IP Library Granted Patent US 12,393,749
Granted Patent B2
US 12,393,749 · App. 18/819,134 · Granted Aug 19, 2025

Interactive tool for specifying factor relationships in design structure

Inventors: Caleb Bridges King (Morrisville, NC); Joseph Albert Morgan (Raleigh, NC); Ryan Adam Lekivetz (Cary, NC); Bradley Allen Jones (Cary, NC); Jacob Davis Rhyne (Dallas, NC)
Assignee: JMP STATISTICAL DISCOVERY LLC
G06F30/20G06F3/0482G06F3/04845G06F30/12
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,393,749
App. No.
18/819,134
Granted
Aug 19, 2025
Kind
B2
Abstract

A computing device obtains first and second factors for a nesting design and first and second sets of candidate options for the first and second factors, respectively. The computing device also receives a nesting indication that the second factor is nested within the first factor. The computing device generates the nesting design by portioning the first and second sets of candidate options into respective first and second different sets of groups. Based on the nesting indication, the computing device generates an assignment of groups for a design, and also selects options in the nesting design for the first and second factors based on the assignment of groups. The computing device also generates terms for a computer model for a computer simulation of the nesting design, as well as one or more computer-generated assessments of the nesting design based on the computer simulation.

Claims (129)

1. A computer-program product tangibly embodied in a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, the computer-program product including system instructions configured to cause a computing system to:

generate a nesting design by:

generating a first icon representing a first factor of a nesting design structure, wherein the first icon is generated to comprise a first boundary defining a periphery of the first icon and a first nesting control positioned within the first boundary;

detecting an actuation of the first nesting control;

responsive to the detecting:

generating a second icon representing a second factor of the nesting design structure, wherein the second icon is generated to comprise a second boundary defining a periphery of the second icon and a second nesting control within the second boundary; and

for each of the first and second factors, generating one or more relationships between each other and one or more other factors of the nesting design structure; and

outputting the first and second icons to an interactive graphical user interface such that the second icon is displayed as being nested within the first icon;

generate a computer model configured to control a computer simulation of the nesting design by dynamically assigning, as input into the computer model, one or more model design cases to be executed by the computer simulation of the nesting design structure based on the nesting design structure and the one or more relationships and wherein the computing system constrains an amount of terms that comprise the computer model according to the nesting design structure in which the second icon is nested within the first icon;

provide the computer model as input into the computer simulation, wherein the computer model controls execution of the computer simulation according to the nesting design structure and the one or more relationships;

generate a computer-generated assessment of the nesting design based on a result of execution of the computer simulation; and

output the computer-generated assessment of the nesting design to the interactive graphical user interface, wherein the computer-generated assessment graphically represents performance metrics of the nesting design in which the second icon is nested within the first icon.

2. The computer-program product of claim 1 , wherein to generate the nesting design, the system instructions are further configured to cause the computing system to obtain, via the interactive graphical user interface:

the first and second factors for the nesting design; and

first and second sets of candidate options for the first and second factors, respectively.

3. The computer-program product of claim 2 , wherein to generate the nesting design, the system instructions are further configured to cause the computing system to:

portion the first set of candidate options into at least two groups of a first set of groups;

portion the second set of candidate options into at least two groups of a second set of groups, wherein the first set of groups and the second set of groups are different;

generate, responsive to the detecting of the actuation of the first nesting control, a group assignment for the nesting design, wherein the group assignment assigns a first group from the first set of groups for use with a second group of the second set of groups in the nesting design; and

select, based on the group assignment, the first and second factors from the first and second sets of groups, wherein the first factor is selected from a first group in the first set of groups and wherein the second factor is selected from a second group in the second set of groups, and wherein the second group in the second set of groups is assigned to the first group in the first set of groups.

4. The computer-program product of claim 3 :

wherein the first factor is a categorical factor, and wherein the first set of candidate options comprise category options for the first factor; and

wherein the second factor is a continuous factor, and wherein the second set of candidate options comprises a range set of one or more ranges for options for the second factor.

5. The computer-program product of claim 4 :

wherein to portion the first set of candidate options, the system instructions are configured to cause the computing system to distribute the category options to each group of the first set of groups; and

wherein to portion the second set of candidate options, the system instructions are configured to cause the computing system to distribute the category options to each group of the second set of groups.

6. The computer-program product of claim 1 , wherein the system instructions are further configured to cause the computing system to obtain, via the interactive graphical user interface, an indication that the first and second factors are crossed.

7. The computer-program product of claim 6 , wherein responsive to obtaining the indication that the first and second factors are crossed, the system instructions are further configured to cause the computing system to:

generate a cross-factor indicator for display to the user, wherein the cross-factor indicator graphically indicates that the first factor is crossed with the second factor according to the nesting design; and

output the cross-factor indicator to the interactive graphical user interface, wherein the cross-factor indicator is displayed on the interactive graphical user interface within one of the first and second icons.

8. The computer-program product of claim 1 , wherein the system instructions are further configured to cause the computing system to:

receive, via the interactive graphical user interface, a change indication to change one or more of:

an amount of factors in the nesting design;

an amount or range of candidate options for a given factor of the nesting design; and

an amount of design cases that are duplicated in the nesting design; and

update the interactive graphical user interface to display at least one updated computer-generated assessment accounting for the change indication.

9. The computer-program product of claim 1 , wherein responsive to detecting a subsequent actuation of the first nesting control, the system instructions are further configured to cause the computing system to:

generate a third icon representing a third factor of the nesting design structure, wherein the third icon is generated to comprise a third boundary defining a periphery of the third icon and a third nesting control positioned within the third boundary; and

output the third icon to the interactive graphical user interface such that the third icon is displayed as being nested within the first icon.

10. The computer-program product of claim 9 , wherein the system instructions are further configured to cause the computing system to:

generate a cross-factor indicator for display to the user, wherein the cross-factor indicator graphically indicates that the third factor is crossed with the first factor according to the nesting design; and

output the cross-factor indicator to the interactive graphical user interface, wherein the cross-factor indicator is displayed on the interactive graphical user interface within the boundary of the third icon.

11. The computer-program product of claim 1 , wherein responsive to detecting an actuation of the second nesting control, the system instructions are further configured to cause the computing system to:

generate a third icon representing a third factor of the nesting design structure, wherein the third icon is generated to comprise a third boundary defining a periphery of the third icon and a third nesting control positioned within the third boundary; and

output the third icon to the interactive graphical user interface such that the third icon is displayed as being nested within the second icon.

12. The computer-program product of claim 11 , wherein the system instructions are further configured to cause the computing system to:

generate a cross-factor indicator for display to the user, wherein the cross-factor indicator graphically indicates that the third factor is crossed with the second factor according to the nesting design; and

output the cross-factor indicator to the interactive graphical user interface, wherein the cross-factor indicator is displayed on the interactive graphical user interface within the boundary of the third icon.

13. The computer-program product of claim 1 , wherein the system instructions are further configured to cause the computing system to:

generate a third icon representing a third factor of the nesting design structure, wherein the third icon is generated to comprise a third boundary defining a periphery of the third icon and a third nesting control positioned within the third boundary; and

output the third icon to the interactive graphical user interface such that the third icon is displayed externally to the boundaries of the first and second icons.

14. The computer-program product of claim 13 , wherein the system instructions are further configured to cause the computing system to:

generate a cross-factor indicator for display to the user, wherein the cross-factor indicator graphically indicates that the third factor is crossed with one or both of the first and second factors according to the nesting design; and

output the cross-factor indicator to the interactive graphical user interface, wherein the cross-factor indicator is displayed on the interactive graphical user interface within the boundary of the third icon.

15. The computer-program product of claim 1 , wherein the system instructions are further configured to cause the computing system to obtain, via the interactive graphical user interface:

a third factor for the nesting design; and

a third set of candidate options for the third factor.

16. The computer-program product of claim 15 , wherein to generate the nesting design, the system instructions are further configured to cause the computing system to:

portion the third set of candidate options into at least two groups of a third set of groups, wherein the third set of groups is different from the first and second set of groups;

generate, responsive to the detecting of the actuation of the first nesting control, a group assignment for the nesting design, wherein the group assignment assigns a first group from one of the first and second set of groups for use with the third set of groups; and

select, based on the group assignment, the third factor from the third set of groups.

17. The computer-program product of claim 15 , wherein to generate the nesting design, the system instructions are further configured to cause the computing system to distribute one or more selected options for the third factor from the third set of candidate options in design cases having factors that are crossed with the third factor.

18. The computer-program product of claim 1 , wherein the computing system is configured to generate terms for the computer model by determining, based on one or more factor statuses for the first factor, one or more model types, the first factor indicating one or more of:

the first factor is nesting another factor of the nesting design;

the first factor is nested within another factor of the nesting design; and

the first factor is crossed with another factor of the nesting design.

19. The computer-program product of claim 1 , wherein the generated computer-generated assessment indicates one or more of:

a variability caused by a factor of a measurement system analysis;

a likelihood of classification into one of multiple groups for a product set according to a measurement standard; and

a likelihood of going beyond a threshold that is related to the measurement standard.

20. The computer-program product of claim 1 , wherein to generate the computer-generated assessment, the system instructions are configured to cause the computing system to:

generate a set of computer instructions for execution by the computing system;

execute the set of computer instructions; and

based on the execution of the set of computer instructions, generate the interactive graphical user interface to comprise one or more graphical representations of the computer-generated assessment.

21. A computer-implemented method comprising:

generating a nesting design by:

generating a first icon representing a first factor of a nesting design structure, wherein the first icon is generated to comprise a first boundary defining a periphery of the first icon and a first nesting control positioned within the first boundary;

detecting an actuation of the first nesting control;

responsive to the detecting:

generating a second icon representing a second factor of the nesting design structure, wherein the second icon is generated to comprise a second boundary defining a periphery of the second icon and a second nesting control within the second boundary; and

for each of the first and second factors, generating one or more relationships between each other and one or more other factors of the nesting design structure; and

outputting the first and second icons to an interactive graphical user interface such that the second icon is displayed as being nested within the first icon;

generating a computer model configured to control a computer simulation of the nesting design by dynamically assigning, as input into the computer model, one or more model design cases to be executed by the computer simulation of the nesting design structure based on the nesting design structure and the one or more relationships and wherein a computing system constrains an amount of terms that comprise the computer model according to the nesting design structure in which the second icon is nested within the first icon;

providing the computer model as input into the computer simulation, wherein the computer model controls execution of the computer simulation according to the nesting design structure and the one or more relationships;

generating a computer-generated assessment of the nesting design based on a result of execution of the computer simulation; and

outputting the computer-generated assessment of the nesting design to the interactive graphical user interface, wherein the computer-generated assessment graphically represents performance metrics of the nesting design in which the second icon is nested within the first icon.

22. The computer-implemented method of claim 21 , further comprising obtaining, via the interactive graphical user interface, an indication that the first and second factors are crossed.

23. The computer-implemented method of claim 22 , wherein responsive to obtaining the indication that the first and second factors are crossed, the method further comprises:

generating a cross-factor indicator for display to the user, wherein the cross-factor indicator graphically indicates that the first factor is crossed with the second factor according to the nesting design; and

outputting the cross-factor indicator to the interactive graphical user interface, wherein the cross-factor indicator is displayed on the interactive graphical user interface within one of the first and second icons.

24. The computer-implemented method of claim 21 , wherein responsive to detecting a subsequent actuation of the first nesting control, the method further comprises:

generating a third icon representing a third factor of the nesting design structure, wherein the third icon is generated to comprise a third boundary defining a periphery of the third icon and a third nesting control positioned within the third boundary;

generating a cross-factor indicator for display to the user, wherein the cross-factor indicator graphically indicates that the third factor is crossed with the first factor according to the nesting design;

outputting the third icon to the interactive graphical user interface such that the third icon is displayed as being nested within the first icon; and

outputting the cross-factor indicator to the interactive graphical user interface such that the cross-factor indicator is displayed on the interactive graphical user interface within the boundary of the third icon.

25. The computer-implemented method of claim 21 , wherein responsive to detecting an actuation of the second nesting control, the method further comprises:

generating a third icon representing a third factor of the nesting design structure, wherein the third icon is generated to comprise a third boundary defining a periphery of the third icon and a third nesting control positioned within the third boundary;

generating a cross-factor indicator for display to the user, wherein the cross-factor indicator graphically indicates that the third factor is crossed with the second factor according to the nesting design;

outputting the third icon to the interactive graphical user interface such that the third icon is displayed as being nested within the second icon; and

outputting the cross-factor indicator to the interactive graphical user interface such that the cross-factor indicator is displayed within the boundary of the third icon.

26. The computer-implemented method of claim 21 , the method further comprising:

generating a third icon representing a third factor of the nesting design structure, wherein the third icon is generated to comprise a third boundary defining a periphery of the third icon and a third nesting control positioned within the third boundary;

generating a cross-factor indicator for display to the user, wherein the cross-factor indicator graphically indicates that the third factor is crossed with one or both of the first and second factors according to the nesting design;

outputting the third icon to the interactive graphical user interface such that the third icon is displayed externally to the boundaries of the first and second icons; and

outputting the cross-factor indicator to the interactive graphical user interface, wherein the cross-factor indicator is displayed on the interactive graphical user interface within the boundary of the third icon.

27. The computer-implemented method of claim 21 , wherein generating the computer model comprises determining, based on one or more factor statuses for the first factor, one or more model types, the first factor indicating one or more of:

the first factor is nesting another factor of the nesting design;

the first factor is nested within another factor of the nesting design; and

the first factor is crossed with another factor of the nesting design.

28. The computer-implemented method of claim 21 , wherein the generated computer-generated assessment indicates one or more of:

a variability caused by a factor of a measurement system analysis;

a likelihood of classification into one of multiple groups for a product set according to a measurement standard; and

a likelihood of going beyond a threshold that is related to the measurement standard.

29. The computer-implemented method of claim 21 , wherein generating the computer-generated assessment comprises:

generating a set of computer instructions for execution by the computing system;

executing, by the computing system, the set of computer instructions; and

based on the execution of the set of computer instructions, generating the interactive graphical user interface to comprise one or more graphical representations of the computer-generated assessment.

30. A computing device comprising processing circuitry and memory circuitry, the memory circuitry including instructions executable by the processing circuitry whereby the computing device is configured to:

generate a nesting design by:

generating a first icon representing a first factor of a nesting design structure, wherein the first icon is generated to comprise a first boundary defining a periphery of the first icon and a first nesting control positioned within the first boundary;

detecting an actuation of the first nesting control;

responsive to the detecting;

generating a second icon representing a second factor of the nesting design structure, wherein the second icon is generated to comprise a second boundary defining a periphery of the second icon and a second nesting control within the second boundary; and

for each of the first and second factors, generating one or more relationships between each other and one or more other factors of the nesting design structure; and

outputting the first and second icons to an interactive graphical user interface such that the second icon is displayed as being nested within the first icon;

generate a computer model configured to control a computer simulation of the nesting design by dynamically assigning, as input into the computer model, one or more model design cases to be executed by the computer simulation of the nesting design structure based on the nesting design structure and the one or more relationships and wherein a computing system constrains an amount of terms that comprise the computer model according to the nesting design structure in which the second icon is nested within the first icon;

provide the computer model as input into the computer simulation, wherein the computer model controls execution of the computer simulation according to the nesting design structure and the one or more relationships;

generate a computer-generated assessment of the nesting design based on a result of execution of the computer simulation; and

output the computer-generated assessment of the nesting design to the interactive graphical user interface, wherein the computer-generated assessment graphically represents performance metrics of the nesting design in which the second icon is nested within the first icon.

Assignments (1)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Aug 29, 2024
From: KING, CALEB BRIDGES; LEKIVETZ, RYAN ADAM; MORGAN, JOSEPH ALBERT; RHYNE, JACOB DAVIS; JONES, BRADLEY ALLEN
To: JMP STATISTICAL DISCOVERY LLC
Reel/Frame 068440/0966 →
Continuity (4)
Continuation 17881120 · Aug 4, 2022
Provisional Application 63327447 · Apr 5, 2022
Provisional Application 63315039 · Feb 28, 2022
Related Publication 20240419869A1 · Dec 19, 2024
References Cited (72)
US 5253331A · Lorenzen et al. · 1993 [cited by applicant]
US 6460068B1 · Novaes · 2002 [cited by applicant]
US 6577982B1 · Erb · 2003 [cited by applicant]
US 8019049B2 · Allen, Jr. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 8046090B2 · MacArthur et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 8121818B2 · Gorinevsky · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 8495583B2 · Bassin et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 8595750B2 · Agarwal · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 8756460B2 · Blue et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 8866818B2 · Rubin et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 9218271B2 · Segall et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 9529700B2 · Raghavan et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 10338993B1 · Lekivetz et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 10386271B1 · King et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 11346751B1 · King et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20030233600A1 · Hartman et al. · 2003 [cited by applicant]
US 20050055193A1 · Bondarenko · 2005 [cited by examiner]
US 20080256392A1 · Garland et al. · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20090292180A1 · Mirow · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20100030521A1 · Akhrarov · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 20100169853A1 · Jain et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 20120084043A1 · Courtade et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20150046906A1 · Segall · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150213631A1 · Vander Broek · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150309918A1 · Raghavan · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20160012152A1 · Johnson · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160048628A1 · Chien et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160253466A1 · Agaian et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160299836A1 · Kuhn et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20170103013A1 · Grechanik · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20180060469A1 · Morgan · 2018 [cited by examiner]
JP 2002259464A · 2002 [cited by applicant]
Goos, P. et al., “Optimal Experimental Design in the Presence of Nested Factors”, Technometrics, vol. 61 No. 4, Apr. 25, 2019, pp. 533-544, Taylor & Francis. [cited by applicant]
Goos, P. et al., “A General Strategy for Analyzing Data From Split-Plot and Multistratum Experimental Designs”, Technometrics, vol. 54 No. 4, Nov. 1, 2012, pp. 340-354, Taylor & Francis. [cited by applicant]
Kuhn, R. et al., “Software Fault Interactions and Implications for Software Testing”; IEEE Transaction on Software Engineering; Jun. 2004; pp. 418-421; vol. 30, No. 6. [cited by applicant]
Bryce, R. et al., “Prioritized interaction testing for pair-wise coverage with seeding and constraints”; Information and Software Technology; Feb. 27, 2006; pp. 960-970; vol. 48, No. 10. [cited by applicant]
Chandrasekaran, J. et al., “Evaluating the effectiveness of BEN in localizing different types of software fault”; IEEE 9th International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation Workshops; Apr. 10, 20… [cited by applicant]
Colbourn, C. et al., “Locating and Detecting Arrays for Interaction Faults”; Journal of Combinatorial Optimization; 2008; pp. 1-34; vol. 15, No. 1. [cited by applicant]
Dalal, S. et al., “Factor-Covering Designs for Testing Software”; Technometrics; Aug. 1998; pp. 1-14; vol. 40, No. 3. [cited by applicant]
Demiroz, G. et al., “Cost-Aware Combinatorial Interaction Testing”; Proc. of the International Conference on Advanaces in System Testing and Validation Lifecycles; 2012; pp. 1-8. [cited by applicant]
Elbaum, S. et al., “Selecting a Cost-Effective Test Case Prioritization Technique”; Software Quality Journal; Apr. 20, 2004; pp. 1-26; vol. 12, No. 3. [cited by applicant]
Ghandehari, L. et al., “Identifying Failure-Inducing Combinations in a Combinatorial Test Set”; IEEE Fifth International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation; Apr. 2012; pp. 1-10. [cited by applicant]
Ghandehari, L., et al., “Fault Localization Based on Failure-Inducing Combinations”; IEEE 24th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering; Nov. 2013; pp. 168-177. [cited by applicant]
Hartman, A., “Software and Hardware Testing Using Combinatorial Covering Suites”; The Final Draft; Jul. 3, 2018; pp. 1-41; IBM Haifa Research Laboratory. [cited by applicant]
Katona, G., “Two Applications (for Search Theory and Truth Functions) of Sperner Type Theorems”; Periodica Mathematica Hungarica; 1973; pp. 19-26; vol. 3, No. 1-2. [cited by applicant]
Cohen, M. et al., “Interaction Testing of Highly-Configurable Systems in the Presence of Constraints”; ISSTA '07 London, England, United Kingdom; Jul. 9-12, 2007; pp. 1-11; ACM 978-1-59593-734-6/07/0007. [cited by applicant]
Cohen, M.et al., “The Combinatorial Design Approach to Automatic Test Generation”; IEEE Software; Sep. 1996; pp. 83-88; vol. 13, No. 5. [cited by applicant]
Dunietz, I. et al., “Applying Design of Experiments to Software Testing”; Proceedings of 19th ECSE, New York, NY; 1997; pp. 205-215; ACM, Inc. [cited by applicant]
Cohen, M. et al., “The AETG System: An Approach to Testing Based on Combinatorial Design”; IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering; Jul. 1997; pp. 437-444; vol. 23, No. 7. [cited by applicant]
Morgan, J. et al. “Combinatorial Testing: An Approach to Systems and Software Testing Based on Covering Arrays”; Book—Analytic Methods in Systems and Software Testing; 2018; pp. 131-158; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.; Hoboken,… [cited by applicant]
Cohen, M. et al. “Constructing Interaction Test Suites for Highly-Configurable Systems in the Presence of Constraints: A Greedy Approach”; IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering; Sep./Oct. 2008; pp. 633-650; vol. 34,… [cited by applicant]
Colbourn, C. et al., “Coverage, Location, Detection, and Measurement”; IEEE Ninth International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation Workshops; Apr. 2016; pp. 19-25. [cited by applicant]
Kleitman, D. et al., “Families of k-Independent Sets”; Discrete Mathematics; 1973; pp. 255-262; vol. 6, No. 3. [cited by applicant]
Johnson, K. et al., “Largest Induced Subgraphs of the n-Cube That Contain No 4-Cycles”; Journal of Combinatorial Theory; 1989; pp. 346-355; Series B 46. [cited by applicant]
Dalal, S., et al.,“Model-Based Testing in Practice”; Proceedings of the 21st ICSE, New York, NY; 1999; pp. 1-10. [cited by applicant]
Moura, L., et al. “Covering Arrays with Mixed Alphabet Sizes”; Journal of Combinatorial Design; 2003; pp. 413-432; vol. 11, No. 6. [cited by applicant]
Brownlie, R. et al., “Robust Testing of AT&T PMX/StarMAIL Using OATS”; AT&T Technical Journal, May 1992; pp. 41-47; vol. 73, No. 3. [cited by applicant]
Mandl, R., “Orthogonal Latin Squares: An Application of Experiment Design to Compiler Testing”; Communications of the ACM; Oct. 1985; pp. 1054-1058; vol. 28, No. 10. [cited by applicant]
Hartman, A. et al., “Problems and algorithms for covering arrays”; Discrete Mathematics; 2004; pp. 149-156; vol. 284, No. 1-3. [cited by applicant]
Angel, M., “Conducting Experiments with Experiment Manager”, Proceedings of the 1996 Winter Simulation Conference, Nov. 8, 1996, pp. 535-541, https://doi.org/10.1145/256562.256741. [cited by applicant]
Genta, G. et al., “Study of measurement process capability with non-normal data distributions”, 15th CIRP Conference on Computer Aided Tolerancing—CIRP CAT 2018, 2018, pp. 385-390, Elsevier B.V. [cited by applicant]
Ghanbari, M. et al., “Visualization Overview”, 39th Southeastern Symposium on System Theory, Mercer University Macon, GA, 31207, Mar. 4-6, 2007, pp. 135-137. [cited by applicant]
Iversen, P. et al., “Visualizing Experimental Designs for Balanced ANOVA Models using Lisp-Stat”, Journal of Statistical Software, Feb. 2005, vol. 13, Issue 3, pp. 1-18. [cited by applicant]
Jang, D-H, et al., “Correlation-Based r-plot for Evaluating Supersaturated Designs”, Research Article, Quality and Reliability Engineering International, Published online Mar. 11, 2013, pp. 503-512, (wileyonlinelibrary.… [cited by applicant]
Kay, P., “Why design experiments Reason 2 Process understanding”, JMP Blog post, May 1, 2018, pp. 1-10, obtained Oct. 1, 2018. [cited by applicant]
Kim, Y. et al., “Graphical Methods for Evaluating Covering Arrays”, LA-UR-15-26286 (Accepted Manuscript), provided to the Los Alamos National Laboratory Aug. 31, 2016, pp. 1-23. [cited by applicant]
Mcneese, B., “Evaluating the Measurement Process (EMP) Overview”, 2019, pp. 1-12, BPI Consulting, LLC. [cited by applicant]
Mcneese, B., “Evaluating the Measurement Process—Part 2”, 2015, pp. 1-11, BPI Consulting, LLC. [cited by applicant]
Minitab 19 Support, “Which measurement system analyses are included in Minitab”, Supporting Topics www.support.minitab.com/, obtained online May 20, 2021, pp. 1-2. [cited by applicant]
Quality-One, “Measurement System Analysis (MSA)”, Obtained online Jun. 10, 2021, pp. 1-7, obtained from: https://quality-one.com/msa/. [cited by applicant]
Taylor, W. et al. “A Structure Diagram Symbolization for Analysis of Variance”, The American Statistician, vol. 35, No. 2, May 1981, pp. 85-93, Taylor & Francis, Ltd. [cited by applicant]
weibull.com, “Measurement Systems Analysis in DOE++”, Reliability Engineering Resources, issue 153, Nov. 2013, obtained May 20, 2021, pp. 1-5. [cited by applicant]