Success factors in the implementation of statistical

process control: action research in a chemical plant

Jose Carlos de Toledoa *

Fabiane Letícia Lizarellia

Manoel Bispo Santana Juniora

a
Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos, SP, Brasil
ABSTRACT

Despite the Statistical Process Control (SPC) be extensively explored in the literature, there
are still difficulties in the implementation and maintenance, usually due to lack of attention
to Critical Success Factors (CSF). This paper identified by literature review, critical factors
that contribute to the success of the SPC and through an action research was implemented
a control chart in a chemical plant using these factors. The attention to CSF during
planning, implementation and the discussion with the process team resulted in the
implementation and acceptance of control charts by the operational teams of the company,
with continuing indications of use. The results enabled a framework to apply control charts
based on CSF.

Keywords Control charts; Critical success factors; Implementation; Statistical process

control

1. INTRODUCTION

The Statistical Process Control (SPC) have been used in industrial processes since the
1920s, with an increase during the Second World War. The emergence of Six Sigma
Program intensified the use because of the incorporation of the systematic use of the
SPC in its methodology (Montgomery, 2014).

Although the use is relatively easy, studies describe steps for implementation and
examples of SPC in specific processes (Hradesky, 1989; Kumar & Motwani, 1996; Antony & Taner, 2003).
However, there is no information whether the results obtained in the process control
were continued and the control chart was adopted as a working process.

The application of SPC demands organizational and behavioral changes and it is

important the dialogue and integration between management and operators aiming
exchange of information and learning for the successful use of control charts. It
indicates the need for consideration of factors that transcend the technical aspects of
implementation (Grigg & Walls, 2007a).

In the North American chemical industry in the 1980s, there was a renewed interest in
the use of the SPC. The SPC was mainly used to replace the inspection of the quality of
the final product, in order to reduce the variability of the product, generating increased
productivity, reduce energy consumption and stock levels ( Chowdhury, 1986).
There are difficulties in the use of SPC in continuous processes involving liquids and
gases, common in chemical industries (Gallagher, 1990), although the SPC provide an
effective means for this monitoring (Haslego, 2000). Process control engineers can use
control charts to monitor the stability, capacity and process performance and at the
same time, those responsible for quality may follow if the process is following the
quality standards (Haslego, 2000).

In publications on the subject, it is possible to observe the value of the SPC in different
production processes and that there are several factors identified as important to the
success of its implementation (Rohani et al., 2010). This paper aims, through action research
in a chemical plant, implement SPC charts applying critical success factors and
discussing the relevance for continuous use.

2. Success factors in the implementation of the SPC

The factors that affect the implementation of the SPC are complex and numerous ( Rohani
et al., 2010
) and can be called Critical Success Factors (CSF). If there is a better control
over these factors, the chance of success in the implementation of SPC is higher ( Gordon
et al., 1994 Elg et al., 2008 Rohani et al., 2010
; ; ).

The implementation of the SPC involves technical factors and organizational factors,
both are considered critical for successful implementation ( Does et al., 1997; Elg et al., 2008). Xie &
Goh (1999)
emphasize an holistic approach to the implementation of SPC, based on three
basis: the first, related to the SPC Management, which involves issues such as the role
of senior management, focus on Continuous Improvement, training and teamwork; the
second, related to the human factor, which presents resistance to change issues,
difficulties with the use of computer technologies and the need for incentives; the
third, focuses on the implementation of the SPC, including the use of appropriate tools
for monitoring the process.

Although SPC is superficially a simple technique, the application is a more complex

issue (Antony et al., 2000). The main reasons for failures in implementing are related to:
organizational and social factors (Does et al., 1997); lack of senior management commitment
(Antony et al., 2000); lack of training and understanding of SPC (Does et al., 1997; Antony et al., 2000);
decreased attention after the introduction (Does et al., 1997) and the lack of understanding of
the potential benefits of the SPC (Mason & Antony, 2000).

SPC implementation does not only refer to the sequence of actions to build the control
charts and interpret the process is under control. The implementation is also related to
social, environmental, technical and cultural factors that will make sure that the use of
these charts is integrated into the routine process. For the analysis of critical success
factors for SPC, a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) was held to identify the
publications that address these factors (Table 1).

Table 1 Stages of the systematic literature review.

Research Stages
Search string ((“statistical process control”or”SPC”or”control
chart”) and (“critical success factors”or”success factors”))
Data Base Web of Science, Scopus, Engineering Village and Google Scholar
Search Title, abstract and keywords
 Research Stages
Body of the paper (Google Scholar)
Period 1960 – July 2016
Number of papers returned Web of Science (5), Scopus (13) e Engineering Village (14), Google
Scholar (310)
Number of papers selected Web of Science (2), Scopus (4), Engineering Village (4) e Google
Scholar (41)
Number of papers after 41
excluding the repeated ones
Number of papers on the subject 25

Considering the low number of returns in Web of Science, Scopus and Engineering
Village, the same search was made in Google Scholar, but the search terms were
found throughout the body of the paper, returning 310 publications. Results related to
patents were excluded, leaving 298 publications, of which the titles and abstracts were
read, 41 were selected, including those found in Web of Science, Scopus and
Engineering Village. After a complete reading of the 41 papers, it was identified that 25
contributed to the subject.

A compilation and analysis of CSF present in these publications has been made,
considering that different authors refer to the same content with different names and
some factors are contained in others. After the compilation, 19 CSF were found with
more than one citation.

The three most cited factors are related to SPC management, the first one is the
“Commitment and senior management responsibility” (Gordon et al., 1994; Does et al.,
1997 Rungtusanatham et al., 1999 Xie & Goh, 1999 Antony et al., 2000 Rungasamy et al., 2002 Antony & Taner, 2003 Grigg & Walls,
; ; ; ; ; ;
2007b Chen et al., 2008 Elg et al., 2008 Phyanthamilkumaran & Fernando, 2008 Putri & Yusof, 2008 2009 Rohani et al.,
; ; ; ; , ;
2009a b 2010 Mahanti & Evans, 2012 Lim & Antony, 2013 2014 Rantamäki et al., 2013 Lim et al., 2014 2016 Sharma & Kharub,
, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
2014
), which is related to support the implementation with financial, human resources
and training and is related to the second factor, “Education and training in SPC”, the
training in concepts and techniques needs resources and senior management support,
and it was appointed as CSF by the same number of authors in the literature ( Gordon et al.,
1994 Rungtusanatham et al., 1999 Xie & Goh, 1999 Antony et al., 2000 Mason & Antony, 2000 Rungasamy et al., 2002 Antony & Taner,
; ; ; ; ; ;
2003 Grigg & Walls, 2007b Chen et al., 2008 Elg et al., 2008 Phyanthamilkumaran & Fernando, 2008 Putri & Yusof, 2008 2009 Rohani
; ; ; ; ; ; ;
et al., 2009a b 2010 Mahanti & Evans, 2012 Lim & Antony, 2013 2014 Rantamäki et al., 2013 Lim et al., 2014 2016 Sharma &
, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Kharub, 2014
). The third CSF is “Team work”, for SPC implementation is important to have a
specific working group with leaders, a board of directors committee and an operational
team to lead, coordinate and carry out the implementation ( Does et al., 1997; Rungtusanatham et al.,
1999 Xie & Goh, 1999 Mason & Antony, 2000 Antony et al., 2000 Rungasamy et al., 2002 Chen et al., 2008 Elg et al.,
; ; ; ; ; ;
2008 Phyanthamilkumaran & Fernando, 2008 Putri & Yusof, 2008 2009 Rohani et al., 2009a b 2010 Mahanti & Evans, 2012 Lim &
; ; ; ; , ; ; ;
Antony, 2013 Rantamäki et al., 2013
; ).

The fourth and fifth CSF are related to technical aspects of the SPC implementation;
“Identification and measurement of critical product characteristics”, which involves
identification and measurement of characteristics that impact the client and generate
significant quality problems (Does et al., 1997; Rungtusanatham et al., 1999; Mason & Antony, 2000; Antony et al.,
2000 Rungasamy et al., 2002 Antony & Taner, 2003 Grigg & Walls, 2007b Chen et al., 2008 Elg et al., 2008 Rohani et al.,
; ; ; ; ; ;
2009a b 2010 Mahanti & Evans, 2012 Lim & Antony, 2013 Rantamäki et al., 2013 Sharma & Kharub, 2014
, ; ; ; ; ; ); and “Definition
and correct application of control charts” (selection of appropriate control chart,
sampling, etc), this factor points out that should be proper selection of the chart,
which depends on the type of variable to be analyzed, the data to be collected and the
process (Does et al., 1997; Rungtusanatham et al., 1999; Mason & Antony, 2000; Antony et al., 2000; Rungasamy et al., 2002; Antony &
Taner, 2003 Grigg & Walls, 2007b Chen et al., 2008 Elg et al., 2008 Phyanthamilkumaran & Fernando, 2008 Putri & Yusof, 2008 Rohani et
; ; ; ; ; ;
al., 2009a 2010 Mahanti & Evans, 2012 Lim & Antony, 2013
; ; ; ).

The sixth CSF is “Cultural change and communication”, this factor considers that
behavioral and resistance to change issues must be considered; operators, engineers
and managers need to be aware of the benefits of the SPC for the continuous
improvement of products and processes and to base its actions on facts and data ( Xie &
Goh, 1999 Antony et al., 2000 Rungasamy et al., 2002 Chen et al., 2008 Elg et al., 2008 Phyanthamilkumaran & Fernando, 2008 Putri &
; ; ; ; ; ;
Yusof, 2008 2009 Rohani et al., 2009a b 2010 Mahanti & Evans, 2012 Lim & Antony, 2013 2014 Lim et al., 2014 Sharma & Kharub,
; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ;
2014
).

The seventh and eighth factors are also technical: “Measurement system analysis in
relation to its capability and applicability” (process of measuring the quality
characteristics must be analyzed considering the effect of the inspector, the measuring
instrument and the interactions between these factors) ( Does et al., 1997; Rungtusanatham et al.,
1999 Antony et al., 2000 Rungasamy et al., 2002 Antony &Taner, 2003 Grigg & Walls, 2007a b Chen et al., 2008 Rohani et al.,
; ; ; ; , ; ;
2009b 2010 Mahanti & Evans, 2012 Lim & Antony, 2013 Rantamäki et al., 2013 Lim et al., 2016
; ; ; ; ; ) and “Process definition
and prioritization, focusing on waste, rework or variability problems” ( Does et al., 1997; Xie &
Goh, 1999 Antony et al., 2000 Rungasamy et al., 2002 Chen et al., 2008 Elg et al., 2008 Rohani et al., 2009a b 2010 Mahanti &
; ; ; ; ; , ; ;
Evans, 2012 Lim & Antony, 2013
; ).

These and the others factors and the corresponding authors are listed in Table 2,
following the highest to lowest number of citations, it is also presented a brief
definition of these factors and the percentage of authors who cite.

Table 2 Compilation of the CSF found in SLR.

Critical Definition Percentag Authors

Success Factor e of
citation
1. Commitment and Leaders must understand the use and support 92% 1-4; 6-8; 10-
senior management the implementation with financial, human 25
responsibility resources and training and disseminate the
importance of quality and the SPC.
2. Education and The training in concepts and techniques 92% 1; 3-8; 10-
training in SPC should be focused initially on leadership and 25
transmitted to the organization continuously
and with progressive content.
3. Team work (SPC There should be a specific working group with 64% 2-7; 11-21
Team) leaders, a board of directors committee and
an operational team to lead, coordinate and
carry out the implementation.
4. Identification and The most critical characteristics should be 64% 2-3; 5-8; 10-
measurement of selected. The characteristic can be the one 12; 16-21;
critical product that impacts the client more and generates 24
characteristics significant quality problems.
5. Definition and There should be proper selection of the chart, 60% 2-3; 5-8; 10-
correct application of which depends on the type of variable to be 14; 16; 18-
control charts analyzed, the data to be collected and the 20
(selection of process.
appropriate control
chart, sampling, etc.)
 Critical Definition Percentag Authors
Success Factor e of
citation
6. Cultural change and Behavioral and resistance to change issues 60% 4; 6-7; 11;
communication must be considered. Operators, engineers and 14-20; 22-
managers need to be aware of the benefits of 24
the SPC for the continuous improvement of
products and processes and to base its
actions on facts and data.
7. Measurement The process of measuring the quality 56% 2-3; 6-
system analysis in characteristics must be analyzed considering 11;17-21;
relation to its the effect of the inspector, the measuring 25
capability and instrument and the interactions between
applicability these factors. This analysis is essential to
ensure measurement accuracy and minimize
errors in the data obtained.
8. Process definition A process or a stage where there is waste, 44% 2; 4; 6-7;
and prioritization rework or variability problems should be 11-12; 16-
chosen. 20
9. Use of facilitators or There must be a technical expert for guidance 44% 3; 7; 10; 11;
statistical experts when problems arise in the use of the SPC, 13; 17-21;
(engineers, etc.) to the who must be available and assist in the 25
SPC implementation.
10. Use of computers The use of user-friendly software provides 36% 4; 6-7; 10-
and software for SPC advantages such as less time for 11; 16; 18-
mathematical calculations, as well as ease of 20
storage and data recovery.
11. Use of a pilot study There should be a pilot project to learn and 32% 2; 6-7; 11;
sensitize leaders about how SPC can assist in 17-18; 20;
solving problems, and show how SPC can be 24
applied and its benefits.
12. Involvement and Operators should be empowered to analysis 28% 1; 3; 5; 13-
empowerment of and decision making on process control and 15; 20
employees be recognized for their work.
13. Development of The SPC should enable those involved to 20% 9-10; 21;
statistical thinking perceive that there is variation in processes 23; 25
and to understand and reduce variation is
critical.
14. SPC use for The SPC should be used as an input of facts 20% 3-4; 20; 23-
Continuous and data for Continuous Improvement. 24
Improvement
15. Documentation and It must be ensured that the knowledge on any 20% 3; 7; 11; 18;
knowledge updating on critical process is reviewed, analyzed, 20
the process documented and updated according to
changes in the process.
16. Interpretation The ability to interpret the information and 20% 4-5; 9-10;
capacity of control behavior observed in control charts should be 17
charts and the fomented so that corrective and preventive
allocation of actions can be taken.
appropriate actions
17. Focus on customer The process and the critical characteristics of 20% 8; 13-15; 20
satisfaction quality should be chosen in order to increase
customer satisfaction.
18. Feedback, It is important that there is opportunity for 16% 10; 19-21
continuous learning learning and knowledge sharing among SPC
and knowledge sharing staff, operators and managers involved.
 Critical Definition Percentag Authors
Success Factor e of
citation
19. Auditing, analysis For the continued implementation of the SPC, 12% 3; 10; 21
and review of control auditing and reviews of the use and of the
charts for continuous charts should be made to identify possible
improvement gaps and targeting the correct use.
(1) Gordon et al. (1994); (2) Does et al. (1997); (3) Rungtusanatham et al. (1999); (4) Xie & Goh
(1999); (5) Mason & Antony (2000); (6) Antony et al. (2000); (7) Rungasamy et al. (2002);
(8) Antony &Taner (2003); (9) Grigg & Walls (2007a); (10) Grigg & Walls (2007b); (11) Chen et al.
(2008); (12) Elg et al. (2008); (13) Phyanthamilkumaran & Fernando (2008); (14) Putri & Yusof
(2008); (15) Putri & Yusof (2009); (16) Rohani et al. (2009a); (17) Rohani et al. (2009b); (18) Rohani
et al. (2010); (19) Mahanti & Evans (2012); (20) Lim & Antony (2013); (21) Rantamäki et al. (2013);
(22) Lim & Antony (2014); (23) Lim et al. (2014); (24) Sharma & Kharub (2014); (25) Lim et al.
(2016)

There is a convergent opinion on the importance of these CSF for the implementation
of SPC, both in academy as in managers (Rohani et al., 2010). This list of factors summarizes
the arguments of authors and will be the reference adopted in research reported in this
paper.

Some authors propose methodologies for SPC Implementation. Krumwiede & Sheu (1996) present
six steps for implementation: getting support from senior management, choosing a
leader of the SPC, determination of the production process for the pilot study, process
documentation preparation, training in SPC and the construction of control charts.

Kumar & Motwani (1996)

suggest 16 steps to lead to the implementation, ranging from staff
training for deployment to actions for process control. Does et al. (1997) present a model with
four phases, involving awareness, pilot projects, full implementation and total
quality. Mason & Antony (2000) and Antony & Taner (2003) propose a conceptual model for the
implementation of the SPC, developed from the critical analysis of publications on the
subject, which focuses on four key areas: management issues, engineering skills,
statistical knowledge and skills for group work. In general, these models for SPC
implementation include some of the CSF mentioned.

The problems faced in implementation are also related to CSF: it needs to invest time,
money and training in the implementation of the SPC (Does et al., 1997); it needs constant
attention and Senior Management support (Antony & Taner, 2003; Does et al., 1997); it is important
the effective use and correct interpretation of control charts; it must overcome the
difficulties in the use of statistics to build the chart, understanding and identification of
corrective actions; it is important to plan for the implementation of the SPC and the
management after implementation (Antony & Taner, 2003). The identification of CSF for the
implementation of the SPC is crucial, but only the consideration of factors is not
enough, they must be connected in a coherent plan (Lim & Antony, 2014).

3. RESEARCH METHOD

The method used for field research was the emancipatory action research, considering
the company's interest in conducting a learning experience and participation of
operational staff and technical support in the implementation and consolidation of the
SPC in a chemical processing unit. The method determines the researcher to share
responsibilities with the other participants and enables organizational learning.

The company had already conducted an implementation of SPC in the past, which was
not successful and decided to hold a new experience observing the CSF. This
represented an opportunity to conduct a research on the implementation and verify in
loco the theory of CSF for SPC.

Action research is a cyclical process with well-defined phases to plan the intervention,
collect, analyze data, plan and perform the intervention. After the implementation of
the actions there is the evaluation and returns to the beginning of the cycle with the
planning. The research stages (Figure 1) were based on Coughlan & Coghlan (2002).

Figure 1 Overall scheme of action research. Source: Adapted from Coughlan & Coghlan (2002).

The Pre-Planning Step aimed the understanding of the research context and definition
of purpose. It included the survey of the theoretical framework for the action research,
the CSF, the understanding of the company’s history with the use of control charts and
its organizational environment, the choice of the process to the action research
application and identification of expectations of the involved team.

The data collection phase aimed to carry out visits and meetings with the action
research team and observe the existence of the CSF in the unit. In the feedback stage,
the objective was to discuss with the team the information and data collected. The
data analysis enabled the interpretation of the collected data, assisted in the
prioritization of selected actions for the next step, the action plan, in which the actions,
deadline and responsible for the effective implementation of the SPC were defined. The
fifth step was the implementation of actions and identification of the generated results,
followed by the action evaluation step, which involves discussion of the effectiveness of
actions implemented and whether they have met the expectations. At each step was
performed a continuous monitoring, communicating to staff through formal
presentations of the research, the actions performed and their evaluation.

It was conducted three cycles of all the six steps and the action research monitoring.

4. Action research
4.1. Pre-planning step

In pre-planning step, the researcher held meetings with the Production Manager, the
Production Coordinator, who is responsible for the operational teams and the Process
Manager, who is responsible for technical improvements in the plant.

Initially, it was explained to the researcher who in the past have already tried to adopt
SPC charts, but unsuccessful in its continuity. Many operators at the time of these
initiatives are still part of the current team and could generate resistance.

It has formed a monitoring group to support action research, with the participation of
the researcher, Production Manager, Process Manager and Industrial Manager.

At this stage the expectations were identified: to understand the failures of past
initiatives; involve all the plant workers; generate clear procedure for operational use
of control charts and embed it to the ISO 9000 Quality System ( International Organization for
Standardization, 2015
); the variables to be monitored should be important to the operation
result (customer satisfaction) and the utilization of the software for using the chart
should be easy.

The purpose of action research, set with the Monitoring Group, was the implementation
of control charts with the use of the CSF and the assessment of their effective
incorporation into the operators’ work routine. The aims of the action research and
team expectations were released for the entire organization.

The Monitoring Group decided that the research was a pilot project focused on a
specific process. Silica production was chosen by the potential improvements
generated by the control. Only after the results of the research, with the actions
implemented, it would start institutionalization of the SPC.

4.2. First cycle of action research

This cycle was performed in order to identify the expectations and barriers by
operators and production leaders in relation to the charts and start the
implementation.

4.2.1. Data collection and feedback

Data collection involved individual interviews with some members of the operating
team and three formal meetings with shift leaders and operators separately. The
purpose of separating the leadership was not inhibit operators in relation to providing
information on past experiences in the use of control charts and on their expectations
and difficulties. It sought to identify and understand, from the perspective of
operators, the possible restraints, as in the opinion of the leaders, operators have the
perception that the use of control charts is reserved for engineers and managers. The
leaders warned that in previous experiments the operators had no control over the
chosen variable, therefore, the choice of the process and the variable has been
identified as important to success.

It was detected the concern of operators with the amount of data to be read, if the
control chart would be done by hand (paper) or through some software, how often
they should monitor the variable and the responsibility of operators to the variable
behavior. It was perceived that the working procedure, in the case of the presence of
special cause indication, was considered by operators as a critical factor.

In one of the meetings between researchers and operators, there was a brief
presentation of the concepts of SPC and the opportunity was used to detect the
interest of operators on training in SPC. It also was discussed the interest of teamwork
for implementation of control charts and the use of facilitators. The proposals were
accepted without restrictions by operators and are very important for the
implementation.

Another important aspect was to report to operators and leaders that this project
would be considered as a pilot, the results would be analyzed for replication in other
plants and processes.

The data obtained after the meetings were organized in a document submitted to the
Monitoring Group. This information was also communicated to other stakeholders, such
as Production Managers from other plants.

4.2.2. Data analysis, action plans and execution

After the data analysis was decided by the Monitoring Group, that at this first moment
the following factors would be focused on: Commitment and senior management
responsibility; Pilot project use; SPC implementation team; Facilitator use; Definition
and prioritization of the process to be focused; Education and training in SPC;
Definition of the critical quality characteristic and Management of cultural
change. Table 3 presents the results of the analysis and the actions.

Table 3 Situation analysis and proposed actions.

CSF Situation Action

Commitment The members of the Monitoring Group are The Group continues to demonstrate
and senior supporting and there is no identified focus of the support through meetings and
management resistance. interventions in the pilot project and
responsibility In meetings with the leaders, it was it is awaiting the advance of the other
revealed that those who experienced the phases of the implementation to
frustrated initiatives, support the initiative, verify the need for action with the
but with restrained enthusiasm. leaders. Appointment of a facilitator,
providing resources for the progress
of actions.
Use of pilot Consider the experience as a pilot project The implementation of actions
project has been worked in the planning and continued to be treated as a pilot.
discussed in meetings with operators and Held the formal action release (kick-
leaders. Thus, expectations that were off) and pilot officialization, with all
another top-down program, imposed on operational staff, the launch was well
operators, did not materialize. The teams received by operators.
understand that this is a pilot for “a new
way of working an old idea”.
SPC During the meetings, it was found strained A production engineer with training in
implementation relations between operators and leaders. Six Sigma Green Belt was hired, who
team Apparently, there is a concentration of will be responsible for leading, which
power in leaders who monopolize the would decrease the concentration of
decisions that are taken in the process power.
control room. Some operators have The SPC team was defined as
 CSF Situation Action
complained that lack the autonomy to make consisting of operators, leaders,
changes in the process, knowing what has process supervisor and Production
to be done. This situation could interfere Engineer.
when the establishment of plans for special
causes, which should be done by control
room operators.
Use of The need to use a facilitator to assist in the At first, it was chosen as facilitator a
facilitator execution of the project and on questions of supervisor with good knowledge of
implementation of the control chart has the industrial process, working
been verified. routines and which is responsible for
the factory quality system. However,
the facilitator did not have enough
knowledge on statistical methods.
The facilitator appointed was the
Production Engineer.
Definition It was important to have been made in the After discussion, the silica filtration
and planning stage, indicating the plant and process was set.
prioritization of process for the pilot implementation.
the process
Identification Several meetings were needed to which For the choice of the variable, the
and variable consensus would bring value to the Monitoring Group realized that
measurement of operation. It is important to choose a important factors are: to be an
critical quality variable that operators can take action if independent variable, have strong
characteristics the process gets out of control. It is also impact with the process output, its
important that everyone training for taking correction is the domain of operators
corrective actions, as currently the action and have validated measurement.
under the process depends on the After meetings with the process
experience of the operator. teams defined that filtration section,
the controlled variable would be the
final compression pressure applied on
silica plates. This variable was
unanimously accepted by the team.
Education and Request by the operators, training in SPC Training sessions in early concepts of
training in SPC concepts. SPC types of charts, importance and
benefits of the implementation.
Cultural change Operators understand the concept of the The next activities were planned
management project. Communication with all the (choose the control chart,
employees was essential to realize that measurement system analysis and
something different was being done to an software), initiating a new action
“old issue.” However, there is an research cycle. It was also decided to
expectation for knowing how is done in include the factor “Communication
practice. Evaluation” in the factor “Change
management activities”.

The chosen critical quality characteristic was a variable with direct impact on the
natural gas consumption of the factory. In the silica process, there is a step where the
suspension is filtered through a filter-press and then pass through a gas dryer. The
humidity of the silica at the end of the filtration is important, as it impacts on gas
consumption in the dryer and correlates with the pressure applied to the filter plates. It
was defined as variable to be controlled, the pressure applied to the filtration plates.
The control chart would have as an objective to monitor the filtration process to ensure
low humidity level and lower gas consumption for drying. Figure 2illustrates the focus
process for the implementation of the control chart.
Figure 2 Process Flow with SPC Chart Focus Indication. Source: Authors.

The motivation to have a statistically controlled variable is that, despite being a stable
operation, if there are problems in the pressurization system of the plates, hardly, the
operators will immediately detect because the pressure will gradually reduce until it is
perceived that the humidity of the silica in the dryer entry is high.

4.2.3. Evaluation and monitoring after the first cycle of action research

The facilitator's role proved to be essential to the connection between the Monitoring
Group and the SPC team and to answer questions of the operators. There was a need
for a clear definition of its functions, so that there was no conflict with other leaders. It
was also noted the strong influence of the company culture and the plant's own staff in
the actions. The engagement of leaders proved essential in the first cycle, as there was
between them the belief that research would bring benefits to all. In this first cycle it
was observed the expectation created by the operators about what would happen in
the coming months.

For the Monitoring Group, the first cycle of action research implantation helped
strengthen the existing theoretical framework in the group, increasing the knowledge
to the next steps.

4.3. Second cycle of action research

4.3.1. Data collection and feedback

For the pilot project, other implementation steps have been introduced by SPC team,
for example, the measuring system validation. The team identified two aspects, one
technical and other behavioral. As regards the technical side, the measurements must
be validated statistically by means of a study of repeatability and reproducibility,
compared to the inherent variability of the measurement in relation to process
variability or tolerance (upper and lower specification limits) to be achieved by
facilitator. The behavioral aspect concerns the perception of the reliability of
measurements by operators. It is not enough to show through calculations and
documents that the measuring system is suitable if, on a daily routine operators do not
trust the measurement. To identify behavioral problems, it was asked if any
measurement or measuring system was not trusted and had suggestions for
improvement.

The next step was the definition and correct application of the control chart. It was
decided along with the SPC team, from the simplest type, with the mean chart for the
filtration cycle pressure control, which lasts 60 minutes. In two meetings with the
process and production engineers, a proposal to monitor and plot the mean
compression pressure in the last three minutes of the filtration cycle came up, because
the most important to the process is the final pressure applied to silica plates. The
need to conduct an analysis of autocorrelation has been raised, since according
to Montgomery (2014) the most important premise for control charts is the independence of
the observations.

Another problem associated with CSF was the software for the control chart. In
interviews with operators, all of them dismissed to manually do the control chart. Data
collection and calculations would be laborious. During group meetings operators
suggested a spreadsheet in Excel® to be used, the lack of control indication rules were
shown in the worksheet and, if possible, be alerted when the next phase could get out
of control. Discussions were made with the computer technicians of the company to
verify that there were options to meet these requirements.

In this phase were applied and analyzed the following CSF: “Measurement system
analysis in relation to their capability and applicability”; “Definition and correct
application of control charts” and “Use of computers and software for SPC.” Two other
factors continued to be used throughout the implementation project: “Education and
training in SPC” and “Management of Cultural Change.”

It was presented to the Monitoring Group that for the factor “Measurement system
analysis in relation to their capability and applicability” were necessary studies on the
measurement system and the confidence improvement of operators in the data.
An oral presentation to the Monitoring Group on the factors “Definition and correct
application of control charts” was made and “Use of computers and software for SPC,”
discussing the suggestion of spreadsheet using Excel. On-site visits were also carried
out to check where the monitor could be allocated, so the operators could accompany
the control chart.

4.3.2. Data analysis, action plans and execution

Table 4 shows the results of the analysis and actions for CSF in the second cycle of
Action Research.

Table 4 Data analysis and actions to the CSF of the second cycle.

CSF Situation Action

Measurement It has been observed the need for The repeatability and reproducibility study
System technical evaluation (analysis of showed that the measurement system is
Analysis repeatability and reproducibility) of the reliable. It sought to show that the team
measurement and behavioral analysis itself is responsible for the measured data
related operators' confidence in the data and its reliability, improving awareness.
collected.
Definition and The simplest type of chart, the X bar – R Creation by the facilitator (Production
correct chart, is suggested. The average of the Engineer), availability for operators of the
application of variable pressure applied to the end control chart and the verification that the
control charts plates of silica in the last 3 minutes chart is being used and the data is being
filtration cycle should be monitored for X properly collected. Operators began to
bar and the dispersion inside the sample include naturally in their routine the chart
for R chart. consultation.
Need to perform autocorrelation There was no identification of
analysis. autocorrelation.
Use of This factor is crucial for operators to Carried out the installation of a unique
computers and “buy the idea” and change the culture new computer to the control chart. The
software for related to the SPC. It should be used chart was built in Excel and is updated
SPC software for easy access and every 60 minutes, with constant
understanding. There must be a unique consultation of the chart on the specific
monitor to display the chart. monitor.
Education and It was identified the need for training in There was concise and simple training on
training in SPC relation to analysis of the measurement the analysis of the measurement system.
system on the types of control charts SPC team was trained on the most widely
and interpretation. used type of control chart: (X bar – R)
Cultural Operators and leaders are more involved Operators and leaders actively
Change in the implementation of the control participated in the definition of the
Management chart, but there are still barriers in software for the chart. Standards have
relation to the tool to build the chart been established for the collection of data
(they do not want to be manual) and data and to increase the confidence of
reliability. operators.

4.3.3. Evaluation and monitoring after the second cycle

The action concerning the “Use of computers and software for SPC” was successful and
started to impact on the behavior of operators. The control chart in Excel began to be
viewed in the control room for all operators. All of them were aware of the pilot that
was being done and has contributed, showing problems that occurred in the factory
when the points came out of the control limits (± 3σ), although it is not yet mandatory
to use the control chart and record the occurrences.
4.4. Third cycle of action research

4.4.1. Data collection and feedback

It was identified that the operating procedures of the filtering process did not include
corrective actions in the case of a point outside the control limits. Therefore, it would
be necessary to update the procedure. Some corrective actions can be done from
within the control room, such as check other variables as flow and level. Other actions
need the checking of the equipment for visual inspection and local action, these actions
needed to be inserted in the instructions. Another finding was that operators no longer
wanted to be trained in the concepts, but in the new procedures related to the chart,
both in identifying special causes and the procedures for eliminating the causes.

It was proposed by the SPC team that morning meetings could help in monitoring and
eliminating special causes identified by the control chart. It would be a formal meeting
between the production team, process and maintenance engineers to check the
previous day's performance, analyzing some indicators and possible special causes.

In meetings with members of the process, it was questioned the need to review the
control charts and change in control limits in the case of process changes.

In this action research cycle the following critical success factors for implementation of
SPC charts were investigated, “Interpretation capacity of control charts and execution
of appropriate actions in case of being out of control”; “Documentation and knowledge
updating about the process,” which involves updating the operating procedures in the
case of the process have special causes; “Auditing, analysis and review of control
charts with a view to Continuous Improvement” and the review of control limits when
the process changes.

The findings of the third cycle of research were exposed and discussed by the
facilitator to the Monitoring Group.

4.4.2. Data analysis and action plan

Table 5 shows the results of the analysis and actions to the CSF of the third cycle of
research.

Table 5 Data analysis and actions to the CSF of the third cycle of research.

CSF Situation Action

Interpretation of There is the need for training for It was done training for correct reading
control charts reading and interpretation of the and interpretation of the control chart.
capacity and control chart by operators. Suggestions from operators to the
execution of Actions should be set in the case of corrective action plan were collected.
appropriate the process has special causes. Morning meeting was created in the
actions Possible follow-up meetings control room and daily summary sheet
(mornings), so there is a proper flow of implemented with indicators such as
information and actions to special safety, fuel consumption etc.
causes.
Documentation Update need for documented Together with the operators, procedures
and knowledge procedures for actions in case of (tasks for correction in a logical
updating on the special causes. sequence) and records for situations out
 CSF Situation Action
process of control were created.
Auditing, analysis Need for procedures to change the It was explained to the operators when
and review of control limits. Some situations have and who will be responsible for changing
control charts been identified as crucial for the control limits. The limits are
aiming Continuous recalculation of limits and included in reviewed in well-defined conditions,
Improvement procedures. The calculation of the such as exchange of plates after split or
limits is the responsibility of the other event that may justify the average
facilitator, since it is a concern that change. The control limits will be
this is not a function of the employees. reviewed by the facilitator.
It was suggested to institute an Inserted auditing procedure to verify the
auditing at a defined frequency to revision of limits and the use of the
measure, with some indicators, if the chart.
use of the control chart is being
performed satisfactorily and whether it
is adequate.
Education and The Monitoring Group of action It was included training, retraining and
training in SPC research suggested recycling and assessment work plan, as a key action
training of operators in the operational for the implementation and continuity of
procedure of the tasks for special SPC.
causes and the very concepts of SPC. The evaluation should be done with a
A training module should be prepared certain frequency (annual) to see if the
to new operators or as recycling to work process is being followed.
those who wish. The training also demonstrates the
concern of senior management with the
SPC.
Cultural Change Operators begin to accept and include The chart is included as a source of
Management the use of control charts in the daily information for Continuous Improvement.
routine work.

4.4.3. Evaluation and monitoring after third cycle

Finishing the third cycle operators included, naturally, the control chart in their work.
The chart, in addition to help correct process deviations, also assisted in the
identification of the moment of exchange of the filter plates. Over the course of time
they will degrade and leak, no longer being able to achieve the necessary compression
pressure.

After three cycles of research, there was an improvement in the stability of the
process, which reflected in energy gain (natural gas consumption). The SPC becomes
therefore, a tool to collect facts and data with a focus on continuous improvement.

4.5. Practical results

After three cycles of action research, the following practical results were found:

a) Stability of the filtration process, reducing the final filtration pressure variability
using X-bar and R charts, resulting reduction in gas consumption in 4% with recurring
gains of approximately 150 thousand dollars per year.

b) Standardization of the corrective actions in the case of instability, with review of the
operational procedure.
c) Implementation of morning meetings with discussion of operating performance
indicators, including the control chart.

d) Implementation of computer apparatus for viewing and monitoring real time process
data in control chart. The tool allows instant visualization of tendencies in the chart. It
was also included in the application, the record of the alert of out of control points
(special causes) and any corrective actions to be typed by operators. The data were to
be available for further exploration and analysis with the purpose of improvement or
innovation in the process.

e) A framework for the implementation of the SPC chart in other processes.

4.6. A framework proposal for the implementation of SPC charts

As a result of the action research, it was proposed a framework (Figure 3) to guide the
implementation of SPC charts. The framework presents the main CSF to be executed in
four stages, planning, definition, implementation and consolidation; involving three
actors, senior management, the SPC team and the facilitator. The colored boxes
indicate more than one actor responsibilities. After the consolidation phase, the SPC
should be incorporated into the dynamics of Continuous Improvement of the company,
providing facts and data to identify improvement opportunities.
Figure 3 Framework for SPC chart implementation. Source: Authors.

The factor “Project Launch with the Team”, which was not foreseen in the literature,
was included as a CSF’s to highlight the importance of a formal launch and effective
communication to all involved. The framework should be applied, mainly, to the first
implementation of the control chart and as a guide to evaluate existing
implementations to verify if the CSFs were considered, which could contribute to their
support. The factor “Commitment and Responsibility of senior management”, despite
appearing explicitly in the planning stage is a necessary factor throughout the conduct
of the implementation.

Comparing this model with the CSFs raised in the literature, four of them do not
appear in the framework: “Involvement and empowerment of employees,” which is
incorporated in the factor “Management of cultural change”; “Feedback, continuous
learning and knowledge sharing,” translated into the ability of interpreting control
charts, executing appropriate actions and also practicing morning meetings;
“Development of statistical thinking”, which is distributed in all stages of
implementation and consolidation of the SPC chart and “Focus on customer
satisfaction”, which is inserted in the correct identification of critical quality
characteristic.

This framework and CSFs can be used by other companies because they deal with
needs and general objectives and not specific to the chemical industry where the
action research was conducted.

The CSFs for the implementation of the SPC can be related to three types of actions for
implementation (Table 6): managerial actions, involving the support and establishment
of appropriate infrastructure and culture, so that the implementation occurs and that
the use of SPC can be sustained; organizational actions, involving the structuring of
the project and the team to implementation activities; and technical actions and
training, promoting the knowledge and dissemination of SPC tools, so that those
involved feel safe for the implementation.

Table 6 Actions and CSF for SPC implementation.

Actions CSF Relevance

Management Commitment and senior Senior Management and the organization's
management responsibility commitment awareness of the implementation and
support of the SPC.
Management of cultural change Generate commitment and culture change to use
and communication the SPC.
SPC use for Continuous Use the SPC as information generator and analysis
Improvement for continuous improvement.
Involvement and empowerment Create culture and responsibility to correct the
of employees process and continuous improvement.
Development of statistical Development of understanding of variability and
thinking analysis of causes of lack of control and capability.
Organizational Launching meeting of the Awareness of the importance of the pilot project
project and the SPC.
Pilot Project use Acquisition and quick perception of the benefits of
using the SPC.
Team work (SPC Team) Allocation of responsibilities and goals with the
implementation of the SPC.
Use of facilitator Use facilitator as a specialist for the
implementation, assisting with questions and
training in SPC.
Use of computers and software Promoting the insertion of data and constant
 Actions CSF Relevance
for SPC observation of process.
Technique and Process definition and Impact on results, customers and strategic
Training prioritization business objectives.
Education and Training in SPC Enable the implementation of appropriate tools,
increasing the chances of success and continuity
of the SPC.
Critical quality characteristics Enable domain and adjustments in this variable,
identification which must be related to critical issues such as
customer satisfaction, quality and safety.
Measurement system analysis in Knowing the variability from the measuring system
relation to their capability and and the process itself.
applicability
Definition and correct Allow appropriate data analysis for further
application of control charts corrective actions and control.
(type of chart, sampling, etc.)
Capacity to interpret the control Enable appropriate actions and process control.
charts and the allocation of
appropriate actions
Documentation and knowledge Create procedures for corrective actions and
updating on the process documentation for knowledge management.
Auditing, analysis and review of Create procedures for verification of the use and
control charts for continuous update, so an outdated chart that implies lack of
improvement control of the process is not used.
Feedback, continuous learning Generate continuous learning on the use of the
and knowledge sharing SPC.
Focus on customer satisfaction Increase the satisfaction of internal and external
customers.

5. CONCLUSIONS

Through action research, it was implemented a control chart in a chemical plant. It was
identified the need for the use of nineteen success factors (Table 2) considered critical,
identified in the literature, for the effective implementation and sustained use of
control charts. Each of the factors was tested in action research, isolated or combined,
which helped in proposing a framework to guide the implementation and continued
use.

An identified feature was the need for the chart to be physically next to the operator
and displayed constantly. Regarding the use of computer monitors, if possible, it
should be a unique monitor to the chart.

The framework, its steps and the recognition of its importance constitute a reference to
guide control charts implementation in other chemical plants and other companies. The
effort required for each factor in each step may differ depending on the history and site
characteristics implementation.

The actions implemented during the research contributed to change the culture and
behavior of the plant’s operators, to improve the studied object (silica process) and to
deploy the initiative to other plants of the company. It was also possible to prove in
practice the relevance of the success factors to support the technical traditional focus
on SPC implementations.
How to cite this article: Toledo, J. C., Lizarelli, F. L., & Santana Junior, M. B. (2017).
Success factors in the implementation of statistical process control: action research in
a chemical plant. Production, 27, e20162208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0103-
6513.220816

REFERENCES

Antony, J., & Taner, T. (2003). A conceptual framework for the effective
implementation of statistical process control. Business Process Management Journal,
9(4), 473-489. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14637150310484526. [ Links ]

Antony, J., Balbontin, A., & Taner, T. (2000). Key ingredients for the effective
implementation of statistical process control. International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, 49(6), 242-
247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00438020010343417. [ Links ]

Chen, S. H., Yang, C. C., Lin, W. T., & Yeh, T. M. (2008). Performance evaluation for
introducing statistical process control to the liquid crystal display industry.
International Journal of Production Economics, 111(1), 80-
92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.12.055. [ Links ]

Chowdhury, J. (1986). Quality-Control moves upstream in CPI plants. Chemical

Engineering (Albany, N.Y.), 93(8), 19-23. [ Links ]

Coughlan, P., & Coghlan, D. (2002). Action research for operations management.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(2), 220-
240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443570210417515. [ Links ]

Does, R. J. M. M., Trip, A., & Schippers, W. A. J. (1997). A framework for

implementation of statistical process control. International Journal of Quality Science,
2(3), 181-198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13598539710170821. [ Links ]

Elg, M., Olsson, J., & Dahlgaard, J. (2008). Implementing statistical process control:
an organizational perspective. International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, 25(6), 545-560. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656710810881872.
[ Links ]

Gallagher, W. M. (1990). SPC application in the chemical industry. In Proceedings of

the IEE Colloquium on Applied Statistical Process Control, London. [ Links ]

Gordon, M. E., Philpot, J. W., Bounds, G. M., & Long, W. S. (1994). Factors associated
with the success of the implementation of statistical process control. The Journal of
High Technology Management Research, 5(1), 101-
121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/1047-8310(94)90016-7. [ Links ]

Grigg, N., & Walls, L. (2007a). Developing statistical thinking for performance
improvement in the food industry. International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, 24(4), 347-369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656710710740536.
[ Links ]
Grigg, N., & Walls, L. (2007b). The role of control charts in promoting organisational
learning: New perspectives from a food industry study. The TQM Magazine, 19(1), 37-
49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09544780710720826. [ Links ]

Haslego, C. (2000). Apply statistical process control with intelligence. Chemical

Engineering, 107(3), 86. Retrieved in 8 September 2016,
from http://search.proquest.com/openview/72f090549d20ac47b48caaadb1e10a13/1?
pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=41910[ Links ]

Hradesky, J. L. (1989). Aperfeiçoamento da qualidade e da produtividade: guia prático

para implementação do Controle Estatístico de Processo – CEP. São Paulo: McGraw-
Hill. [ Links ]

International Organization for Standardization. (2015). ISO 9001: 2015: quality

management systems: requirements. Geneva: ISO. [ Links ]

Krumwiede, D., & Sheu, C. (1996). Implementing SPC in a small organization: a TQM
approach. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 7(1), 45-
51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09576069610108435. [ Links ]

Kumar, A., & Motwani, J. (1996). Doing it right the second time. Industrial
Management & Data Systems, 96(6), 14-
19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02635579610126818. [ Links ]

Lim, S. A. H., & Antony, J. (2013). A conceptual readiness framework for statistical
process control deployment. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference
Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (pp. 300-304), Bangkok,
Thailand. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ieem.2013.6962422. [ Links ]

Lim, S. A. H., & Antony, J. (2014). The implementation of statistical process control in
the food industry: a systematic review. In Proceedings of the 2014 International
Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management (pp. 1682-1691),
Bali, Indonesia. [ Links ]

Lim, S. A. H., Antony, J., & Albliwi, S. (2014). Statistical Process Control in the food
industry–A systematic review and future research agenda. Trends in Food Science &
Technology, 37(2), 137-151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2014.03.010. [ Links ]

Lim, S. A. H., Antony, J., & Arshed, N. (2016). A Critical Assessment on SPC
Implementation in the UK Food Industry. Systemics. Cybernetics and Informatics,
14(1), 37-42. Retrieved in 8 September 2016,
from http://www.iiisci.org/journal/CV$/sci/pdfs/SA430BZ15.pdf [ Links ]

Mahanti, R., & Evans, J. R. (2012). Critical success factors for implementing statistical
process control in the software industry. Benchmarking: An International Journal,
19(3), 374-394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14635771211244309. [ Links ]

Mason, B., & Antony, J. (2000). Statistical process control: an essential ingredient for
improving service and manufacturing quality. Managing Service Quality: An
International Journal, 10(4), 233-
238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09604520010341618. [ Links ]
Montgomery, D. C. (2014). Introdução ao controle estatístico da qualidade (4th ed.).
Rio de Janeiro: Gen-LTC. [ Links ]

Phyanthamilkumaran, S. Z., & Fernando, Y. (2008). The role of cultural change in the
relationship between critical factors with the success of Statistical Process Control
(SPC) projects. Proceedings of Annual London Conference on Money, Economy and
Management, 3(4), 1-11. [ Links ]

Putri, T. N., & Yusof, S. R. M. (2008). Critical success factors for implementing quality
engineering (QE) in Malaysian’s and Indonesian’s automotive industries: a proposed
model. International Journal of Automotive Industry and Management, 2, 1-15.
Retrieved in 8 September 2016,
from http://kari.hyundai.com/karifile/IJAIM_reports/Vol2_No2/vol2_no2_01_Critical
%20Success%20Factors%20for%20Implementing%20Quality%20Engineering
%20(QE)%20In%20Malaysian's%20and%20Indonesian's%20Automotive
%20Industries-A%20Proposed%20Model.pdf [ Links ]

Putri, N. T., & Yusof, S. M. (2009). Critical success factors for implementing quality
engineering tools and techniques in malaysian’s and indonesian’s automotive
industries: an exploratory study. In Proceedings of the International MultiConference of
Engineers and Computer Scientists (pp. 18-20), Hong Kong, China. [ Links ]

Rantamäki, J., Tiainen, E. L., & Kässi, T. (2013). A case of implementing SPC in a pulp
mill. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 4(3), 321-
337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-05-2013-0029. [ Links ]

Rohani, J. M., Yusof, S. R. M., & Mohamad, I. (2009a). The relationship between
statistical process control critical success factors and performance: a structural
equation modeling approach. In Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference
on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (pp. 1352-1356), Hong Kong,
China. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ieem.2009.5373033. [ Links ]

Rohani, J. M., Yusof, S. R. M., & Mohamad, I. (2009b). Statistical process control
success factors and performance: an exploratory analysis. In Proceedings of the
Advances in Quality Engineering and Management Reserch, Malaysia. Retrieved in 8
September 2016, from http://eprints.uthm.edu.my/2571/ [ Links ]

Rohani, J. M., Yusof, S. R. M., & Mohamad, I. (2010). The development of a survey
instrument for measuring a relationship between statistical process control success
factors and performance. Jurnal Mekanikal, 30, 1-16. Retrieved in 8 September 2016,
from http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/41145791/The_developmen
t_of_a_survey_instrument_f20160114-15835-1ffuvz1.pdf?
AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires=1472739132&Signature=MUN
%2FuZmuKzRKEldEFgaA0YxvHgI%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B
%20filename%3DThe_development_of_a_survey_instrument_f.pdf [ Links ]

Rungasamy, S., Antony, J., & Ghosh, S. (2002). Critical success factors for SPC
implementation in UK small and medium enterprises: some key findings from a survey.
The TQM Magazine, 14(4), 217-224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09544780210429825.
[ Links ]
Rungtusanatham, M., Anderson, J. C., & Dooley, K. J. (1999). Towards measuring the
“SPC implementation/practice” construct: some evidence of measurement quality.
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 16(4), 301-
329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656719910239938. [ Links ]

Sharma, R., & Kharub, M. (2014). Attaining competitive positioning through SPC – an
experimental investigation from SME. Measuring Business Excellence, 18(4), 86-
103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MBE-10-2013-0050. [ Links ]

Xie, M., & Goh, T. N. (1999). Statistical techniques for quality. The TQM Magazine,
11(4), 238-242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09544789910272913. [ Links ]

Received: September 08, 2016; Accepted: April 26, 2017

*
toledo@dep.ufscar.br

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided
the original work is properly cited.