Examine every possible combination of factors and levels
Enable us to:
Determine main effects that the manipulated factors will have on response
Determine effects that factor interactions will have on response variables
Estimate levels to set factors at for best results
Advantages
Provides a mathematical model to predict results
Provides information about all main effects
Provides information about all interactions
Quantifies the Y=f(x) relationship
Limitations
Requires more time and resources than fractional factorials
Sometimes labeled as
optimizing designs
because they allow you to determine which factor and setting combination will give the best result within the ranges
Most common are
2-level designs
because they provide a lot of information, but require fewer trials than would
The general notation for a 2-level full factorial design is:
2 is the number of levels for each factor
k is the number of factors to be investigated
This is the minimum number of tests required for a full factorial
Look at only
selected
Advantages:
Allows you to screen many factors—separate significant from not-significant factors—with smaller investment in research time and costs
Resources necessary to complete a fractional factorial are manageable (economy of time, money, and personnel)
Limitations/drawbacks
Not all interactions will be
These tests are more complicated statistically and require expert input
General notation to
2 is the number of levels for each factor
k is the number of factors to be investigated
2
-p
is the
2 k-p is the number of runs
R is the resolution, an indicator of what levels of effects and interactions are confounded, meaning you can't separate them in your analysis
When using a fractional factorial design, you cannot estimate all of the interactions
The amount that we are able to estimate is indicated by the resolution of an experiment
The higher the resolution, the more interactions you can determine
|
|
This experiment will test 4 factors at each of 2 levels, in a half-fraction factorial (2 4 would be 16 runs, this experiment is the equivalent of 2 3 = 8 runs).
The resolution of IV means:
Main effects are confounded with 3-way interactions (1 + 3 = 4). You have to
2-way interactions are confounded with each other (2 + 2 = 4). This design would not be a good way to estimate 2-way interactions.
|
|
Most statistical software packages will give you results for main effects, interactions, and standard deviations.
Main effects plots for mean
Interpretation of slopes is all relative. Lines with steeper slopes (up or down) have a bigger impact on the output means than lines with little or no slope (flat or almost flat lines).
In this example, the line for shelf placement slopes much more steeply than the others—meaning it has a bigger effect on sales than the other factors. The other lines seem flat or almost flat, so the main effects are less likely to be significant.
Main effects plots for standard deviation
These plots tell you whether variation changes or is the same between factor levels.
Again, you want to compare slopes in comparison to each other. Here, Design has much more variation one level than at the factors (so you can expect it to have much more variation at one level than at the other level).
Pareto chart of the means for main factor effects and higher-order interactions
You're looking for individual factors (labeled with a single letter) and interactions (labeled with multiple
Here, main factor A and interaction AB have significant effects, meaning placement, and interaction of placement and
Pareto chart on the standard deviation of factors and interactions
Same principle as the Pareto chart on means
Here, only Factor C (Design) shows a significant change in variation between levels
Minitab session window
Shelf Placement and the Shelf Placement* Color interactions are the only significant factors at a 90% confidence internal (if alpha were 0.05 instead of 0.10, only placement would be significant)
|
Fractional Factorial Fit: Sales versus Shelf Placem, Color, Design, Text |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Term |
Effect |
Coef |
SE Coef |
T |
P |
|
Constant |
128.50 |
0.2500 |
514.00 |
0.001 |
|
|
Shelf PI |
− 38.50 |
− 19.25 |
0.2500 |
− 77.00 |
0.008 |
|
Color |
2.00 |
1.00 |
0.2500 |
4.00 |
0.156 |
|
Design |
0.50 |
0.25 |
0.2500 |
1.00 |
0.500 |
|
Text |
− 0.00 |
− 0.00 |
0.2500 |
− 0.00 |
1.000 |
|
Shelf PI*Color |
3.50 |
1.75 |
0.2500 |
7.00 |
0.090 |
|
Shelf PI*Design |
− 3.00 |
− 1.50 |
0.2500 |
− 6.00 |
0.105 |
|
Analysis of Variance for Sales (coded units) |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Source |
DF |
Seq SS |
Adj SS |
Adj MS |
F |
P |
|
Main Effects |
4 |
2973.00 |
2973.00 |
743.250 |
1E+03 |
0.019 |
|
2-Way Interactions |
2 |
42.50 |
42.50 |
21.250 |
42.50 |
0.108 |
|
Residual Error |
1 |
0.50 |
0.50 |
0.500 |
||
|
Total |
7 |
3016.00 |
||||
Design is the only factor that has a significant effect on variation at the 90% confidence level
|
Fractional Factorial Fit: Std Dev versus Shelf Placement, Color, … |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Term |
Effect |
Coef |
SE Coef |
T |
P |
|
Constant |
9.0000 |
0.2500 |
36.00 |
0.018 |
|
|
Shelf PI |
− 1.5000 |
− 0.7500 |
0.2500 |
− 3.00 |
0.205 |
|
Color |
− 0.0000 |
− 0.0000 |
0.2500 |
− 0.00 |
1.000 |
|
Design |
6.5000 |
3.2500 |
0.2500 |
13.00 |
0.049 |
|
Text |
1.0000 |
0.5000 |
0.2500 |
2.00 |
0.295 |
|
Shelf PI*Color |
0.5000 |
0.2500 |
0.2500 |
1.00 |
0.500 |
|
Shelf PI*Design |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.2500 |
0.00 |
1.000 |
|
Analysis of Variance for Std (coded units) |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Source |
DF |
Seq SS |
Adj SS |
Adj MS |
F |
P |
|
Main Effects |
4 |
91.0000 |
91.0000 |
22.7500 |
45.50 |
0.111 |
|
2-Way Interactions |
2 |
0.5000 |
0.5000 |
0.2500 |
0.50 |
0.707 |
|
Residual Error |
1 |
0.5000 |
0.5000 |
0.5000 |
||
|
Total |
7 |
92.0000 |
||||