1. INTRODUCTION
Quality is a prudent characteristic in manufacturing
industries. 𝐶𝑝 plays pivotal role in deciding about capability
of a process preset to meet the quality requirements. It is given by
 
 
                                                                              
Equation 1
 
where 𝜎 is process
standard deviation (sd), UCL, LCL are upper, lower control limits and USL, LSL
are upper, lower specification limits of a control chart. 𝐶𝑝 is
a unitless measure and a process is considered as capable if 
 
 where k is a positive constant ≥ 1. When
𝜎 is estimated by sample sd ‘s’, an estimator for 𝐶𝑝 is
 
given by 
 
                                                                                 
Equation 2
 
Kane (1986) compared various PCIs
and Montgomery
(1996) carried out a detailed
discussion on PCIs along with their illustrations. Bayesian procedures for PCI
use prior information about the process parameters involved. Cheng
and Spiring (1989) using Bayesian
approach propose an estimator 
 
, under normal model when process sd has
noninformative prior. The posterior distribution of 
 
 derived by
them is
 
 
         Equation 3
 
where 
 
 is realized
by y. They investigate the performance of their measure in terms of minimum
value of 
 
 required to
ensure the probability that process achieves the desired specifications along
with an illustration.
Chan et al. (1988) proposed a measure to
process capability which accounts both target value and process variation
simultaneously. They examined sampling distribution of the proposed measure
with its practical applications to industrial data. Spiring
(1995) outlined assessment of
process capability as a tool of management. Shiau et
al. (1999) studied Bayesian
procedure for process capability by assuming noninformative and gamma priors
for 
 
. Kotz and Johnson (2002) reviewed some articles
on PCIs studied during 1992 - 2000 from widely
scattered sources and record their interpretations along
with comments. Pearn
and Wu (2005) studied estimation of 
 
 by Bayesian
approach using multiple samples.
In this paper, we establish an estimator of 
 
 in Bayesian
paradigm under normality when process variance has conjugate prior. In section
2, we propose 
 
 and derive
its posterior distribution. We study about its performance in section 3,
illustrate its performance in section 4 and record our conclusions in section
5. The computed values supporting performance of 
 
 are given in
tables provided in appendix.
 
2. PROPOSED BAYESIAN ESTIMATOR OF 𝑪𝒑
In this section, we propose a Bayesian estimator 
 
 for 
 
 when process
variance has a conjugate prior distribution. That is, 
 
 is given by Equation 2
with an assumption that, 𝜎2 has a conjugate prior.
Suppose, X1, X2 … Xn is a
random sample of size n from 
 
),
then the density function of Xi is given by
 
 
                  Equation 4
 
The likelihood function of the sample 
 
  is given by
 
 
                                                      
Equation 5
 
Also, 
 
  where 
 
 
 
We assume that  
 
where 𝜂 is shape parameter and 𝛿 is
scale parameter. IG stands for inverse gamma which is a conjugate prior.
 
 
                                                           
Equation 6
 
Using Equation 1 and Equation 2,
z can be written as 
 
 
                                                                                                      Equation 7
 
Thus, realizing 
 
 by y, we have
the posterior distribution of 𝑦2|𝑿 given by
 
 
                         Equation 8 
 
Using appropriate transformation, 
 
 is given by
 
 
             Equation 9
 
When 
 
0,
Equation 9 reduces to Equation 3 indicating that the
posterior distribution of 
 
 due to Cheng
and Spiring (1989) is a particular case
of posterior distribution of 
 
 given in Equation 9. From Bhat and Gokhale (2014) Bhat and Gokhale (2016) and Gokhale
(2017) we observe that,
 
 
 
 
 And
 
 
                                                                                       
Equation 10
 
where in 
 
 in left hand
side is replaced by 𝑠2 in right hand side.
 
3. PERFORMANCE OF 𝑪̂𝒑𝒄
In this section, we evaluate the performance of 
 
 by obtaining
minimum value of 
 
 needed to
assure 
 
. That is,
𝜏 = minimum 
 
.
                                                                               
Here, 𝑝𝑐 = 
 
                                                    
                                                    
 
 
 
                                                                         
 
 
 
 
                                                                            
Equation 11
 
 which is equivalent
to finding
 
 
  
 
 
 
                          Equation 12
 
Where 
 
.
 
By taking 
 
, 
 
  and  
 
 and 
 
proceeding on the lines of Chan et al. (1988), we express (12) as
 
 
                                                                              
Equation 13
 
By using, Wilson-Hilferty (1931) transformation, (13) can
be written as
 
 
                                                                    Equation 14
 
Where 
 
 is cumulative
distribution function of standard normal variate.
On simplifying Equation 14 we get
 
 
                                                               
Equation 15
 
Therefore, 
         
 
                
 
 
         
 
 
                                                       
Equation 16
 
Where 
 
.
In order to evaluate 𝜏, one need to specify 𝑤,
n, 𝑝𝑐, k, 𝜂 and 𝛿. To compute minimum 𝐶̂𝑝𝑐
obtained in Equation 16, the denominator has
to be greater than zero.
 
That is, 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Equation 17
 
By taking 
 
   in Table 1, we furnish w as 
 
 least 
 
upper integer greater than 𝛾. In Table 2, we calculate 𝜏
for higher values of w given in Table 1 n= 5, 15, 25, 50, 75,
100, 𝑝𝑐 = 0.90, 0.95, 0.99, k=1, 1.33,1.66, 𝜂 = 0, 5,
10 and 𝛿 = 0, 5, 10. Using Table 2 we plot 𝜏 in Figure 1 Figure 2 and Figure 3 respectively for 𝜂
= 𝛿, 𝜂 < 𝛿 and 𝜂 > 𝛿.
 
                                                                 
        
 
 
  | Figure
  1 
   
   for 
   
   and
  various values of 
   
   | 
 
                                                                          
 
 
 
  | Figure
  2 
   
   for with 
   
   and various values of 
   
   | 
                                                                         
 
 
  | Figure
  3 
   
   for 
   
   and various values of 
   
   | 
 
From Table 1 we observe that, 𝑤
increases as 𝑝𝑐, 𝑘 increase and decreases as 𝑛
increases. For fixed 𝜂, 𝑤 increases as 𝛿 increases, for
fixed 𝛿, it decreases as 𝜂 increases and for 
 
, it increases for increasing values of 𝜂
and 𝛿. From Figure 1 and Table 2 we observe that, for 𝜂
= 𝛿, 𝜏 is higher for higher values of 𝑝𝑐.
It is increasing for increasing value of k when n is small and remains nearly
same when n is large. Also, 𝜏 is smaller for higher values of 𝜂
and 𝛿. Figure 2 and Figure 3 depict that 𝜏
decreases respectively as 𝛿 increases for 𝜂 < 𝛿 and
as 𝜂 increases for 𝜂 > 𝛿. Also, from all the three
figures it is observed that, 𝜏 increases as k increases along with
increase in 𝑝𝑐. Table 2 shows that, for fixed
values of 𝜂 = 0, there is no considerable change in values of 𝜏
for various values of n, k and 𝑝𝑐 for increasing 𝛿.
 
4. ILLUSTRATION
In this section, we consider example given in Kane (1986) and discussed in Cheng
and Spiring (1989)
 
  | Example
  1 For n=300, s=4.3, 
   
   and 
   
  . Then for 
   
  , using (16),
  for different values of 
   
   and n, 
   
   is given by | 
 
  | 𝑪̂𝒑𝒄 | 
 
  | 𝜼 | 𝜹 | n=300 | n=50 | 𝜼 | 𝜹 | n=300 | n=50 | 
 
  | 0 | 5 | 1.174 | 1.5479 | 10 | 0 | 1.167 | 1.4214 | 
 
  | 0 | 10 | 1.1746 | 1.5565 | 5 | 5 | 1.1707 | 1.4782 | 
 
  | 5 | 0 | 1.1701 | 1.4709 | 10 | 10 | 1.1682 | 1.4347 | 
 
 
  | Example
  2 For n=79, s=7.8, 
   
   and 
   
   For 
   
  ,  
   
   is given by | 
 
  | 𝑪̂𝒑𝒄 | 
 
  | 𝜼 | 𝜹 | n=79 | n=5 | 𝜼 | 𝜹 | n=79 | n=5 | 
 
  | 0 | 5 | 0.8453 | 0.5091 | 10 | 0 | 0.8584 | 0.6783 | 
 
  | 0 | 10 | 0.8462 | 0.5129 | 5 | 5 | 0.8528 | 0.6386 | 
 
  | 5 | 0 | 0.8519 | 0.6314 | 10 | 10 | 0.8602 | 0.6966 | 
 
In Example 1, it is seen that for
different values of 
 
 and n=300,
 
 is lesser
than 
 
whereas for n=50, 
 
 is near to 
 
 when 
 
 and is lesser
than
 
 for other
values of  
 
 and 
 
In Example 2, 
 
 is near to 
 
 for n=79 when
 
, whereas for n=5, 
 
 is lesser
than 
 
 for various
values of 
 
 and 
 
. It is also observed that, sample sd is smaller in Example 1 when compared to
sample sd in Example 2
 
5. CONCLUSIONS
In this section, we furnish our conclusions based on our
observations.
·       
Under Bayesian approach, the proposed estimator 
 
 includes 
 
 due to Cheng
and Spiring (1989) as its particular case
in the sense that, the posterior distribution of 
 
 reduces to
that of 
 
 when hyper
parameters 𝜂 and 𝛿 are zero.
·       
For all the values of 𝜂 and 𝛿
under consideration, 𝜏 the minimum value of 
 
 needed to assure
 
 the
probability that process is capable given the sample, increases along with
increasing values of k and 𝑝𝑐 for smaller values of n.
·     
For 
 
 is decreasing
as 𝜂 and 𝛿 are increasing.
·     
For 
 
,
 
 decreases as 𝛿
increases and for 𝜂 > 𝛿, it decreases as 𝜂
increases.
·       
 
 when sample
sd is small, n is large and also when sample sd is large, n is small. 
 
6. APPENDIX
 
  | Table 1 
   
   for various values of n, 
   
  k, 
   
  and 
   
   | 
 
  | 
   
   | k | n | 5 | 15 | 25 | 50 | 75 | 100 | 
   
   | k | n | 5 | 15 | 25 | 50 | 75 | 100 | 
 
  |  |  | pc |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | pc |  |  |  |  |  |  | 
 
  | 0,5 | 1 | 0.9 | 17 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 0,10 | 1 | 0.9 | 24 | 10 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 
 
  |  |  | 0.95 | 21 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 |  |  | 0.95 | 29 | 13 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 
 
  |  |  | 0.99 | 35 | 9 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 3 |  |  | 0.99 | 49 | 13 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 
 
  |  | 1.33 | 0.9 | 22 | 9 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 3 |  | 1.33 | 0.9 | 31 | 13 | 9 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 
 
  |  |  | 0.95 | 28 | 10 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 3 |  |  | 0.95 | 39 | 14 | 10 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 
 
  |  |  | 0.99 | 46 | 12 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 4 |  |  | 0.99 | 65 | 17 | 11 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 
 
  |  | 1.66 | 0.9 | 28 | 11 | 8 | 6 | 5 | 4 |  | 1.66 | 0.9 | 39 | 16 | 12 | 8 | 6 | 5 | 
 
  |  |  | 0.95 | 34 | 12 | 9 | 6 | 5 | 4 |  |  | 0.95 | 48 | 17 | 12 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 
 
  |  |  | 0.99 | 57 | 15 | 10 | 6 | 5 | 4 |  |  | 0.99 | 80 | 21 | 14 | 9 | 7 | 6 | 
 
  | 5,5 | 1 | 0.9 | 12 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 5, 10 | 1 | 0.9 | 17 | 9 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 
 
  |  |  | 0.95 | 18 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 |  |  | 0.95 | 25 | 10 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 
 
  |  |  | 0.99 | 27 | 9 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 3 |  |  | 0.99 | 38 | 12 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 
 
  |  | 1.33 | 0.9 | 16 | 9 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 3 |  | 1.33 | 0.9 | 23 | 12 | 9 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 
 
  |  |  | 0.95 | 24 | 10 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 3 |  |  | 0.95 | 34 | 15 | 10 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 
 
  |  |  | 0.99 | 35 | 12 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 4 |  |  | 0.99 | 50 | 16 | 11 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 
 
  |  | 1.66 | 0.9 | 20 | 11 | 8 | 6 | 5 | 4 |  | 1.66 | 0.9 | 29 | 15 | 11 | 8 | 6 | 5 | 
 
  |  |  | 0.95 | 30 | 12 | 9 | 6 | 5 | 4 |  |  | 0.95 | 42 | 17 | 12 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 
 
  |  |  | 0.99 | 44 | 14 | 10 | 6 | 5 | 4 |  |  | 0.99 | 62 | 20 | 14 | 9 | 7 | 6 | 
 
  | 10,5 | 1 | 0.9 | 12 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 10,10 | 1 | 0.9 | 16 | 9 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 
 
  |  |  | 0.95 | 17 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 |  |  | 0.95 | 23 | 10 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 
 
  |  |  | 0.99 | 23 | 9 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 3 |  |  | 0.99 | 32 | 12 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 
 
  |  | 1.33 | 0.9 | 15 | 8 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 |  | 1.33 | 0.9 | 21 | 12 | 9 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 
 
  |  |  | 0.95 | 22 | 10 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 3 |  |  | 0.95 | 31 | 14 | 10 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 
 
  |  |  | 0.99 | 30 | 11 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 4 |  |  | 0.99 | 42 | 16 | 11 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 
 
  |  | 1.66 | 0.9 | 19 | 10 | 8 | 6 | 5 | 4 |  | 1.66 | 0.9 | 26 | 14 | 11 | 8 | 6 | 5 | 
 
  |  |  | 0.95 | 27 | 12 | 9 | 6 | 5 | 4 |  |  | 0.95 | 38 | 17 | 12 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 
 
  |  |  | 0.99 | 38 | 14 | 10 | 6 | 5 | 4 |  |  | 0.99 | 53 | 20 | 13 | 9 | 7 | 6 | 
 
 
  | Table 2 
   
   for various values of  
   
   and n | 
 
  | 
   
   | n | k=1 | k=1.33 | k=1.66 | 
 
  |  |  | pc=0.90 | pc=0.95 | pc=0.99 | pc=0.90 | pc=0.95 | pc=0.99 | pc=0.90 | pc=0.95 | pc=0.99 | 
 
  | 0,0 | 5 | 1.7372 | 2.1531 | 3.5876 | 2.3105 | 2.8636 | 4.7715 | 2.8838 | 3.5741 | 5.9555 | 
 
  |  | 15 | 1.2947 | 1.4108 | 1.6818 | 1.722 | 1.8764 | 2.2368 | 2.1493 | 2.342 | 2.7918 | 
 
  |  | 25 | 1.2128 | 1.29 | 1.4589 | 1.613 | 1.7157 | 1.9404 | 2.0132 | 2.1414 | 2.4218 | 
 
  |  | 50 | 1.142 | 1.1897 | 1.2886 | 1.5188 | 1.5822 | 1.7139 | 1.8957 | 1.9748 | 2.1391 | 
 
  |  | 75 | 1.1133 | 1.1502 | 1.2251 | 1.4807 | 1.5298 | 1.6294 | 1.8481 | 1.9093 | 2.0337 | 
 
  |  | 100 | 1.0969 | 1.1279 | 1.19 | 1.4589 | 1.5001 | 1.5827 | 1.8209 | 1.8723 | 1.9754 | 
 
  | 0,5 | 5 | 1.7382 | 2.1549 | 3.596 | 2.3127 | 2.8678 | 4.7912 | 2.8881 | 3.5823 | 5.9938 | 
 
  |  | 15 | 1.2949 | 1.411 | 1.682 | 1.7223 | 1.8767 | 2.2373 | 2.1498 | 2.3426 | 2.7929 | 
 
  |  | 25 | 1.2129 | 1.2901 | 1.459 | 1.6131 | 1.7158 | 1.9406 | 2.0135 | 2.1417 | 2.4223 | 
 
  |  | 50 | 1.142 | 1.1897 | 1.2887 | 1.5189 | 1.5823 | 1.7139 | 1.8958 | 1.9749 | 2.1393 | 
 
  |  | 75 | 1.1134 | 1.1502 | 1.2251 | 1.4808 | 1.5298 | 1.6294 | 1.8482 | 1.9094 | 2.0337 | 
 
  |  | 100 | 1.0969 | 1.1279 | 1.19 | 1.4589 | 1.5001 | 1.5827 | 1.821 | 1.8723 | 1.9754 | 
 
  | 0,10 | 5 | 1.7382 | 2.1549 | 3.5961 | 2.3128 | 2.8679 | 4.7916 | 2.8882 | 3.5825 | 5.9946 | 
 
  |  | 15 | 1.2949 | 1.411 | 1.682 | 1.7223 | 1.8768 | 2.2374 | 2.1498 | 2.3427 | 2.7929 | 
 
  |  | 25 | 1.2129 | 1.2901 | 1.459 | 1.6132 | 1.7158 | 1.9406 | 2.0135 | 2.1417 | 2.4223 | 
 
  |  | 50 | 1.142 | 1.1897 | 1.2887 | 1.5189 | 1.5823 | 1.7139 | 1.8958 | 1.975 | 2.1393 | 
 
  |  | 75 | 1.1134 | 1.1502 | 1.2251 | 1.4808 | 1.5298 | 1.6294 | 1.8482 | 1.9094 | 2.0337 | 
 
  |  | 100 | 1.0969 | 1.1279 | 1.19 | 1.4589 | 1.5001 | 1.5827 | 1.821 | 1.8723 | 1.9754 | 
 
  | 5,0 | 5 | 1.2617 | 1.8611 | 2.7631 | 1.678 | 2.4753 | 3.6749 | 2.0944 | 3.0895 | 4.5868 | 
 
  |  | 15 | 1.2072 | 1.3868 | 1.6384 | 1.6056 | 1.8445 | 2.1791 | 2.0039 | 2.3022 | 2.7197 | 
 
  |  | 25 | 1.1718 | 1.2809 | 1.4436 | 1.5585 | 1.7035 | 1.92 | 1.9452 | 2.1262 | 2.3964 | 
 
  |  | 50 | 1.1275 | 1.187 | 1.2844 | 1.4996 | 1.5787 | 1.7082 | 1.8717 | 1.9704 | 2.1321 | 
 
  |  | 75 | 1.1055 | 1.1488 | 1.223 | 1.4704 | 1.528 | 1.6266 | 1.8352 | 1.9071 | 2.0302 | 
 
  |  | 100 | 1.0919 | 1.127 | 1.1887 | 1.4522 | 1.4989 | 1.581 | 1.8126 | 1.8709 | 1.9732 | 
 
  | 5,5 | 5 | 1.2805 | 1.9233 | 2.9799 | 1.7049 | 2.5641 | 3.9862 | 2.1237 | 3.1859 | 4.9218 | 
 
  |  | 15 | 1.2118 | 1.3939 | 1.65 | 1.6122 | 1.8545 | 2.1957 | 2.0112 | 2.3131 | 2.7379 | 
 
  |  | 25 | 1.1743 | 1.2841 | 1.4482 | 1.562 | 1.7081 | 1.9266 | 1.949 | 2.1313 | 2.4036 | 
 
  |  | 50 | 1.1286 | 1.1882 | 1.286 | 1.5011 | 1.5805 | 1.7105 | 1.8733 | 1.9723 | 2.1345 | 
 
  |  | 75 | 1.1062 | 1.1496 | 1.2239 | 1.4713 | 1.529 | 1.6279 | 1.8362 | 1.9083 | 2.0316 | 
 
  |  | 100 | 1.0924 | 1.1276 | 1.1893 | 1.4529 | 1.4997 | 1.5818 | 1.8133 | 1.8717 | 1.9742 | 
 
  | 5,10 | 5 | 1.2801 | 1.922 | 2.9751 | 1.7001 | 2.548 | 3.9265 | 2.1296 | 3.2062 | 4.9975 | 
 
  |  | 15 | 1.2117 | 1.3938 | 1.6498 | 1.611 | 1.8528 | 2.1928 | 2.0126 | 2.3153 | 2.7415 | 
 
  |  | 25 | 1.1742 | 1.284 | 1.4481 | 1.5614 | 1.7073 | 1.9254 | 1.9498 | 2.1323 | 2.405 | 
 
  |  | 50 | 1.1286 | 1.1882 | 1.2859 | 1.5009 | 1.5801 | 1.7101 | 1.8737 | 1.9727 | 2.135 | 
 
  |  | 75 | 1.1062 | 1.1496 | 1.2239 | 1.4712 | 1.5289 | 1.6277 | 1.8364 | 1.9085 | 2.0319 | 
 
  |  | 100 | 1.0924 | 1.1275 | 1.1893 | 1.4528 | 1.4996 | 1.5817 | 1.8135 | 1.8719 | 1.9744 | 
 
  | 10,0 | 5 | 1.1598 | 1.6933 | 2.3537 | 1.5425 | 2.2521 | 3.1304 | 1.9252 | 2.8109 | 3.9071 | 
 
  |  | 15 | 1.1649 | 1.366 | 1.6012 | 1.5494 | 1.8168 | 2.1296 | 1.9338 | 2.2676 | 2.658 | 
 
  |  | 25 | 1.1467 | 1.2724 | 1.4295 | 1.5251 | 1.6923 | 1.9013 | 1.9035 | 2.1122 | 2.373 | 
 
  |  | 50 | 1.1165 | 1.1844 | 1.2803 | 1.4849 | 1.5752 | 1.7028 | 1.8534 | 1.9661 | 2.1253 | 
 
  |  | 75 | 1.0991 | 1.1475 | 1.221 | 1.4618 | 1.5262 | 1.6239 | 1.8245 | 1.9049 | 2.0268 | 
 
  |  | 100 | 1.0875 | 1.1262 | 1.1874 | 1.4464 | 1.4978 | 1.5793 | 1.8053 | 1.8695 | 1.9711 | 
 
  | 10,5 | 5 | 1.1961 | 1.8128 | 2.7109 | 1.6002 | 2.4441 | 3.7191 | 1.9943 | 3.0402 | 4.6058 | 
 
  |  | 15 | 1.1751 | 1.3825 | 1.6279 | 1.5654 | 1.8429 | 2.1719 | 1.9531 | 2.2989 | 2.7087 | 
 
  |  | 25 | 1.1523 | 1.2801 | 1.4405 | 1.534 | 1.7045 | 1.9186 | 1.9142 | 2.1268 | 2.3938 | 
 
  |  | 50 | 1.119 | 1.1874 | 1.2841 | 1.4889 | 1.58 | 1.7088 | 1.8582 | 1.9718 | 2.1325 | 
 
  |  | 75 | 1.1007 | 1.1493 | 1.2232 | 1.4643 | 1.5291 | 1.6273 | 1.8275 | 1.9083 | 2.031 | 
 
  |  | 100 | 1.0887 | 1.1275 | 1.1889 | 1.4483 | 1.4999 | 1.5817 | 1.8075 | 1.8719 | 1.974 | 
 
  | 10,10 | 5 | 1.2009 | 1.8295 | 2.768 | 1.5969 | 2.4323 | 3.678 | 1.9974 | 3.0509 | 4.6435 | 
 
  |  | 15 | 1.1764 | 1.3846 | 1.6314 | 1.5645 | 1.8414 | 2.1695 | 1.9539 | 2.3002 | 2.7109 | 
 
  |  | 25 | 1.153 | 1.2811 | 1.4419 | 1.5335 | 1.7038 | 1.9176 | 1.9146 | 2.1274 | 2.3946 | 
 
  |  | 50 | 1.1193 | 1.1878 | 1.2846 | 1.4887 | 1.5797 | 1.7085 | 1.8584 | 1.972 | 2.1328 | 
 
  |  | 75 | 1.1009 | 1.1496 | 1.2234 | 1.4641 | 1.5289 | 1.6272 | 1.8276 | 1.9085 | 2.0311 | 
 
  |  | 100 | 1.0888 | 1.1276 | 1.1891 | 1.4482 | 1.4998 | 1.5815 | 1.8076 | 1.872 | 1.9741 | 
 
 
CONFLICT OF INTERESTS 
None.  
 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
None.
 
REFERENCES
Bhat, S. V., and Gokhale, K. D.,
(2014). Posterior Control Charts for Process
Variance Based on Various Priors. Journal of the Indian Society for probability
and statistics. 15, 52-66. 
Bhat, S. V., and Gokhale, K. D.,
(2016). Posterior Control Chart for Standard
Deviation based on Conjugate Prior. Journal of Indian Statistical Association.
54(1-2), 157- 166. 
Chan, L. K., Cheng, S. W., and Spiring, F. A., (1988). A New Measure of Process Capability : Journal of Quality Technology.
20(3), 162-175. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224065.1988.11979102
Cheng, S. W., and Spiring, F. A., (1989).  Assessing process capability :
a Bayesian approach, IIE Transactions. 97-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/07408178908966212
Gokhale, K. D. (2017). Studies in statistical quality control using prior information. An
Unpublished thesis submitted to the Karnatak, University Dharwad. https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/handle/10603/221506
Kane, V. K. (1986). Process
capability indices, Journal of Quality Technology, 41-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224065.1986.11978984
Kotz, S., Johnson, N. L. (2002). Process capability indices--a review, 1992-2000. Journal of Quality
Technology, 34(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224065.2002.11980119
Montgomery, D. C. (1996). Introduction to statistical quality control (6th Edition ed.). John
Wiley and Sons. 
Pearn, W. L. and Wu, C. W. (2005). A Bayesian approach for assessing process precision based on multiple
samples, European Journal of Operational Research. 165(3), 685-695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2004.02.009
Shiau, J. H., Chiang, C., and
Hung, H. (1999). A Bayesian procedure for process
capability assessment, Quality and Reliability Engineering International 15,
369-378.  
Spiring, F. A. (1995).
Process capability : a total quality management tool, Total Quality Management
6, 21-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544129550035558
Wilson, E. B., Hilferty, M. M. (1931). The
Distribution of Chi-Square. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
17, 684-688. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.17.12.684