JMP Wish List

What inspired this wish list request? I use the local kernal smoother method more than the spline method but there is no way to set that to the default at this time     What is the improvement you would like to see?  I would like to see there be an option for default method along with the current options of spline parameters (so under the continuous smoother check box have a drop down menu for default smoother method)     Why is this idea important? With the newer smoother methods the spline fit may not be the best default for all users and without the ability to broadcast methods across all smoother charts this can become burdensome to switch over to the preferred method each time.   ... View more

What inspired this wish list request? The FDA is putting increased emphasis on BUCU evaluation using ASTM E2709 / E2810.  See FDA "."   What is the improvement you would like to see?  The International Society of Pharmaceutical Engineers (ISPE) published the CuDAL program that can analyze data to determine if it meets the ASTM requirements.  This program runs on SAS.  The improvement being requested is for JMP to have the ability to run the CuDAL program.   Why is this idea important? The ease of use and availability of JMP for laboratory analysts when compared to SAS.     ... View more

What inspired this wish list request? When finding the best fitting theoretical distribution using Analyze>Distribution>Continuous Fit>Fit All, the AICc weight is displayed.  When finding if for life data through Analyze>Life Distribution>Fit All Nonnegative, there is no option to display the weight.     What is the improvement you would like to see? Make the weight an option for all paths of fitting distributions.   Why is this idea important? Consistency of outputs and interpretation of results.   ... View more

Hi JMP Team and Community !   Here is a wish for DoE based on covariates from different tables (I'm using JMP Pro 17).   What inspired this wish list request?  Design of Experiments based on covariates factors from two tables - JMP User Community I have faced a difficult situation to setup a DoE with 5 covariates : 2 covariates, from a table A, are predicted physico-chemical properties of formulations (thanks to the model of a first DoE), 3 covariates, independent from the first ones, from a table B, are characteristics of different packagings.   I wanted to create a model (screening main effects and interactions, some set as "if possible" and other "necessary" with 30 runs) with these 5 covariates to evaluate relationships and interactions between formulation covariates and packaging characteristics on the response, but when I use "Custom Design" and want to add covariates, I only have the option to add covariates from the table on which I create a Custom DoE (table A OR table B). @SDF1 suggested to select the top level data table before adding the covariate term, which indeed works, but is not satisfactory for me regarding my settings : Covariates Ax and Bx should be independent from each other, which is not the case anymore with this technique (since JMP seems to do an outer join based on the biggest table (or inner join) with rowID as the join option),   When doing the design, due to the joining done on the two tables, not all combinations are explored (covariates from A don't meet all conditions with covariates from B), and I have a poorly efficient design : Script of the design: DOE( Custom Design, {Add Response( Maximize, "Y", ., ., . ), Add Factor( Covariate, Covariate A1, 0 ), Add Factor( Covariate, Covariate A2, 0 ), Add Factor( Covariate, Covariate B1, 0 ), Add Factor( Covariate, Covariate B2, 0 ), Add Factor( Covariate, Covariate B3, 0 ), Set Random Seed( 695832949 ), Number of Starts( 3479 ), 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 Term( {1, 1}, {2, 1} ), Add Term( {1, 1}, {3, 1} ), Add Term( {1, 1}, {4, 1} ), Add Term( {1, 1}, {5, 1} ), Add Potential Term( {2, 1}, {3, 1} ), Add Potential Term( {2, 1}, {4, 1} ), Add Potential Term( {2, 1}, {5, 1} ), Add Potential Term( {3, 1}, {4, 1} ), Add Potential Term( {3, 1}, {5, 1} ), Add Potential Term( {4, 1}, {5, 1} ), Set Sample Size( 30 ), Simulate Responses( 0 ), Save X Matrix( 0 ), Make Design} ); Power analysis :    Since then, I have found an "external" solution by creating a new table with all covariates from the two tables, and so create all possible combinations A/B of the 2 factors from table A with 3 factors from table B thanks to a low-code tool and some looping. When creating the custom design on this table, I find a more satisfactory design :   I joined the different tables  for testing (not the same as for my topic for confidentiality reason, but tried my best to have a mock-up for illustrating the situation).   What is the improvement you would like to see?  It would be great if there was a solution where JMP would : Ask us to choose the table on which the covariates are located (in case of separate tables containing covariates), Be able to store the data in memory and give us the possibility to do all the combinations in the background when building the design based on two covariates tables. Perhaps an option to check "independent covariates" ?    Why is this idea important?  The Custom design is an excellent tool to deal with covariates and create optimal designs tailored to specific situations. This upgrade would make the tool even more powerful and adaptive, as it would be able to create designs with covariates from different tables and suggest adequate designs.     I hope my wish is clear, if not, don't hesitate to comment or come back to me, Thanks a lot in advance ! ... View more

What inspired this wish list request?    DoE's with a large number of factors are laborious to load up in JMP right now since you have to type them out one by one - there is no easy (non-scripting) way to load them (the factors and their ranges) in otherwise   What is the improvement you would like to see?    I would like to see functionality to be able to paste a list or table of factors and their min/max values into JMP.    Why is this idea important?    JMP has powerful model-fitting functionality but not having this functionality makes me more likely to choose alternative software which makes it easier and faster for the user to use.    ... View more

From time to time I come across situation where I would like to quickly check if two columns have exactly same results in rows. I usually do this by writing new column with :COL1 == COL2 for example. It would be nice to have this as an New Formula option in right click menu (and hopefully support more than 2 columns). ... View more

What inspired this wish list request?      What is the improvement you would like to see?    In this example, if I changed the date filter, I would want the P30770 selection to stay selected until the P30770 selection is no longer has any qty in the selected time period.     Why is this idea important?      ... View more

☐ cool new feature ☐ could help many users! ☑ removes something that feels like a „bug“ ☐ nice to have ☐ nobody needs it   What inspired this wish list request?  The right click new formula column menu is very helpful. Depending on the type of the selected column, the list of entries is restricted: *) for numeric columns:                       for character:         At fist sight,  the restriction seems to be along the line: this command is not possible for this data type - so remove it. But, unfortunately, the removal of entries goes beyond that.    e.g. If just numeric columns are selected, the character/concatenate options are missing. Why? One can concatenate numeric entries  ... if they are converted to strings before the concatenation. This sounds far-fetched - but actually it is implemented exactly like this if the user selects an column of type character in addition. Then the numeric values are wrapped with a char() and all values are concatenated. So, actually no reason to disable this option for the special case of just numeric columns. A respective wish can be found here: https://community.jmp.com/t5/JMP-Wish-List/make-NewFormulaColumn-Character-more-flexible/idc-p/560597/highlight/true#M2578    vice versa: If a column with type character is selected, some functions are disabled as well.   What is the improvement you would like to see?  Some of the removed functions actually work for columns with type character. Therefore, disabling these options just restricts the possibilities of Jmp and it's users - without actual need.   Examples are: Count from the Aggregate menu - which just counts the non-missing entries, independent if the column type is numeric or strings. In combination with GroupBy, this is an easy way to count entries per subgroup - also for columns of type character: https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Row-column/m-p/594830/highlight/true#M79874 so, please, don't disable this option for columns with type character. Distributional/Rank provides an easy way to give entries a well defined label. This also works for columns with type character. In combination with the groupBy option, one can easily "anonymize" data in a synchronous fashion. This also works for columns of type character. so, please, don't disable this option for columns with type character. Rank (reverse) and Cumulative Probability also work for columns with type character. Please don't disable them.   Why is this idea important? Application case for the count function: count non-missing entries.   Application case for the Rank function for columns with type character : With GroupX and GroupY enabled, often it happens that not every GroupX value shows up for every GroupY variable. Therefore there is plenty of white, wasted space. An easy trick to get rid of the space: synchronize the Y labels via rank. before: after:   edit: After finding Rank in the Character submenu, it's mainly Count and Cumulative Probability which are missing. Hm, I could live without them ... Open( "$SAMPLE_STIPS/Wafer Stacked Small.jmp" ); Data Table( "Wafer Stacked Small" ) << Delete Columns( :Wafer ); New Column( "Rank[Lot_Wafer_Label]", Formula( Col Rank( :Lot_Wafer Label, :Lot, <<tie( "minimum" ) ) ) ); Graph Builder( Variables( X( :X_Die ), Y( :Y_Die ), Group X( :Lot_Wafer Label ), Group Y( :Lot ), Color( :Defects ) ), Elements( Points( X, Y, Legend( 16 ) ) ) ); Graph Builder( Variables( X( :X_Die ), Y( :Y_Die ), Group X( :"Rank[Lot_Wafer_Label]"n ), Group Y( :Lot ), Color( :Defects ) ), Elements( Points( X, Y, Legend( 24 ) ) ) )   ... View more

What inspired this wish list request?  Past personal need and experience with colleagues who are implementing partial signal analysis algorithms to analyze data.     What is the improvement you would like to see?  Signal processing functions for standard results found in pythons scipy, including filters(digital & analog), FFT (spectrum), noise, convolution, correlations, transformations, peak analysis, SNR, THD, and vibration analysis. If possible I would go further and add functions for simulating signals as well, this would also be great for teaching and well as synthesizing signals for specific needs with good control and intuitively.    Why is this idea important?  I believe one of JMP's major strengths is the low entry level that it allows of it's users to be able to do complex tasks quickly while assure it's integrity and also assist users in gaining a deep understanding of processes.  I feel the area of signal processing lacks this immensely and feel that the folks at JMP can contribute greatly to this field.  This is a major field with increasing traction and I believe this would align well with JMP's renewed emphasis for targeting academia.      ... View more

What inspired this wish list request?  Interactivity in Graphs can be enhanced by adding Drag Markers to a plot. then the user can interact with the plot by dragging the markers. This behavior is similar to LocatorPane in Mathematica. Unfortunately, Drag Markers in Jmp just offer a restricted functionality compared to LocatorPane. An example is the below screenshot from color of a Drag Marker?  The Drag Marker is huge, but it's almost not visible. Unlike the other Graph Box items (points, lines), a Drag Marker is always black and the user cannot change its color.   What is the improvement you would like to see?  Please add a functionality to adjust the color of a Drag Marker. Perhaps: also change the appearance of the maker from a point to crosshair. By the way crosshair: Did you know that Drag Markers disappear when a user hovers over them in crosshair mode?   Why is this idea important? Drag Markers are such a great thing! But sometimes a black marker has too little contrast to be used efficiently - especially as the user doesn't have a magnet to find the again. This can be frustrating. With the ability to adjust the color of a Drag Markers this issue will be gone :)         more wishes submitted by   ... View more

What inspired this wish list request? Challenges with establishing the ability to pull data from SharePoint lists and/or files stored on sharepoint.  SharePoint is a tool that is used for managing tasks and incoming work.  There are several instances where we would like to be able to pull from these lists to use the data for metrics and dashboards.  Connecting to the lists and having the ability to pull in files (.jmp, .xlxs, .csv) that are stored on the SharePoint is very important to use.   What is the improvement you would like to see?  Something similar to what is available to Google Docs to allow easy access to import SharePoint lists and documents stored on a SharePoin   Why is this idea important?  To ensure metrics are accurate and up to date.   ... View more

What inspired this wish list request? Use of a custom script may be required for standard analysis workflow and these are not included in the action recorder.  Also would be nice to be able to use this to demonstrate and record testing scenarios that was performed on these custom scripts for GxP documentation.   What is the improvement you would like to see?  Add custom script to the action recorder.   Why is this idea important?  We use a lot of custom scripts in routine work, this would streamline the process of automating the analysis.  It would also give us a way to document testing performed on our custom scripts.   ... View more

What inspired this wish list request? Having to perform a task of "make combined data table" and re-creating a complex function multiple times to get the desired values.  Also, is difficult to coach scientist on how to do this with their data and there is opportunity for the formula to be modified or entered incorrectly by mistake.   What is the improvement you would like to see? Custom formulas for summary statistics that can be created then used in Tabulate, Distribution, Summary, Graph Builder etc. It would be great if you could also use any of these formulas as column formulas with the option of By Variables.(ex. Col GCV(:Column 1, :By Variable Column))     Why is this idea important?  Increase efficiency; Avoid errors when re-entering formulas; Allow flexibility to add to the COTS based on need.       ... View more

What inspired this wish list request?  Model Driven Multivariate Control Chart (MDMVCC) platform is a powerful tool with additional functionality compared to Multivariate Control Chart platform. However, one of the features missing from MDMVCC is "subgrouping" option which is already available in the Multivariate Control Chart platform.   What is the improvement you would like to see?  Can we add "subgrouping" option for Model Driven Multivariate Control Chart (MDMVCC) platform. At the moment we have this option for Multivariate Control Chart Platform but not the MDMVCC.    Why is this idea important?  It is important to be able to make the multivariate control chart analysis using the subgrouping option. This would help users to make the analysis with respect to subgroup means since sometimes the within group variation or flyovers can be misleading. This option is available for the Multivariate Control Chart platform but not in Model Driven Multivariate Control Chart (MDMVCC) and MDMVCC has many other additional functions which are useful so we can't simply use the classic version (Multivariate Control Chart).   ... View more

☑ cool new feature ☑ could help many users! ☐ removes a „bug“ ☐ nice to have ☐ nobody needs it     What inspired this wish list request?  Strange that that function is not available in the formula editor (statistical) or JSL... Maybe next version.     What is the improvement you would like to see?  please synchronize the different platforms: - Tables-Summary - Tabulate - Header Statistics - new column formula right click menu - JSL aggregation function  - and most important:   Summary Statistics in Graph Builder every aggregation function which is available via Header Statistics could/should be available via the other "platforms" as well.   At least:  - add a JSL function Col N Unique. - add a N unique entries to the new column formula  menu - and in Graph builder, add  Statistics for Unique entries. - and please (!),Add dense ranking to Ranking Tie and Col Rank functions  missing entries should not be counted (see below) for the JSL function: option to count /not count missing entries   Why is this idea important? In Semiconductor Industry, users often ask: - how many wafers (in this list of devices) - how many batches (in this list of wafers)   other JMP users need the functionality for: - how many countries (list of covid affected people) - how many companies (list of employees) - how many cities (list of people) In JMP it's too complicated to get such answers! Header Statistics is great - the other platforms should be optimized. I guess, no user complained about "too many" options in the Header Statistics? Nevertheless, to save newbies from crowded lists, the additional options could be hidden in a submenu - or behind a Shift-Click. * )available via header statistics nominal: continuous:     more wishes submitted by   ... View more

What inspired this wish list request?  Many countour plots benefit strongly from a labeling of at least some iso lines     What is the improvement you would like to see?  To my understanding, labeling of iso lines is possible for contour plots generated directly from the graph menu but not for a contour plot made via graph builder Also the labeling is very unflexible - for narrow lines the labeling are overlapping and thus unreadable. The positioning seems to be fixed.    Why is this idea important?  So far I can only make nice contour plots with competition software like origin - would be nice to have a more flexible contour plot in JMP to have the possibility to completely switch to JMP.     ... View more

What inspired this wish list request?  We are trying to generate multiple graphs using the wrapping function, but the axes only show up on the outer edges of the graph.     What is the improvement you would like to see?  Would like the ability to add x/y axes to all of the graphs within the wrapped graph (see figure)   Why is this idea important?      ... View more

What inspired this wish list request? I've tried out the Import from OSIsoft PI Server feature in JMP 17.0 for a while now and it works well for the most simple queries, but I have noticed a bunch of potential improvements.     What is the improvement you would like to see? * Less crashes, every time we load a tag containing a text string JMP tends to crash. * Allow for the data to be fetched into a single data table, compare with this this add in: https://community.jmp.com/t5/JMP-Add-Ins/OSIsoft-PI-concatenator/ta-p/552756 * It is very hard to construct more complex searches than show me a attribute for a single element over a specific timeframe. A proper eventframe/batch-search is lacking which allow to get the same attributes for multipleEventFrames/batches across multiple elements/units.       Why is this idea important? The import from PI feature is promising since it makes it much easier to query data from a PI server, with a few improvements it can be a very powerfull tool. For now we are likely to stick with custom scripts to do SQL queries against our PI server.     If I've overlooked any of the capabilities of the module, please let me know. Thanks in advance, Daniel ... View more

What inspired this wish list request?  My companies' process control groups are increasingly using the Process Screening platform and the alarm rate is becoming a key metric for us.  Also, we are using three-way chart more and more, and it is just as important on three-way charts to track and understand the alarm rate on the within charts as the mean charts.  When trying to compare results across platforms as well as expected results, we found discrepancies.   I've been working with @PatrickGiuliano at JMP Technical Support to work through how the platform has been designed to function vs this requests goals.   What is the improvement you would like to see?  The alarm rate section of the Process Screening (PS) platform is a great way to be able to pareto out what process to attack first as well as track performance changes over time while also being able to quickly visualize trends.  I would like to see the following: The "Alarm Rate Column" and "Any Alarm" columns should respect all selected alarm rates as calculated off both upper and lower control limits.  Currently they only calculate off both control limits for the mean chart (as well as any other tests) but only the upper control limit for the "Range Limit Exceeded" when a three-way chart is selected. Not respecting the LCL causes different alarm rates when viewing a process in PS vs Control Chart builder.  This also creates control charts that are different looking than Control Chart builder when using "show chart as selected" in the PS and adding in the dispersion chart as only the UCL is shown. The names for the dispersion charts should be changed to be clearer.  "Range Limit Exceeded" should go to "Disp Limit Exceeded" and be used with MR/-R/-S/three way S/R charts and "3W MR Limit exceeded" should be used for MR charts on three-way charts. The alarm rates and alarm count should not be the sum of the alarm rates for each "Test" column and three way "Range Limit Exceeded".  They should only sum up across a subgroup (so if any subgroup fails a "test" on the mean chart or the subgroup dispersion chart exceeds a Control limit, that should only +1 the value on the "Any Alarm" column and only add +1 to the numerator in the "Alarm rate" column.  For example, if subgroup 2 (of 10) fails for the mean and 3 way within dispersion chart UCL's, and is the only subgroup to fail then the "Alarm Rate" should be 10% and the "Any Alarm" should be 1.  Currently this would show as 20% and 2, which is a misleading look at the process. Since the goal of Process Screening is to be a kind of one-stop shop for an overview of all your processes, it would be value-added to the users to have the platform have the overall alarm rate reflect all the alarm types being selected by the user.  (So, I would like to see a Means alarm rate, MR alarm rate, Range Within alarm rate, and an Overall alarm rate which flags for any tests that were selected by the users to flag a subgroup as defective {MR for an I-MR chart can be excluded here as it spans "two subgroups}).                 How this might look:     Note: took keep consistent with Control Chart Builder using “Test All Beyond Limits - All” vs "Enable all tests" might work better.  I noticed that after I made this picture above.   In the picture below you can see both issues for items 1 and 3: There are no lower control limits on either of the dispersion charts and the platform does not respect any violations of the LCL (which is an issue for -R or -S or the within charts in three-way charts) and thus, leads to a incorrect alarm rate. For the electricity subgroup, it is out of control for both the X-Bar and Range within charts and thus is counted as two alarms, when it should only be counted as one (as the denominator is the number of subgroups).  Thus, the alarm rate should be 3/17 not 4/17.   If for some reason item 1 from above cannot be added on, at the very least, then the names should be changed to “Upper moving range limit exceeded” and “Upper range limit exceeded” so that the user won't assume that they include both due to the current naming convention.       Why is this idea important?  This is important for the following reasons: You should get the same results from both Control Chart Builder and Process Screening, especially since Process Screening will send you to Control Chart builder as an available feature in the platform. Tracking and understanding within process variation is just as important as variation between the means and is especially critical when using three-way charts. Different companies will have different priorities on what alarm rates matter and thus the user group should be able to control what to display in the Process Screening platform (e.g. whether to turn on or off LCLs in MR and R charts). Whew, hopefully that came out clear.  Please let me know if I need to clear anything up!   Steve   ... View more