JMP Wish List

I wish JMP has "Econometrics and Time Series Analysis" capability/functionality. This is quite basic, even SPSS has it. Or, maybe I am missing something? ... View more

What inspired this wish list request?  The current implementation of Run Chart does not allow you to right-click the x-axis to copy axis settings, nor does it allow broadcasting x-axis settings to all run charts in the report. (see https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Easy-way-to-broadcast-x-axis-settings-in-Run-Chart/m-p/896758#M105685)   What is the improvement you would like to see?  When creating many run charts (on many process parameters), ideally one wants the x-axis to be the same for all of the charts.  This may include changing the format, increment, displaying grid lines, adding axis references.  While with a single chart you can edit the x-axis settings, you cannot copy those settings and broadcast them to other charts.   Why is this idea important?  This is a must have for efficient and consistent usage of JMP.     ... View more

What inspired this wish list request?    Please see attached file.   What is the improvement you would like to see?    Please see attached file.   Why is this idea important?    Please see attached file. ... View more

What inspired this wish list request?  I recently had a team of new JMP users incorrectly evaluating the output of their Gage R&R analysis because it was unclear which row represented the total % Tolerance for the study.  There are several rows labeled as Gauge R&R or % Gauge R&R, but it is unclear what each row represents, particularly for people that are newly trained on Gauge R&R in general and on using JMP.   What is the improvement you would like to see?  Move the Gauge R&R row to the top of the AIAG Gauge R&R Results table.  This is the first stop in evaluating the results. Call this row "Total Gauge R&R" (or similar) In the Summary and Gauge R&R Statistics table, call the % Gauge R&R row something like "% Study Variation" or similar to support the RR/TV calculation. Perhaps move this row to the AIAG Gauge R&R Results table also.  Since it's in the same area as the spec limits/tolerance (and the precision/tolerance ratio), it is easy to assume this is the % Tolerance value for new users   Why is this idea important?  This would help people that are new to Gage R&R analysis understand the different quantities and what they represent.   ... View more

What inspired this wish list request?  The measurement stdev is used in other calculations (such as tolerance analysis, as a bound for equivalence testing, etc.) and it would be easier for new users to understand the values in the Gage R&R analysis if the stdev column is visible by default.  Otherwise they have to either back-calculate from the 6*Stdev value, or turn on the column by right-clicking and choosing the Std Dev column (and then going to File/Preferences to save it as a default setting...this isn't saved under Red Triangle/Platform Preferences).  The Stdev column is on by default in the EMP Gauge R&R Results table already (in JMP18).   What is the improvement you would like to see?  In the AIAG Gauge R&R Results table, include the Std Dev column as a default output column.   Why is this idea important?   The measurement stdev is used in other calculations (such as tolerance analysis, as a bound for equivalence testing, etc.) and it would be easier for new users to understand the values in the Gage R&R analysis if the stdev column is visible by default.     ... View more

What inspired this wish list request?    For shelf-life estimation, Stability Analysis in the Degradation Platform commonly uses the different intercepts different slopes (DIDS) fixed-batch effects model to reflect inequality among batch slopes.    Therefore, it is important to improve the default method for estimating shelf life based on the DIDS model so that it is optimal.    Currently, the JMP Stability Analysis provides an inferior method (Individual MSE) as the default and a superior method (Pooled MSE) as an option.  The two methods differ only in the variability estimate (i.e., mean square error (MSE)) utilized.  In forming the confidence band about each batch, the default method forms the MSE using data variability from only an individual batch while the optional method constructs the MSE using data variability pooled across all batches.  Table 1 shows the comparative inferiority of the default Individual MSE method and the superiority of the optional Pooled MSE method.  The default method does not follow the current ICH stability guidance (see also Table 2), but clings to using methodology in an outdated stability program based regulatory guidance withdrawn by FDA.  Since it does not take advantage of a standard assumption of equal variance for the DIDS analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) fixed effects model, the default method forms relatively shorter estimates of shelf life (see also Figure 1).  Because JMP is designed with scientists and engineers in mind, many users are likely to depend on the default procedure to serve them best.  However, in this situation, the default Individual MSE method relatively speaking hinders users from achieving the goal of establishing their desired shelf life.  Finally, the default Individual MSE method for the DIDS model represents a disconnect with the overall excellent standard of JMP tools and in this instance, a lag behind their competitors who have based their stability analysis methodology on ICH Q1E and good statistical practice.                     What is the improvement you would like to see?      Only when descriptive data summaries / graphs suggest that the data have unequal variability about the individual batch regression lines, should the Individual MSE method be used.  In that case, the method could be easily specified in JMP by using batch as a By Variable on the Stability Tab.       Why is this idea important?    Summary of Importance:    Increased access to and ease of usage of improved statistical methodology to better meet the needs of users.   In the development of a pharmaceutical product, stability studies are time consuming, resource intensive, and very costly.  Establishment of the desired shelf life is a critical milestone - even a “Go, No-Go” decision.  Often the stability data analysis must be done in a compressed timeframe.  It’s imperative to do the best data analysis that conforms to regulatory guidelines, quickly and easily, to maximize the opportunity to establish the desired shelf life.  For the estimation of shelf life for the DIDS fixed-effects model, improving the default method to the Pooled MSE method will meet the needs and expectations of users and better position JMP compared to its competitors. ' Additional References 2024 JMP® 18 Reliability and Survival Methods. Cary, NC: JMP Statistical Discovery LLC 2025 JMP® Online Help.  JMP Statistical Discovery LLC, Cary, NC ICH Q1E Evaluation of Stability Data (June 2004)   ... View more

What inspired this wish list request?  The motivation for this request comes from the requirement from regulatory agencies like FDA to obtain confidence intervals using the Clopper-Pearson (C-P) "exact" method or other methods like the Score (Wilson) Method with continuity correction that could properly handle small sample sizes. For example, it is common to calculate CI for subgroups in a study, some with small sample sizes where using such calculation methods become particularly important. That said, the C-P method is considered (too) conservative so it would make sense to apply less conservative yet acceptable calculation methods like the Score method with continuity correction or other similar methods. The request for having CI by C-P echos similar requests already on the wish list. Clopper Pearson Confidence Interval for One Proportion as an Option in Distribution Platform Confidence Intervals for SMALL sample sizes using Clopper Pearson Beta Quantile Confidence interval for proportions in Contingency Analysis   What is the improvement you would like to see?  I wish this platform would have suggest several options for CI calculations to choose from or maybe apply several methods and show all results in a table.   Why is this idea important?  Currently, the Distribution platform offers only the Score method with no continuity correction, which is less acceptable in some areas. This leaves no other choice but making manual calculations when wanting to have CI using other methods. The distribution analysis serves a basic step for many other analyses, which makes these additions even more important.         ... View more

What inspired this wish list request?      What is the improvement you would like to see?      Why is this idea important?      ... View more

What inspired this wish list request? Control Chart Builder, even as of JMP18, will by default order the Subgroup alphanumerically if character. Sometimes the Subgroup item like "LotID" is not in alphanumeric order according to the actual timestamp. If timestamp is used instead as numeric, the order is correct, but it is scaling timestamp, and sometimes points are on top of each other, instead of in sequence as a typical SPC chart from the past is shown. If you change timestamp to character, the AM/PM part of the time stamp gets out of order if using this date/time format.   For example, in this random data, the LotID is in alphanumeric order. But the actual first lot to run is 9013108 on 01/30. Trying to make the CCB with LotID is not the right order, and using the timestamp column makes the data clump up sometimes. LotID Time 9013101 01/31/2021 2:50:16 AM 9013102 01/31/2021 2:18:22 AM 9013103 01/31/2021 2:35:41 PM 9013106 01/31/2021 12:45:53 AM 9013107 01/31/2021 6:34:31 AM 9013108 01/30/2021 3:59:54 PM 9013109 01/31/2021 5:49:05 AM 9020104 02/01/2021 3:03:20 AM 9020106 01/31/2021 11:30:52 PM   What is the improvement you would like to see? Allow user for a timestamp column to select either the x-axis scaled (to look for gaps in time) or to plot sequentially. This is because the traditional SPC chart is plotted in time order, but each point is added sequentially, and not scaled to time. This prevents pile up of data points for when sampling was high and it is hard to see individual points, and wide gaps when sampling was low. But sometimes a user wants to see those gaps to see how the material was sampled.      Why is this idea important?  Since Control Chart Builder is a platform just for SPC charts, it should allow easy use of the Subgroup axis for time, lot numbers, etc. This also prevents having to use the "Edit Value Order" and use "Row Order Levels", to plot the timestamp sequentially. See Case Number TS-00206416 for details.        ... View more

What inspired this wish list request?  I submitted my experience with Pi tags here:  Pi Import Options - the Max count option - JMP User Community and a Tech Support case TS - 00192427.  Tech support said they are looking into options and asked me to post the request here.   The effect of limiting each Pi tag output based on the total # of results allowed divided by the number of tags requested severely limits the output of frequently collected Pi tags and makes it appear that there is a problem with the tag when the data abruptly stops while all other tags (with less frequent collection) continue.  (Example graph - green stopped outputting before red, even though I thought they were identical.  Both stopped way before purple.) It also limits how many tags you can pull at a time - even if most are very infrequent (once per day or once per eight hours) while others are every 30 seconds. This error message limiting me to 37500 tags is for the "system limit" of 150,000 results divided by pulling 4 tags at the same time. This applies to JMP 18, which is the only version where this feature for multiple tag import exists (I am using 18.1.1).        What is the improvement you would like to see?  In order of difficulty: 1) Add documentation to the JMP help menu / webpage about how Max Count feature works for Importing Pi tags and what the limitations are 2) Add a Warning or Error to Pi tag outputs when pulling multiple tags if some tags reach their limit before the time range while other continue through the full range.     3) Change the method of pulling tags so that the full value of # of tags (max count - 150,000 "system limit") can be used - either by       a) going left to right across the tags       b) by pulling each individually and combining (recommended)   Why is this idea important?  I cannot recommend this great JMP feature (pulling multiple Pi tags at once starting in JMP 18) to coworkers if we can't rely on the outputs.  I can put together complex scripts to loop through, but each area in my plant is very different and I can't cover them all with unique code.  The interface for manual Pi tag pulls is great for the more casual user, but it has to be robust or it creates more frustration and busy-work to understand the odd outputs than it creates opportunities to learn from the data.     ... View more

What inspired this wish list request? I was performing a Box Cox transformation using the "new formula Column" and I wanted to use the optimal Lambda but saw there was only a visual guide for manual selection of Lambda.  This is not very functional for large number of columns or automating the transformation.  Also, since this is not inherently build into the Control Chart platforms you have to transform your data, run a control chart analysis, then back transform the calculated control limits so you can use them your control chart in original units.     What is the improvement you would like to see? I would like to see the Box Cox transformation automatically suggest the optimal Lambda (like it does in Fit Model least Squares) and also have this transform available in Control Chart builder/Process Screener so you can transform the data and have it chart in original units.  Currently a Johnson transformation already finds optimal settings and it would be nice to have both of these transforms build into the Control Chart platforms.     Why is this idea important? Transforming data so it is normal is a routine activity for control charting and having it be so manual to find optimal settings and back calculate spec limits is far to burdensome currently. ... View more

What inspired this wish list request? Conventional fixed horizon A/B testing such as a t-test for two independent populations or a z-test for a a population against a known mean are powerful but can take a long time to complete.  Considering the z-test, when the initial data points of the population under test clearly show a difference compared to the reference mean, the full pre-defined sample size may not be needed to prove a difference in the origin of the populations. Here, the sequential A/B testing methodology can speed up the expeirment by ending it early yet still have the statistical rigor required.  Additionally, the dynamic sequential testing capability exists in other statistical software tools yet is not available in JMP.  As a JMP user, I would like this capability.     What is the improvement you would like to see? I would like the JMP team to build a new feature for A/B sequential testing as part of their DOE platform. I would like to see a statistical algorithm built that analyzes data sets against the efficacy and futilitiy boundary as data poit.  References to the literature can be found in the wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequential_analysis.      Why is this idea important?  This feature would add to the power of JMP for process engineers and scientists who design experimental testing for new process change improvements.  The ability to statistically decide to end an experiment early will benefit the JMP user community.          ... View more

What inspired this wish list request?  Routinely (>90% of the time) I need to go back to the data table specific to the analysis window I'm working from and I have trouble getting back to the specific data table when I have multiple tables and windows open.      What is the improvement you would like to see?  I would love if there was a button in each analysis window back to the datatable so I don't have to search for the data table, very similar to how the sub-windows generated from each datatable appear in the bottom of the data table.   Why is this idea important?  saves time and confusion     ... View more

Say you wish to update specification limits of some parameters of your manufacturing process searching for possibly more suitable limits. A way to find such limits is to calculate tolerance intervals (TI) for those parameters. A TI considers the proportion of future results to be within the limits range. Since future results are obviously unknown calculation also requires a predefined confidence level. Different combinations of confidence levels and proportions would result in different TIs. A nice feature in JMP is the ability to add specification limits as a column property, which would use those for process capability analysis and show them on charts. However, a similar property for TI is missing. A way to compare specification limits and TI limits would be to manually add the TI limits to a chart so both would be shown on that chart. Doing so for a single parameter is reasonable but what if there are a dozen or two parameters to be explored. In such case, this may become tedious and time consuming, especially if wanting to explore different sets of TIs with several combinations of proportion and confidence level.   An ability to have TI as a column property, would allow for easy comparisons between set of limits. Currently in JMP it is possible to save the calculated TI as the specification limits but not having both intervals as separate column attributes since saving the TI as specification limits would delete any existing limits.   I have already opened a case for this request but would love to hear from other users about this suggestion, thanks. ... View more

For future Control Chart Builder enhancements in JMP15 or beyond. New drop zones for columns that contain multiple LSL, LCL, target, UCL, USL values.   Some users have to track multiple spec limits and control limits in a relational database, so columns are stored for LSL, LCL, target, UCL, USL. Would be nice to have drop zones on Control Chart Builder for these columns, instead of relying on the static Column Properties for Spec Limits and Control Limits. For example, in Graph Builder, we can drag these columns to the right axis, and change these to lines, while keeping the raw data on the left axis as points, which mimics a control chart with changing spec limits or control limits. Or if different limits, can use these drop zones and use the By button to plot by what changes, like process or product. In Control Chart Builder, can somewhat mimic by using the Phase drop zone for a column like target, if it changes, and then use a script to add the other lines.   These drop zones would have to override any Column Properties if there are conflicts, or make a warning. And you could not save these to the column properties, since they change vs. sequence. ... View more

What inspired this wish list request? Please describe the current issue that needs improvement or the problem to be solved that is not easy or possible right now, with an example use case.      What is the improvement you would like to see? Please describe the idea for improving JMP. Please include mock-ups, wireframes, screenshots, scripts, other documents or examples from other software that help describe the change you would like to see.      Why is this idea important? Please describe the value to you and/or other users if the idea is implemented (for example, ease of use, must have,…).     ... View more

What inspired this wish list request? Please describe the current issue that needs improvement or the problem to be solved that is not easy or possible right now, with an example use case. The column switcher isn't always available and when it is available (specifically when using a "by" variable it does not update the spec limits when switching between stability parameters      What is the improvement you would like to see? Please describe the idea for improving JMP. Please include mock-ups, wireframes, screenshots, scripts, other documents or examples from other software that help describe the change you would like to see. It would be great to use the column switcher when running stability with or without a by variable and have it rerun the analysis based on the correct specs in the column properties.      Why is this idea important? Please describe the value to you and/or other users if the idea is implemented (for example, ease of use, must have,…). Currently have to create a script for every parameter of the stability program (14+ parameters) for each product in our pipeline it also makes it difficult to easily bulk export the information into a single document. it would be a huge timesaver to utilize a column switcher and add a journaling script to automate this process as can be done for other platforms.      ... View more

What inspired this wish list request?  The inspiration for this wish came from the fact the Legacy Control Charts will be retired with JMP 19, AND from the fact that my suggested feature WAS available in JMP Pro 17, but is no longer available in JMP Pro 18.   What is the improvement you would like to see?  Add back the Preferences - Platforms - Control Chart Builder - Show Limit Labels option.   Why is this idea important?  In JMP Pro 17, this preference option is available.  But, in JMP Pro 18, this preference option is gone.  One has to create a control chart, then use the red drop-down and go to Limits - Show Limit Labels.  This would have to be done every time a control chart is produced.  I ALWAYS want the centerline and control limits labeled ON the chart, not just in a table to the right of the chart.  Legacy Control Charts always labels the centerline and control limits to the right of the lines that make up these things on the chart, but Legacy Control Charts is going away in JMP Pro 19.  So it would be nice to make "Show Limit Labels" the default, as could be done in JMP Pro 17.   ... View more

As a JMP Partner in Brazil, I teach people how to use JMP to solve problems using data, and I’ve received some feedback on the language options available within JMP. While multiple languages are supported, Portuguese is not yet one of them. Including Portuguese would be a significant step toward expanding the JMP community in Latin America. Brazil is a huge market with tremendous potential! Although there are thousands of JMP users here, not all are fluent in English or Spanish. Our competitors’ software includes Portuguese support, which often makes it the preferred choice for some users. Adding a Portuguese option would greatly benefit the JMP community and increase adoption across Brazil. Thanks! ... View more