Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.

Showing results for

- JMP User Community
- :
- Discussions
- :
- Discussions
- :
- Re: A custom design with all categorical factors

Topic Options

- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

Jun 13, 2018 8:21 AM
(177 views)

Hi Everyone.

I'm a little bit of a neophyte here. So bear with me.

I'm trying to design an experience with 4 categorical variables and no continuous variables. I have 2x2level variables 1x3 level and 1x6 level. I could devolve that one into 1x3 and 1x2 if need be.

I've gone through custom design and everything seems to make sense, but all of the D efficiency etc statistics are blank. I am needing 18 runs, and I thought I could block that into two groups of 9. What am i missing here? Does this signal a warning I need to worry about?

Thanks for your help

3 REPLIES

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

Jun 13, 2018 8:30 AM
(174 views)

This script will produce the design that you described:

```
DOE(
Custom Design,
{Add Response( Maximize, "Y", ., ., . ),
Add Factor( Categorical, {"L1", "L2"}, "X1", 0 ),
Add Factor( Categorical, {"L1", "L2"}, "X2", 0 ),
Add Factor( Categorical, {"L1", "L2", "L3"}, "X3", 0 ),
Add Factor( Categorical, {"L1", "L2", "L3", "L4", "L5", "L6"}, "X4", 0 ),
Add Factor( Blocking, 9, "X5" ), Set Random Seed( 6155315 ),
Number of Starts( 64566 ), Add Term( {1, 0} ), Add Term( {1, 1} ),
Add Term( {2, 1} ), Add Term( {3, 1} ), Add Term( {4, 1} ), Add Term( {5, 1} ),
Add Alias Term( {1, 1}, {2, 1} ), Add Alias Term( {1, 1}, {3, 1} ),
Add Alias Term( {1, 1}, {4, 1} ), Add Alias Term( {2, 1}, {3, 1} ),
Add Alias Term( {2, 1}, {4, 1} ), Add Alias Term( {3, 1}, {4, 1} ),
Set Sample Size( 18 ), Simulate Responses( 0 ), Save X Matrix( 0 ), Make Design}
);
```

It does not exhibit the problem you described.

Learn it once, use it forever!

Highlighted
Thank you mark. I think i made the mistake of not declaring the blocking variable. This makes much more sense. Still learning.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

Jun 13, 2018 9:04 AM
(161 views)

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

Jun 13, 2018 10:52 AM
(150 views)

Well, it depends...

One of my (*much smarter than I am*) colleagues in JMP Technical Support pointed out that if you chose to block your runs for a *random blocking effect*, then the efficiencies are not computable and, therefore, not reported. I *assumed* that you entered a blocking factor because you expected a *fixed blocking effect*. (Why did I assume that? I don't really know and now I have no good reason.) JMP allows you to block your runs for either kind of effect (but not both) so it just depends on how you think about the effect of the blocks (contributed variation) on the response and, therefore, how you will model the variation from the blocks.

- If you think that the blocks have a fixed effect on the response, then add a blocking factor. (A term to estimate the fixed effect is automatically added to the model.)
- If you think that the blocks have a random effect on the response, then do not add a blocking factor but select to group the runs at the bottom of Custom Design.

Learn it once, use it forever!