Within and Between Subgroup Variation in Control charts

By Joao Borges
Date: 13-Aug-2009

Using the following sampling tree as an example:

We could in a COV study draw a X-Bar/R chart for the level B, and then a IMR/MR
chart for the level A if the proper assumptions are in place (data collected in time order for
example).
When we create for the B level, the X-Bar/R chart, the math supporting the creation of
these charts is that:

^ R
σ w i t h_isnu b g r o= u p
d2
The estimated standard deviation above covers the WITHIN subgroup variation, as its
math considers only the internal variation to each subgroup to calculate it. The math supporting
the creation of the X-Bar chart and its control limits is that:
^
C L= X ± 3.σ a
^
Above, we used the notation
σ a to represent the estimated standard deviation for the
averages. The control charts use the assumption that
 ^
^ σ w i t_hs ui nb g r o u p
σ a=
n
Where n is the subgroup size.
 This assumption is correct only if the between subgroup variation would be equal to zero.
^
So, the best equation to show for
σ a would be:
^
^ ^
2 2
2
σw _is t uh bi ng r o u p
σ =σ +
a b e _ st wu be ge nr o u p
n
So, when the X-Bar chart is plotted, the control limits are drawn to the point where we
estimate that the variation caused by between subgroup conditions is very small, tending to zero.
What happens then when this assumption is not correct?
While in the situation where the variance between subgroups is equal to 0 the limits are
drawn at true 3sigmas from the average we would have (considering a normal distribution)
99.73% of probability of having the points inside the limits, the bigger the variance is than zero,
the lower that probability is, creating more potential of points falling out of the control limits.
So, as an example, in a situation where
 ^ ^
σ 2 b e t _ws ue be ng= rσ o2 wu pi t_ sh ui nb g r o u p
^
^
2 σ
^ 2
w
σ a = σ 2 w+
n
^ ^
^
n.σ 2 w + σ 2 w
2
σa=
n
^
^ σ 2w
2
σ a = (n + 1)
n
^
^ σw
σ a = . (n + 1)
n
As we can see, the “true” standard deviation for the X-Bar chart would grow if we
consider the between subgroup variation different than zero (in the example above, by a factor of
( n +1) ). The effect is that the bigger the between subgroup variance compared to the within
subgroup variance, the bigger the chance to have points out of control when using the “original”
limits (the ones considering only the within subgroup variation).
 ^
So basically, a in the graph above could mean the situation where
σ b e t w_ se ue bn g =r o0u, pand the
equation for the Upper control limit in that situation is the regular X-Bar UCL calculation with:
^
σ w i t h _i ns u b g r o u p
U C a L= X + 3.
n
If the assumption is not true (as in real life that variation is always >0), we would have
the “real” limit calculated as:

 2 ^2 
 ^ σ w _is t uh b i ng r o u p
U b = XC + .3  Lσ b e _st wu +be ge rn o u  p
 n 
 
The bigger the variation between subgroups, the bigger the difference of the two limits.
In practice, what this creates is a bigger probability of having points falling between those lines
(consequently falling outside the limits of our “original” X-Bar chart)
Basically for a between subgroup variation i-times the within subgroup variation, we
would have the following equations:
 ^ ^
σ 2 b e t w_ s eu eb ng= ri.oσ u2 wp i t_ hs ui nb g r o u p
^
^
2
^
σ 2
w
σ a = i.σ 2 w +
n
^ ^
^
n.i.σ 2 w + σ 2 w
2
σa=
n
^
^ σ 2w
2
σ a = (i.n + 1)
n
^
^ σw
σ a = . (i.n + 1)
n
So, for different subgroup sizes and different rates between the within subgroup variation
and the between subgroup variation, we will have different probabilities of having points out of
control in the X-Bar chart.
If we plot what would be the probability of having points out of control (but still within
the limits in the next level, to eliminate the real special cause problems), we would have a chart
like this:
 As we can see, if we are looking for a between subgroup variation 10x bigger than the
within subgroup variation (as example in an MSE), with a subgroup size of 2, we would be
roughly looking into having a little over 50% of the points out of control.
 So, the correct theory to explain to students about the within control limits points, and
points out of control is that: the bigger the between subgroup variation compared to the within
subgroup variation, the bigger the chance to have points out of control. This doesn’t discard the
situation where we would not have seen points out of control, just cause the chances were not so
high. In MSEs for example, we are looking for measurement variances a lot smaller than the
system variances. In that case, we are indeed looking for a lot more opportunities to have points
out of control, and that’s why we teach the rules of thumb of 50% and 75%.