<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Target Index/alternatives for Process Screening in Discussions</title>
    <link>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Target-Index-alternatives-for-Process-Screening/m-p/383344#M63395</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;So the thing is that while Cp and Cpk are technically in the formula, in practice they end up cancelling themselves out and the results are only dependent on sigma-within and the difference between the target value and the mean.&amp;nbsp; It isn't affected at all by the spec limits themselves.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I tried walking through the math by hand and it looks like the USL and LSL don't show up in the final formula, but to be honest I am not the best at this kind of math and not super sure how to write it out here meaningfully anyways.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;But just to show what I mean, take a look here&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="Evan_Morris_0-1620415951404.png" style="width: 400px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://community.jmp.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/32680i63E98BD9282DD5CD/image-size/medium?v=v2&amp;amp;px=400" role="button" title="Evan_Morris_0-1620415951404.png" alt="Evan_Morris_0-1620415951404.png" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So in this case my system has a T = 0 with spec at +/- 2.&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; The mean is at 0.03, and the PPK/CPK are both beautiful on this, but the target index is flagging.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Alternatively take a look at this.&amp;nbsp; Same T same USL/LSL&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="Evan_Morris_1-1620416082922.png" style="width: 400px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://community.jmp.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/32681iA3B39B24C6A3778F/image-size/medium?v=v2&amp;amp;px=400" role="button" title="Evan_Morris_1-1620416082922.png" alt="Evan_Morris_1-1620416082922.png" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;In this case the Target Index is better (not great, but better), but the Mean is much much farther off target.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The reason why is because of the Sigma-Within in the first case is extremely narrow, wherease it's much worse in the second case.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Further proof.&amp;nbsp; Let's change the USL/LSL size to +/- 3 for those two&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Here is the first&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="Evan_Morris_4-1620416560716.png" style="width: 400px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://community.jmp.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/32684i2C8185E315D97467/image-size/medium?v=v2&amp;amp;px=400" role="button" title="Evan_Morris_4-1620416560716.png" alt="Evan_Morris_4-1620416560716.png" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Here is the second&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="Evan_Morris_2-1620416429612.png" style="width: 400px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://community.jmp.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/32682i9ABC3C2518D4FAFB/image-size/medium?v=v2&amp;amp;px=400" role="button" title="Evan_Morris_2-1620416429612.png" alt="Evan_Morris_2-1620416429612.png" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Note that the PPK and CPK both improve, as would be expected since the spec window has opened up farther.&amp;nbsp; Yet the Target Index did not change at all.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Therefore: The target index is independent of the spec window (assuming that the Target = (USL + LSL/2))&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;-----&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This isn't to say that the Target Index isn't useful.&amp;nbsp; But really you're effectively just z-scoring your data.&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;How many sigma-withins is your mean away from your target. In my case the target is 0, so the Mean = x-bar.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So by that logic TI = Mean / Sigma-Within&amp;nbsp; So in the TI = 1.58 case I have 0.0353/0.01933 = 1.5794&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;For the second case TI = Mean/Sigma-Within = 0.6648&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Now if your target &amp;lt;&amp;gt; 0 then you would have to subtract the Target from the Mean.&amp;nbsp; But either way USL and LSL are not part of the equation.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Edit:&amp;nbsp; If anyone wants to test just use the Semiconductor Capability sample set.&amp;nbsp; Change the USL/LSL however you want.&amp;nbsp; As far as I can tell it doesn't affect the TI.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2021 20:17:24 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Evan_Morris</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2021-05-07T20:17:24Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Target Index/alternatives for Process Screening</title>
      <link>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Target-Index-alternatives-for-Process-Screening/m-p/366941#M61674</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;For some dumb reason I was thinking that Target Index normalized on the Spec window, and I'm realizing now that it normalizes on the within sigma, which is a problem as I have a lot of mathematically significant signals that aren't practically significant.&amp;nbsp; So, couple quick questions.&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;UL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;If you provide a specified sigma will the Target Index use that instead of within?&amp;nbsp; That will at least standardize the noramlizing factor&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;The spec centered mean seems more in line with what I'm looking for, but its not in absolute terms.&amp;nbsp; Is there a way to modify it to pull the absolute value into the process screening table?&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jun 2023 00:30:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Target-Index-alternatives-for-Process-Screening/m-p/366941#M61674</guid>
      <dc:creator>Evan_Morris</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-06-09T00:30:16Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Target Index/alternatives for Process Screening</title>
      <link>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Target-Index-alternatives-for-Process-Screening/m-p/371400#M62130</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;From the &lt;A href="https://www.jmp.com/support/help/en/15.2/#page/jmp/the-process-screening-report.shtml" target="_self"&gt;help documentation&lt;/A&gt;:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;&lt;SPAN class="Search_Result_Highlight"&gt;Target&lt;/SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN class="Search_Result_Highlight"&gt;Index&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P class="defTextIndent"&gt;&lt;EM&gt;The number of short-term standard deviations that the process average differs from the&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN class="Search_Result_Highlight"&gt;target&lt;/SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;value. This measures the ability of the process to hit the&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN class="Search_Result_Highlight"&gt;target&lt;/SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;value. The&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN class="Search_Result_Highlight"&gt;Target&lt;/SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN class="Search_Result_Highlight"&gt;Index&lt;/SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;is calculated as 3(Cp - Cpk). A&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN class="Search_Result_Highlight"&gt;target&lt;/SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN class="Search_Result_Highlight"&gt;index&lt;/SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;is considered poor if above 1, marginal if between 0.5 and 1, and adequate if less than 0.5. See White et al. (&lt;SPAN class="link"&gt;&lt;A title="References" href="https://www.jmp.com/support/help/en/15.2/jmp/references-6.shtml#ww186697" target="_self"&gt;2018&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;).&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;So as Target Index is &lt;A href="https://www.jmp.com/support/help/en/15.2/#page/jmp/capability-indices-for-normal-distributions.shtml#ww419030" target="_self"&gt;calculated from the Cp and Cpk&lt;/A&gt; it is therefore a function of the size of the spec window.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Does that sound correct?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Phil&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Mar 2021 15:29:26 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Target-Index-alternatives-for-Process-Screening/m-p/371400#M62130</guid>
      <dc:creator>Phil_Kay</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-03-25T15:29:26Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Target Index/alternatives for Process Screening</title>
      <link>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Target-Index-alternatives-for-Process-Screening/m-p/383344#M63395</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;So the thing is that while Cp and Cpk are technically in the formula, in practice they end up cancelling themselves out and the results are only dependent on sigma-within and the difference between the target value and the mean.&amp;nbsp; It isn't affected at all by the spec limits themselves.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I tried walking through the math by hand and it looks like the USL and LSL don't show up in the final formula, but to be honest I am not the best at this kind of math and not super sure how to write it out here meaningfully anyways.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;But just to show what I mean, take a look here&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="Evan_Morris_0-1620415951404.png" style="width: 400px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://community.jmp.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/32680i63E98BD9282DD5CD/image-size/medium?v=v2&amp;amp;px=400" role="button" title="Evan_Morris_0-1620415951404.png" alt="Evan_Morris_0-1620415951404.png" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So in this case my system has a T = 0 with spec at +/- 2.&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; The mean is at 0.03, and the PPK/CPK are both beautiful on this, but the target index is flagging.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Alternatively take a look at this.&amp;nbsp; Same T same USL/LSL&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="Evan_Morris_1-1620416082922.png" style="width: 400px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://community.jmp.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/32681iA3B39B24C6A3778F/image-size/medium?v=v2&amp;amp;px=400" role="button" title="Evan_Morris_1-1620416082922.png" alt="Evan_Morris_1-1620416082922.png" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;In this case the Target Index is better (not great, but better), but the Mean is much much farther off target.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The reason why is because of the Sigma-Within in the first case is extremely narrow, wherease it's much worse in the second case.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Further proof.&amp;nbsp; Let's change the USL/LSL size to +/- 3 for those two&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Here is the first&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="Evan_Morris_4-1620416560716.png" style="width: 400px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://community.jmp.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/32684i2C8185E315D97467/image-size/medium?v=v2&amp;amp;px=400" role="button" title="Evan_Morris_4-1620416560716.png" alt="Evan_Morris_4-1620416560716.png" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Here is the second&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="Evan_Morris_2-1620416429612.png" style="width: 400px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://community.jmp.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/32682i9ABC3C2518D4FAFB/image-size/medium?v=v2&amp;amp;px=400" role="button" title="Evan_Morris_2-1620416429612.png" alt="Evan_Morris_2-1620416429612.png" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Note that the PPK and CPK both improve, as would be expected since the spec window has opened up farther.&amp;nbsp; Yet the Target Index did not change at all.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Therefore: The target index is independent of the spec window (assuming that the Target = (USL + LSL/2))&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;-----&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This isn't to say that the Target Index isn't useful.&amp;nbsp; But really you're effectively just z-scoring your data.&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;How many sigma-withins is your mean away from your target. In my case the target is 0, so the Mean = x-bar.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So by that logic TI = Mean / Sigma-Within&amp;nbsp; So in the TI = 1.58 case I have 0.0353/0.01933 = 1.5794&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;For the second case TI = Mean/Sigma-Within = 0.6648&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Now if your target &amp;lt;&amp;gt; 0 then you would have to subtract the Target from the Mean.&amp;nbsp; But either way USL and LSL are not part of the equation.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Edit:&amp;nbsp; If anyone wants to test just use the Semiconductor Capability sample set.&amp;nbsp; Change the USL/LSL however you want.&amp;nbsp; As far as I can tell it doesn't affect the TI.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2021 20:17:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Target-Index-alternatives-for-Process-Screening/m-p/383344#M63395</guid>
      <dc:creator>Evan_Morris</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-05-07T20:17:24Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Target Index/alternatives for Process Screening</title>
      <link>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Target-Index-alternatives-for-Process-Screening/m-p/383357#M63397</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I went ahead and re-tried the derivation just to check.&amp;nbsp; T = target.&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;We're also assuming that the Target is centered in the process.&amp;nbsp; That was needed for this derivation to work.&amp;nbsp; Wasn't sure how it works with a non-centered target.&amp;nbsp; Also I only solved it for Cpl, but I'm fairly certain the only difference on Cpu is that it flips the sign which is how TI always stays positive.&amp;nbsp; I'd say there's a 50/50 chance i messed up the math here.&amp;nbsp; But from what I can tell it looks like the USL/LSL fall out.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="Evan_Morris_0-1620419704653.png" style="width: 400px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://community.jmp.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/32685iCAAF27FEAC09CB96/image-size/medium?v=v2&amp;amp;px=400" role="button" title="Evan_Morris_0-1620419704653.png" alt="Evan_Morris_0-1620419704653.png" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2021 20:38:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Target-Index-alternatives-for-Process-Screening/m-p/383357#M63397</guid>
      <dc:creator>Evan_Morris</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-05-07T20:38:23Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Target Index/alternatives for Process Screening</title>
      <link>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Target-Index-alternatives-for-Process-Screening/m-p/383362#M63399</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;You know I finally looked at the slide deck that's out there for the Fall Technical Conference on the Target Index and it actually shows that reduced formula as the starting point.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;What's weird is that they start with that and then go to Cp-Cpk, even though the equation still reduces back to the equation without the USL/LSL.&amp;nbsp; Not sure I understand why they did that.&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; It's kind of like saying that PPK = Dragon Population + min(USL-xbar,LSL-xbar)/3sigma - Dragon Population.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I mean I like dragons as much as the next guy but PPK isn't a great dragon indicator.&amp;nbsp; And TI isn't related to USL or LSL.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Anyways,&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;Honestly all I want is the ABS[(mean-T)/SpecRange].&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;Cp allows me to see my variance normalized to my Spec Limits, so I need something to show my bias normalized to my Spec Limits.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Edit: Also apologies for spamming.&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;I am desperately trying to avoid real work at the moment.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2021 20:56:13 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Target-Index-alternatives-for-Process-Screening/m-p/383362#M63399</guid>
      <dc:creator>Evan_Morris</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-05-07T20:56:13Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

