7.6 Control of Monitoring and Measuring Equipment vs. 7.6.1 Measurement Systems Analy

[qusys]

Re: 7.6 Control of Monitoring and Measuring Equipment vs. 7.6.1 Measurement Systems A

PPAP is irrelevant this is a requirement of TS that the customer cannot waive.
There must be a MSA study- it does not have to be to a specific PPAP part
The PPAP handbook says
2.2.8 Measurement System Analysis Studies

This is less than the standard! which requires

This has no relevance to the requirements of PPAP

Hi Howard,
my response just went in your line, in the sense that the supplier shall provide analytical studies for the measurement systems in the control plan.
If they have signed off a PPAP, they should have provided those or showed during a supplier quality assessment.
Agree with you

 

[GoKats78]

Re: 7.6 Control of Monitoring and Measuring Equipment vs. 7.6.1 Measurement Systems A

I agree that TS requires MSA...but some "Evaluation Measurement Techniques"
do not lend themselves to MSA...

See the chart below pulled from the Control Plan...

 

[Dan M]

Re: 7.6 Control of Monitoring and Measuring Equipment vs. 7.6.1 Measurement Systems A

We are a chemicals producer and we don't really utilize very much process control other than weighing of chemicals. The control is mostly in the final QC testing. None of our quality control tests are listed in the control plan. Our consultant informed us that because we did not include any tests in the control plan we would not have to do MSA. He also warned that our auditor might question why the tests were not included. We have our Phase I next week. Should be interesting.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Re: 7.6 Control of Monitoring and Measuring Equipment vs. 7.6.1 Measurement Systems A

We are a chemicals producer and we don't really utilize very much process control other than weighing of chemicals. The control is mostly in the final QC testing. None of our quality control tests are listed in the control plan. Our consultant informed us that because we did not include any tests in the control plan we would not have to do MSA. He also warned that our auditor might question why the tests were not included. We have our Phase I next week. Should be interesting.

I certainly would question why the tests were not identified in the control plan...given that that is one of the primary purposes of a control plan. There are some inspections performed throughout, you weigh ingredients. that is not in final QC. And, the final QC tests at least should be listed.

TS and ISO both require measurement uncertainty to be determined. TS went further, and has the AIAG blue book - MSA, if your customers specify that. It has required relevant tests to be performed on all measurement systems. Not all tests, but relevant tests. For example, with a weight scale, Bias and Linearity would be relevant, Stability may not.

 

[Golfman25]

Re: 7.6 Control of Monitoring and Measuring Equipment vs. 7.6.1 Measurement Systems A

Doing the MSA isn't really the problem. The problem comes in when you do your MSA and the results aren't ideal. Then you have your nightmare.

Example: For 40 years, before ISO/TS was a gleam in someone's eye we all used the basic caliper to check dimensions. Never was a problem. Then all of a sudden, we have to do MSA's and someone doesn't like the number (it doesn't match what the book says). Now what? Nothing like checking a $0.05 part with a $20,000 gage.

 

[Hershal]

Re: 7.6 Control of Monitoring and Measuring Equipment vs. 7.6.1 Measurement Systems A

That really doesn't address the concern..we have items (such as scales and thermo-couples) called out in the control plan..they are either calibrated and certified (as per 7.6) . The scales measure raw product ....we have never done any MSA on them as all product characteristics are checked later (via chemical and mechanical properties testing). we have never done any MSA on the thermocouples...but our auditor is stating that it is required..

This guy seems hung up on these two clauses and there interaction...

If you seek to know the error that each instrument contributes to your measurement system, have an accredited lab calibrate the equipment and make sure you get the uncertainties for the readings. Then you will have the error contribution that each item of equipment provides.

If you then need the error provided by the measurement system as a whole, then a thorough uncertainty study will likely provide much more information than a GR&R.