No abstract

No abstract

There is growing literature on new versions of “memory‐type” control charts, where deceptively good zero‐state average run‐length (ARL) performance is misleading. Using steady‐state run‐length analysis in combination with the conditional expected delay (CED) metric, we show that the increasingly discussed progressive mean (PM) and homogeneously weighted moving average (HWMA) control charts should not be used in practice. Previously reported performance of methods based on these two approaches is misleading, as we found that performance is good only when a process change occurs at the very start of monitoring. Traditional alternatives, such as exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA) and cumulative sum (CUSUM) charts, not only have more consistent detection behavior over a range of different change points, they can also lead to better out‐of‐control zero‐state ARL performance when properly designed.

Originally, the exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA) control chart was developed for detecting changes in the process mean. The average run length (ARL) became the most popular performance measure for schemes with this objective. When monitoring the mean of independent and normally distributed observations the ARL can be determined with high precision. Nowadays, EWMA control charts are also used for monitoring the variance. Charts based on the sample variance S 2 are an appropriate choice. The usage of ARL evaluation techniques known from mean monitoring charts, however, is difficult. The most accurate method-solving a Fredholm integral equation with the Nyström method-fails due to an improper kernel in the case of chi-squared distributions. Here, we exploit the collocation method and the product Nyström method. These methods are compared to Markov chain based approaches. We see that collocation leads to higher accuracy than currently established methods.

No abstract