Comparisons 2 3 4 5 6 7

P L U L U L U L U L U L U

1 0.05 0.555 1 .445 0.432 1.683 0.398 1.793 0.376 1.870 0.360 1.929 0.348 1.976
0.01 0.437 1.563 0.341 1.837 0.313 1.974 0.296 2.068 0.284 2.138 0.275 2.193
2 0.05 0.679 1.321 0.577 1.481 0.546 1.551 0.526 1.599 0.511 1.635 0.500 1.664
0.01 0.586 1 .414 0.498 1.594 0.471 1.677 0.454 1.733 0.441 1.775 0.432 1.808
3 0.05 0.736 1 . 264 0.647 1 . 391 0.620 1.445 0.601 1.482 0.588 1.510 0.578 1.532
0.01 0.657 1.343 0.579 1.483 0.553 1.546 0.537 1.589 0.525 1.620 0.516 1.645
4 0.05 0.770 1.230 0.691 1.338 0.666 1.383 0.649 1.414 0.637 1.437 0.627 1.455
0.01 0.701 1 . 299 0.629 1.417 0.605 1 .470 0.590 1.505 0.579 1.530 0.570 1 .551
5 0.05 0.794 1 . 206 0.722 1.302 0.698 1.341 0.683 1.368 0.671 1.388 0.662 1.404
0.01 0.732 1.268 0.665 1.372 0.643 1.418 0.628 1.448 0.617 1.470 0.609 1.488
6 0.05 0.812 1 . 188 0.745 1.275 0.723 1.310 0.708 1.334 0.697 1.352 0.689 1.366
0.01 0.754 1.246 0.692 1.339 0.671 1.380 0.657 1.406 0.647 1.426 0.639 1.442
7 0.05 0.826 1.174 0.763 1.254 0.742 1.286 0.728 1.308 0.718 1.324 0.710 1.338
0.01 0.772 1 . 228 0.713 1.313 0.693 1.350 0.680 1.375 0.670 1.392 0.663 1.406
8 0.05 0.837 1. 163 0.777 1.237 0.757 1.267 0.744 1.287 0.735 1.302 0.727 1.314
0.01 0.787 1 . 213 0.731 1.293 0.71 1 1.327 0.699 1.349 0.689 1.365 0.682 1.378
10 0.05 0.854 1. 146 0.800 1.212 0.782 1.238 0.770 1.256 0.761 1.269 0.754 1.279
0.01 0.809 1 . 1 91 0.758 1.261 0.740 1.291 0.728 1.310 0.719 1.325 0.713 1.336
12 0.05 0.867 1. 133 0.817 1.193 0.800 1.216 0.789 1.232 0.780 1.244 0.774 1.254
0.01 0. 825 1 . 1 75 0.778 1.238 0.761 1 . 264 0.750 1.282 0.742 1.295 0.736 1.305
14 0.05 0.876 1 . 1 24 0.830 1.178 0.814 1.200 0.803 1.215 0.796 1.226 0.790 1.234
0.01 0.838 1 . 1 62 0.793 1.220 0.778 1.244 0.767 1 . 260 0.760 1.272 0.754 1.281
16 0.05 0.884 1. 116 0.841 1. 167 0.826 1.187 0.816 1.200 0.808 1.210 0.802 1.218
0.01 0.848 1 . 152 0.806 1 . 206 0.791 1.228 0.781 1.243 0.774 1.253 0.769 1.262
20 0.05 0.897 1 . 103 0.857 1.149 0.842 1.166 0.834 1.178 0.827 1.187 0.822 1.194
0.01 0.864 1 . 1 36 0.826 1.183 0.812 1.203 0.803 1.216 0.797 1.225 0.792 1.233

Replicates 7

k
Comparisons 2 3 4 5 6 7

P L U L U L U L U L U L U

1 0.05 0.587 1.41 3 0.469 1. 628 0.435 1.727 0.414 1.796 0.398 1.848 0.386 1.890
0.01 0. 475 1 .525 0.380 1.772 0.352 1.894 0.335 1.977 0.322 2.038 0.313 2.087
2 0.05 0.703 1 . 297 0.607 1.442 0.577 1.504 0.558 1.548 0.544 1.581 0.533 1.607
0.01 0.616 1 . 384 0.532 1.546 0.506 1.620 0.489 1.670 0.476 1.708 0.467 1.735
3 0.05 0.756 1.244 0.673 1.360 0.647 1 . 408 0.629 1.441 0.617 1.467 0.607 1.487
0.01 0.683 1.31 7 0.608 1.444 0.584 1.501 0.568 1.539 0.556 1.567 0.548 1.589
4 0.05 0.788 1 . 212 0.714 1.311 0.690 1.351 0.674 1.379 0.663 1.400 0.653 1.417
0.01 0.724 1 .276 0.656 1.383 0.633 1 .430 0.618 1 . 462 0.608 1.485 0.600 1.503
5 0.05 0.810 1.900 0.743 1 .277 0.720 1.313 0.706 1.337 0.695 1.355 0.686 1.370
0.01 0.752 1.248 0.690 1.342 0.668 1.383 0.654 1.410 0.644 1.430 0.637 1.446
6 0.05 0.827 1 . 1 73 0.764 1.253 0.743 1.284 0.729 1.306 0.719 1.323 0.711 1.336
0.01 0.774 1 .227 0.715 1 .312 0.695 1.348 0.681 1.372 0.672 1.390 0.665 1.404
7 0.05 0.839 1 . 1 61 0.781 1.233 0.761 1.262 0.748 1.282 0.738 1.297 0.731 1.309
0.01 0. 790 1.210 0. 735 1.288 0.715 1.321 0.703 1.343 0.694 1.359 0.687 1.372
8 0.05 0. 850 1.150 0.794 1.218 0.776 1.245 0.763 1.263 0.754 1.277 0.747 1.288
0.01 0.803 1.197 0.751 1.269 0.733 1.299 0.721 1.320 0.712 1.335 0.705 1.346
10 0.05 0.865 1.135 0.815 1. 945 0.798 1.218 0.787 1.234 0.779 1.247 0.772 1.256
0.01 0.824 1. 176 0.776 1.240 0.759 1.267 0.748 1.284 0.740 1.297 0.734 1.307
12 0.05 0.877 1.123 0.831 1 . 1 77 0.815 1.199 0.805 1.213 0.797 1.224 0.791 1.233
0.01 0.839 1 . 161 0.795 1.219 0.779 1.243 0.768 1.258 0.761 1.270 0.755 1.279
14 0.05 0.886 1 . 1 14 0.843 1.164 0.828 1.184 0.818 1.197 0.811 1.207 0.805 1.215
0.01 0.851 1 . 149 0.809 1.202 0.794 1.224 0.785 1.238 0.778 1.249 0.772 1.257
16 0.05 0.894 1. 107 0.853 1.153 0.839 1.171 0.830 1.184 0.823 1.193 0.817 1.200
0.01 0.860 1. 140 0.821 1 . 1 89 0.807 1.209 0.798 1.222 0.791 1.232 0.786 1.240
20 0.05 0. 905 1 .095 0.868 1 . 137 0.855 1 . 153 0.847 1 . 164 0.841 1. 172 0.836 1.178
0.01 0.875 1 . 1 25 0.839 1 . 169 0.827 1.186 0.818 1.198 0.812 1.207 0.807 1.213

Journal of Quality Technology 126 Vol. 2 1 , No. 2, April 1 98 9

 THE ANALYSIS Of MEANS (ANOM) FOR SIGNAL AND NOISE 12 7

gence of the ideas of using statistical experimental We then seek equal tail areas which are equivalent
design. The use of the Analysis of Means provides a to finding c and d where
smooth transition from process quality control to ex
perimental design. With the extension to permit sys
tematic study of variability, the ANOM should gain
f o
B( . )dx = 1'0
d
B( . )dx =
( aj2 k =

aj2k k > 2.
2

an even stronger argument for being taught in courses

and used in practice.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank R. Hogg for his valuable as
sistance in providing the theoretical basis and deri
vation of the alternate method of computing limits
for the ANOR.
I would also like to thank the reviewers and the
Editor for their extremely valuable contributions.
Appendix
Use of Beta Distribution Approximation
Assume that p samples of size r are selected from a
N(f,L, u2) population and a range Ri is obtained from
each sample. The average range for the p samples is
computed as
]!
= L RJp.
where the subscript j refers to the jth experiment (j
= 1, 2, . . " k) involving the sampling of p samples
each of size r. We assume (Cox [1949]) that each X
= Rju has the same approximate gamma distribution
Each of the above solutions for c and d depends on k,
p, and r. We then determine for each case above
ckR < < dkR or DLR < < DuR
where DL = ck and Du = dk. Some values for c and d
are provided in Table 12.
References
ASTM (1976). "ASTM Manual on Presentation of Data and Con
trol Chart Analysis STP-15D." American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
Box, G. E. P. (1988). "Signal to Noise Ratios, Performance Criteria
and Transformation." Technometrics 30, pp. 1-17.
Box, G. E. P.; HUNTER, W. G.; and HUNTER, J. S. (1978). Statistics
for Experimenters. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Cox, D. R. (1949). "The Use of the Range in Sequential Analysis."
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 1 1 , Series B, pp. 1 01-1 14.
KACKAR, R. N. (1985). "Off-Line Quality Control, Parameter De
sign and the Taguchi Method." Journal of Quality Technology
17, pp. 176-188.
NAI R, V. N. and PRr:G I HON, D. (1986). "A Data Analysis Strategy
for Quality Engineering Experiments. " AT&T Technical Journal
65, pp. 73-84.
OTT, E. R. (1967). "Analysis of Means-A Graphical Procedure."
Industrial Quality Control 24, pp. 101-109.

[ljar(b)](x ja Y-1e-x/a OTT, E. R. (1975). Process Quality Control-Troubleshooting and the

where
b = 1jO,
(dr u is the mean range and 0111 is the fractional coef
ficient of variation of the range in random samples of
size m) where dr and b are denoted by dru and bTl! > re
Interpretation of Data. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
PHADKE, M. S.; KACKAR, R. N.; SPEENEY, D. V.; and GRIECO, M. J.
(1983). "Off-Line Quality Control for Integrated Circuit Fab
rication Using Experimental Design." The Bell System Technical
Journal 62, pp. 1 273-1309.
PEARSON, E. S. and HARTLEY, H. O. (1954). Biometrika Tables for
Statisticians, VoJ. I. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
Great Britain.
QUINLAN, J. (1985). "Product Improvement by Application of

spectively, in Cox (1949). If each R is reb, a) then R is Taguchi Methods." Third Supplier Symposium on Taguchi
distributed as r (pb, ajp). For k experimental 's, the Methods. American Supplier Institute, Dearborn, MI.
SCHEFFE, H. (1959). The Analysis of Variance. John Wiley & Sons,
overall average range
New York, NY.
R = (1jk) L SCHILLING, E. (1973). "A Systematic Approach to the Analysis
of Means." Journal of Quality Technology 5, pp. 93-1 08.
is distributed as r(kpb, ajkp). SNEDECOR, G. W. and COCHRAN, W. G. (1980). Statistic'al Methods.
Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.
The distribution of
TAGUCHI, G. (1986). Introduction to Quality Engineering. Asian Pro

w =
j L =
jkR is B(pb, (k - l )pb) . ductivity Organization, UNIPUB, White Plains; NY.
TAGUCHI, G. and Wu, Y. (1985). Introduction to Off-Line Quality
We are then interested in the two limits c and d such Control. Central Japan Quality Control Association, (available
that from American Supplier Institute, Dearborn, MI).

P (c < W< d) = P (c < jkR < d) =

_ {I - a k = 2
Key Words: Analysis of Means, Analysis of Ranges, Ex

----- -----
1 - aj2 k > 2. perimental Design, Noise, Ranges, Signal, Taguchi Methods.
"-'

Vol. 2 1 , No. 2, April 1 989 Journal of Quality Technology