SPCVisualsSPC by industry
The maths is the same everywhere. What differs is what you subgroup, what counts as a signal, who has to sign it, and which auditor asks. Each page carries a worked chart from that sector — real limits, real rule violations, computed by the engine that runs the product.
SPC for automotive manufacturing
What IATF 16949 and the new AIAG & VDA SPC manual actually ask of a production line, why the capability number on the PPAP is not the point, and where a live chart earns its keep.
Read → PharmaceuticalSPC for pharmaceutical manufacturing
Continued process verification is SPC with a regulator attached. What FDA Stage 3 and EU GMP Annex 15 expect on a chart, and what a small tool can and cannot do inside a GMP quality system.
Read → HealthcareSPC for healthcare and the NHS
NHS England's Making Data Count replaced RAG ratings with control charts for a reason. What healthcare SPC looks like, where the NHS conventions differ from the industrial ones, and what this platform does and does not do about it.
Read → SemiconductorSPC for semiconductor manufacturing
Fabs invented most of modern SPC practice and generate more process data than anyone. What is charted, why the range chart is often the interesting one, and where a small tool is and is not the right answer.
Read → Food & beverageSPC for food and beverage manufacturing
SPC inside HACCP monitoring, net-content control that satisfies the weights regulations without giving product away, and where a live chart beats a paper checksheet.
Read → AerospaceSPC for aerospace manufacturing
AS9103 asks for the variation of key characteristics to be managed, not just inspected. What that means on a low-volume line, and how to run control charts when a "batch" is eleven parts.
Read →What actually differs between sectors
Not the mathematics. A control limit is three sigma from the centre line in a pharmaceutical plant, a fab and a bakery alike, and the Nelson rules do not know which industry they are running in. What changes from one sector to the next is everything around the arithmetic, and it changes enough to make a chart that works in one place useless in another.
- What a subgroup is. Five consecutive parts off a stamping press and five vials from across a filling run are not the same kind of sample, and the second one hides within-batch variation the first one exposes.
- How much data arrives. A fab generates more process measurements before lunch than an aerospace line generates in a quarter. Rules tuned for one produce constant noise or total silence in the other.
- What counts as a signal worth acting on. In healthcare the point of the chart is often to stop people reacting to noise. In semiconductor it is to catch drift before a lot is lost. Same chart, opposite failure mode.
- Who has to sign it, and which auditor asks. IATF 16949, the AIAG & VDA manual, FDA Stage 3, AS9103, HACCP — each expects something specific, and the standards pages cover what each one actually requires.
Reading these pages honestly
Each page carries a worked chart from its sector, with real limits and real rule violations, computed by the same engine that runs the product — not a screenshot drawn to look convincing. Each also says plainly where a small charting tool is not the right answer: inside a validated GMP quality system, for multivariate fault detection in a fab, or anywhere the record itself has to be the system of truth. Those limits are on the pages because you would find them anyway, and later is more expensive for both of us.
Working to a particular standard?
- The standards pages — ISO 7870, the AIAG & VDA SPC manual, NHS Making Data Count, FDA continued process verification, AS9103 and the rest, each in plain English with a link to the source document.