id	author	title	date	pages	extension	mime	words	sentence	flesch	summary	cache	txt
cuesj-1020	Kadir, Dler H.; Rahim, Alan G.; Jamil, Dashty I.; Saleh, Dlshad M.	Proposed Capability Indices Based on Robust Estimation Compared with Classical Capability Indices	2023	5	.pdf	application/pdf	3172	179	55	Keywords: Process capability index, robust estimation, quality control chart, standard deviation, specification INTRODUCTION Quality control is the application of techniques and actions to attain, maintain, and enhance product or service quality[1] and states that such charts are in the form of a graph that depicts the average output of data or a product when the process is statistically controlled.[2] Process capability analysis has long been utilized as the gold standard performance criterion for assessing a process ability to meet customer requirements represented in certain specifications.[3] Process capability is a strategic management tool that is utilized as a TQM tool and is essential to the management of an organization’s operations. Robust estimation compared with classical capability indices 52 http://journals.cihanuniversity.edu.iq/index.php/cuesj CUESJ 2023, 7 (2): 49-53 Table 2: Capability indices comparison based on classical with capability indices based on the robust estimation Robust process capability ratios Classical process capability ratios Cp = 1.8 Cp = 1.3 Cpk = 1.09 Cpk = 1.03 Cpm = 1.17 Cpm = 1.07 Cpmk = 0.89 Cpmk = 0.83 Table 1: Coca-Cola drink product Subgroups p1 p2 p3 p4 S.D D 1 750.14 750.36 750.36 751.36 0.546596 0.540598 2 750.78 750.86 751.86 751.96 0.63148 0.669987 3 751.12 751.22 751.28 751.38 0.108934 0.124036 4 750.02 750.36 750.88 751.28 0.556747 0.637822 5 750.48 750.48 750.5 750.56 0.037859 0.038391 6 750.08 750.2 750.2 751.04 0.443621 0.425389 7 750.4 750.42 750.7 750.86 0.223532 0.245024 8 749.56 750.02 750.2 750.2 0.302159 0.310073 9 750.34 750.49 750.7 751.02 0.294661 0.332211 10 750.5 750.54 750.54 750.66 0.069282 0.070898 11 750.52 750.62 750.66 750.9 0.161142 0.174268 12 750.16 750.42 750.74 750.9 0.330404 0.37498 13 750.34 750.48 750.54 750.6 0.111355 0.124036 14 750.32 750.44 750.68 751.78 0.667008 0.682253 15 750.6 750.62 751.28 751.7 0.536284 0.58452 16 750.26 750.3 750.52 750.62 0.173109 0.191886 17 750.24 750.84 750.96 751.58 0.549272 0.611425 18 750.16 750.52 750.92 750.98 0.382405 0.422198 19 750.54 750.62 750.8 751 0.204613 0.230313 20 750.69 751.4 752.18 752.36 0.76787 0.854748 21 750.32 750.9 751.32 752.16 0.774145 0.877116 22 750.8 750.8 751.08 751.44 0.303535 0.324784 23 750.12 750.28 750.22 750.56 0.188591 0.186143 24 750.26 750.4 750.44 750.54 0.116046 0.129956 25 750.44 750.5 750.5 750.56 0.04899 0.053174 It is shown in Table 2 that process capability indices are derived from both classical and robust estimation.	cache/cuesj-1020.pdf	txt/cuesj-1020.txt