Hi,
I am production Supervisor for a manufacturing company which produces automatic brake adjusters, we produce one of the internal componants in house which is the wormshaft we use a Nikon Vision system with QC calc software to measure our parts, if we have a flyer or anomaly reading we first look for an obvious reason and if none can be found we measure the part with a manual hand held micrometer if the part measures good we input the reading we got with the mic overriding the bad data. We recently received a CAR (corrective action request) during one of our audits. We did do a coralation R & R study between the vision system and the hand held micrometers, the vision system scored higher then the micrometers meaning the micrometers did better. My question is can we comingle gauging systems (Vision camera system and hand held mics)? Is this an acceptable practice?

CAR states: Vision system operators stated that Vision system readings that were "spikes approaching control limits or were out of control were being manualy confirmed through the us of handheld instruments (Micrometer or caliper). If the manual reading is different from the Vision reading. The introduction of alternative measurement systems produces a statistically invalid result. The variation of the Vision system is at the high end of acceptability and no analysis of the variation between gauges was conducted. (We actually did this analysis). It is assumed that variation in the process is being monitored for process capability. It is not known how the use of mulitple measurement systems has impacted results.

Any suggestion or help would be appreciated.

Thanks Dave

Hi,
I am production Supervisor for a manufacturing company which produces automatic brake adjusters, we produce one of the internal componants in house which is the wormshaft we use a Nikon Vision system with QC calc software to measure our parts, if we have a flyer or anomaly reading we first look for an obvious reason and if none can be found we measure the part with a manual hand held micrometer if the part measures good we input the reading we got with the mic overriding the bad data. We recently received a CAR (corrective action request) during one of our audits. We did do a coralation R & R study between the vision system and the hand held micrometers, the vision system scored higher then the micrometers meaning the micrometers did better. My question is can we comingle gauging systems (Vision camera system and hand held mics)? Is this an acceptable practice?

CAR states: Vision system operators stated that Vision system readings that were "spikes approaching control limits or were out of control were being manually confirmed through the us of handheld instruments (Micrometer or caliper). If the manual reading is different from the Vision reading. The introduction of alternative measurement systems produces a statistically invalid result. The variation of the Vision system is at the high end of acceptability and no analysis of the variation between gauges was conducted. (We actually did this analysis). It is assumed that variation in the process is being monitored for process capability. It is not known how the use of mulitple measurement systems has impacted results.

Any suggestion or help would be appreciated.

Thanks Dave

Hello Dave,

Welcome to The Cove! :bigwave: :bigwave:

Verify that your operators are not confusing control limits with specification limits.

Over-adjustment, also called "tampering" may be the result.

Stijloor.

You stated that the vision system has a higher GRR than the micrometer.

Is it possible to use only the micrometer only and not use the vision system?

If the vision system is easier to use, you should investigate how the GRR can be improved (set-up, operator technique, etc).

In addition to Stijloor questions, how were the control limits established? Are they still valid?