I echo Marc's comments.
Planning, rational, and MSA's are the way to go. GR&R's are pathology, MSA's forecast. In fact, I really despise R&R's, I think they're flawed and a waist of time: Especially true for automated equipment, where Appraiser/Operator error = 0 by definition. R&R’s will assign a substantial measurement error to the monkey who pushed the run button.
Two fundamental flaws in the math used in R&R’s are first: The assumption that Operator, Equipment, and Part variation exist simultaneously in every data set. And second, that it IS possible to reproduce the same measurement on a given object.
Try this for fun:
Conduct an R&R using 10 parts, 3 operators, and 3 measurements of each part. Compare the capability of two measuring devices: A six inch steel scale graduated in 1/32nds of an inch, and a set of calipers with .0005 graduations. Measure the length of the part, to see which device passes the GR&R.
Which do you think will pass? Now, what I didn’t tell you was the nature of the part we’re going to use for the test. Compare now, the same R&R methods on two different parts. First measure the thickness of a precision ground gage block. Second measure the length of a human hair.
Do you believe the results would change? Would you believe calipers fail both tests? Would you believe the steel scale passes both tests? Now, ask why.