Gage R&R

Here is Mike’s latest ANOVA Gage R&R Spreadsheet with Graphs. Calculations have been verified with AIAG
examples.

Basic Definitions and Importance of Gage R&R

Gage R&R (GageRepeatability andReproducibility) is the amount of measurement variation introduced by a
measurement system, which consists of the measuring instrument itself and the individuals using the
instrument. A Gage R&R study is a critical step in manufacturing Six Sigma projects, and it quantifies three
things1:
1. Repeatability – variation from the measurement instrument
2. Reproducibility – variation from the individuals using the instrument
3. Overall Gage R&R, which is the combined effect of (1) and (2)
The overall Gage R&R is normally expressed as a percentage of the tolerance for the CTQbeing studied, and a
value of 20% Gage R&R or less is considered acceptable in most cases. Example: for a 4.20mm to 4.22mm
specification (0.02 total tolerance) on a shaft diameter, an acceptable Gage R&R value would be 20 percent of
0.02mm (0.004mm) or less.

The Difference Between Gage R&R and

Accuracy (Bias)
A Gage R&R study quantifies the inherent variation in the measurement system, but measurement system
accuracy (more specifically referred to as bias) must be verified through a calibration process. For example,
when reading an outdoor thermometer, we might find a total Gage R&R of five degrees, meaning that we will
observe up to five degrees of temperature variation, independent of the actual temperature at a given time.
However, the thermometer itself might also be calibrated ten degrees to the low side, meaning that, on
average, the thermometer will read ten degrees below the actual temperature. The effects of poor accuracy
and a high Gage R&R can render a measurement system useless if not addressed.
Measurement system variation is often a major contributor to the observed process variation, and in
some cases it is found to be the number-one contributor. Remember, Six Sigma is all about reducing
variation.
Think about the possible outcomes if a high-variation measurement system is not evaluated and corrected
during the Measure phase of a DMAIC project – there is a good chance that the team will be mystified by the
variation they encounter in the Analyze phase, as they search for variation causes outside the measurement
system.
Measurement system variation is inherently built into the values we observe from a measuring instrument, and
a high-variation measurement system can completely distort a process capability study (not to mention the
effects of false accepts and false rejects from a quality perspective). The following graph shows how an
otherwise capable process (Cpk = 2.0: this is a Six Sigma process) is portrayed as marginal or poor as the
Gage R&R percentage increases:

Conducting a Gage R&R Study

GR&R studies can be conducted on both variable (gaging that produces data) andattribute (gaging that
produces a “go/no-go” result) gaging. Prior to conducting a Gage R&R, the following steps/precautions should
be taken –
Calibrate the gage – ensure that the gage is calibrated through its operating range – keep in mind that Gage
R&R and gage accuracy are two different things.
Check the gage resolution – the gage should have sufficient resolution to distinguish between several values
within the tolerance range of the feature being measured. As a general rule, the gage should be able to
distinguish at least ten readings within the tolerance range. See distinct categories for more information.
Collect samples to be measured – it’s important to collect samples (parts, materials, or whatever is being
measured) that represent the majority of the variation present in the process. Sometimes it is helpful to have
inspectors set aside a group of parts that represent the full spectrum of measurements. Ten samples are
considered a good number for a Gage R&R study in a manufacturing environment.
Plan for within-product variation if necessary – sometimes the same characteristic can be measured in
multiple locations on the same sample, and in these cases it’s a good idea to mark the item being measured to
indicate where the measurement should take place. For example, if the diameter of a washer is being
measured, the roundness of each washer in the study could affect the Gage R&R results, so mark the location
on each washer where the diameter measurement should be taken. The same guideline applies to things like
color measurements, where within-part color variation can overshadow the measurement system’s
performance. Once again, clearly note the location on the sample where the color should be measured.
Identify operators – a Gage R&R study can be done with two operators, but a minimum of three operators is
recommended for a meaningful study. Also make sure that at least one of the operators is an individual who
will interpret the gage during normal production operations.
Document the measurement method and train the operators to follow it – this can save the team from
having to repeat the study.
Plan for randomization – it’s important to randomize the sequence of measurements (who measures which
part, and when), to block the effects of uncontrollable factors that might otherwise be attributed to specific
operators. Each operator should measure each part three times, so with ten parts a total of 90 measurements
will be taken.

Generating the Gage R&R Results

Gage R&R results can be generated using a number of statistical software packages, or with a spreadsheet
(see above or go to Excel files).
Reducing Measurement System Variation
If the Gage R&R is greater than 20% (see guidelines above), then the measurement device and/or the
measurement method will need to be addressed. Seasoned Six Sigma professionals use graphical plots all the
time, and we have found a few plots to be very helpful when studying Gage R&R results:
A word of advice to quality leaders: always ask to see a GR&R study before accepting the results of a process
capability study. For an in-depth review of Gage R & R and overall measurement systems analysis (MSA),
purchase a copy of the Automotive Industry Action Group’s MSA guide – this is an outstanding publication.
1 See AIAG, Measurement System Analysis, Third Edition, Page 7
 Why you should ignore the AIAG MSA Guidelines
for % Gage R&R, and what to do instead
CONTENTS
 Review of the AIAG Measurement System Guidelines
 Modeling the Process and Measurement System
 Running Some Scenarios Through The Model
 What to do instead
 Finally
Review of the AIAG Measurement System Guidelines
Let’s start with a review of the Guidelines:
From AIAG Measurement Systems Analysis Reference Manual - 3rd Edition
Chapter II Section D Analysis of the Results
"For measurement systems whose purpose is to analyze a process, a general rule of thumb for
measurement system acceptability is as follows:
Under 10 percent error – generally considered to be an acceptable measurement system
10 percent to 30 percent error – may be acceptable based upon importance of application, cost of
measurement device, cost of repair, etc.
Over 30 percent – considered to be not acceptable – every effort should be made to improve the
measurement system
Further, the number of distinct categories (ndc) the process can be divided into by the measurement system
ought to be greater than or equal to 5."
So to summarize the rule of thumb:

1. Less than 10% - Acceptable

2. 10% to 30% - May be acceptable
3. Greater than 30% - Unacceptable
Modeling the Process and Measurement System
The 4 Parts of the Model

1. My Business Objectives
2. The process that produces product
3. The specifications I need my product to meet
4. The measuring system
Business Objectives
I want to use the most cost-effective way of measuring output from my process. Before I even think about
optimizing processes, my initial concern is that if I produce out-of-spec product, my measuring system needs to
tell me.

Measurement Error
The process produces each product at a certain size, but I can never exactly know the true size of any
particular product. That’s because, I have to use a measuring device to measure the product, and this device
will always introduce some amount of measurement error. The measurement error may be so small as to be
irrelevant, or it may be large enough to completely mislead me about the state of the product. The danger in a
poor measurement system is that it may tell me that a product is within spec., when in fact the product is out of
spec, or vice versa.

Process and Specifications

I also have to take into account that the process will not produce every single product at exactly the same size
- it will vary from one product to the next. I will try to make sure that most products are produced so that their
size equals the center point of the specifications, but there’s no getting away from the fact that I need to deal
with a spread of sizes from the process. Let’s look at a couple of extreme cases for the process spread.
Stable, Low Variation Process - Assume that we have a stable process where the spread, or variation,
of the products is very small compared to the specification limits. In this case, I have a process that is very
cheap to run. I can inspect the product less often because the process can drift way from center, or spread
more, before I start producing out-of spec product
High Variation Process - On the other hand, if the output from the process has an output spread wider
than the specification limits then this is a very expensive process to run. I have to inspect every product, and if
the process moves off center, or the spread becomes even slightly wider, I am producing even more out-of-
spec product. This is an expensive process to run, because I need to give it constant attention, not to mention
that I am spending more money on rework or scrapping product, or both.
So, process variation is an important part of my model and I’ll be using the normal distribution to model all the
variation in this model

Measuring System
Things get even more complicated when we introduce the measuring system, because the measuring system
itself has variation. If I use it to measure the same product 3 times and get 3 different measurements, or if
myself and my colleague measure the same product and get measurements that disagree, then I need to take
this variation into account
Just like process variation, we’ll use the normal distribution to model the measurement variation.

The Mathematical Model

It’s fairly obvious that:

Because I’m using the normal distribution to model the variations, the following holds up:

The observed process is what we see after we have measured the true value process output

Precision To Tolerance Ratio (PTR)

Observed Process Capability

6 is used as the multiplier in both these formulas, because for the normal distribution it covers 99.73% of the
process. To learn more about the properties of the normal distribution, see the Normal Distribution wikipedia
page

True Value Process Capability

We cannot measure the standard deviation of the true value process, but we can do a process capability study
to determine the observed process capability, and we can conduct a gage r&r study to estimate the standard
deviation of the measurement system variation.

If we manipulate the formula we can set up an expression to calculate the true value process capability in
terms of known factors - i.e. the observed process capability and the Precision To Tolerance Ratio - as below.

This is the same model that's derived in Appendix B of the AIAG MSA Manual 3rd Edition

Running Some Scenarios Through The Model

NOTE: You can try all these scenarios yourself by going to my True Process Capability Calculator Page
We can take a “good” process, an "average" process, and a "poor" process and model the impact of using
various gages. Selected charts are shown, for process / gage combinations

Observed Measurement Business Implications (in

System terms of the risk of producing
Process
Precision To out-of-spec. product)
Tolerance
Capability Ratio (%)

"Good" Process

2.0 10% No action needed - good process,

room for drift. The chart below
shows how close the lines are

2.0 30% No action needed - still a good

process
2.0 49% No action needed - The true value
process capability is an incredible
10.31 - I can tolerate loads of
process drift, before the true value
process gets anywhere near the
spec limit. Furthermore, if the
process does drift, it’s highly unlikely
that the true value of the part will be
out of spec.
See the chart below. The blue line is
the true value process capability,
and the red line is the observed
process capabilit

"OK" Process

1.33 10% Not as good as the process above,

but OK - Probably no action needed

1.33 30% No action needed

1.33 50% No action needed. The chart below

shows the observed process as a
red line, and the true value process
as a blue line

1.33 70% If no action is needed with a 10%

gage, then this is even more true for
a 70% gage, because the true
process is so good that I am even
less likely to produce out-of-spec
product.

“Poor” Process
1.0 10% This process is going to require a lot
of attention - Any drift and I get out-
of-spec product. Spend money on
the process. The gage has hardly
any impact on process capability.
The curves overlap each other on
the chart below, so only the blue line
is visible
 1.0 30% Same as above. Even though my
gage is above the AIAG
recommended % it doesn’t really
matter. My priority for spending
money has to be reducing the true
value process spread. Even if I
improve the gage to 10%, I still have
a process problem
1.0 50% Maybe here it’s worth improving the
gage, rather than the process, but
you would have to answer - What’s
the cheapest way to improve this
system? - it may be the gage, it may
be the process.Chart below.

1.0 70% Improve the gage - The true value of

the process looks OK - The true
value process capability index is 1.4
(blue line), and the measurement
system variation is spreading the
variation, so the observed process
capability is reduced to 1.0 (red
line). If you can improve the gage it
will save you a lot of heartache with
false measurements

What To Do Instead
1. The first thing you need to do is to get a picture of your process by using my True Process Capability
Calculator.
2. Next, decide if you need to do anything at all. We all want to improve our processes, but we don’t have
unlimited money, so we have to prioritize where the money gets spent. Just because a gage has a 30%
Precision To Tolerance Ratio, doesn’t mean it’s no good for the process. It depends on the process. In fact,
spending your money should really depend on what return you’ll get, not a % Precision To Tolerance Ratio.
3. If you do need to do something, you’ll need to weigh up the most cost-effective option. This may be improving
the process, it may be improving the gaging, or both. But, again I’ll emphasize that a lot of things will go into
this decision, and it’s not as simple as throwing out the gaging system based on some arbitrary percentage
value.
High Gage R&R Percentages and Handling Customers and Auditors

For most people, if you can provide a sensible rationale for doing what you did, they are satisfied. With that in
mind, print off the True Process Capability Calculator, write your reasoning onto the page, and shove it into
 your Gage R&R file - Most people are pleasantly surprised at how big gage variation can be before it starts to
have a major impact on classifying product. This is especially true if you are running reasonably stable
processes.

Enter your name and email below to get early access to my book

"A Practical Guide To Valid Gage R&R Studies"

Finally...
I'm writing a book about Gage R&R, and Measurement System Analysis. The book has 4 objectives:
 Give a solid understanding of Gage R&R Theory, with a minimum of mathematics
 Give a really practical Guide for planning, designing, and analyzing Gage R&R Studies - checklists,
flowcharts, statistical tools - the whole lot
 Demolish the myths about interpreting Gage R&R Study Results
 Position the reader as his company's expert in Gage R&R
This web page is an early draft of one of the chapters from the book, and I generally add new pages,
calculators, simulators, or videos every couple of weeks, so you may want to bookmark this site, and visit
again.
Thanks for reading, and please sign up on the right, or if you are looking for more articles go to Learn Gage
R&R

On the Other Hand ....... If you want something right now

Free Giveaway - "What is Measurement System Analysis"
If you would like to learn about where Gage R&R fits into Measurement System Analysis, you might want to
take a look at the Free Downloads Page
I'm giving away a free PowerPoint Package "What is Measurement System Analysis"
If you want to bring anyone up to speed on the importance of MSA and Gage R&R, this package will really help
you. It includes:
 Over 20 High Quality Charts
 Zooming Presentation Tool
 The 11 minute Movie - "What is Measurement System Analysis" embedded into the PowerPoint
Head over to the Free Downloads Page and sign up
 Measurement System Analysis (MSA)
Purpose
If measurements are used to guide decisions, then it follows logically that the more error there is in the
measurements, the more error there will be in the decisions based on those measurements. The purpose of
Measurement System Analysis is to qualify a measurement system for use by quantifying its
accuracy, precision, and stability.
An example from industry serves to illustrate the importance of measurement system quality:
A manufacturer of building products was struggling to improve process yields, which had a significant impact
on product cost. Experience indicated that there were several process and environmental characteristics that
influenced the process yield. Data were collected on each of the variables believed to be significant, followed
by regression and correlation analysis to quantify the relationships in statistical terms.
The results showed no clear correlation between anything - in spite of years of anecdotal evidence to the
contrary! In fact, the underlying strong correlation between variables was confounded by excessive error in the
measurement system. When the measurement systems were analyzed, many were found to exhibit error
variation 2-3 times wider than the actual process spread. Measurements that were being used to control
processes were often leading to adjustments that actually increased variation! People were doing their best,
making things worse.
As you can see from this example, Measurement System Analysis is a critical first step that should precede any
data-based decision making, including Statistical Process Control, Correlation and Regression Analysis, and
Design of Experiments. The following discussion provides a broad overview of Measurement System Analysis,
along with a spreadsheet analytical tool that can be downloaded (Gage R&R Worksheet) .
Characterization
A measurement system can be characterized, or described, in five ways:
Location (Average Measurement Value vs. Actual Value):
 Stability refers to the capacity of a measurement system to produce the same values over time when
measuring the same sample. As with statistical process control charts, stability means the absence of
"Special Cause Variation", leaving only "Common Cause Variation" (random variation).
 Bias, also referred to as Accuracy, is a measure of the distance between the average value of the
measurements and the "True" or "Actual" value of the sample or part. See the illustration below for further
explanation.
 Linearity is a measure of the consistency of Bias over the range of the measurement device. For example,
if a bathroom scale is under by 1.0 pound when measuring a 150 pound person, but is off by 5.0 pounds
when measuring a 200 pound person, the scale Bias is non-linear in the sense that the degree of Bias
changes over the range of use.
Variation (Spread of Measurement Values - Precision):
 Repeatability assesses whether the same appraiser can measure the same part/sample multiple times with
the same measurement device and get the same value.
 Reproducibility assesses whether different appraisers can measure the same part/sample with the same
measurement device and get the same value.
The diagram below illustrates the difference between the terms "Accuracy" and "Precision":
Efforts to improve measurement system quality are aimed at improving both accuracy and precision.

Figure 1:

Requirements
Following are general requirements of all capable measurement systems:
 Statistical stability over time.
 Variability small compared to the process variability.
 Variability small compared to the specification limits (tolerance).
 The resolution, or discrimination of the measurement device must be small relative to the smaller of either
the specification tolerance or the process spread (variation). As a rule of thumb, the measurement system
should have resolution of at least 1/10th the smaller of either the specification tolerance or the process
spread. If the resolution is not fine enough, process variability will not be recognized by the measurement
system, thus blunting its effectiveness.
Measurement Systems Analysis Fundamentals
1. Determine the number of appraisers, number of sample parts, and the number of repeat readings. Larger
numbers of parts and repeat readings give results with a higher confidence level, but the numbers should be
balanced against the time, cost, and disruption involved.
2. Use appraisers who normally perform the measurement and who are familiar with the equipment and
procedures.
3. Make sure there is a set, documented measurement procedure that is followed by all appraisers.
4. Select the sample parts to represent the entire process spread. This is a critical point. If the process
spread is not fully represented, the degree of measurement error may be overstated.
5. If applicable, mark the exact measurement location on each part to minimize the impact of within-part
variation (e.g. out-of-round).
6. Ensure that the measurement device has adequate discrimination/resolution, as discussed in
the Requirements section.
7. Parts should be numbered, and the measurements should be taken in random order so that the appraisers
do not know the number assigned to each part or any previous measurement value for that part. A third
party should record the measurements, the appraiser, the trial number, and the number for each part on a
table.
Stability Assessment
1. Select a part from the middle of the process spread and determine its reference value relative to a traceable
standard. If a traceable standard is not available, measure the part ten times in a controlled environment
and average the values to determine the Reference Value. This part/sample will be designated as
the Master Sample .
2. Over at least twenty periods (days/weeks), measure the master sample 3 to 5 times. Keep the number of
repeats fixed. Take readings throughout the period to capture the natural environmental variation.
3. Plot the data on an x̄ & R chart - consult the Statistical Process Control section of the Toolbox and calculate
control limits.
4. Evaluate the control chart for statistical control. Again, consult the Statistical Process Control section of the
Toolbox for assistance with this assessment.
Bias Assessment
1. Referring to the & R chart, subtract the Reference Value from to yield the Bias:

Bias = x̄ - Reference Value

Process Variation = 6 Standard Deviations (Sigma)

2. Calculate the Bias percentage:

Bias Percentage = Bias / Process Variation

3. Analyze the results. If there is a relatively high value, examine the following potential root causes:
 Appraisers not following the measurement procedure
 An error in measuring the Reference Value
 Instability in the measurement. If the SPC chart shows a trend, the measurement device could be wearing
or calibration could be drifting.
Repeatability and Reproducibility Assessment (Gage R&R):
 This discussion refers to the data collection sheet sample that follows as Figure 2. You can download the data
collection and analysis spreadsheet at the end of this section. Follow the steps below to conduct a Gage R&R
study:
1. Determine the number of appraisers, trials, and parts, which may vary from study to study. A rule of thumb
is 2-3 appraisers, 2-3 trials, and 5-10 parts - with 10 being greatly preferred. The downloadable
MoreSteam.com spreadsheet will accommodate any combination within this range. In this example we will
use 2 appraisers, 3 trials, and 10 parts.
2. Identify three appraisers who are all trained in the proper measurement procedure and identify them as A, B
& C.
3. Fill in the yellow blanks at the top of the form with the required background information (Gage Type, Date,
etc.). Also fill in the blank at the bottom of the form asking for the total specification tolerance.
4. Collect ten parts that represents the range of process variation. If the parts don't vary as much as the
process, the gage error will be overstated.
5. Identify each part with a number 1-10 in such a way that the appraisers can not see the numbers as they
take the measurements.
6. Please refer to the data collection chart below. You will see that appraiser A's three trials are recorded in
rows A-1, A-2, and A-3. Likewise, Appraiser B has rows B-1, B-2, and B-3, and Appraiser C has rows C-1, C-
2, and C-3.
7. Start with Appraiser A and measure each of the ten parts in random order. A third party should record the
results of the first trial in row A-1. Proceed to Appraisers B & C following the same process. Then repeat the
process for trials two and three.
The analysis of measurement error is output in the green-shaded boxes on page 2 of the spreadsheet, which is
shown below:
 Variation from the measurement device, or Repeatability, equals 25.98% of the total part variation, and
28% of the specification tolerance.
 Variation from the appraisers, or Reproducibility, is equal to 6.02% of the total part variation, and 7% of the
specification tolerance.
 Total variation from Repeatability and Reproducibility combined (they are not directly additive) is 26.67% of
the total variation, and 29% of the specification tolerance.
The rule of thumb for acceptance of a measurement system is a total Gage R&R of 30% or less of the lessor of
Total Variation or the Specification Tolerance. In this case, the measurement system is capable, and can be
used as a basis of decision making.
If the measurement system has error in excess of 30%, the first step to improve results is to analyze the
breakdown of the error source. If the largest contributor to error is Repeatability, then the equipment must be
improved. Likewise, if Reproducibility is the largest source of error, appraiser training and adherence to
procedures can yield improvement.
You can download a functional version of the Gage R&R spreadsheet.
MoreSteam Hint: If the measurement system is not capable (error above 30%), error can be normalized by taking
multiple measurements and averaging the results. This can be time consuming and expensive, but it can be used to provide
reliable measurement data while the measurement system process is being improved.
Further Analysis
There are other methods that can be used to evaluate measurement systems. Most statistical software
packages, including Minitab, support ANOVA methods. You can download free trial versions of several software
packages through the Toolbox.
For additional information on Measurement System Analysis, consult the following:
 An excellent statistics handbook is available free online from a partnership of SEMATECH and NIST (National
Institute of Standards and Technology - U.S. Commerce Department)
at http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/mpc/section4/mpc4.htm
 You can purchase an excellent guide to Measurement System Analysis (MSA) for a nominal charge from
the Automotive Industry Action Group under the publications/quality section of their Web site, or by calling
(248) 358-3570. The AIAG also offers publications on other topics:
 QS-9000
 Advanced Product Quality Planning (APQP)
 Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA)
 Statistical Process Control (SPC)
Juran's Quality Handbook (Juran's Quality Handbook, 5th Ed) by Joseph M. Juran (Editor), A.
Blanton Godfrey (Editor), A. Blanford Godfrey ISBN: 007034003X
Summary
Measurement Systems Analysis is a key step to any process improvement effort. By understanding existing
measurement systems a team can better understand the data provided by those systems and make better
business decisions.

Measurement System Analysis (MSA)

Description:

Measurement system analysis (MSA) uses scientific tools to determine the amount of total variation is
from the measurement system. An objective method to assess the validity of a measurement system
and minimize these factors that could excessively contribute to the variation in the data.

Objective:

Confirm that the measurement used to collect the data is valid. Goal is to quantify the
equipment/process variation and appraiser variation and the total measurement system variation.

The following areas components of measurement error needs to be studied and quantified before
establishing capability of a process making decisions from the data.

 ACCURACY / BIAS

 RESOLUTION / DISCRIMINATION

 LINEARITY

 STABILITY

 REPEATABILITY & REPRODUCIBILITY (Gage R&R)

This is often a very time consuming component of the project and can slow the team’s quick progression
through the process.

Continue to focus on low hanging fruit that may be momentum sustainers and work vigorously through the
MSA process. Most of this can be done by the GB/BB outside of the team meetings and results shared with
them when complete.

Accuracy / Bias

The difference from the true value and the value from the measurement system. Accuracy represents the
closeness to a defined target. Precision is different than accuracy and is covered in Gage R&R under
Repeatability.

For best accuracy of the data:

1) Accept all data as it is collected. Assigning special cause and scrutinizing the data can come later.

2) Record the data at the time it occurs.

3) Avoid rounding off the data, record it as it is.

4) On the data collection plan, record as many details around the data such as the exact source, machine,
operator, conditions, collector’s name, material, gage, and time. Record legibly and carefully.

The data should be screened for misplaced decimal points, duplicate data entries by mistake or improper
recording procedure, missing date points if frequency is important, and other obvious non-representative
data.

5) Verify the gage is accurate. If using a weigh scale, verify it with a known and calibrated weight. Use
gage blocks for calipers or micrometers. Use hardness blocks to verify hardness testers.

Resolution / Discrimination

The goal is to have at least 5 distinct values or categories of readings.

Adhere to the 10-bucket rule. If your measurement system requires measurements to the hundredths (x.xx),
then divide that by 10. Collect and record the data to the nearest thousandths (x.xxx). The measurement
system shall be sensitive to change and capable of detecting change.

The lack of resolution will not allow a measurement system detect change. If you are measuring the
downtime and using measurement to the nearest hour and most downtime is less than an hour then most of
the reading will either be a 0 (for 0 hours) or a 1 (for 1 hour).

However, using a stop watch and recording data to the nearest minute will provide 60x more resolution and
allow better distribution of data points, more variety of data, with fewer repeat measurements. You could
have 60 different readings. Actually recording the nearest 6 minutes would satisfy the 10-bucket rule, but it
is a guide to help ensure resolution in the measurement system.

This part of the MSA is usually the easiest to fix such as finding a micrometer, caliper, hardness tester that
can capably read to the next nearest decimal.

TROUBLESHOOTING:
Try acquiring a larger samples size, with the idea that some of these may create new observations or
measurements.

Measure to as much resolution as possible and practical.

Linearity

When gathering data only collect with the acceptable limits where there is proven linearity. This is a test to
examine the performance of the measurement system throughout the range of measurements. For example,
does the bathroom scale perform the same when weighing a pet of 10 lbs to a man of 250 lbs?

Stability

Stability of a measurement system is analyzed using control charts. Ensuring the measurements taken by
appraiser(s) for the process is stable and consistent over time.

SPC Charts use a variety of tests to determine stability. Many software programs will have these as options
to include when analyzing data and will even indicate the point(s) and test that each failed.

Some of the corrective measures once again include Standard Operating Procedures. Each appraiser should
measure the same way every time over a long period of time and each appraiser should measure the same
way as all the others. Recall that special causes can also occur with the process control limits and these
must be given corrective action before proceeding to validate the measurement system.

Gage R&R
Variable Gage R&R
In a variable Gage R&R there are generally two to three operators appraisers with 5-10 process outputs
measured by each appraiser. Each process output is measured 2-3 times by each operator.Depending on the
cost and time involved you can add more appraisers and measurements and replications.

When performing the replicated appraisals it is critical that the measurement are randomized so that no
patterns or predictability can be entered in by the appraiser. This bias will mislead the team and create a
useless Gage R&R.

For example, an appraiser may remember the 7th part that was measured was borderline and made a
decision to give it one measurement. He/she may have spend a lot of time of that part and if the 2nd round
of measurements are not randomized, that person will remember the measurement (appraisal) they gave it
on the first round.

So, move the parts around each repeat set of measurements. However, the parts must be indentified so the
person entering the data into the statistical software enters the reading under the correct part.

Four Criteria in Variable Gage R&R

The following four areas will be asssessed. A statisical software program will produce these values once
the data is properly entered. The GB/BB will be responsible for finding these values and determining
whether each passes and if the entire measurement system is adequate to determine process capability.
Process capability can not be determined with reliablity if the measurements (the data) is suspect.

1) % Study Variation is based on standard deviation

2) % Tolerance is based on USL and LSL
3) % Contribution is based on variance
4) The number of distinct categories based on process variation

Ideally, all four categories should be in the GREEN zone. Examining the visual aids below shows
commonly used judgement criteria for each category.

2) % Tolerance

Shown below is an example of a % TOLERANCE calculation. In this case we are using 3 appraisers
measuring 6 different parts.

This study shows the measurement error as a percent of tolerance in short period of time. It oncludes both
repeatability and reproducibility, can not be separated.

5.15 Study Variation = 99% (constant)

The TOP TABLE at the top is a part of the d2 distribution. This value is a constant that is found by looking
at the column with 3 appraisers and going across with the row with 6 parts. In this example the d2 value is
1.73.

THe LOWER TABLE shows that actual measurements that each of the appraisers cam up with using their
variable gage. The range of the three measurements for each part is shown on the right. Then the average
range is shown (=0.69) and this is carried on to the Gage Error formula.
To convert this gage error of 2.05 to a percentage of tolerance multiply by 100 and divide by the process
tolerance for the analysis.

The process tolerance is the difference in the specification limits. For example, if the USL is 27 and the
LSL is 2, then the tolerance is 25.

With the tolerance being 25, then:

Referring back to the RED/YELLOW/GREEN criteria display for % TOLERANCE, it shown that 8.2% is
a passing value and this part of the Variable Gage R&R is successful.
REPRODUCIBILITY:

Ability of one appraiser to get the same result and another appraiser or the ability of all appraisers to get
the same results AMONG each other.

To optimize reproducibility in ATTRIBUTE Gage R&R:

1) Create visual aids, templates, definitions, or other specific criteria for each to meet a certain rating,
value, or appraisal. Pictures of good, bad, in the middle, and colors, will help each appraiser standardize
their response, improving the reproducibility.

Note: If these corrective actions are needed to pass the Gage R&R, it should be instituted as a formal work
instruction and everyone involved throughout the company or plant should adhere to same instructions.

To optimize reproducibility in VARIABLE Gage R&R:

1) Create a Standard Operating Procedure with visual aids and definitions. When using humanly subjective
"touch" devices such as micrometers and calipers it is important that all appraisers "squeeze" the same
amount. Too little or much pressure at higher levels of resolution can be enough to alter the Gage R&R.

2) Visual aids also help. Even when using an optical comparator to get a higher resolute data point there is
subjectivity where to place the template or the starting and end point(s) on the shadow. Pictures of
acceptable and non-acceptable will help reduce this variation.

REPEATABILITY

This describes the ability for an appraiser to repeat his/her measurements each time when analyzing the
same part, unit, etc. In destructive testing (such as tensile testing) these reading will not be possible and
some statistical software programs have options to select for destructive testing.

The goal is to have an appraiser repeat unit readings at least three times. The person administering the test
should randomize the sequence each time to prevent and patterns and bias (the appraiser may remember or
try to remember what a measurement was and tend to alter real measurements to get the Gage R&R to
pass). It is important for the administrator to record carefully to ensure readings correlate the correct
part/unit each time.

Avoid writing down measurements and then typing them into a statistical program. The fewer times
measurements are recorded and copied the lower the risk for human error to add even more variation and
possibly fail (or pass) the Gage R&R when it shouldn't have.

Precision is the ability to have the same repetitive result (or appraisal in this case). Visually, it means that
all your shots of an arrow are very close to one another. It does not mean that they are near the bulls eye. In
other words, it does not mean that your shots are accurate.

If your shots are accurate and precise, then they are tight circle centered around the target. It is also
possible to be somewhat accurate without being precise. You may have several shots all around the bulls
eys (target) but they may be scattered around it. If you take a look at the group the center (mean) may be
the bulls eye but the shots are not in control or precise. In others words, there is a lot of unpredictability or
variation.
Home » Lean Six Sigma Tips » MSA / Gage R&R

Measurement System Analysis - Gage R&R

Gage R&R compatible with AIAG MSA 4th edition
Measurement System Analysis (MSA) involves Gage R&R (repeatability and reproducibility) studies to evaluate your measurement systems.
When I first got involved with quality, I learned about the "five M's" that constituted most root causes: man, machine, materials, methods, and
measurement.

Because I worked in a predominantly service industry, I couldn't quite grasp how measurement could be a common cause of variation. But, if you
work in manufacturing, you know that gages and how they are used can be a key cause of variation.
Measurement Systems Analysis (MSA)
MSA is actually quite simple, but even seasoned SPC veterans don't seem to understand it. So I thought I'd simplify it for you.
First, Gage R&R studies are usually performed on variable data - height, length, width, diameter, weight, viscosity, etc.
Second, when you manufacture products, you want to monitor the output of your machines to make sure that they are producing products that
meet the customer's specifications. This means that you have to measure samples coming off the line to determine if they are meeting your
customer's requirements.
Third, when you measure, three factors come into play:
1. Part variation (differences between individual pieces manufactured)

2. Appraiser variation (aka, reproducibility) -

Can two different people get the same measurement using the same gage?
3. Equipment variation (aka, repeatability) -
Can the same person get the same measurement using the same gage on the same part in two or more trials?
You want most of the variation to be between the parts, and less than 10% of the variation to be caused by the appraisers and equipment. Makes
sense, doesn't it? If the appraiser can't get the same measurement twice, or two appraisers can't get the same measurement, then your
measurement system becomes a key source of error.

Conducting a Gage R&R Study

To conduct a Gage R&R study, you will need:

1. five to ten parts (# each part) that span the distance between the upper and lower spec limits. The parts should represent the actual
or expected range of process variation. Rule of thumb: if you're measuring to 0.0001, the range of parts should be 10 times the
resolution (e.g., 0.4995 to 0.5005).

2. two appraisers (people who measure the parts)

3. one measurement tool or gage

4. and a minimum of two measurement trials, on each part, by each appraiser

5. a Gage
R&R tool like the Gage R&R excel template in the QI Macros.
QI Macros for Excel Gage R&R Template
Here are samples of the Gage R&R template input sheet and results sections using sample data from the AIAG Measurement Systems Analysis
Third Edition.
Gage R&R System Acceptability
 % R&R<10% - Gage System Okay
(Most variation caused by parts, not people or equipment)
 % R&R<30% - May be acceptable based on importance of application and cost of gage or repair
 % R&R>30% - Gage system needs improvement
(People and equipment cause over 1/3 of variation)
What To Look For
Repeatability: Percent Equipment Variation
(%EV - Can the same person using the same gage measure the same thing consistently)
If you simply look at the measurements, can each appraiser get the same result on the same part consistently, or is there too much variation?

Example (looking at measurements from one appraiser only):

 No Equipment Variation: (Part 1: 0.65, 0.65; Part 2: 0.66, 0.66)
 Equipment Variation: (Part 1: 0.65, 0.67; Part 2: 0.67, 0.65)

If repeatability (Equipment variation) is larger than reproducibility (appraiser variation), reasons include:

1. Gage needs maintenance (gages can get corroded)

2. Gage needs to be redesigned to be used more accurately
3. Clamping of the part or gage, or where it's measured needs to be improved (imagine measuring a baseball bat at various places
along the tapered contour; you'll get different results.)
4. Excessive within-part variation (Imagine a steel rod that's bigger at one end than the other. If you measure different ends each time,
you'll get widely varying results.)

Reproducibility: Percent Appraiser Variation

(% AV - can two appraisers measure the same thing and get the same answer?)
Example (looking at measurements of the same part by two appraisers):
 No Appraiser Variation: (Appraiser 1, Part 1: 0.65, 0.65; Appraiser 2, Part 1: 0.65, 0.65)

 Appraiser Variation: (Appraiser 1, Part 1: 0.65, 0.65; Appraiser 2, Part 1: 0.66, 0.66)
If you look at the line graph of appraiser performance, you'll be able to tell if one person over reads or under reads the measurement.

If reproducibility (appraiser variation) is larger than repeatability (equipment variation), reasons include:

1. Operators need to be better trained in a consistent method for using and reading the gage
2. Calibrations on gage are unclear
3. Fixture required to help the operator use gage more consistently
Mistakes People Make
Many people call us because they don't like the answer they get using the Gage R&R template. Most of the time, it's because they didn't follow
the instructions for conducting the study. Here are some of the common mistakes I've seen:
1. Forgetting that the Gage R&R study is evaluating their measurement system and NOT their products. Gage R&R does not care
about how good your products are. It only cares about how good you measure your products.

2. Using only one part. If you only use one part, THERE CAN'T BE ANY PART VARIATION, so people and equipment are the ONLY
source of variation.

3. Using the one part measurement for all 10 parts (again, there won't be any part variation, so it all falls on the people and equipment).

4. Using too many trials (if you use five trials, you have more opportunity for equipment variation).

5. Using too many appraisers (if you use all three, you have more opportunity for appraiser variation).

6. Using fake data. Try using the AIAG SPC data the QI Macros loads on your computer at c:\qimacros\testdata.

7. Using a gage that measures in too much detail. If your part is 74mm +/- 0.05, then you don’t need a gage that measures to a
thousandth of an inch (0.001) you only need one that measures to the hundredth of an inch (0.01).

Challenges You Will Face

One customer faced an unusual challenge: they were producing parts so precisely that there was little or no part variation even when measured
down to 1/10,000th of an inch. Their existing gages ceased to detect any variation from part to part.
As your process improves and your product approaches the ideal target measurement, you'll have less part variation and more chance for
your equipment or people to become the major source of variation. As your product and your process improve, your measurement system will
need to improve as well.
Conclusion
Your goal is to minimize the amount of variation and error introduced by measurement, so that you can focus on part variation. This, of course,
leads you back into the other root causes of variation: process, machines, and materials.

If you manufacture anything, measurement system analysis can help you improve the quality of your products, get more business from big
customers, and baffle your competition. Enjoy.

Gage R&R Video Series

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gj0z4inhFv8&list=PL80107E3FBD4C8C62#t=0s
R&R Analysis Using ANOVA
Analysis of Variance, or ANOVA for short, is an experimental design technique that looks at a
number of variables at the same time.

 It is used to help determine which of the variables under study have a statistically significant
impact on the process output.
 With measurement systems, we can explore how the test equipment and appraiser variables
affect the measurement system output.

ANOVAs allow us to study four measurement system components:

 Variation between parts or samples.

 Reproducibility between operators or appraisers.
 Repeatability of the measurement equipment.
 Interaction between the samples and the appraisers.

The use of ANOVA does have some advantages over standard GR&R studies:

 ANOVAs provide information on interactions between samples and appraisers.

 With an ANOVA, we can vary the number of samples, appraisers, trials, and even the number
of measurement devices to get a more accurate picture of the variation in the measurement
system.
 ANOVAs allow us to get an accurate estimate of variances.
 ANOVA techniques are the preferred method for analyzing measurements for destructive
testing.

Disadvantage of ANOVA:

 Calculations using ANOVA are more complex than those with other techniques. It is
best to use a computer with DOE software for the calculations.

ANOVA Data Format

 A standard 2-factor ANOVA format is used for analyzing measurement systems.

 Factor A is used to designate the parts or samples. Factor B represents the appraisers.
 The number of levels for each factor is a function of the number of samples and the number of
appraisers.
ANOVA Table

Where:
a = number of levels of a
b = number of levels of b
n = sample size per cell
N = total number of measurements made

Mean Square Values

 Mean square values are calculations of variance. The variance is the standard deviation
squared.
 Mean square values are calculated for the Parts (MSParts), Appraisers (MSAppraisers), the Parts x
Appraisers Interaction (MSPxA), the Error (MSError), and a “Pooled” term MSPool, if appropriate.

PxA Interaction

 We will evaluate the significance of the Parts x Appraisers Interaction using the F-test.
o If this interaction is significant, we will need to investigate the reasons for it.

o If it is not significant, we will assume it is really part of the experimental error and pool
the PxA Interaction value in with the Error Value.

Calculating Repeatability

 If the PxA Interaction is not significant, then the Repeatability statistic, sE, is determined by
pooling the MSError and MSPxA.

 If the interaction is significant, then the Repeatability statistic, sE, is determined from
the MSError
Calculating Reproducibility

 The Reproducibility, sA, is determined by the MSAppraisers with a correction term to account for
confounding from the instrument variation.

 If the PxA Interaction is not significant:

 If the PxA Interaction is significant:

R&R Calculations

 If the PxA Interaction is not significant, the R&R is simply:

 If the PxA Interaction is statistically significant, the R&R calculation is more involved:

where:

r=number of trials

R&R as a % of the Total Tolerance (TT)

 We prefer the measurement system to take up less than 10% of the Total Tolerance.
If it takes up 30% or more of the TT, the measurement system needs work.

R&R as a % of the Total Variation (TV):

 If the %GR&R is greater than 30% of the total variation, then the measurement system
should be improved.
 To calculate the percentage of the total variation taken up by the measurement system, we
need to know both the Part Variation (PV) and the Total Variation, TV.
  If the PxA Interaction is significant:

 If the PxA Interaction is not significant:

 With PV known, TV can be calculated:

Contribution of MSA to Total Variation:

 We can also calculate the contribution that the measurement system actually makes
to the total variation. The formula for the % Contribution is:

R&R Analysis for Destructive Measurements

Destructive vs. non-destructive tests:

 With non-destructive measurements, data for GR&R studies are collected by measuring the
same part or sample several times, using the same measurement device, with measurements
conducted by the same appraiser.
 With destructive measurements, we cannot use the same part or sample again; by definition,
it is consumed or destroyed.
 Since we cannot repeat measurements on the same part or sample, we must use techniques
to separate sample-to-sample variation from actual measurement system variation.

Homogenous samples:

 The best approach, when possible, is to ensure homogenous samples are used. If we
can create nearly homogenous samples, we can assume the samples are essentially
equal and perform the analysis exactly the same way as it was done with non-
destructive measurements.

When you cannot create homogenous samples:

 When homogenous samples cannot be created, the repeatability inherent within the
equipment used to prepare the test specimen and the repeatability (or variation) within the
material are confounded.
 The use of ANOVA techniques allows us to determine if the impact of test specimen
preparation is statistically significant.
R&R Analysis for Attribute Measurements
Attribute Measures

 Attribute measures can range from objective GO/NOGO dimensional gages to fairly subjective
cosmetic sorting measures.
 Techniques for evaluating attribute measurement systems are not as statistically based as are
analysis techniques for evaluating variable measurement systems.

Techniques for Evaluating Attribute Measurements

 “Seeding the Sort”

 The Signal Detection Approach
 The Effectiveness Method
 Notes:
o All techniques should use at least 20 parts or samples with each checked at least two
or three times by at least two appraisers; more is better.
o Some of the parts should be slightly above the upper spec; some should be slightly
below the lower spec.
o Samples analyzed should be randomized before testing to prevent bias. Randomize
before each testing cycle.

“Seeding the Sort”

 “Bad” parts or samples are fed to the measurement system anonymously.

o These bad parts must be identifiable to the team conducting the MSA, but not to the
appraisers.
o If bad parts get through or good parts get rejected, the attribute measurement system
should be improved.

The Signal Detection Approach

 Collect parts or samples representing the range of the process.

o For high capability processes, some parts should be made for the measurement system
analysis that are out of specification and also some close to the tolerance limits.
o Measure these parts to obtain reference values.
 Submit the parts to the measurement system being studied.
o Use two or more appraisers.
o Each part should go through the measurement system at least 3 times.
o Identify parts as good or bad and correctly or incorrectly measured.
 Set the parts up in descending reference values.
o Assign each part to one of three regions:
o Region I is for “Bad” parts identifed correctly as “Bad” by all appraisers.
o Region II is for the “Gray Area” where good parts are sometimes identified as bad and
bad parts sometimes identifed as good.
o Region III is for “Good” parts identifed correctly as “Good” by all appraisers.
 Calculate the spread of Region II, d.

 dUSL = last reference value outside the upper spec with all parts identified as bad – first
reference value inside the upper spec with all parts identified as good.
  dLSL = last reference value inside the lower spec with all parts identified as good – first
reference value outside the lower spec with all parts identified as bad.
 If you are only evaluating a one-sided tolerance, use only dUSL or dLSL to define the spread of
the region that the measurement system has problems in.

Estimate R&R

 AIAG allows the use of 6s to cover 99.7% of the variation, instead of the historical 5.15s,
which covers 99% of the variation. This is at the discretion of the organization.

 Calculate %GR&RTV.

 The total variation could be determined from the parts used in the study (using the sample
standard deviation of the reference values).
 If the process capability is high so that out-of-spec parts had to be generated for the
measurement system study, then do no use the sample standard deviation of all of the parts
in the measurement system study. Instead, use the historical process standard deviation in
the calculation for TV.

 Calculate %GR&RTolerance

 Determine if the measurement system is acceptable or needs to be improved.

o For an attribute measurement system, the acceptability of the measurement system
really depends on the process capability.
o Use the general rules of 10% and 30% but adjust them depending upon whether you
have a high capability process (e.g. Cp = 2.0), where a higher %GR&RTV might be
acceptable or a low capability process (e.g. Cp= 1.0), where a lower %GR&RTV might be
required. Solid engineering judgment and statistical knowledge are required adjust to
these general rules.

The Effectiveness Method

 This method looks at how effective an attribute measurement system is in accepting good
parts and sorting out bad parts.
o It also looks at the probability of a bad part being missed and a good part being
rejected (a false alarm).
 To use this method, some bad parts or samples must be included in the analysis.
o Again, the bad parts or samples must be identifiable to the team conducting the study,
but not to the appraisers being evaluated as part of the measurement system study.
 Each of the parts or samples should be evaluated multiple times by the appraisers.
o Use at least 20 parts (more is preferable).
o Two or more appraisers.
o Two or more checks per part/sample per appraiser.
 Calculate the Effectiveness (E), Probability of a Miss (PMiss), and Probability of a False Alarm
(PFA) for each appraiser and for the overall measurement system.
  Evaluate the attribute measurement system:

Unacceptable Borderline Acceptable

Attribute MS Attribute Attribute
MS MS
E < 0.80 0.80 to 0.90 > 0.90
PMiss > 0.05 0.02 to 0.05 < 0.02
PFA > 0.10 0.05 to 0.10 < 0.05

R&R Analysis Using Graphical Techniques

Graphs of measurement results provide a visual means to analyze measurement systems.
Appropriate graphical techniques include:

 Control charts used to monitor test equipment variation and appraiser variation.
 Scatter plots to look at how consistent different appraisers are to each other as well
as their consistency taking measurements of the same part or sample.
 Whiskers charts to view how consistent each appraiser is in measuring the same part
as well as to check the consistency between appraisers.

Control Charts for MSA

 The x-axis is used differently.

o When used to analyze the repeatability and reproducibility of the measurement system,
the x-axis of the control chart does not represent time.
o The parts or samples tested by each appraiser are tracked on the x-axis.
 As usual, check the Range chart first.
o Any point outside the upper control limit on the range chart or any unusual patterns of
variation (such as all of the range values for one appraiser being below the average
range) are a sign that the measurement system is out-of-control. It should be
investigated and improved.
 With the Averages (X-bar) chart, we “want” to see points outside of the control limits.
o This is obviously different than our goal with a standard averages chart. With standard
averages charts, we want all points to be in-control. We do not want that here.
o An X-bar & R control chart on the measurement system analysis results must have
range values for each part/sample and operator in-control. But unless the majority of
the values on the X-bar chart are outside of the control limits, then the measurement
system is not adequate.
o Unless more than half the averages are outside of the control limits, the measurement
system has considerably more variation than the total part, or process, variation so it
cannot adequately discriminate between good and bad parts.
o The X-bar chart should have roughly the same pattern for all of the appraisers. It the
patterns of the appraisers are very different, there might be some differences in their
techniques that should be investigated.
 Checking for appraiser bias.
 o A separate control chart for the grand averages for all appraisers should also be set up
to show test differences between the appraisers. Only the averages chart is used for
this view of the measurement system.
o If any of the grand averages fall outside the control limits, the we must investigate the
differences between that appraiser and the others.

Scatter Plots for MSA

 With Scatter Plots, each measurement taken in the study is plotted by the part or sample and
by appraiser.
o This is a variation of the standard Scatter Diagram. We can use these plots to look at
how consistent the appraisers are relative to each other and how consistent they were
in measuring the same part/sample.

Whiskers Charts for MSA

 A Whiskers Chart plots the range of the measurements for each part and for each appraiser.
 This provides a view of how consistent each appraiser is in making measurements on the
same part/sample. It can also be used to look at consistency between appraisers.

Improving Measurement Systems

The key to improving the measurement system is to get to the root cause of the problem.

 The results of the GR&R study can help here.

 Use the relative magnitude of both the Repeatability and Reproducibility to determine where to
start the investigation.

If the Repeatability calculation is greater than the Reproducibility:

 Begin by looking at the measurement equipment since repeatability deals with variation due to
the test equipment.
 Here are some possible causes of a high repeatability calculation:
o Measurement device may need to be repaired.
o The device or fixture is not rigid enough for the measurement being made.
o Measurement discrimination cannot meet the level of precision necessary for measuring
the part.
o Excessive within-part variation can also appear as a measurement repeatability
problem (for example a round part that is not concentric).
o Lighting may make it difficult to accurately read the scale of the instrument.

If the Reproducibility calculation is greater than the Repeatability:

 First look at the appraisers and their test methods.

 Here are some possible causes of a high reproducibility rating:
o Is one appraiser’s overall average part measurement significantly different than the
others? Retraining is needed.
o Appraisers may have a hard time reading the gage or device.
o The part or sample could be too difficult to handle or too awkward to align while taking
a measurement.

Impact of the Measurement System on Process Capability

 When a process is not capable, most organizations start to scramble to improve the
process. But it could be that the process is fine and it is the measurement system
variation that is leading us to think we have a poor process. We could be wasting time
 trying to reduce the process variation when the first thing we should be working on is
the measurement system.

 When the percentage of the total variation that the measurement system takes up is
very low (such as 20%), we don't see much of an impact on the process capability.
But once the measurement system starts to take up a great deal of the total
variation, then our view of our capability is seriously distorted by the impact of the
measurement system variation. We could have a capable process, but get a capability
number that indicates it is not.
ASTM E2782 - 11

ASTM E2782 - 11 Standard Guide for Measurement Systems Analysis

(MSA)

Active Standard ASTM E2782 Developed by Subcommittee: E11.20 |Book of Standards Volume: 14.02

Buy Standard (PDF) more info 26 pages $ 59.00

Buy Standard (Print) more info 26 pages $ 59.00

Buy Standard + Redline (PDF) why redline? 52 pages $ 70.80

Historical (view previous versions of standard) ASTM License Agreement Shipping & Handling

More E11.20 Standards Related Products

Copyright/Permissions Standard References

ASTM E2782
Significance and Use

Many types of measurements are made routinely in research organizations,

business and industry, and government and academic agencies. Typically,
data are generated from experimental effort or as observational studies.
From such data, management decisions are made that may have wide-
reaching social, economic, and political impact. Data and decision making go
hand in hand and that is why the quality of any measurement is importantfor
data originate from a measurement process. This guide presents selected
concepts and methods useful for describing and understanding the
measurement process. This guide is not intended to be a comprehensive
survey of this topic.

Any measurement result will be said to originate from a measurement

process or system. The measurement process will consist of a number of
input variables and general conditions that affect the final value of the
measurement. The process variables, hardware and software and their
properties, and the human effort required to obtain a measurement constitute
the measurement process. A measurement process will have several
properties that characterize the effect of the several variables and general
conditions on the measurement results. It is the properties of the
measurement process that are of primary interest in any such study. The
term “measurement systems analysis” or MSA study is used to describe the
several methods used to characterize the measurement process.
NOTE 1—Sample statistics discussed in this guide are as described in
Practice E2586; control chart methodologies are as described in
PracticeE2587.
1. Scope
1.1 This guide presents terminology, concepts, and selected methods and
formulas useful for measurement systems analysis (MSA). Measurement
systems analysis may be broadly described as a body of theory and
methodology that applies to the non-destructive measurement of the physical
properties of manufactured objects.

1.2 Units—The system of units for this guide is not specified. Dimensional
quantities in the guide are presented only as illustrations of calculation
methods and are not binding on products or test methods treated.
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if
any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this
standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine
the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

2. Referenced Documents (purchase separately)

ASTM Standards
E177 Practice for Use of the Terms Precision and Bias in ASTM Test Methods
E456 Terminology Relating to Quality and Statistics
E2586 Practice for Calculating and Using Basic Statistics
E2587 Practice for Use of Control Charts in Statistical Process Control

Keywords

analysis of variance; ANOVA; bias; discrimination ratio; gage consistency;

gage performance; gage R&R; gage stability; linearity; repeatability;
reproducibility; resolution; variance components; Analysis of variance
(ANOVA); Measurement processes/systems; Quality; Quality control (QC)

ICS Code

ICS Number Code 17.020 (Metrology and measurement in general)

DOI: 10.1520/E2782-11

ASTM International is a member of CrossRef.

ASTM E2782 (Quality Control Standards)