QP Statistics Spotlight: Practical versus Statistical Priorities
Randomization during data collection in a designed experiment is an effective strategy for reducing system bias and ensuring independent observations1, but at what cost should it be fully implemented? We recently encountered a scenario that highlights an important aspect of collaboration2 between statisticians, scientists and engineers – the idea of compromise for the sake of achieving wins for all team members. In a multi-million-dollar experiment with a fixed amount of time on the test equipment, each experimental run involved resetting the input values and then waiting for the continuous process to reach a new equilibrium. For example, the temperature of the furnace could be reset, but it takes some time for the test chamber to reach the new temperature and rest at that temperature for a while until all components in the chamber settle at that new setting. Similarly, a critical gas flow component also required a settling period before data could be collected that would be representative of that input setting value. In all, the experiment involved 5 factors, where 4 of the 5 were time-consuming and costly to adjust, with the duration of time needed to reach new equilibrium being dependent on how far the previous setting was from the new one for the combination of these 4 factors. For example, changing from 150° to 200° would reach equilibrium faster than changing from 100° to 200°.