How often should Gage R&R's be updated? Is there a recommended time-frame?


We are searching for a recommended time frame for updating Gage R&R's. In the past we have just performed them on new gages or same gages but for new parts when we are preparing PPAP documentation. Our IATF auditor didn't like that some of ours were 5 years old. Is there any suggestions as to how often they should be performed? We couldn't really find anything in the MSA Fourth Edition or any of our OEM CSR's.
Or maybe if anyone does something different that you could share, I would appreciate it.


Not out of the crisis
Super Moderator
I'm not IATF, but I have updated them when adding new people. But if you have the same gauge types and same operators as 5 years ago I'd see no need to update them.


Forum Moderator
There is no reason to repeat a gage R&R unless you are using the measurement device for a new part feature, have changed the measurement procedure, changed the environment, changed the skill level of the appraisers (e.g., technicians to line personnel) or otherwise changed anything in the measurement "system."

Ron Rompen

Trusted Information Resource
I agree with Bev and Miner. An MSA study is intended to demonstrate the suitability of an instrument to assess a feature (or features). This doesn't change UNLESS:
1) The feature changes (not just the tolerance of the feature - that can be 'plugged into' the existing study to determine if the gauge is still capable/acceptable
2) The gauge is changed (not a replacement with a gauge of the same type, but (for example) going from a height gauge to a micrometer
3) There is some other significant change in the process (parts used to be measured in the lab by trained inspectors, now are measured on the floor by operators).

There is NO specified requirement in IATF for redoing MSA studies, although you need to be aware of your CSR's as well - I have seen the requirement for annual GRR studies buried in a few of them.


Starting to get Involved
GRR is just one type of MSA study. The purpose is to evaluate the ability of the measurement system - not just the actual measuring device, but the operator also. Even if you are fortunate enough to have very little turnover and are using the very same operators as originally took part in the study, they are likely to have improved their technique in using and reading the gage - or, conversely, they have become so jaded in doing the same job that they have gotten sloppy. And if you change from one brand of instrument to another, then consider the Ford CSR with regard to what qualifies families of gages. The organization should establish what triggers a GRR - change in personnel, gage purchase, CSR, engineering change (perhaps) - and then react to that. I think your CB would not find a reason to argue with that.
Top Bottom