Is Measurement Systems Analysis necessary on every gage? - TS16949:2002 - 7.6.1

[DavidLau]

Hi,
TS16949:2002 Clause 7.6.1 says: This requirement (Measurement system analysis) shall apply to measurement systems referenced in the control plan. One of our projects document (APQP) references 50 calipers in the Control Plan. And our consultant persuaded us to analyse EVERY caliper involved measurement system…. Gosh, we are really unable to afford it. Is it necessary?
Thanks

 

[sjvasudevan]

7.6.1 Measurement System Analysis

This shall be applied to measurement systems and not to the each measuring instrument referenced in the control plan....In my opinion we can have MSA(as per 3rd edition) done on each type of instruments. If someone can throw more light...

vasu

 

[Dawn]

No this is not necessary - your consultant is incorrect. As long as your calipers are all the same type of gage - you need only one gage r & r. Your registrar should know that and if they insist, I would take it to the top for interpretation issues. My knowledge in calipers is that there arent many different types. You may want to do a separate one on a manual caliper and an electronic caliper.

 

[Sam]

Hi,
TS16949:2002 Clause 7.6.1 says: This requirement (Measurement system analysis) shall apply to measurement systems referenced in the control plan. One of our projects document (APQP) references 50 calipers in the Control Plan. And our consultant persuaded us to analyse EVERY caliper involved measurement system…. Gosh, we are really unable to afford it. Is it necessary?
Thanks

Until I know the facts I would have to side with your consultant.
A measuring sysrem not is not just the gage only, but also includes the operator.
If the 50 calipers are used one at a time by the same operator then yes one MSA is acceptable. However if the 50 calipers are all used at the same time by 50 different operators then you would need to do an MSA on each one.

 

[DavidLau]

Yes, Sam you are right and I agree with you(the system of measurement shall consist with gage, product,characteristic,environment,operator,method ect.)the calipers are used at different time by 50 different operators on different characteristics...does it means that we have to do MSAs on each caliper??

 

[GoKats78]

Sam - by your logic I would need an R&R for every gage/employee/weather/characteristic combination possible. I really do not believe that is the intent of MSA's

If so, I need to hire lots and lots of folks to do all my MSA's!

 

[Rob Nix]

It has been quite awhile since I've worked in production automotive, but I seem to remember QS-9000 requiring GR&R only for gages requiring a "set up", and that hand tools, such as dial/digital calipers and micrometers were not included - that calibration controls were sufficient.

I tend to agree with "GoKats78", especially if operators/inspectors are changing frequently. That could get to be a real mess. I guess it all comes down to risk vs. benefits, and how well you are at reasoning it out with your consultant.

I've got more to say - but I gotta go....

 

[Sam]

Sam - by your logic I would need an R&R for every gage/employee/weather/characteristic combination possible. I really do not believe that is the intent of MSA's

If so, I need to hire lots and lots of folks to do all my MSA's!

True. But then, what sense would it make to have only conducted one MSA while there are 49 others that have not been conducted. That says to me you can only be certain that 1/50th of your product/process is acceptable.

If the same two or three operators are going to use all 50 calipers then by all means do one MSA. That will be accdeptable as long as the calipers have met the calibration criteria. However, if you have 100 people that are going to use the 50 calipers then you would need to conduct 50 MSA's.

I don't understand why you would need to hire additional people.

 

[Cari Spears]

Here's what I always understood:

We are going to measure the thickness of a sheet of friction material - it is raw (soft) and has not been pressed yet. We decide to use micrometers - so we take a micrometer that is known to be calibrated, get three operators together, and have each operator (all using the same mics) to measure 10 spots three times each (3 operators, 10 samples measured 3 times each by each operator). Say we come up with an unnacceptable GR&R results - the variation in measuring results deems the METHOD unnacceptable. So - we decide that the micrometer is not repeatable or reproducable when dealing with non-inspection employees (skill level) because the "feel" of the gage is so critical when dealing with the soft material (it's too easy to squeeze). Now we have choices - do we limit the inspection of this characteristic to Inspection Personnel only? - or do we use perhaps a snap gage that anyone can use regardless of their skill level?

If you've verified the inspection method, any micrometer that is in calibration will be acceptable to use. It's not about this particular micrometer, and this particular micrometer and this particular micrometer - it's about using a micrometer for measuring this characteristic. Back when I used to do GR&R for automotive companies we did not do it for every gage - it's not really about the gage itself, but the type of gage (or measuring instrument) you've chosen for a particular characteristic and the ability for anyone who has to measure said characteristic will get the same measurement as the next person. Things may have changed...or maybe we were wrong back then - but our customers were happy.

 

[srikanth]

Cari

YOU ARE RIGHT.....I think the intent is more of designing a measurement system exclusive to each measurement characteristic that requires to be verified during the production....it helps more in preventing a failure on account of a wrong measurement system.