5.
Process Improvement
5.5. Advanced topics 5.5.9. An EDA approach to experimental design


Purpose 
The DOE (design of experiments) mean plot answers the following two
questions:
A factor can be important if it leads to a significant shift in the location of the response variable as we go from the "" setting of the factor to the "+" setting of the factor. Alternatively, a factor can be important if it leads to a significant change in variation (spread) as we go from the "" to the "+" settings. Both definitions are relevant and acceptable. The default definition of "important" in engineering/scientific applications is the former (shift in location). Unless specified to the contrary, when a factor is claimed to be important, the implication is that the factor caused a large location shift in the response. In this context, a factor setting is best if it results in a typical response that is closest (in location) to the desired project goal (that is, a maximization, minimization, or hitting a target). This desired project goal is an engineering, not a statistical, question, and so the desired optimization goal must be overtly specified by the engineer. Given the above two definitions of important and best, the DOE mean plot is a useful tool for determining the important factors and for determining the best settings. An alternate name for the DOE mean plot is the "main effects plot". 

Output 
The output from the DOE mean plot is:


Definition 
The DOE mean plot is formed by:


Motivation 
If we were interested in assessing the importance of a single factor,
and since important, by default, means shift in location, and
the average is the simplest location estimator, a reasonable
graphics tool to assess a single factor's importance would be a
simple mean plot. The
vertical axis of such a plot would be the mean response for each
setting of the factor and the horizontal axis is the two settings of
the factor: "" and "+" (1 and +1). A large difference in the two
means would imply the factor is important while a small difference
would imply the factor is not important.
The DOE mean plot is actually a sequence of k such plots, with one mean plot for each factor. To assist in comparability and relative importance, all of the mean plots are on the same scale. 

Plot for defective springs data  Applying the DOE mean plot to the defective springs data yields the following plot.  
How to interpret 
From the DOE mean plot, we look for the following:
For each of the k factors, as we go from the "" setting to the "+" setting for the factor, is there a shift in location of the average response? If yes, we would like to identify the factor with the biggest shift (the "most important factor"), the next biggest shift (the "second most important factor"), and so on until all factors are accounted for. Since we are only plotting the means and each factor has identical (,+) = (1,+1) coded factor settings, the above simplifies to
Best Settings (on Average): For each of the k factors, which setting ( or +) yields the "best" response? In order to answer this, the engineer must first define "best". This is done with respect to the overall project goal in conjunction with the specific response variable under study. For some experiments, "best" means we are trying to maximize the response (e.g., maximizing the speed of a chip). For other experiments, "best" means we are trying to minimize the response (e.g., semiconductor chip scrap). For yet other experiments, "best" means we are trying to hit a specific target (e.g., designing a resistor to match a specified resistance). Thus the definition of "best" is a precursor to the determination of best settings. For example, suppose the analyst is attempting to maximize the response. In that case, the analyst would proceed as follows:
This candidate for best settings is based on the averages. This kvector of best settings should be similar to that obtained from the DOE scatter plot, though the DOE mean plot is easier to interpret. 

Conclusions for the defective springs data 
The application of the DOE mean plot to the defective springs data
set results in the following conclusions:
