Here is something for all the 6S folks.....

6S has traditionally dealt with manufacturing processes and the like, and that is good.....but manufacturing and in fact commerce itself.....relies on measurements.....and therefore on measurement uncertainty (MU).

MU is the mathematical description of errors associated with a measurement. Metrology professionals provide MU as a part of accredited calibration. There are many folks who are teaching and developing MU.

Now, there are instances where - in my opinion (a Hershalism only) - the current models - all of which come from the Metrology world - are not valid for some applications.

Now, 6S folks - if you are up to the challenge - try to develop a SIMPLE method to document MU for a given calibration that is compliant to GUM (Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement), also available in the U.S. as ANSI/NCSL Z540-2-1997. It must be compliant to GUM or will be instantly rejected by those of us in the Metrology world.

Remember, the influences - and the NUMBER of influences - of MU for any given calibration will vary from one calibration to the next, and vary from type of calibration to another.

Anyone up to the challenge?

Hershal

No takers on this one?

Gee. The Cove generally bashes 6S folk. Is it any wonder they take a tip from angels and stay clear of paths they fear to tread?

Most of our 6S visitors (Govind, Bill Pflanz, etc.) are nice, pragmatic people, struggling to keep their own employers afloat. They might not have time to work on such an initiative.

If they did, would it be more to their advantage to publish it in a conventional book or scholarly journal and reap a lot more praise than they might receive here in the Cove?

Like it or not, the reality of WIIFM (What's In It For Me?) prevails in real life as well as corporate life.

Gee. The Cove generally bashes 6S folk. Is it any wonder they take a tip from angels and stay clear of paths they fear to tread?

I'm not sure that's a fair statement from what I've seen; I think there is considerable questioning of SS as a packaged "paradigm" but I don't think that the mortality rate amongst the messengers is particularly high.

Most of our 6S visitors (Govind, Bill Pflanz, etc.) are nice, pragmatic people, struggling to keep their own employers afloat. They might not have time to work on such an initiative.

I think most of the Non-SS visitors are also nice pragmatic people struggling to keep their employers afloat.

If they did, would it be more to their advantage to publish it in a conventional book or scholarly journal and reap a lot more praise than they might receive here in the Cove??

Like it or not, the reality of WIIFM (What's In It For Me?) prevails in real life as well as corporate life.

I agree that it would be unfair to use a lack of response to this particular question, in this particular venue, as evidence against SS in general or any practioners in particular. It is a complex problem to begin with, the sort that doesn't lend itself to internet forum responses, and I don't think SS, for all of its shortcomings, makes any claims to be able to reduce complexity when complexity is an inherent and necessary attribute of a process.

Here is something for all the 6S folks.....

6S has traditionally dealt with manufacturing processes and the like, and that is good.....but manufacturing and in fact commerce itself.....relies on measurements.....and therefore on measurement uncertainty (MU).

Hershal

The SS guy I know starts his projects with MSA studies. So there is an understanding at the system level of measurement variation amongst the SS disciples.

I work in automotive world so my feelings about MU are tempered by Big 3 mandates.

I had a ton of fun on my own personal journey of discovery with MU.

When it was all over, and I could express MU...hey...guess what? No one but me cares.

In auto world what did 17025 do for us? Doubled the price of calibrations. But we do get another page that no one understands.

Just for fun corner an automotive supplier plant manager and tell him all about MU. Wow, I love seeing "the look".

If no one can show the payback of ISO 9000, how would we fare with MU (at least in automotive)? I'm sure it has a place in electronics and optics. Not so sure it matters so much for us who beat on metal.

Yikes, sorry I'm so cranky today.

If no one can show the payback of ISO 9000, how would we fare with MU (at least in automotive)? I'm sure it has a place in electronics and optics. Not so sure it matters so much for us who beat on metal.

I used to have an grizzled old family doctor who took a wonderfully pragmatic view of things. I had a condition that had the potential to require surgery and I asked him if I should see a surgeon about it. He said, "Jimmy my boy, let me tell you something about surgeons. They cut for a living. Never go to a surgeon unless you're sure you need to be cut." The ailment in question was treated with medicine and time, and no surgery was necessary.

I take the same view of statisticians. They do numbers for a living. Sometimes they're allowed to take over, mainly because most of us don't understand the how deep the water is, and because we can't tell the difference between specious answers and reality. MU is a perfect case in point. In all of my 150 years (or so it seems) in manufacturing, I have never seen a problem that could have been helped if I had known more about MU. You are correct in stating that it does have its place down in the bottom of the tool box, but in the words of the immortal Bob Dylan, you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.

We're (hopefully) almost finished with our 17025 re-accreditation by A2LA, it's been going on since October. One of the sticking points has been MU & our auditor, who has been here 3 times, and given us 3 different ways/means to do our MU.

I finally told the A2LA rep last week I will put any number on our scope of accreditation that he wants. I don't care, and neither does any of our customers...

We ended up doubling our old MU values. If this passes, so be it. :rolleyes:

Jerry

Time for a well-timed wrench (adjustable cresent from Eskilstuna?) to be thrown into the works.

The VIM (International Vocabulary of General and Specific Terms in Metrology) is the - for lack of a better term - Metrologists' dictionary. It states (and repeated in NIST handbooks) that traceability of measurement relies on two things: an unbroken chain of comparisons to National or international standards, and stated uncertainties at each step. In other words, MU.

Why is MU such a hot topic these days? Part of it is ISO/IEC 17025 requirements, but part of is that one can buy an item that is as accurate as NIST may have in the not-too-distant past, and get it for cheap (comparitively speaking).....meaning for quite a few calibrations, the 4:1 rule is difficult, if not impossible to maintain.

Still, I suspect there is a better way to document MU.....that is faster, easier, cheaper, and still as valid.....

Hence the challenge.

Hershal

Come on all 6S guys.......this should be EASY!!!!!!

:lol:

We're (hopefully) almost finished with our 17025 re-accreditation by A2LA, it's been going on since October. One of the sticking points has been MU & our auditor, who has been here 3 times, and given us 3 different ways/means to do our MU.

I finally told the A2LA rep last week I will put any number on our scope of accreditation that he wants. I don't care, and neither does any of our customers...

We ended up doubling our old MU values. If this passes, so be it. :rolleyes:

Jerry

Well, got yet another letter from A2LA. Seems someone on the voting council failed it! His response was that it doesn't follow their guide to MU. Nothing about what's wrong, what needs correcting, just "Your wrong, go fix it".

I told my rep. I am done. I have nothing more to offer, nothing more to add. If this is incorrect, after she considered it done, and the assessor considered it done, then I need to know EXACTLY what the voting council member objected to.

If this is not possible, then I get to go thru the appeals process...... Yay.....

Jerry
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :argue: :argue:

Bummer... I hate it when they don't say specifically what the gripe is. Or in this case what section of their guide is not being followed. Something to give you an idea which way to go.

Jerry,

Personal view only, this is just me, a Hershalism.......if your numbers are rejected, then there should be some explanation as to why.....whether easy or hard, at least you should have some direction.

Of course, I can only really speak to how I do things.

My personal point of view is that your bench techs should be able to do a measurement, take the $6 calculator from the grocery store (the $6 one because you need square root) with pencil and paper, and calculate the MU.....anything else is at the wrong level. Of course, that is just my opinion.....

Hershal

Now it's just silly:

Got a reply from A2LA that said another of the 3 member council also failed it! Some of his reasons? He said we're a cal lab, not testing and shouldn't have ASTM specs listed! He said ASTM methods are for testing, they don't mention calibration (?!) and we should remove them from our scope!

d) Remove the reference to the ASTM as these apply to test methods and not calibrations.

So, if I ignore that the ASTM methods DO in fact talk about calibrating the equipment (ASTM B568 for example, measurement by XRay Fluorescence), he wants me to remove reference to known, tested, acceptable methods and go with I guess "laboratory developed methods", which if I remember right goes into quite a bit more problems to validate??

For $7k in costs so far, and our 1 year "paperwork renewal" due any day now for another $1-2k, I love the fact that they answer the phone as a Non Profit organization... (Off topic but I'm sick of this mafia group)

Jerry :mad:

Jerry, I revise my offer to buy you a beverage (note I am using PC term here) at NCSLI and instead suggest chatting at the Fluke reception.....more beverage for less cost, and you have spent enough on MU already it seems.....after all, time=money.

Just a side note.....if the ASTM is the appropriate procedure/method for the calibration, then I would say it can be included. An example is ASTM E 18 for Rockwell hardness. That of course is my position, and not binding on colleague organizations.

Hershal

Well, now my boss and his wife/co-owner (or is it the other way around? :rolleyes: ) has gotten involved, contacting the assessor directly.

Basically, the assessor is going to tell these two council members they don't know what they are talking about, he's been here and seen our work, and the members shouldn't send stupid replies like this without contacting him because it makes them all look bad.

We'll see...... (Gave up big drinking in the Navy but it's getting tempting...)

Jerry :rolleyes:

Interesting ordeal Jerry :mg:

Guess some of the stories about A2LA I've heard are true :confused:

Now now guys.....before this gets out of hand, remember, let's keep it professional.

Griping about a specific example is one thing, that is solid.....but general griping about ANY organization can be seen as unprofessional. Well, except maybe comments about Congress......

Hershal

Latest update: Our A2LA rep tried to craft a Scope of Accred to satisfy the council member that complained. Our assessor made a few comments, she re-did it, then the assessor said

"The latest draft of the scope of accreditation is so full of errors that it no longer reflects what the laboratory does and is unacceptable. I will take this weekend to draft a revised scope of accreditation and/or provide a detailed enough description of each calibration so that everyone concerned will know what we are talking about."

So, he re-re-wrote our scope over this weekend & sent it to me. Looks fine to me, I filled in a few blanks, and now we'll see.....Again......

This has been ongoing since early October.

Jerry :rolleyes: :bonk: :confused: :frust:
I don't think we'll be using A2LA again...

Jerry, I revise my offer to buy you a beverage (note I am using PC term here) at NCSLI and instead suggest chatting at the Fluke reception.....more beverage for less cost, and you have spent enough on MU already it seems.....after all, time=money.

Jerry, I imagine this offer is looking better and better.......

Still ongoing, the assessor is now communicating with A2LA and the voting council members with the issues...

I just emailed a procedure on how we certify an XRF coating thickness gauge to A2LA yesterday. I'm beyond baffled about this now.

I'm pretty thirsty at this point. Especially after all the "we are updating our records and see your cert expired in March" phone calls......

Jerry :bonk:

FINALLY! We got our Scope and Certificate (at least a PDF) today!! Only took about 6.5 months from the reassessment in early October!

They rearranged the layout slightly, doubled the values (said before was 1 sigma, needed to multiply by two). I told them multiply by 10 I don't care anymore.....

First they said this was with a stipulation that the next full assessment (2007) would look closely at MU and recommend changes. It changed every year anyway so I didn't care.

Then the next email 5 minutes later said they had a staff member in my area that would visit within the next 90 days and check it out. Whatever, still don't care...

I used to think A2LA was a good idea, a good concept. Now.... after all this in the last almost 7 months, all the nitpicking, all the various A2LA staff "opinions" that amount to gospel until they say otherwise..... Just don't care.

We will almost definitely use someone else next time...... :frust:

Jerry
PS- "Opinions" include the layout of the scope & verbage that after 5 years of being ok by everyone else, this one council member can throw it all out completely because he says so.....