Reducing manufacturing process variability using
experimental design technique: a case study
Keywords
Design of experiments,
Optimization, Process efficiency,
Taguchi methods
Abstract
Experimental design is a powerful
technique for understanding a
process, studying the impact of
potential variables affecting a
process and providing sponta-
neous insight for continuous qual- Fisher in the early 1920s to study the effect of
ity improvement possibilities. It
has proved to be very effective for
improving the process yield, pro-
cess performance and reducing
process variability. A number of
successful applications of the ex-
perimental design technique for
process optimisation have been
reported by both US and European experimentation were a fundamental break
manufacturers over the last ten
years. This paper illustrates an
application of Taguchi methods
(TM) in an industrial setting for
identifying the critical factors
affecting a certain process and
subsequently reducing process
variability. Both the analysis of
variance (ANOVA) on mean re-
sponse and the signal-to-noise
ratio (SNR) have been carried out early 1950s. His effort has been to make this
for determining the optimal condi-
tion of the process. A significant
improvement in the process per-
formance was observed in terms of quality of both products and manufacturing
variation reduction.
The authors would like to
thank the two anonymous
referees for their valuable
and useful comments on
earlier draft of this paper.
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
10/3 [1999] 162±169
# MCB University Press
[ISSN 0957-6061]
[ 162 ]
Jiju Antony
University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK
Michael Hughes
University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK
Mike Kaye
University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK
Introduction
Experimental design is a powerful approach
to product and process development, and for
improving the yield and stability of an
ongoing manufacturing process (Montgom-
ery, 1992). It is a discipline that applies
statistics to the experimental process. It was
first introduced and developed by Sir Ronald
several variables simultaneously on the out-
come. In his early applications, Fisher
wanted to determine the effect of factors such
as rain, water, fertilizer, sunshine, etc., on
the final condition of the crop (Sirvanci and
Durmaz, 1993). His methods for effective
from the old scientific tradition of varying
only one-factor-at-a-time approach to experi-
mentation. Since that time, much develop-
ment of the technique has taken place in the
academic environment, but not many appli-
cations in the manufacturing environment.
Dr Taguchi carried out significant research
with experimental design techniques in the
powerful experimental design technique
more user-friendly and apply to improve the
processes (Goh, 1993). Taguchi developed
both a philosophy and a methodology for
continuous quality improvement based on
statistical concepts, especially experimental
design techniques. A number of successful
applications of the Taguchi method for pro-
cess optimisation have been reported by both
US and European manufacturers over a
decade (Antony and Kaye, 1996; Quinlan,
1985). Experimental design methodology
based on Taguchi has accentuated the im-
portance of reducing process variability
around a specified target value and then
bringing the process mean on target. This
can be accomplished only by making pro-
cesses insensitive to various sources of noise
and the method is called robust parameter
design (Phadke, 1989).
Benefits of using experimental
design methods
Experimental design methods have intensive
application in the engineering design and
development environment. Potential appli-
cations include product design optimisation,
analysis of basic design configurations,
material selection, selection of component
tolerances and process optimisation. The
following are the typical benefits gained by
many experimenters and researchers from
the application of experimental design meth-
ods:
. reduced product development time;
. assistance to achieve better process
design to assure final product quality;
. improved customer satisfaction with the
product;
. reduced excessive variability in both the
product and process performance;
. assistance in discovering a set of process
variables which are most influential on
the process output;
. reduced product and process development
costs;
. reduced product and process sensitivity to
environmental and manufacturing varia-
tions;
. helped to determine the optimal factor
settings for better process performance;
. assistance with the development of new
processes and manufacturing technology;
. improved process yield, product reliabil-
ity and process capability.
Case study
The following case study was performed in a
certain manufacturing organisation with the
aim of reducing variability around the target
for a core process. Owing to the non-disclo-
sure agreement between the company and
the authors, certain information relating to
the company cannot be revealed in detail.
Nevertheless, the data which has been col-
lected from the experiment is real and has
Jiju Antony, Michael Hughes
and Mike Kaye
Reducing manufacturing
process variability using
experimental design
technique: a case study
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
10/3 [1999] 162±169
not been modified as a consequence of this
agreement. The case study was carried out by
following the steps described in the Taguchi
methodology (Antony and Kaye, 1995).
Step 1: objective/goal of the experiment
The objective of the experiment was to
determine the most important factors affect-
ing a critical quality characteristic (or re-
sponse) and subsequently reducing
variability in response around the target
value.
Step 2: selection of the quality
characteristic (or response)
Having identified the objective of the experi-
ment, the next step was to identify an
appropriate response for the experiment. The
response of interest to the experimenter was
expulsion force. Here expulsion force is the
force required to expel the component or
device under study from a certain tube.
Step 3: identification of control, noise and
signal factors
The classification of factors (Taguchi, 1987)
for the experiment was achieved by a
thorough brainstorming session with people
from production, quality control and shop-
floor. Seven control factors were thought to
have some impact on expulsion force. Control
factors are those which can be controlled
under normal production conditions. No
noise factors or signal factors were identified
for the experiment. Noise factors are those
which causes variation in the functional
performance of products/processes. Signal
factors are those which affect only the mean
performance of the process. As this is the
first Taguchi experiment performed on the
forementioned quality characteristic, inter-
actions were of no interest to the experi-
menter. In other words, the objective of the
experiment was to reduce the number of
factors to a manageable subset of important
factors. This is called a ``screening experi-
ment'' in the context of experimental design.
Dingus (1989) and Quinlan (1985) provide
excellent references for screening experi-
ments.
As part of the initial investigation of the
process under study, it was decided to study
all factors at two levels. Here, the ``level''
refers to a specified setting of a factor. For
example, in the present case study, the type
of material is a factor and ``material X'' and
``material Y'' are the two levels. The list of
control factors and their levels are shown in
Table I. All the factors which were thought to
influence the expulsion force are basically
machine related.
Step 4: choice of an orthogonal array (OA)
design
For this study, seven independent factors
were thought to have some impact on the
response (i.e. expulsion force). As part of the
initial investigation of the process, each
factor was kept at two levels. A full factorial
experiment would require a total of 128 (i.e.
27) experimental runs. This was not reason-
able and feasible design, as the cost of the
experiment and time needed to complete the
experiment would be extraordinarily high.
Owing to the limited budget and because the
top management needed a quick response to
the experimental investigation, it was
decided to use Taguchi's orthogonal array
(OA) design. The choice of an OA (Ross, 1988)
depends on the number of degrees of freedom
required for studying the main and interac-
tion effects. Moreover, the experimenter was
interested in reducing the number of vari-
ables to a manageable number so that further
smaller experiments can be carried out to
study the interactions among the factors.
As seven main effects (each at two levels)
are to be studied, the number of degrees of
freedom required for the experiment must be
greater than seven. The closest number of
experimental trials (from the standard OAs)
which will satisfy this objective is an L8 OA
(Taguchi and Konishi, 1987).
Step 5: experimental preparation
In this step, the main task was to construct
the uncoded and coded design matrices for
the experiment and analysis of results
respectively. The coded and uncoded design
matrices are shown in Tables II and III,
respectively.
Having constructed the design matrices, the
next step was to run the experiment according
to the prepared matrix. It was decided to
conduct the experiment in the standard order
(see Table II). Moreover, the sample size for
each experimental design point was ten. In
other words, ten parts were made according to
the factor settings in each trial.
Step 6: experimental run
The experiment was conducted based on the
design matrix and the response values were
recorded on a data sheet for analysis. The
resulting response table is shown in Table IV.
Step 7: statistical analysis and
interpretation of results
As the objective is to reduce the variability in
expulsion force and to bring the mean
expulsion force as close as possible to the
target (target being equal to 275gm), both the
ANOVA on the mean response and the signal-
to-noise ratio (SNR) have been carried out.
[ 163 ]
Jiju Antony, Michael Hughes
and Mike Kaye
Reducing manufacturing
process variability using
experimental design
technique: a case study
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
10/3 [1999] 162±169
Table I
List of control factors for the experiment
Factors Factor labels
Type of material
Drum temperature
Machine alignment
Position of the cam
Clearance
Time
Header temperature
SNR is a measure of the performance varia- characteristic of products/processes prior
bility of products/processes in the presence to shifting the mean onto the desired
target.
of noise factors. The idea is to maximise the
SNR and thereby minimise the effect of noise . Stage 2. Identify an adjustment factor
factors. ANOVA is a powerful statistical which has a significant effect on the mean
technique used for sub-dividing the total response, but no effect on the SNR. Use
variation into useful and meaningful compo- this adjustment factor to bring the mean
nents of variation (Antony and Antony, 1998). response as close as possible to the target.
In Taguchi experiments, ANOVA is used to Based on the above two steps, it was decided
pin point the key sources of variation. Since to calculate the SNR for each experimental
expulsion force is a nominal-the-best type of design point. The SNR for nominal-the-best
quality characteristic, it was decided to quality characteristic (Logothetis, 1992) is
employ the two-step optimisation procedure calculated by the equation:
recommended by Taguchi (Taguchi and  2

y
Yokohama, 1993): SNR ˆ 10 log
s
. Stage 1. Identify those factor effects which
have a significant effect on the SNR. Select
the factor levels that maximise the SNR. Sample calculation for Trial 1
The idea is to identify those effects which †=
Mean response …y 983.10
affect the variation. It is important to Sample standard deviation (s) = 258.38
reduce variation in the performance Substitute the values into the above equa-
tion, we get, SNR = 11.60 The SNR values
for eight experimental trials are shown in
Table V.
Level 1 Level 2 Having obtained the SNR values, the next
step was to obtain the average response
(A) Material X Material Y
values of SNR at low and high levels of each
(B) 84 104
factor and hence the effect of each factor on
(C) 134 130
the SNR. The results are shown in Table VI.
(D) Forward Backward
Table VI shows that factors B and D have
(E) 0.006 0.012
dominant effect on the SNR, followed by
(F) 68 72
factors E, G, F, A and C. The main effects plot
(G) 190 210
for the SNR is shown in Figure 1.

Table II
Uncoded design matrix for the experiment
Trial
number A B C D E F G
1 Material X 84 134 Forward 0.006 68 190
2 Material X 84 134 Backward 0.012 72 210
3 Material X 104 130 Forward 0.006 72 210
4 Material X 104 130 Backward 0.012 68 190
5 Material Y 84 130 Forward 0.012 68 210
6 Material Y 84 130 Backward 0.006 72 190
7 Material Y 104 134 Forward 0.012 72 190
8 Material Y 104 134 Backward 0.006 68 210

Table III
Coded design matrix for the experiment
Trial number A B C D E F G
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2
3 1 2 2 1 1 2 2
4 1 2 2 2 2 1 1
5 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
6 2 1 2 2 1 2 1
7 2 2 1 1 2 2 1
8 2 2 1 2 1 1 2

[ 164 ]
Jiju Antony, Michael Hughes Table IV
and Mike Kaye Response table
Reducing manufacturing
process variability using Trial
experimental design
technique: a case study number Expulsion force
Integrated Manufacturing 1 990 1,037 748 1,113 637 1,577 860 818 965 1,086
Systems 2 906 875 638 959 748 807 710 600 525 509
10/3 [1999] 162±169
3 767 578 327 733 653 881 924 583 604 873
4 626 683 669 605 749 760 526 694 632 620
5 549 504 741 566 979 455 468 646 430 468
6 878 540 818 607 1,256 787 953 845 1,168 1,061
7 421 351 350 415 307 508 465 419 596 446
8 691 675 771 940 640 1,053 856 743 587 817

Table V have significant impact on the mean re-

Table for calculated SNR values
Experimental run SNR
1 11.60
2 13.20
3 11.59
4 19.44
5 10.64
6 11.84
7 14.14
8 14.68
Figure 1 shows that the most dominant factor
effects are B and D, followed by factor effects E,
G, F, A and C. In order to obtain the statistical
significance of the effects, ANOVA for the SNR
was performed. The pooled ANOVA table is
shown in Table VII. Pooling is a method of
combining the effects with low sum of squares
in magnitude in order to obtain a reasonable
estimate of the error variance. The rule of
thumb is to pool the effects with low sum of
squares till the error degrees of freedom is
nearly half the total degrees of freedom
(Logothetis and Wynn, 1989).
The ANOVA table has shown that the most
dominant factor effects are B and D. Having
identified the significant factor effects, the
next step was to determine the optimal
settings of these factors which will maximise
the SNR. The optimum condition (i.e., the
best control factor settings) based on the SNR
(refer to Table VI) was:
A1B2C1D2E2F1G1
Having performed the SNR analysis, the next
step was to identify those factor effects which
sponse (Antony and Kaye, 1997). The average
response values at each level of the factors
and their effects are presented in Table VIII.
Having computed the estimates of the
factor effects, it was decided to construct a
main effects plot of the factors. A main effects
plot will provide a visual representation of
the importance of the factor effects. Figure 2
illustrates the main effects plot of the factors.
Figure 2 shows that factors E and B have
significant impact on the mean response (i.e.
mean expulsion force). This will be followed
by factors A, D, F, G and C. The pooled
ANOVA table is shown in Table IX.
The ANOVA table has also shown that the
most dominant factor effects are E and B.
Having identified the significant factor ef-
fects, the next step was to determine the
optimal settings of these factors which will
bring the mean response as close as possible
to the target. The optimum condition (i.e. the
best control factor settings) based on the
mean response (refer to Table VIII) was:
A2B2C2D1E2F2G2
Here factor A is an adjustment factor as it
only influences the mean expulsion force and
not variability in expulsion force. Factors C,
F and G have no significant impact on either
mean response or response variability. The
final selection of the levels of these insignif-
icant factors have been made based on
economic grounds.
As there was trade-off in the factor levels
(based on the analysis of the SNR and mean
response), it was decided to perform the

Table VI
Average SNR table
Factors Average SNR at level 1 Average SNR at level 2 Effect of the factor
A 13.95 12.82 ±1.13
B 11.81 14.96 3.15
C 13.40 13.38 ±0.02
D 11.99 14.79 2.80
E 12.42 14.35 1.93
F 14.08 12.69 ±1.39
G 14.25 12.53 ±1.72

[ 165 ]
Jiju Antony, Michael Hughes
and Mike Kaye
Reducing manufacturing
process variability using
experimental design
technique: a case study
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
10/3 [1999] 162±169
Figure 1
Main effects plot for the SNR
loss-function analysis for nominal-the-best
(NTB) quality characteristics (Schimdt and
Launsby, 1992), in order to arrive at the final
optimal factor settings. The optimal factor
settings is the one which yields minimum
quality loss. In order to perform the loss-
function analysis, the first step was to
develop a mathematical model for the mean
response (denoted by y ^). The model is derived
using the significant effects obtained from
the ANOVA on mean response. The equation
is basically a linear combination of regres-
sion coefficients. The model for the mean
response is given by:
^ ˆ 717:0625 ÿ 47:815A ÿ 78:615B ‡ 46:115D
y
ÿ 118:94E
In the above model, the coefficients of A, B, D
and E are half of the estimate of the factor
effects. Similarly, a mathematical model for
the standard deviation was constructed. This
model is based on the effects which have a
significant impact on the log S. Factors B and
E were appeared to influence the log S. It is
important to note that the log S of the
observations often tend to be normally dis-
tributed whereas the standard deviations (S)
of the observations do not generally follow a
normal distribution (Lochner and Matar,
1990). The mathematical model for the log
standard deviation (log ^ S)is given by:
^ S ˆ 2:171 ÿ 0:1225B ÿ 0:13E
log
Having determined the mathematical models
for the mean response and standard devia-
tion, it was decided to calculate the average

loss function L…y† for each experimental
design point based on the factor effects which
have significant effect on either mean re-
sponse or response variability.
Sample calculation
For making the computations simpler, we
replace level 1 or low level by (±1) and that of
level 2 or high level by (+1).
For run 7:
^ ˆ 717:0625 ÿ 47:815A ÿ 78:615B ‡ 46:115D
y
ÿ 118:94E
ˆ 717:0625 ÿ 47:815…‡1† ÿ 78:615…‡1†
‡ 46:115…ÿ1† ÿ 118:94…‡1†
ˆ 425:58
Similarly,
^ S ˆ 2:171 ÿ 0:1225B ÿ 0:13E
log
ˆ 2:171 ÿ 0:1225…‡1† ÿ 0:13…‡1†
ˆ 1:92
: ^
: :S ˆ 83:18
 ^ 2 ‡ …y
L…y† ˆ k:‰S ^ ÿ T†2 Š
ˆ k:‰83:182 ‡ …425:58 ÿ 275†2 Š
ˆ k:‰29593Š
Table X summarises the results.

Table VII
Pooled ANOVA for the SNR
Source of
variation Degree of freedom Sum of squares Mean square F-ratio Percent contribution ()
A [1] 2.53 2.53 ± ±
B 1 19.84 19.84 9.27* 32.0
C [1] 0.000831 0.000831 ± ±
D 1 15.71 15.71 7.34* 24.52
E 1 7.46 7.46 3.49 9.61
F [1] 3.88 3.88 ± ±
G 1 5.93 5.93 2.77 6.85
Pooled error 3 6.411 2.14 ± 27.02
Total 7 55.34 7.91 ± 100.00
Notes: The parentheses show those factor effects which have been pooled 20 to obtain a reasonable estimate for
the error variance. Moreover, * shows that the factor effect is statistically significant at 90 per cent confidence
level. The tabled value of F-statistic at 90 per cent, 95 per cent and 99 per cent confidence levels are 5.54,
10.13 and 34.12, respectively

[ 166 ]
Jiju Antony, Michael Hughes Table VIII
and Mike Kaye Table for average response values and effects of factors
Reducing manufacturing
process variability using Mean response at Mean response at
experimental design
technique: a case study Factors level 1 level 2 Effect
Integrated Manufacturing A 764.88 669.25 ±95.63
Systems B 795.68 638.45 ±157.23
10/3 [1999] 162±169
C 728.98 705.15 ±23.83
D 670.95 763.18 92.23
E 836.00 598.12 ±237.88
F 749.35 684.78 ±64.57
G 739.65 694.48 ±45.17

From Table X, run 7 (represented in function analysis was therefore obtained

bold) yields the minimum loss. The as:
optimal factor settings based on the loss- A 2 B2 D 1 E 2

The final optimal factor settings were

Figure 2 therefore
Main effects plot for the mean response
A2 B2 C2 D1 E2 F2 G2

Predicted mean response at the optimal

condition
The predicted mean response at the optimal
condition is estimated only from the signifi-
cant main or interaction effects. The selec-
tion of factor levels to be used in the
prediction equation is dependent on the
nature of chosen quality characteristic for
the experiment. For the present study, the
main factor effects which have significant
impact on the mean response were A, B, D
and E. The predicted mean response based on
the optimal factor levels of A, B, D and E is
given by (Roy, 1990):
 2 ÿ T†
 ‡ …A
^ ˆ T  ‡ …B 2 ÿ T†
 ‡ …D
 1 ÿ T†

 2 ÿ T†
‡ …E 

where:

Table IX
Pooled ANOVA for the mean response
Source of
variation Degree of Sum of Mean Percent
freedom squares square F-ratio contribution
A 1 182,882.81 182,882.81 6.02** 3.58
B 1 494,394.01 494,394.01 16.28*** 10.90
C [1] 11,352.61 11,352.61 ± ±
D 1 170109.01 170109.01 5.60** 3.28
E 1 1,131,690.31 1,131,690.31 37.27*** 25.88
F [1] 83,398.61 83,398.61 ± ±
G [1] 40,815.61 40,815.61 ± ±
Pooled
error 75 2,277,144.54 30,361.93 ± 56.36
Total 79 4,256,220.69 53,876.21 ± 100.00
Notes: F0.1, 1,75 = 2.78, F0.05, 1,75 = 3.98 and F0.01, 1,75 = 7.01. Moreover, *** shows that a factor is significant
at 90 per cent, 95 per cent and 99 per cent confidence levels, ** shows that a factor is significant at 90 per
cent and 95 per cent confidence levels

[ 167 ]
Jiju Antony, Michael Hughes Table X
and Mike Kaye Loss-function analysis
Reducing manufacturing
process variability using Run A B D E y^ log^S S^ L (y)
experimental design
technique: a case study 1 1 1 1 1 916.32 2.42 263.03 k . [480476]
Integrated Manufacturing 2 1 1 2 2 770.67 2.16 144.54 k . [266580]
Systems 3 1 2 1 1 759.09 2.42 263.03 k . [303528]
10/3 [1999] 162±169
4 1 2 2 2 613.44 1.92 83.18 k . [121461]
5 2 1 1 2 582.81 2.15 141.25 k . [115639]
6 2 1 2 1 820.69 2.42 263.03 k . [366962]
7 2 2 1 2 425.58 1.92 83.18 k . [29593]
8 2 2 2 1 755.69 2.18 151.36 k . [253973]
Note: ``k'' is a constant used in loss-function analysis and is generally called the quality loss coefficient

^ = predicted mean response at the optimal of factor levels lies within the confidence
condition limits or not. If conclusive results are
T = overall mean of all observations in the obtained from the confirmation run, a spe-
data. cific action on the product/process may be
^ ˆ 717:0625 ‡ …669:25 ÿ 717:0625† taken for improvement.
‡ …638:45 ÿ 717:0625†
Step 8: confirmation run
‡ …670:95 ÿ 717:0625† Ten samples were produced under the opti-
‡ …598:12 ÿ 717:0625† mal conditions. The results are shown in
ˆ 669:25 ‡ 638:45 ‡ 670:95 ‡ 598:12 Table XI. The mean expulsion force from the
ÿ 3:…717:0625† confirmation run was estimated as 345.2gms.
ˆ 425:5825 This value lies in the predicted range of
425.5825 ‹ 115.34 and therefore the experi-
ment was concluded to be satisfactory and
Confidence interval for the predicted mean valid.
response
The confidence interval for the predicted Comparison of results ± before and after
mean response at the optimal condition is experimentation
given by: Ten samples were taken from the standard
s production settings and sample standard
F…;1;2 † :MSE deviation was estimated. The standard de-
CI ˆ ^ 
Ne viation at the standard condition was esti-
mated to be 140.30gms. The sample standard
where: deviation at the optimal condition was esti-
MSE = error variance mated to be 66.38gms. The reduction in
F…;1;2 † = Tabled value of F with one degree of standard deviation was therefore computed
freedom for the numerator and 2 as approximately 53 per cent.
degrees of freedom for the error
term.
Ne = effective number of replications
Significance of the work
For the present study, MSE = 30361.93, Ne = This section describes the significance of the
80/(1 + 4) = 16 experimental work to the company. Owing to
Therefore, the 99 per cent confidence inter-
val for the mean expulsion force is given by:
r Table XI
…7:01†  …30361:93† Results from the confirmation run
99 per cent CI ˆ 425:5825 
16 Sample Expulsion force
ˆ 425:5825  115:34
1 328
Therefore the result at the optimal condition 2 312
is 425.5825 ‹ 115.34 at the 99 per cent 3 371
confidence level. Having determined the 4 198
confidence level for the predicted mean 5 350
response, it is good practice to conduct a 6 333
confirmation experiment or run (Taguchi, 7 445
1987). The confirmation experiment/run is 8 414
used to verify whether the predicted mean 9 373
response based on the optimal combination 10 328

[ 168 ]
Jiju Antony, Michael Hughes
and Mike Kaye
Reducing manufacturing
process variability using
experimental design
technique: a case study
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
10/3 [1999] 162±169
the significant reduction in process variabil-
ity, the actual capability of the process (i.e.
Cpk ) has increased from 0.534 to 1.69. This
clearly shows a dramatic improvement in the
process performance and thereby more reli-
able and consistent products can be produced
using the optimal factor settings. Using
Taguchi's loss function analysis, the poten-
tial annual savings were estimated to be over
£75,000. It must be emphasised that this is not
a saving in traditional accounting terms. The
potential savings result in increased custo-
mer satisfaction, better reputation, reduced
customer complaints and increased market
share for the product.
The engineering team including the qual-
ity engineers and managers within the com-
pany are now well aware of the benefits that
can be gained from the application of ex-
perimental design methods. Moreover, the
awareness that has been established within
the organisation has built confidence among
the engineers and front-line workers in other
areas facing similar difficulties. The com-
pany has already taken some initiatives to
apply experimental design methodologies in
other core processes where scrap rate and
costs associated with rework are exorbitantly
high.
Conclusions
Experimental design is a powerful technique
for improving the product and manufactur-
ing process quality at low costs. The paper
illustrates a case study in terms of the
specific approach from the nature of the
problem to verification of experimental re-
sults from a confirmation run/experiment.
The results revealed the stimulus for the
wider application of Taguchi's experimental
design techniques in manufacturing compa-
nies to achieve process improvement and
reduce process variability. The paper high-
lights the importance of loss-function analy-
sis to arrive at the final optimal factor
settings of the process. The standard devia-
tion of the process was reduced by 53 per cent
using the experimental design methodology.
Moreover, the potential annual savings were
estimated to be over £75,000.The results of the
study have made an increased awareness of
the application of experimental design meth-
odology to the engineering fraternity within
the organisation.
References
Antony, J. and Antony, F.J. (1998), ``Teaching
advanced statistical techniques to industrial
engineers and business managers'', Journal
of Engineering Design (International), Vol. 9
No. 1, pp. 89-100.
Antony, J. and Kaye, M. (1995), ``Experimental
quality'', Journal of Manufacturing Engineer,
Institution of Electrical Engineers, Vol. 74
No. 4, pp. 178-81.
Antony, J. and Kaye, M. (1996), `` Optimisation of
core tube life using experimental design
methodology'', Journal of Quality World,
(Technical Supplement), Institute of Quality
Assurance, London, March, pp. 42-50.
Antony, J. and Kaye, M. (1997), ``Experimental
quality ± a strategic approach to achieve and
improve quality'', unpublished work.
Dingus, G. (1989), ``An application of Taguchi
methods in the foundry'', Seventh Symposium
on Taguchi Methods, MI, pp. 517-32.
Goh, T.N. (1993), ``Taguchi methods: some tech-
nical, cultural and pedagogical perspectives'',
Quality and Reliability Engineering Interna-
tional, Vol. 9, pp. 185-202.
Lochner, R.E. and Matar, J.E. (1990), Designing
for Quality, Chapman and Hall, New York,
NY.
Logothetis, N. (1992), Managing for Total Quality
± From Deming to Taguchi and SPC, Prentice-
Hall, London.
Logothetis, N. and Wynn, H.P. (1989), Quality
through Design ± Experimental Design, Off-
line Quality Control and Taguchi Contribu-
tions, Oxford Science Publications, Oxford.
Montgomery, D.C. (1992), ``The use of statistical
process control and design of experiments in
product and process improvement'', IIE
Transactions, Vol. 24 No.5, pp. 4-17.
Phadke, M.S. (1989), Quality Engineering Using
Robust Design, Prentice-Hall International,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Quinlan, J. (1985), ``Process Improvement by
Application of Taguchi Methods'', Transac-
tions of the Third Symposium on Taguchi
Methods, MI, pp. 11-16.
Ross, P.J. (1988), Taguchi Techniques for Quality
Engineering, McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead.
Roy, R.K. (1990), A Primer on the Taguchi Method,
VNR Publishers, New York, NY.
Schmidt, S.R. and Launsby, R.G. (1992), Under-
standing Industrial Designed Experiments,
Air Academy Press, Colorado Springs, CO.
Sirvanci, M.B. and Durmaz, M. (1993), ``Variation
reduction by the use of designed experi-
ments'', Quality Engineering, Vol. 5 No. 4,
pp. 611-18.
Taguchi, G. (1987), System of Experimental Design,
Vols 1 and 2, ASI, Dearborn, MI.
Taguchi, G. and Konishi, S. (1987), Standard
Orthogonal Arrays and Linear Graphs, ASI
Press, Dearborn, MI.
Taguchi, G. and Yokohama, Y. (1993), Taguchi
Methods ± Design of Experiments, ASI Press,
Dearborn, MI.
[ 169 ]