Comparing Different Approaches for Design of Experiments (DoE)

Design of Experiments (DoE) is a methodology for systematically applying statistics to experimentation. Since experimentation is a frequent activity at industries, most engineers (and scientists) end up using statistics to analyse their experiments, regardless of their background. OFAT (one-factor-at-a-time) is an old-fashioned strategy, usually taught at universities and still widely practiced by companies. The statistical approaches to DoE (Classical, Shainin and Taguchi) are far superior to OFAT. The aforementioned approaches have their proponents and opponents, and the debate between them is known to become heated at times. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to present each approach along with its limitations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic €32.70 /Month

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (France)

eBook EUR 117.69 Price includes VAT (France)

Softcover Book EUR 158.24 Price includes VAT (France)

Hardcover Book EUR 158.24 Price includes VAT (France)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Preview

Similar content being viewed by others

Power Considerations in Designed Experiments

Article 18 November 2019

Identifying Significant Effects in Unreplicated Regular Two-level Factorial Experiments

Article 01 October 2020

Statistics and Modeling

Chapter © 2020

References

  1. Lye, L.M., Tools and toys for teaching design of experiments methodology. In 33rd Annual General Conference of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering. 2005 Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Google Scholar
  2. Montgomery, D.C., Design and Analysis of Experiments. 2005, New York: Wiley. MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Gunter, B.H., Improved Statistical Training for Engineers — Prerequisite to quality. Quality Progress, 1985. 18(11): pp. 37–40. Google Scholar
  4. Montgomery, D., Applications of Design of Experiments in Engineering. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 2008. 24(5): pp. 501–502. ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Ilzarbe, L. et al., Practical Applications of Design of Experiments in the Field of Engineering. A Bibliographical Review. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 2008. 24(4): pp. 417–428. ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. De Mast, J., A Methodological Comparison of Three Strategies for Quality Improvement. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 2004. 21(2): pp. 198–212. ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Ryan, T.P., Modern Experimental Design. 2007, Chichester: Wiley. BookMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Fisher, R.A., The Design of Experiments. 1935, New York: Wiley. Google Scholar
  9. Box, G.E.P. and K.B. Wilson, On the Experimental Attainment of Optimum Conditions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 1951. Series B(13): pp. 1–45. MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. Montgomery, D.C., Changing Roles for the Industrial Statisticians. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 2002. 18(5): pp. 3. Google Scholar
  11. Booker, B.W. and D.M. Lyth, Quality Engineering from 1988 Through 2005: Lessons from the Past and Trends for the Future. Quality Engineering, 2006. 18(1): pp. 1–4. ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Funkenbusch, P.D., Practical Guide to Designed Experiments. A Unified Modular Approach. 2005, New York: Marcel Dekker. MATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Robinson, G.K., Practical Strategies for Experimentation. 2000, Chichester: Wiley. Google Scholar
  14. Box, G.E.P., J.S. Hunter, and W.G. Hunter, Statistics for Experimenters — Design, Innovation and Discovery. Second Edition. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics, ed. 2005, New York: Wiley. Google Scholar
  15. Taguchi, G., Introduction to Quality Engineering. 1986, White Plains, NY: UNIPUB/Kraus International. Google Scholar
  16. Taguchi, G., System of Experimental Design: Engineering Methods to Optimize Quality and Minimize Cost. 1987, White Plains, NY: UNIPUB/Kraus International. Google Scholar
  17. Goh, T.N., Taguchi Methods: Some Technical, Cultural and Pedagogical Perspectives. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 1993. 9(3): pp. 185–202. ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Tay, K.-M. and C. Butler, Methodologies for Experimental Design: A Survey, Comparison and Future Predictions. Quality Engineering, 1999. 11(3): pp. 343–356. ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Arvidsson, M. and I. Gremyr, Principles of Robust Design Methodology. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 2008. 24(1): pp. 23–35. ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Roy, R.K., Design of Experiments Using the Taguchi Approach: 16 steps to Product and Process Improvement. 2001, New York: Wiley. Google Scholar
  21. Pignatello, J. and J. Ramberg, Top Ten Triumphs and Tragedies of Genechi Taguchi. Quality Engineering, 1991. 4(2): pp. 211–225. ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Robinson, T.J., C.M. Borror, and R.H. Myers, Robust Parameter Design: A Review. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 2004. 20(1): pp. 81–101. ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Nair, V.N., Taguchi's Parameter Design: A Panel Discussion. Technometrics, 1992. 31(2): pp. 127–161. ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Taguchi, G., S. Chowdhury, and Y. Wu, Taguchi's Quality Engineering Handbook. First edition. 2004, New York: Wiley Interscience. Google Scholar
  25. Shainin, D. and P. Shainin, Better than Taguchi Orthogonal Tables. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 1988. 4(2): pp. 143–149. ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Ledolter, J. and A. Swersey, An Evaluation of Pre-Control. Journal of Quality Technology, 1997. 29(2): pp. 163–171. Google Scholar
  27. De Mast, J. et al., Steps and Strategies in Process Improvement. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 2000. 16(4): pp. 301–311. ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Bhote, K.R. and A.K. Bhote, Word Class Quality. Using Design of Experiments to Make it Happen. Second edition. 2000, New York: Amacom. Google Scholar
  29. Logothetis, N., A perspective on Shainin's Approach to Experimental Design for Quality Improvement. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 1990. 6(3): pp. 195–202. ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Thomas, A.J. and J. Antony, A Comparative Analysis of the Taguchi and Shainin DoE Techniques in an Aerospace Enviroment. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 2005. 54(8): pp. 658–678. ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Vining, G.G. and R.H. Myers, Combining Taguchi and Response Surface Philosophies: A Dual Response Approach. Journal of Quality Technology, 1990. 22(1): pp. 38–45. Google Scholar
  32. Quesada, G.M. and E. Del Castillo, A Dual Response Approach to the Multivariate Robust Parameter Design Problem. Technometrics, 2004. 46(2): pp. 176–187. ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  33. Box, G.E.P., S. Bisgaard, and C. Fung, An Explanation and Critique of Taguchi's Contribution to Quality Engineering. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 1988. 4(2): pp. 123–131. ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Schmidt, S.R. and R.G. Lausnby, Understanding Industrial Designed Experiments. Fourth Edition. 2005, Colorado Springs, CO: Air Academy Press. Google Scholar
  35. Box, G.E.P., Signal to Noise Ratios, Performance Criteria, and Transformations. Technomet-rics, 1988. 30(1): pp. 1–17. MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  36. Box, G.E.P. and S. Jones, An Investigation of the Method of Accumulation Analysis. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 1990. 1(1): pp. 101–113. ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Welch, W.J. et al., Computer Experiments for Quality Control by Parameter Design. Journal of Quality Technology, 1990. 22(1): pp. 15–22. Google Scholar
  38. Pozueta, L., X. Tort-Martorell, and L. Marco, Identifying Dispersion Effects in Robust Design Experiments — Issues and Improvements. Journal of Applied Statistics, 2007. 34(6): pp. 683–701. ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  39. Kunert, J. et al., An Experiment to Compare Taguchi's Product Array and the Combined Array. Journal of Quality Technology, 2007. 39(1): pp. 17–34. MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  40. Ledolter, J. and A. Swersey, Dorian Shainin's Variables Search Procedure: A Critical Assessment. Journal of Quality Technology, 1997. 29(3): pp. 237–247. Google Scholar
  41. De Mast, J. et al., Discussion: An Overview of the Shainin SystemTM for Quality Improvement. Quality Engineering, 2008. 20(1): pp. 20–45. ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Steiner, S.H., J. MacKay, and J. Ramberg, An Overview of the Shainin SystemTM for Quality Improvement. Quality Engineering, 2008. 20(1): pp. 6–19. ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Tanco, M. et al., Is Design of Experiments Really Used? A Survey of Basque Industries. Journal of Engineering Design, 2008. 19(5): pp. 447–460. ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Viles, E. et al., Planning Experiments, the First Real Task in Reaching a Goal. Quality Engineering, 2009. 21(1): pp. 44–51. ArticleGoogle Scholar

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Industrial Management Engineering at TECNUN (University of Navarra), Paseo Manuel Lardizabal 13, San Sebastian, 20018, Spain Martín Tanco, Elisabeth Viles & Lourdes Pozueta
  1. Martín Tanco