cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
The Discovery Summit 2025 Call for Content is open! Submit an abstract today to present at our premier analytics conference.
Choose Language Hide Translation Bar
bbenny7
Level III

Modification of values of factor in DOE

I have run a DOE in which one factor is continuous and it has quadratic effect in the model. The range in -0.15 to +0.15, so JMP creates the DOE with -0.15, 0.00 and +0.15.

The problem is that it may be difficult during the experiment to have exactly these number. Therefore, I was wondering whether it is possible to modify in the DOE table after the experiment is performed.

Is this going to affect the results from the model?

I have attached the original DOE table looks like, and the modified DOE table showing how it could look like after the experiment. 

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions
Victor_G
Super User

Re: Modification of values of factor in DOE

Hi @bbenny7,

 

Yes, it is always possible to edit values after having generated the design, the analysis will take ito consideration the edited values :

Altering factor values once you have already made the design and the table (CUSTOM DESIGN) 

How DoE model evaluation impact final model after experiment? 

Can I add a factor to an existting DOE and/or change the values of any run in an existting DOE? 

 

Little changes in factors' values (like 0,145 instead of 0,15) won't change a lot the performances of the design and results of the analysis, but I'm more concerned about the row 3, where there is a sign difference between the original and modified designs. Is it a typo, an experimental issue, ... ?

The sign change creates a big lack of optimality, significant reduction in chances of detecting the effects in the model (power analysis) and increase the prediction variance over the experimental space and correlations between factors :

Victor_G_0-1715683255220.pngVictor_G_1-1715683274684.pngVictor_G_2-1715683316750.png

 

If the sign change at row 3 is only a mistake/typo (and is kept negative like in original design), the designs are very similar :

Victor_G_3-1715683391836.pngVictor_G_4-1715683412526.png

Victor_G_5-1715683469731.png

You can compare the designs by using the platform Compare Designs (jmp.com)

 

Hope this will help you,

Victor GUILLER

"It is not unusual for a well-designed experiment to analyze itself" (Box, Hunter and Hunter)

View solution in original post

2 REPLIES 2
Victor_G
Super User

Re: Modification of values of factor in DOE

Hi @bbenny7,

 

Yes, it is always possible to edit values after having generated the design, the analysis will take ito consideration the edited values :

Altering factor values once you have already made the design and the table (CUSTOM DESIGN) 

How DoE model evaluation impact final model after experiment? 

Can I add a factor to an existting DOE and/or change the values of any run in an existting DOE? 

 

Little changes in factors' values (like 0,145 instead of 0,15) won't change a lot the performances of the design and results of the analysis, but I'm more concerned about the row 3, where there is a sign difference between the original and modified designs. Is it a typo, an experimental issue, ... ?

The sign change creates a big lack of optimality, significant reduction in chances of detecting the effects in the model (power analysis) and increase the prediction variance over the experimental space and correlations between factors :

Victor_G_0-1715683255220.pngVictor_G_1-1715683274684.pngVictor_G_2-1715683316750.png

 

If the sign change at row 3 is only a mistake/typo (and is kept negative like in original design), the designs are very similar :

Victor_G_3-1715683391836.pngVictor_G_4-1715683412526.png

Victor_G_5-1715683469731.png

You can compare the designs by using the platform Compare Designs (jmp.com)

 

Hope this will help you,

Victor GUILLER

"It is not unusual for a well-designed experiment to analyze itself" (Box, Hunter and Hunter)
bbenny7
Level III

Re: Modification of values of factor in DOE

Hi @Victor_G , thank you for you explanation.

In Row 3 there was a typo, so I should be fine with adjusting the values.