IATF 7.1.5.1.1 Measurement system analysis (Visual Inspection)

[bkirch]

IATF 7.1.5.1.1 states "Statistical studies shall be conducted to analyze the variation present in the results of each type of inspection, measurement, and test equipment system identified in the control plan................."

On our control plans we list visual inspection as a measurement method. This is mainly for inspecting parts for surface defects. My question is that per IATF 7.1.5.1.1 are we required to to perform an attribute MSA study on visual inspection?

My next question, is that if we are required to perform an attribute MSA study on visual inspection, would we need to do it for every part that we produce, and for every defect item that we inspect?

 

[Jeroki]

It does make sense to make MSA despite being a visual inspection, so you can check whether the conditions and configuration of the control allows to have a robust control. Many parámetros may influence lik lightning, dirtness, ergonomical conditions in which the test is performed, correct/full definition of the work instruction...and so on and so on. Unfortunately I am not able to remember the MSA study to be performed for this kind of characteristics, but be aware that for ANY inspection/control method these tools can be used.


Hopefully some coesgue will give us the name!

 

[Bev D]

IATF 7.1.5.1.1 states "Statistical studies shall be conducted to analyze the variation present in the results of each type of inspection, measurement, and test equipment system identified in the control plan................."

If you have a visual inspection listed in your control plan you must perform a statistical study. Since visual inspection typically only involves categorical (aka attribute) data then you must perform an “attribute study”. Any statistical study of inspections, measurements or tests is called a MSA. SO, you must perform an attribute MSA. But more importantly you should regardless of the requirements of the standard.

As to your last question about every part and defect, the answer is basically yes. UNLESS you can reasonably justify that many parts and defects are so similar and they are inspected under the same lighting, training and time to inspect conditions that they constitute a family of parts.

 

[Tidge]

I agree with the above.

As to your last question about every part and defect, the answer is basically yes. UNLESS you can reasonably justify that many parts and defects are so similar and they are inspected under the same lighting, training and time to inspect conditions that they constitute a family of parts.

An example of a justification that could be used as a "soft escape" from having to do an individual MSA for each part could be the common use of appropriate IPC inspection standards for PCBA, cable, etc. assemblies. Obviously those standards are checking for specific defects.