Quality Technology &

Quantitative Management
Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 295-305, 2006
QTQM
© ICAQM 2006

A Single EWMA Chart for Monitoring

Process Mean and Process Variance
A. F. B. Costa1 and M. A. Rahim2
1
Department of Production, UNESP-Sao Paulo State University, Guaratingueta, SP, Brazil
2
Faculty of Administration, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada
(Received January 2005, accepted August 2005)
______________________________________________________________________
Abstract: Traditionally, an X -chart is used for detecting an assignable cause that shifts the process mean,
and the joint X and R chart is used for detecting assignable cause(s) that shift the process mean and/or
the process variability. However, these charts are not sensitive in detecting small changes in process
parameters. An alternative to these charts is the exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA) control
chart which is quite effective in detecting small changes in process parameters. However, for simultaneous
monitoring of the process mean and the process variance, two EWMA charts are generally used. One is
used for the process mean and the other for the process variance. This is obviously time consuming. In
this paper, we propose a single EWMA control chart for monitoring the mean and variance of a process.
The proposed chart is based on only one statistic and is more effective than the joint X and R chart in
detecting assignable cause(s). It is an extension to the chart studied by Chen et al. [2]. It is shown also that
the proposed EWMA chart performs better than the combination of the EWMA X -chart and the
EWMA ln(S 2 ) -chart, except the case when the assignable cause promotes small shifts in the process
mean without changing the process variability.

Keywords: ARL, control chart, EWMA, process monitoring.

______________________________________________________________________

1. Introduction

C ontrol charts are used to monitor processes in order to detect assignable cause(s) that
change the process parameters. Shewhart [20] emphasized the importance of
identification of assignable cause. When the distribution of the output quality of the
process variable is continuous, the combination of two control charts such as an X -chart
and an R-chart are usually required to monitor both the process mean and the process
variance (for example, see Costa, [3,4,5], Costa and Rahim [6,7], Rahim and Costa [15],
De Magalhães et al. [10,11], Gan [12], Morais and Pacheco [14]). However, recently
Reynolds and Stoumbos [17] have shown that the two combined charts are not always
reliable in identifying the nature of the change. For example, if the joint X and R charts
are in use, and if the X -chart signals the presence of an assignable cause, then the user
should investigate the type of the assignable cause that is affecting the process parameter(s).
This is because an X -chart is not only sensitive to a shift in the process mean, but is also
sensitive to an increase in the process variance. Shewhart [20] emphasizes the importance
of the assignable cause identification. However, the overriding concern seems to be the fast
detection of the departure from the in-control state. It is advantageous to consider a single
chart based on only one statistic to simultaneously monitor the process mean and the
process variance. Chen et al. [1] considered the performance of a single chart that can be
used to monitor both the process mean and the process variance. They combined two
EWMA charts into one chart and showed that the new EWMA chart is most effective in
296 Costa and Rahim
detecting both increases and decreases in the process mean and/or changes in the process
variance. Their procedure is based on two statistics whereas our proposed approach is
based on only one statistic. More recently, Chen et al. [2] also explored the idea of using
only one statistic to control the mean and the variance. The way their statistic was defined
(say T*) is slightly different than the way the sample variance S 2 is defined, that is
S 2 = ∑ ( X i − X ) 2 /(n − 1) and T * = ∑ ( X i − µ 0 ) 2 /n , where µ0 is the target value of the
process mean. While S2 is sensitive to process variance changes, T* is also affected by
changes in the process mean. However, the control chart based on the statistic T* is very
slow in detecting the most common assignable cause, the one which shifts the process mean,
keeping the variability unchanged. In order to improve the chart’s ability in detecting this
type of assignable cause, we introduce the statistic T = ∑ [ X i − µ 0 + ξi σ 0 ] , where σ 02 is
2

the target value of the process variance, and ξi = d > 0 if X > µ 0 , otherwise ξi = −d . The
control chart based on the statistic T has better overall performance in terms of the speed
by which assignable causes are detected, including assignable cause(s) that only shift the
process mean, or only increase the process variability, or shift the process mean and
increase the process variability.

2. The Control Chart

Throughout this paper, it is assumed that a control chart is employed to monitor a
process whose quality characteristic of interest (say, X) is normally distributed with mean,
µ , and standard deviation, σ . Let the in control value for µ be µ 0 , and the in control
value for σ be σ 0 . The objective is to monitor the process involved to detect any
assignable cause that shifts the process mean µ from µ 0 to µ1 = µ 0 + δσ 0 , where
δ ≠ 0 , and/or changes the process standard deviation σ from σ 0 to σ 1 = γσ 0 , where
γ ≠ 1 . When there is a shift in σ , it is usually assumed that the primary interest is in
detecting increases in σ , because of an increase in σ deteriorates the quality of the
product.
Let x ij , i = 1,2,3,... , and j = 1,2,..., n be the measurements of the variable X
arranged in groups of size n>1, with i indexing the group number. Let
X i = ( X i 1 + ... + X in )/ n be the i th sample mean, and let ei = X i − µ 0 be the difference
between the i th sample mean and the target value of the process mean. We define

⎧ d , if ei ≥ 0
ξi = ⎨ , (1)
⎩−d , if ei < 0
n
Ti = ∑ ( X ij − µ 0 + ξi σ 0 ) 2 , i = 1,2 ,... , (2)
j =1

where d is a positive constant. When d=0, Ti /(γσ 0 ) 2 is distributed as a non-central

chi-square distribution with n degrees of freedom and a non-centrality parameter
λ = nδ 2 /γ 2 , i.e. Ti /(γσ 0 ) 2 ~ χ n2 (λ ) , see Chen et al. [2]. The use of the non-central
chi-square statistic to control the process mean and variance has also been considered by
Costa and Rahim [8]. When d>0, Ti /(γσ 0 ) 2 ~ χ n2 (λ * ) with λ * = n (δ + d ) 2 / γ 2 if X > µ 0 ,
otherwise λ * = n (δ − d ) 2 / γ 2 .
The control chart based on the statistic T has an upper control limit given by kσ 02 ,
where the value of k is chosen to attend the required protection against false alarms. Let Ps
be the probability that the control chart signals the occurrence of the assignable cause,
A Single EWMA Chart for Monitoring Process Mean and Process Variance 297

Ps = Pr[Ti > kσ 02 ]
1 −δ n /γ δ −d
= ∫−∞ Pr{χ n2 > [ k / γ 2 − ( y + n )]}e −0.5 y dy (3)
2π γ
1 ∞ δ +d
+ ∫δ n /γ Pr{χ n > [ k / γ − ( y + n
2 2
)]}e −0.5 y dy .
2π γ
If γ = 1 and δ = 0 , then Ps=α, the probability of a false alarm, and is termed as the
producer’s risk. The producer’s risk is the probability of the risk associated with rejecting a
high quality product. Otherwise, if Ps=1-β, the power of the chart in detecting the
assignable cause, where β is termed as the consumer’s risk, the probability of the risk
associated with accepting a low quality product. The Microsoft IMSL Library Routines
“DCHIIN” and “DQDAGS” were used to obtain the false alarm risk and the chart’s power
of detection.
The effectiveness of a control chart in detecting a process change can be measured by
the average run length (ARL), which is the expected number of samples drawn while the
process is out-of-control until the chart gives a signal. During the out-of-control period, the
number of samples drawn until a signal is a geometrically distributed random variable with
parameter 1 − β . Thus, ARL = 1/(1 − β ) . The average run length is a function of
µ1 = µ 0 + δσ 0 and σ 1 = λσ 0 . Larger shift in the process mean or variance increase leads to
a lower ARL. Let ARL0 be denoted as the expected number of samples taken during the
in-control period, from the point at which the monitoring starts to the point at which the
chart signals. Similarly, the number of samples drawn until a signal during the in-control
period is a geometrically distributed random variable with parameter α , so ARL 0 = 1/α .
Chen et al. [2] investigated the properties of the control chart based on the statistic T for the
particular case when d=0. They used an approximation for the cumulative distribution
function of χ n2 (λ ) which leads to different results if compared with the results we obtain
using the EXCEL function “INV.QUI”, or the Microsoft IMSL Library Routine
“DCHIIN”. After choosing the pair (n; ARL0), we can use the EXCEL function or the
IMSL Routine to obtain the factor k used in determining the upper control limit. For
example, if n = 5 and ARL0 = 370.4 , k=INV.QUI (1-1/ARL0; n) =18.206. Using the
approximated CDF of Ti /(γσ 0 ) 2 (considered by Chen et al. [2] to design their control
chart), we will have k=18.206 when ARL0 = 351.2 , see Table 1.

Table 1. ARL0 values.

ARL0 ARL0** Difference (%)
n k*
(A) (B) =100(A-B)/A
3 14.157 370.4 346.9 6.3
3 14.796 500.0 460.6 7.9
3 16.266 1000.0 882.1 11.8
4 16.252 370.4 349.2 5.7
4 16.924 500.0 464.8 7.0
4 18.467 1000.0 896.3 10.4
5 18.206 370.4 351.2 5.2
5 18.908 500.0 468.4 6.3
5 20.515 1000.0 907.2 9.3
*K = “INV.QUI (1-1/ARL0; n)” or “DCHIIN (1-1/ARL0; n)”
** ARL0 value corresponding to K*, if the approximation
suggested by Chen et al. [2] for the CDF of χ n (λ ) is used.
2
298 Costa and Rahim
The control charts based on the statistic T, with d=0, are very good in detecting
isolated changes in the variability ( γ > 1.0 and δ = 0 ), but they are very slow in detecting
isolated shifts in the process mean ( γ = 1.0 and δ ≠ 0 ). For example, if n = 5 , δ = 0.5 ,
and γ = 1.0 , the control chart based on the statistic T requires, on average, about 91.8
samples to detect this disturbance whereas the joint X and R charts requires only 49.0.
This can be seen in Table 2. If d = 1.00 , the average run length reduces to more than half,
that is from 91.8 to 40.8, see Table 3. Based on the overall performance, the choice of
d=1.00 leads to the best results. This comment is valid for n=3, 4, or 5, holding α ≤ 0.0027 .
Fixing d=1.00, and after the choice of α, the expression (3) is the one we use to obtain k.

Table 2. Values of the ARL for the joint X -R charts

and for the chart based on the statistic T (d=0).
n=3 n=4 n=5
a=0
Charts based on Charts based on Charts based on
T T T
δ γ X -R* k=14.1570 X -R** k=16.2520 X -R*** k=18.2060
1.0 370.4 370.4 370.4 370.4 370.4 370.4
0.0 1.25 41.2 35.1 36.8 29.3 33.6 25.1
1.5 12.2 10.2 10.3 8.0 8.9 6.6
2.0 3.6 3.2 3.0 2.5 2.6 2.1
1.0 230.6 255.3 201.7 246.7 178.0 239.4
0.25 1.25 34.5 30.1 29.8 24.8 26.4 21.1
1.5 11.2 9.5 9.4 7.4 8.1 6.1
2.0 3.6 3.1 2.9 2.5 2.5 2.1
1.0 88.1 113.5 64.4 101.3 49.0 91.8
0.5 1.25 22.1 20.4 17.8 16.5 14.9 13.8
1.5 9.0 7.8 7.4 6.1 6.3 5.0
2.0 3.3 2.9 2.7 2.3 2.3 2.0
1.0 32.7 46.2 21.4 37.9 15.1 31.9
0.75 1.25 12.8 12.6 9.7 9.9 7.7 8.1
1.5 6.7 5.9 5.3 4.6 4.4 3.8
2.0 3.0 2.7 2.5 2.1 2.1 1.8
1.0 13.6 19.8 8.5 15.2 5.8 12.1
1.0 1.25 7.5 7.8 5.4 6.0 4.2 4.8
1.5 4.8 4.4 3.8 3.5 3.1 2.9
2.0 2.6 2.4 2.2 1.9 1.9 1.7
1.0 3.6 5.0 2.4 3.6 1.8 2.8
1.5 1.25 3.1 3.3 2.2 2.6 1.8 2.1
1.5 2.6 2.6 2.1 2.0 1.7 1.7
2.0 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.4
* X chart with control limits µ 0 ± 3.190 σ 0 / 3 , and R chart with upper
control limit 4.971 σ 0
** X chart with control limits µ 0 ± 3.190 σ 0 / 4 , and R chart with
upper control limit 5.220 σ 0
*** X chart with control limits µ 0 ± 3.190 σ 0 / 5 , and R chart with
upper control limit 5.397 σ 0
A Single EWMA Chart for Monitoring Process Mean and Process Variance 299
Table 3. Control chart based on the statistic T (influence of d on the ARL).
Control charts based on T
n=5 d=0** d=1.0
δ γ X -R* k=18.2060 k=33.3510
1.0 370.4 370.4 370.4
0.0 1.25 33.6 25.1 32.7
1.5 8.9 6.6 8.8
2.0 2.6 2.1 2.5
1.0 178.0 239.4 151.0
0.25 1.25 26.4 21.1 22.7
1.5 8.1 6.1 7.5
2.0 2.5 2.1 2.5
1.0 49.0 91.8 40.8
0.5 1.25 14.9 13.8 11.5
1.5 6.3 5.0 5.3
2.0 2.3 2.0 2.2
1.0 15.1 31.9 13.4
0.75 1.25 7.7 8.1 5.9
1.5 4.4 3.8 3.6
2.0 2.1 1.8 2.0
1.0 5.8 12.1 5.5
1.0 1.25 4.2 4.8 3.4
1.5 3.1 2.9 2.5
2.0 1.9 1.7 1.7
1.0 1.8 2.8 1.8
1.5 1.25 1.8 2.1 1.6
1.5 1.7 1.7 1.5
2.0 1.5 1.4 1.4
* X chart with control limits µ 0 ± 3.190 σ 0 / 5 , and R
chart with upper control limit 5.397 σ 0
** The control chart proposed by Chen et al. [2], with λ=1

3. The EWMA Charts Based on the Statistic T

The EWMA chart we propose to detect changes in µ and/or in σ is based on the
statistic T, that is
Wi = (1 − r )Wi −1 + rTi , i = 1,2,... , (4)
where r is a smoothing parameter satisfying 0 < r ≤ 1 . The value of r determines the weight
given to the current sample value. When r = 1 , the EWMA places all of its weights on the
most recent observation. A signal is given at sample m if Wm > UCL E , the upper control
limit for the EWMA chart. According to Montgomery [13], the values of r in the interval
0.05 ≤ r ≤ 0.25 work well in practice, with r=0.05, 0.10, and 0.20 being popular choice. A
good rule of thumb is to use smaller values of r to detect smaller shifts.
For the EWMA chart based on the statistic T, the expected length of time from the
process change to the signal will depend on the value of the control statistic W at the time
300 Costa and Rahim
the change occurs. We assume that the control statistic has reached its steady-state or
stationary distribution by the random point in time that the change occurs. When the
steady-state distribution is adopted the chart’s performance is measured by the steady-state
ARL, shortly SSARL. The Markov chain approach described in Saccucci and Lucas [19]
was used to obtain the SSARL values. The transient states were built dividing the interval
[0; UCL E ] in 100 equally spaced intervals.
Similar to the control charts based on the statistic T, the EWMA charts based on the
statistic W, with d=0, are very good in detecting isolated changes in the variability ( γ > 1.0
and δ = 0 ), but they are very slow in detecting isolated shifts in the mean ( γ = 1.0
and δ ≠ 0 ). For example, if n = 5 , δ = 0.5 , γ = 1.0 , and λ=0.10, the EWMA chart
requires, on average, 33.3 samples to detect this disturbance (the joint X and R charts
requires 49.0). Table 4 shows this. If d = 1.00 , the average run length reduces to more
than half, that is from 33.3 to 16.3. The overall conclusion that can be obtained from Table
4 is that the EWMA procedure improves the usefulness of the control chart based on the
statistic T for detecting both the small and moderate changes in the process.

Table 4. EWMA chart based on the statistic T (influence of d on the SSARL).

EWMA chart based on the statistic T
n=5 r =0.10 r =0.20
d=0** d=1.00 d=0** d=1.00
γ X -R* k=6.9540 k=16.5737 k=8.337 K=18.6438
δ
1.0 370.4 370.4 370.4 370.4 370.4
0.0 1.25 33.6 11.6 14.2 12.2 15.2
1.5 8.9 4.9 5.9 4.6 5.5
2.0 2.6 2.3 2.8 2.1 2.4
1.0 178.0 147.3 80.3 174.5 96.8
0.25 1.25 26.4 10.3 11.3 10.6 11.5
1.5 8.1 4.7 5.5 4.3 5.0
2.0 2.5 2.3 2.7 2.1 2.4
1.0 49.0 33.3 16.3 41.6 17.8
0.5 1.25 14.9 7.6 7.2 7.5 6.8
1.5 6.3 4.1 4.4 3.8 4.0
2.0 2.3 2.2 2.5 2.0 2.2
1.0 15.1 11.6 6.8 12.6 6.4
0.75 1.25 7.7 5.4 4.7 5.1 4.2
1.5 4.4 3.5 3.5 3.1 3.1
2.0 2.1 2.1 2.3 1.8 2.0
1.0 5.8 6.0 4.0 5.8 3.6
1.0 1.25 4.2 3.9 3.3 3.5 2.9
1.5 3.1 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.4
2.0 1.9 1.9 2.1 1.7 1.8
1.0 1.8 2.7 2.2 2.4 1.8
1.5 1.25 1.8 2.3 2.0 2.0 1.7
1.5 1.7 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.6
2.0 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.5
* X chart with control limits µ 0 ± 3.190 σ 0 / 5 , and R chart with
upper control limit 5.397 σ 0
** The control chart proposed by Chen et al. [2]
A Single EWMA Chart for Monitoring Process Mean and Process Variance 301

4. Comparing Single and Combined EWMA Charts

The single EWMA chart based on the statistic T is compared with combined EWMA
charts. Of the two EWMA charts employed in the combination, one was the usual EWMA
X -chart proposed by Robert [18], and the other was a modified EWMA ln(S 2 ) -chart in
Crowder and Hamilton [9], see Chen et al. [2] for details. The EWMA X -chart has the
following control limits:

r1
UCL1 = µ 0 + L1 (σ 0 / n ) ,
2 − r1
CL1 = µ 0 ,
r1
LCL1 = µ 0 − L1 (σ 0 / n ) .
2 − r1

The plotting statistics are

Qi = (1 − λ1 )Qi −1 + r1 X i , i = 1,2,... ,

with Q0 = µ 0 . For the EWMA ln(S 2 ) -chart, the control limits are

r2
UCL2 = µ ln(S 2 ) + L2 (σ 2 / n ) ,
2 − r2 ln(S )

CL2 = µ ln(S 2 ) ,

r2
LCL2 = µ ln(S 2 ) − L2 (σ 2 / n ) ,
2 − r2 ln(S )
The plotting statistics are
Yi = (1 − r2 )Yi −1 + r2 ln(Si2 ), i = 1,2,... ,
with Y0 = µ ln(S 2 ) . Table 5 brings the ARL values of the combined EWMA charts for n=5,
ARL0=250 and r =0.10 and 0.20. They were tabulated in Chen et al. [2]. The overall
conclusion that can be obtained from Table 5 is that the single EWMA chart based on the
statistic T performs better than the combination of the EWMA X -chart and the EWMA
ln(S 2 ) -chart, except the case when the assignable cause promotes small shifts in the
process mean without changing the process variability.

5. Example
The single EWMA chart proposed in this paper was designed to replace the joint X
and R charts. The joint charts were used to monitor a filling process in which the quantity
of liquid in each filled bottle is the quality characteristic of interest. Ocassionally,
impurities in the liquid partially clog the feeder-line, hence shifiting the process mean. To
return the mean back to the target, the feeder-line should be cleaned. Since cleaning the
feed-line requires shutting down the process, unnecessary cleanings must be avoided.
Sometimes, the impurities shift the process mean and increase variability.
During the time the Joint X and R charts were in use, the procedure was to take
samples of size 5 at each 20 minutes (n=5 and h=20). Then, the X values were plotted on
302 Costa and Rahim
Table 5. Values of the ARL for the single and combined EWMA charts.
n=5 r =0.10 r =0.20
d=1.0 L=2.45 L=2.45
d=1.0
γ L1=2.81 L1=2.81
δ k=16.2772 k=18.2482
L2=2.86 L2=2.86
single combined single combined

1.0 250.0 252.1 250.0 250.9

0.0 1.25 12.7 24.4 13.1 36.1
1.5 5.6 9.7 5.0 10.2
2.0 2.7 5.0 2.3 4.4
1.0 60.9 25.1 71.6 31.5
0.25 1.25 10.3 15.8 10.2 17.9
1.5 5.2 8.8 4.6 8.7
2.0 2.6 4.8 2.3 4.3
1.0 14.4 8.8 15.1 8.6
0.5 1.25 6.7 8.4 6.2 7.9
1.5 4.2 6.9 3.7 6.3
2.0 2.4 4.5 2.1 3.9
1.0 3.8 3.9 3.3 3.3
1.0 1.25 3.2 3.9 2.7 3.3
1.5 2.7 3.9 2.3 3.3
2.0 2.0 3.5 1.7 2.9
1.0 1.5 2.0 1.2 1.7
2.0 1.25 1.4 2.1 1.2 1.7
1.5 1.4 2.1 1.2 1.7
2.0 1.3 2.1 1.2 1.7

the mean chart with control limits placed at µ 0 ± 3.190σ 0 / n and the R values were
plotted on the range chart with the upper control limit placed at 5.397σ 0 .
The following points contributed to the X and R charts’ replacement:
a) The operational simplicity: It is always easier to deal with one chart than with
two of them, especially when several quality characteristics are controlled simultaneously.
b) The sensitivity: The proposed chart detects any kind of process changes faster
than the joint X and R charts. For example, one can see from Table 4 that the joint charts
require, on average, 7.7 samples of size five to detect moderate process mean shifts (δ =0.75)
accompanied by small increases in the process variance (γ =1.25). The single EWMA
chart, with r =0.2 and d =1.0, requires only 4.2 samples.
To illustrate, Figure 1 brings the single EWMA chart with 15 sample points. Table 6
gives the X values of these 15 samples of size five that were taken from the filling process.
The Wi and Ti values are given in the last two columns. The filling process fills the bottle
with 600 milimiters (ml). Thus, the target mean µ0 is 600 ml. The standard deviation is
known to be σ0 = 2 ml. It was adopted d=1.0, r=0.2 and W0 = 55.8.
A Single EWMA Chart for Monitoring Process Mean and Process Variance 303

6. Conclusions
The traditional approach to monitor a process subject to shifts in the mean and/or
changes in the variance is to use two control charts. In this paper, we proposed a single
chart for the surveillance of both the process mean and variance. An important advantage
of using the proposed chart is that the practitioner can control the process by looking at
only one chart.
Table 6. The Xij, Wi and Ti Values.
Sample number (i) Xi1 Xi2 Xi3 Xi4 Xi5 Wi Ti
1 599,94 601,41 596,20 601,92 600,08 53,05 41,92
2 602,97 600,17 602,74 600,10 595,21 55,26 64,07
3 599,86 598,74 602,84 600,42 595,11 57,38 65,88
4 597,47 599,73 601,79 597,98 599,29 55,75 49,22
5 601,80 599,81 599,20 598,14 602,64 52,74 40,71
6 600,33 603,75 598,96 597,59 599,74 50,71 42,61
7 596,10 599,29 598,61 598,21 599,08 55,88 76,54
8 599,09 600,95 598,31 599,04 597,83 54,57 49,34
9 597,96 597,89 597,32 602,58 601,75 54,76 55,51
10 601,23 600,13 599,94 603,95 600,62 56,01 61,00
11 598,15 596,57 598,95 597,72 602,48 59,24 72,16
12 598,60 600,52 601,39 601,12 601,16 54,97 37,92
13 598,34 599,36 597,09 600,41 595,43 62,01 90,17
14 596,75 602,11 599,54 597,97 599,02 61,36 58,75
15 598,85 600,74 599,65 602,51 598,65 55,43 31,72

Ti 80 UCL=74.6

70

60

50

40
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
Sample Number

Figure 1. The single EWMA chart for the filling process data.
(r=0.2, d=1.0 and W0=55.8)

Acknowledgments
This research was undertaken during the first author’s visit to UNB in August 2004.
The financial assistant of the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC)
304 Costa and Rahim
of Canada in support for this collaborative research is greatly acknowledged. The authors
are indebted to three anonymous referees for very detailed revisions and several suggestions,
which significantly contributed to the improvement of this paper.

References
1. Chen, G., Cheng, S. W. and Xie, H. (2001). Monitoring process mean and variability
with one EWMA chart. Journal of Quality Technology, 33, 223-233.
2. Chen, G., Cheng, S. W. and Xie, H. (2004). A new EWMA control chart for
monitoring both location and dispersion. Quality Technology & Quantitative Management,
2, 217-231.
3. Costa, A. F. B. (1993). Joint economic design of X and R control charts for
processes subject to two independent assignable causes. IIE-Transactions, 25, 27-33.
4. Costa, A. F. B (1999). Joint X and R charts with variable sample sizes and sampling
intervals. Journal of Quality Technology, 31, 387-397.
5. Costa, A. F. B. (1998). Joint X and R control charts with variable parameters.
IIE-Transactions, 25, 27-33.
6. Costa, A. F. B. and Rahim, M.A. (2000). Economic design of X and R charts under
Weibull shock models. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 16, 143-156.
7. Costa, A. F. B. and Rahim, M.A. (2004). Joint X and R charts with two stage
samplings. Quality and Reliability Engineering-International, 20, 699-708.
8. Costa, A. F. B. and Rahim, M. A. (2005). The non-central chi-square chart with
two-stage samplings. European Journal of Operational Research, 171, 64-73.
9. Crowder, S. V. and Hamilton, M. D. (1992). An EWMA for monitoring a process
standard deviation. Journal of Quality Technology, 24, 12-21.
10. De Magalhães M. S. and Neto, F. D. M. (2005). Joint economic model for totally
adaptive X and R charts. European Journal of Operational Research, 161, 148-161.
11. De Magalhães MS, Costa, A. F. B. and Neto, F. D. M. (2005). Adaptive control charts:
a Markovian approach for processes subject to independent out-of-control
disturbances. International Journal of Production Economics, 99, 236-246.
12. Gan, F. F. (1995). Joint monitoring of process mean and variance using exponentially
weighted moving average control charts. Technometrics, 37, 446-453.
13. Montgomery, D. C. (2004). Introduction to Statistical Quality Control, 5th edition. John
Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
14. Morais, M. C. and Pacheco, A. (2000). On the Performance of Combined EWMA
Schemes for µ and σ : A Markov Approach. Communications in Statistics, Part
B-Simulation and Computation, 29, 153-174.
15. Rahim, M. A. and Costa, A. F. B. (2000). Joint economic design of X and R charts
under Weibull shock models. International Journal of Production Research, 38,
2871-2889.
16. Reynolds, M. R. and Stoumbos, Z. G. (2001). Monitoring the process mean and
variance using individual observations and variable sampling intervals. Journal of
Quality Technology, 33, 181-205.
17. Reynolds, M. R. and Stoumbos, Z. G. (2004). Control charts and efficient allocation
of sampling resources. Technometrics, 46, 200-214.
18. Roberts, S. W. (1959). Control chart tests based on geometric moving average.
A Single EWMA Chart for Monitoring Process Mean and Process Variance 305
Technometrics, 1, 239-250.
19. Saccucci, M. S. and Lucas, J. M. (1990). Average run length for exponentially
weighted moving average control schemes using the Markov chain approach. Journal
of Quality Technology, 22, 154-162.
20. Shewhart, W. A. (1931). Economic Quality Control of Manufactured Product, Van
Nostrand , New York.
21. Shewhart, W. A. (1939). Statistical Method from the Viewpoint of Quality Control,
Dover Publications, New York.

Authors’ Biographies:
Antonio F. B. Costa is a Professor in the Department of Production at UNESP- São Paulo
State University, Brazil. He was a Postdoctoral Fellow in the Center for Quality and
Productivity Improvement at University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA. His current
research interest is in statistical quality control. He received the Best Paper Award from IIE
Transactions. He is a Certified Quality Engineer of the American Society for Quality.
M. Abdur Rahim is a Professor of Quantitative Methods, and Faculty of Business
Administration, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, Canada. His research interests
are quality control, inventory control, production, and operations management. He has
edited two books and published over sixty refereed journal articles and five book chapters.
He is an Associate Editor of the International Journal of Systems Science, Regional Editor
of Economic Quality Control, and editorial board member of the International Journal of
Production Research, Engineering Optimization, Journal of Quality in Maintenance
Engineering and Quality Engineering. He is a senior member of ASQC and IIE.