I am quite new here at Elsmar Cove. I think I have read all the information about attribute gage R&R I can find on internet. I have got some questions about it.

I am working for a electronics industry and planning to do an attribute gage R&R for a specified product. It is quite clear that in the study there is going to be 26 products, 3 or more appraisers (testers) and 2 trials. Do you think two trials is enough? If we increase amount of trials to 3, testing time will lenghten --> number of products needs to be increased --> confidence interval becomes too wide.

Now I would like to know how often it is recommend to perform attribute gage R&R? Every six months or more often?

Thanks,
Heidi :)

Welcome to the Cove, Heidi! :bigwave:

I believe 26 samples, 3 appraisers and 2 trials should be good enough. Also search the forums for recommendations on selecting the parts for attribute MSA study.

I am not aware of any specific guidelines on the frequency of these studies.

I am quite new here at Elsmar Cove. I think I have read all the information about attribute gage R&R I can find on internet. I have got some questions about it.

I am working for a electronics industry and planning to do an attribute gage R&R for a specified product. It is quite clear that in the study there is going to be 26 products, 3 or more appraisers (testers) and 2 trials. Do you think two trials is enough? If we increase amount of trials to 3, testing time will lenghten --> number of products needs to be increased --> confidence interval becomes too wide.

Now I would like to know how often it is recommend to perform attribute gage R&R? Every six months or more often?

Thanks,
Heidi :)

Unless there is change to the process, why would want to repeat gage GRR?

Once you accept the current measuring system is adequate to measure your product (GRR% < 10%), there is no need to repeat GRR unless

1. specification changes
2. personnel changes
3. new measuring devices
4. procedural changes

note: natural deviation of the measuring devices should be corrected by calibration procedure, not GRR.

Thank you for your replies. :thanx:

Unless there is change to the process, why would want to repeat gage GRR?

Once you accept the current measuring system is adequate to measure your product (GRR% < 10%), there is no need to repeat GRR unless

1. specification changes
2. personnel changes
3. new measuring devices
4. procedural changes

note: natural deviation of the measuring devices should be corrected by calibration procedure, not GRR.
I agree with the idea that there's no need to repeat GR&R unless circumstances change, and that calibration is the correct remedial method, but the idea that the sole criterion for acceptance of a measurement system is <10% GR&R is a persistent fallacy. For some systems, results >10% may be perfectly acceptable, and for others, 9% may not be adequate. There are also other factors to consider. If the results of an average-and-range study are <10% but there are other statistical issues such as UCLr violations, the system should not be considered unconditionally acceptable.

I agree with the idea that there's no need to repeat GR&R unless circumstances change, and that calibration is the correct remedial method, but the idea that the sole criterion for acceptance of a measurement system is <10% GR&R is a persistent fallacy. For some systems, results >10% may be perfectly acceptable, and for others, 9% may not be adequate. There are also other factors to consider. If the results of an average-and-range study are <10% but there are other statistical issues such as UCLr violations, the system should not be considered unconditionally acceptable.

of course, GRR% of 50% is acceptable in exceptional cases...eg. testing hardness of foam on Instron (about 50% GRR) and testing spring on Instron (less than 3% GRR).....so, each and every case is different...having said that, if you show GRR% of less than 10%, most customers will accept the measurement system to be acceptable...unless there is a "pain in the ***" engineer (hate to say this but am one of them :D ) who reviews suppliers' results and asks questions.

of course, GRR% of 50% is acceptable in exceptional cases...eg. testing hardness of foam on Instron (about 50% GRR) and testing spring on Instron (less than 3% GRR).....so, each and every case is different...having said that, if you show GRR% of less than 10%, most customers will accept the measurement system to be acceptable...unless there is a "pain in the ***" engineer (hate to say this but am one of them :D ) who reviews suppliers' results and asks questions.
If the object is to satisfy a need for paperwork, there's no need to even do the GR&R. To accept study results based on a single (and potentially insignificant) criterion is asking for trouble.

If the object is to satisfy a need for paperwork, there's no need to even do the GR&R. To accept study results based on a single (and potentially insignificant) criterion is asking for trouble.

Unfortunately, i would say 90% of all suppliers who prepare ppap have to satisfy a need for paperwork and thus you have to do GRR, unless you want to create a bogus one...and am pretty sure some do!!!!

.....you show GRR% of less than 10%, most customers will accept the measurement system to be acceptable...unless there is a "pain in the ***" engineer (hate to say this but am one of them :D ) who reviews suppliers' results and asks questions.

Hey Qualeety - I wish we had people who looked at our PPAP submissions and asked good questions. It is sad to do all the work for MSA only to have someone "weigh" the submission to see if it is good enough.

For years I put negative Cpks and GRR of 100% in sumbmissions along with a note to contact me if there was a concern - no one ever called!

You keep on asking questions - I'd like to think what I do matters!

Hey Qualeety - I wish we had people who looked at our PPAP submissions and asked good questions. It is sad to do all the work for MSA only to have someone "weigh" the submission to see if it is good enough.

For years I put negative Cpks and GRR of 100% in sumbmissions along with a note to contact me if there was a concern - no one ever called!

You keep on asking questions - I'd like to think what I do matters!

yah, i hear you...all the ppap requirements and quarterly spc chart submissions (not sure whether this is still being practiced?)...for what!!!! :mad: ...sometimes, you wonder... :frust:

Anyone works for Big Five and can tell us what you do with PPAP?...is there a written procedure of how to "review/approve PPAP".... :D

btw....Ford became 5th largest auto manufacturer in Canada....after GM, Chrysler, Honda and Toyota (see globeandmail.com)