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

- JMP User Community
- :
- Discussions
- :
- JMP Script: Capability Ananysis in JMP 15

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

Highlighted

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Get Direct Link
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

Mar 9, 2020 9:08 AM
(513 views)

Hi Everyone,

We recently upgraded from JMP 14 to 15.

One of our scripts is currently showing a different result when a capability analysis is done.

In JMP 14 we had the following result:

In JMP 15, the exact same expression suddenly shows the PPx values (note - this is from a different analysis, so different limits):

The code we use to generate the chart:

```
Distribution(
Uniform Scaling( 1 ),
Stack( 1 ),
Arrange in Rows( 6 ),
Automatic Recalc( 1 ),
Continuous Distribution(
Column( Eval( Column( i ) ) ), // i = loopcounter
Quantiles( 0 ),
Horizontal Layout( 1 ),
Histogram( 0 ),
Vertical( 0 ),
Axes on Left( 1 ),
Outlier Box Plot( 0 ),
Customize Summary Statistics(
Std Err Mean( 0 ),
Upper Mean Confidence Interval( 0 ),
Lower Mean Confidence Interval( 0 ),
Maximum( 1 )
),
Capability Analysis(
// Column # in Limits table doesn't match columns # in result table
USL( Num( Eval( dtDistLimits:_USL[i - 1] ) ) ),
LSL( Num( Eval( dtDistLimits:_LSL[i - 1] ) ) )
)
),
SendToReport(
Dispatch( {}, "Distributions", OutlineBox, {Set Title( "Distributions" )} ),
Dispatch(
{},
"Mean(Result",
OutlineBox,
{Set Title(
sComponentName || " Specification: (LSL " || sLslDisplayValue || ", USL " || sUslDisplayValue
|| ")"
)}
),
Dispatch(
{"Distributions", "Mean(Result", "Summary Statistics"},
"",
NumberColBox,
{Set Format( 9, 3 )}
),
Dispatch( {"Distributions", "Mean(Result"}, "Capability Analysis", OutlineBox, {Set Title( "" )} ),
Dispatch(
{"Distributions", "Mean(Result", "Capability Analysis"},
"Specification",
StringColBox,
{Name( "Hide/Unhide" )(1)}
),
Dispatch(
{"Distributions", "Mean(Result", "Capability Analysis"},
"Value",
NumberColBox,
{Name( "Hide/Unhide" )(1)}
),
Dispatch(
{"Distributions", "Mean(Result", "Capability Analysis"},
"Portion",
StringColBox,
{Name( "Hide/Unhide" )(1)}
),
Dispatch(
{"Distributions", "Mean(Result", "Capability Analysis"},
"% Actual",
NumberColBox,
{Name( "Hide/Unhide" )(1)}
),
Dispatch(
{"Distributions", "Mean(Result", "Capability Analysis", "Long Term Sigma"},
"1",
ScaleBox,
{Min( Eval( iMinScale ) ), Max( Eval( iMaxScale ) ), Inc( 0.5 ), Minor Ticks( 5 )}
),
Dispatch(
{"Distributions", "Mean(Result", "Capability Analysis", "Long Term Sigma"},
"Lower CI",
NumberColBox,
{Name( "Hide/Unhide" )(1)}
),
Dispatch(
{"Distributions", "Mean(Result", "Capability Analysis", "Long Term Sigma"},
"Upper CI",
NumberColBox,
{Name( "Hide/Unhide" )(1)}
),
Dispatch(
{"Distributions", "Mean(Result", "Capability Analysis", "Long Term Sigma"},
"Portion",
StringColBox,
{Name( "Hide/Unhide" )(1)}
),
// THIS DISPATCH GENERATES ERRORS
Dispatch(
{"Distributions", "Mean(RESULT", "Capability Analysis", "Long Term Sigma"},
"Percent",
NumberColBox,
{Name( "Hide/Unhide" )(1)}
),
// THIS DISPATCH GENERATES ERRORS
Dispatch(
{"Distributions", "Mean(RESULT", "Capability Analysis", "Long Term Sigma"},
"PPM",
NumberColBox,
{Name( "Hide/Unhide" )(1)}
),
Dispatch(
{"Distributions", "Mean(RESULT", "Capability Analysis", "Long Term Sigma"},
"Sigma Quality",
NumberColBox,
{Name( "Hide/Unhide" )(1)}
)
)
); // Distribution
```

s there something I can do get the correct (old) results again?

Thank You,

Jan

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions

Highlighted

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Get Direct Link
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

You can turn off the Ppk labelling using the** PkK Capability Labeling** message.

Either

```
Names Default To Here( 1 );
dt = Open( "$SAMPLE_DATA/Quality Control/Coating.jmp" );
obj = dt << Distribution( Column( :Weight ) );
obj << PpK Capability Labeling( 0 );
obj << Capability Analysis( LSL( 16 ), USL( 24 ), Target( 20 ) );
```

or

```
Names Default To Here( 1 );
dt = Open( "$SAMPLE_DATA/Quality Control/Coating.jmp" );
obj = dt << Distribution( Column( :Weight ),
PpK Capability Labeling( 0 ),
Capability Analysis( LSL( 16 ), USL( 24 ), Target( 20 ) )
);
```

Blame AAIG for the mess which is modern day capability analysis.

My favourite quotes:

The relatively new introduction of the notation Pp and Ppk and the redefinition of Cp and Cpk without stakeholder consensus have caused considerable confusion. In our experience, many auditors and practitioners are unaware that what the AIAG calls Ppk has been in use in industry for about 30 years as Cpk.

http://www.sematech.org/docubase/document/Semiconductor_Industry_SPC_Practices.pdf

Or, put another way

The process performance indicesd Pp and Ppk are a step backward. They are a waste of engineering effort and management effort - they tell you nothing.

- D.C Montgomery

Or, put more strongly

The mandated use of Pp and Ppk through quality standards or industry guidelines ias "statistical terrorism"

- Kotz and Lovelace

Luckily we have a switch and can turn them off

-Dave

1 REPLY 1

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Get Direct Link
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

You can turn off the Ppk labelling using the** PkK Capability Labeling** message.

Either

```
Names Default To Here( 1 );
dt = Open( "$SAMPLE_DATA/Quality Control/Coating.jmp" );
obj = dt << Distribution( Column( :Weight ) );
obj << PpK Capability Labeling( 0 );
obj << Capability Analysis( LSL( 16 ), USL( 24 ), Target( 20 ) );
```

or

```
Names Default To Here( 1 );
dt = Open( "$SAMPLE_DATA/Quality Control/Coating.jmp" );
obj = dt << Distribution( Column( :Weight ),
PpK Capability Labeling( 0 ),
Capability Analysis( LSL( 16 ), USL( 24 ), Target( 20 ) )
);
```

Blame AAIG for the mess which is modern day capability analysis.

My favourite quotes:

The relatively new introduction of the notation Pp and Ppk and the redefinition of Cp and Cpk without stakeholder consensus have caused considerable confusion. In our experience, many auditors and practitioners are unaware that what the AIAG calls Ppk has been in use in industry for about 30 years as Cpk.

http://www.sematech.org/docubase/document/Semiconductor_Industry_SPC_Practices.pdf

Or, put another way

The process performance indicesd Pp and Ppk are a step backward. They are a waste of engineering effort and management effort - they tell you nothing.

- D.C Montgomery

Or, put more strongly

The mandated use of Pp and Ppk through quality standards or industry guidelines ias "statistical terrorism"

- Kotz and Lovelace

Luckily we have a switch and can turn them off

-Dave

Article Labels

There are no labels assigned to this post.