GR&R - Little to no part to part variation in single part number

Mikey324

Quite Involved in Discussions
#1
This may be a stupid question, but here goes. We conducted an R&R with poor results and ndc of 2. With a small 300 part PPAP run, we randomly sampled 10 parts. Cpk is very high, the process is very capable. I increased sample size, same result. I increased gauge resolution. Same results. The parts are very similar. Just no change. In order to do a proper study, can I use samples from existing products with similar features? For example, parts with hole sizes from from 1mm to 2.5mm, as this is the typical sizes we see in day to day operations? Then set the tolerance to represent that value, ucl 2.5, lcl 1.0?
Do R&R studies have to use only 1 production part number, or could I select 3 part numbers of the same part, just different sizes?

Thanks!
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Miner

Forum Moderator
Staff member
Admin
#2
Key question that will drive my response to your question. For what purpose is the gage used? That is, will you use this gage for inspection, or for process control (i.e., SPC)?

If the gage is used only for inspection, focus on the % Tolerance metric only. Ignore ndc, % Study Variation, and % Process Variation.

Only if the gage will be used for process control do you worry about ndc, % Study Variation, and % Process Variation.

In the scenario that you are using this gage for process control, you can have a situation where the process is highly capable and the gage cannot resolve what little variation there is in the product. The correct solution here is not to artificially create variation, but to determine whether you have any reasonable options to improve the gaging. For example, if you were using calipers to measure, it would be reasonable for you to investigate micrometers. However, let's say that you were already using the state of the art measurement equipment, or that the next level of measurement equipment costs $250,000 and you are making $3 product. In that case, you do not have a reasonable alternative. At this point, you should put together a good case and have a discussion with your customer about your options.

Here is a long discussion on the topic at a sister forum.
 

Mikey324

Quite Involved in Discussions
#3
You are correct in many ways. The device is used for inspection, not spc. You are also correct saying $1k device for $2 part is overkill. We can’t use a different device, a micrometer can’t check this dimension.
To clarify:
This was an audit minor NC. IATF certification.
We explained %tolerance is acceptable, as the device is for inspection.
We provided customer approval, we had the same discussion with them.
We demonstrated approval through a signed PSW.
The finding was still ndc less than 5.
 

Mikey324

Quite Involved in Discussions
#5
I thought about appeal, but see this as a good learning experience for my QC tech and sample selection.

My question is still as above. If we want to test our measurement process, can we measure parts with similar features? This allows us to make sure our gauges/operators can detect the variance??
 

Golfman25

Trusted Information Resource
#6
Unfortunately your toast. They probably didn't accept the signed PSW as "approval" because "nobody checks those things." You're appeal will likely fail.

You're stuck with the MSA manual which I don't believe distinguishes between inspection and spc. And if it does, the general guideline language is frequently ignored. You get specific forms and numbers -- good luck hitting them. You'll need to get a separate letter from your customer documenting their approval.

As for the MSA technicalities, I leave that to miner. But it does sound like you are gage limited.
 

Miner

Forum Moderator
Staff member
Admin
#7
Speaking of the MSA manual (4th ed.), see page 77, Section D Analysis of the Results, Width Error, Acceptability Criteria - Width Error.

It states "The criteria as to whether a measurement system's variability is satisfactory are dependent upon the percentage of the manufacturing production process variability or the part tolerance that is consumed by measurement system variation. The final acceptance criteria for specific measurement systems depend on the measurement system's environment and purpose and should be agreed to by the customer."

See also page 79, Comments on the Application and Gage Acceptability.

It states: "When looking at GRR and measurement variation it is important to look at each application individually, to see what is required and how the measurement is going to be used." It goes on to give an example of how a household thermostat could have a GRR up to 30% while a laboratory thermostat must be held to a tighter standard based on their application.

Bottom line: the MSA manual clearly states and expects you to use judgment as to which criteria to use and what level of acceptability to apply.
 

Mikey324

Quite Involved in Discussions
#8
The customer approval was a separate document. I agree fully about the PSW being overlooked. I just want to add value while working out the C/M
 

Mikey324

Quite Involved in Discussions
#9
Speaking of the MSA manual (4th ed.), see page 77, Section D Analysis of the Results, Width Error, Acceptability Criteria - Width Error.

It states "The criteria as to whether a measurement system's variability is satisfactory are dependent upon the percentage of the manufacturing production process variability or the part tolerance that is consumed by measurement system variation. The final acceptance criteria for specific measurement systems depend on the measurement system's environment and purpose and should be agreed to by the customer."

See also page 79, Comments on the Application and Gage Acceptability.

It states: "When looking at GRR and measurement variation it is important to look at each application individually, to see what is required and how the measurement is going to be used." It goes on to give an example of how a household thermostat could have a GRR up to 30% while a laboratory thermostat must be held to a tighter standard based on their application.

Bottom line: the MSA manual clearly states and expects you to use judgment as to which criteria to use and what level of acceptability to apply.

I know you read the manual, if not you wouldn’t know the thermostat reference.
I think we can satisfy the manual intent, satisfy the auditor, and make sure our system works.

As far as us being gauge limited, I don’t believe we are. We don’t need extreme resolution for parts with wide tolerances. 10:1 is plenty according to the manual. We are using benchmarked gauges with our industry. Cost of the gauge has to play into the equation vs the measurements being made.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
I Gage R&R confusion on a part that has little variation Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 6
U Dock Audits - Isn't waiting to do an audit when the product is "supposed" to ship a little late? Manufacturing and Related Processes 12
Douglas E. Purdy Where to buy Little Red Arrow Stickers Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 11
H "Too little" variation in gage R&R Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 2
T A little survey on ISMS Implementation - Need help IEC 27001 - Information Security Management Systems (ISMS) 12
optomist1 A Little Midwestern Whine - Drowning in Sea of Acronyms Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 14
R Is IEC 61010-1 required for my silly little device? IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 4
somashekar Too much data, Too little analysis - Manual Stages Assembly Shop Data Collection Quality Tools, Improvement and Analysis 2
C MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) Case - A little help? Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 4
A Looking for a wordsmith - Little compensation - Lots of appreciation! General Auditing Discussions 8
D My little ISO 9001:2008 plant is going to make a medical device...now what? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 35
somashekar OH&S and the little family fun Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 5
M There?s a little lie within the Kano-model! Quality Tools, Improvement and Analysis 7
Claes Gefvenberg Weekly picture: The little things... Imported Legacy Blogs 1
smryan Share the Joy! Our little company just got a huge grant! Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 9
R They do things a little different on Southwest Airlines! Travel - Hotels, Motels, Planes and Trains 1
BradM The family lost a little friend today Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 52
M A Little Car Trouble :) The back wiper stopped working Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 12
S A little weight on my mind for New Year's - Measurement Uncertainty Measurement Uncertainty (MU) 3
Wes Bucey Job hunting - the "dirty little secret" Career and Occupation Discussions 5
Jen Kirley I saw the coolest little book today. Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 30
Tom W ASQ CQE Recertification - I might be a little short on points - What to do? ASQ, ANAB, UKAS, IAF, IRCA, Exemplar Global and Related Organizations 4
M a little Norwegian humor??.. Funny Stuff - Jokes and Humour 4
W When A Little Redneck Isn't Enough... Funny Stuff - Jokes and Humour 1
Z Their own little database empires, can anyone be impartial? Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 7
BradM A little help for the bird watchers Funny Stuff - Jokes and Humour 4
I A little controversy - but is it really? Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 36
Wes Bucey Thanks for giving me the opportunity to give a little bit back Philosophy, Gurus, Innovation and Evolution 20
J Choosing Samples for Gage R&R - Randomly picked samples show very little variation Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 13
M A little perspective... The Goodbye Letter Funny Stuff - Jokes and Humour 14
Wes Bucey Aren't we a little old to believe in fairy tales? Whirlpool to close Maytag plants World News 13
E My little web application about ISO 9000 - Looking for suggestions, comments etc. Software Quality Assurance 8
A Looking for a little insight - New to the Quality Profession - Older Company Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 19
Marc GM to place more emphasis on hybrids - Too Little Too Late World News 0
C New to 17025 and need a little help in proficiency testing ISO 17025 related Discussions 7
D Registrar's Auditors Main Interest - Football Hall of Fame - Little Work Registrars and Notified Bodies 96
D Can anyone tell me a little about AS9101? Various Other Specifications, Standards, and related Requirements 7
D A little light relief - A puzzle Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 4
B How Do I Put a Little Life into the Internal Audit Report to Management? Internal Auditing 6
N BF-type applied part MOPP vs secondary IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 1
D Relabelling a component that will be sold as a spare part - Do I become legal manufacturer? EU Medical Device Regulations 2
T Single Fault Condition IEC 60601 Clause 8.7.1 shorting Cr/Cl in Patient Applied Part IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 7
D Partial FAI - AS9102 - One single drawing has 10 part numbers AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 5
Anonymous16-2 21 CFR Part 11 - Steps to take if we want to validate an electronic system Pharmaceuticals (21 CFR Part 210, 21 CFR Part 211 and related Regulations) 2
T ISO 13485 8.3 - Non-Conforming Materials - on-line rework or part of process? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 11
DuncanGibbons Should the requirements FAA/EASA Part 21 be addressed within the QMS and AS9100D quality manual? AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 5
K IEC 62304 compliance - Code reviews as part of verification strategy IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 5
G Gage R&R - Where am I going wrong? Part of a FAIR submission (Aerospace) Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 2
A 21 CFR part 11 - section 11.100 - Electronic Signature Certification Other US Medical Device Regulations 6
M AS9102B Detail Part/Assembly FAI Form 1 box 13; AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 2

Similar threads

Top Bottom