|
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums |
|
The Old Elsmar Cove Forums
![]() Measurement, Test and Calibration
![]() Linearity, accuracy and stability
|
| next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: Linearity, accuracy and stability |
|
Greg Fote Lurker (<10 Posts) Posts: 0 |
We have our R & R procedures and work instructions operating smoothly. Can anyone offer any assistance on what they are currently doing with linearity, accuracy, and stability as defined in the MSA manual? Are you using specifically-written procedures and/or work instructions for these activities? Are the auditors looking at these items closely during audits? Thanks in advance for any advice or assistance and/or samples you can offer. IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
You might first want to read the following thread from the 'old' board: Bias, Linearity and Such - From the 'Old' Forum Mr. Adamek and I had a somewhat extended 'conversation' to which I admit I was pretty hard headed... I think he got mad at me... In addition, you might want to check out: Some Calibration - MSA related tidbits The bottom line is auditors are beginning more and more to address MSA issues. They want to see evidence of understanding and utilization of MSA concepts. It would probably be wise about now to consider a procedure explaining how you address linearity and bias and such. It could be very simple and along the precepts of what is in the threads hot-linked in this message reply. You might also want to download the MSA presentation at: I plan to update the file in a week or two to better, more specifically address compliance to QS9000. By the way - Did you know Gage R&Rs are not *mandatrory*??? Hope this helps!
IP: Logged |
|
Bill Smith Forum Contributor Posts: 20 |
The UL auditor that just left our facility looked very closley at MSA and wrote us up for not measuring and trending stability. What he wanted to see was the past calibration results plotted for each instrument. I havent fully checked this out but it seems excessive. We were going the obligatory GR&R studies so we are still looking into the validity of this Action request. IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
Bill - My opinion is that is a crock of ----. Where does it say you have to trend on paper? If the calibration person has half a bean of intelligence s/he can easily look at the numbers and understand what is happening without putting together a graph. I just went thru this with LRQA in May. They didn't require a graph - but they did want the cal folks to prove that they considered this at each calibration and that the concept is understood. UL is known to be asinine about MSA - But, other registrars are hitting it more now too. I will admit that many, many companies do not have people who really understand MSA, but the auditors are getting rediculous. IP: Logged |
|
Christian Lupo Forum Contributor Posts: 117 |
Bias and Linearity should be known before you do a GRR study. My company has a procedure for MSA, that includes GRR. In fact, GRR is one of the last, if not the last step in an MSA study. As far as stability is concerned, the procedure gives the QA Manager the responsibility to decide if a stability study is necessary. The QA manager's job description requires him (her) to have MSA and SPC training. Stability studies may not be necessary for computer controlled equipment or if the cost of the project outweigh the benefit. IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
I agree with you 100% Christian. You are looking at MSA as a high order system - which it is. R&R is done late in the game. It sounds like you have a well written procedure. I'd love to see it. IP: Logged |
|
David McGan Forum Contributor Posts: 19 |
Christian, when you're e-mailing a copy of your procedure to Marc, copy me in also. Or just post it here for all of us to read. IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
Also see http://Elsmar.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000079.html IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
Comments, folks? ----snippo---------- Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 10:49:57 -0400 Per the previously recommended AIAG manual: The data is the result of measurements taken with the gage being evaluated, utilizing the appropriate gaging instructions. The samples, which are measured, may be either production parts or masters. Collect the data in a manner which is similar to, but in terms of repetition not quite the same as a gage R&R study. For Linearity, the samples should be taken from the expected operating range of the gage. The bias on each of these parts is determined to be the difference between the reference value and the observed average measurement. The reference value for each part is determined through a different means. These means may be plate or other inspection machine layout or through an independent or calibration lab. For Stability, it is not necessary to have parts from the expected operating range of the gage but it is still a good idea. As the AIAG MSA states, sample size and the frequency of the measurements should be based on your knowledge of the measurement system. So you may use the same parts as you used for the Linearity Evaluation. For this study, the measurements are taken over time (i.e.. the same parts are measured again and again over a predetermined time). Bruno Brazauskas Greg Gogates wrote: > Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 09:05:37 -0400 IP: Logged |
All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
![]() | |
Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!
