V
Re: MSA studies: on each Equipment, each Measurement System or Family in Control Plan
Hello Jim:
I think some ideas got lost in the thread.
I agree that MSA and calibration are different things. There was a posting that implied that if tools are under the same maintenance and calibration, then they will behave the same; they will have the same variation in measurement. I am trying to make the point that that is a HUGE assumption about the effectiveness of both calibration and maintenance processes.
Yes I am referring to potential limitation or "problems" within calibration as an input that affects MSA. All I am trying to convey is to think about assumptions made about maintenance and calibration of tools as it might (or might not) have an impact on how one approaches MSA. I am in now way saying anything for certain. I am trying to get people to consider interrelation and interactions of processes. If someone wants a statement of certainty, a statement that there is only one approach, please look to other posters.
I agree that "A GR&R is a study of a measurement system, although it's not the only type of study." But you providing this information still does not tell me what the original poster meant when they used the term "MSA studies."
And finally, after reading all of the postings and the development of this thread, I have another possible conclusion. Qusys may be trying to simply meet the requirements in TS 16949 and not necessarily have an effective MSA process or may not want to understand the variation of the tools listed on the Control Plan. If the goal is to simply meet the requirements of TS and to maintain certification, then do an MSA study on one tool and apply the results to all the tools that can be lumped into that family. If an 3rd party auditor says that is not good enough, then the worst case is that you will get a non-conformance and will have something like 90 days to provide a corrective action.
Hello Jim:
I think some ideas got lost in the thread.
I agree that MSA and calibration are different things. There was a posting that implied that if tools are under the same maintenance and calibration, then they will behave the same; they will have the same variation in measurement. I am trying to make the point that that is a HUGE assumption about the effectiveness of both calibration and maintenance processes.
Yes I am referring to potential limitation or "problems" within calibration as an input that affects MSA. All I am trying to convey is to think about assumptions made about maintenance and calibration of tools as it might (or might not) have an impact on how one approaches MSA. I am in now way saying anything for certain. I am trying to get people to consider interrelation and interactions of processes. If someone wants a statement of certainty, a statement that there is only one approach, please look to other posters.
I agree that "A GR&R is a study of a measurement system, although it's not the only type of study." But you providing this information still does not tell me what the original poster meant when they used the term "MSA studies."
And finally, after reading all of the postings and the development of this thread, I have another possible conclusion. Qusys may be trying to simply meet the requirements in TS 16949 and not necessarily have an effective MSA process or may not want to understand the variation of the tools listed on the Control Plan. If the goal is to simply meet the requirements of TS and to maintain certification, then do an MSA study on one tool and apply the results to all the tools that can be lumped into that family. If an 3rd party auditor says that is not good enough, then the worst case is that you will get a non-conformance and will have something like 90 days to provide a corrective action.
