Wheeler's EMP and conformance IATF 16949

[Watton1440]

My company is exploring changing our MSA portion of the QMS to give us the option to use Wheeler's EMP study where we feel it is applicable.

Currently, it states that we will use the methods outlined in the latest edition of AIAG's MSA manual. For the most part, this works. But recently we have been using the results from Wheeler's EMP study to get a true understanding of our gage studies. Too often, we will evaluate the gage and make decisions based off the results of Wheeler's EMP study, but then generate a AIAG Gage RR; solely to stay in conformance to our QMS.

What is proven verbiage we can use in our QMS to justify using Wheelers EMP as an alternative when we feel it is more applicable than using AIAG's Gage RR method?

 

[Miner]

The relevant IATF clause states "Clause – 7.1.5.1.1 Measurement System Analysis: Statistical study shall be conducted to analyse the variation present in the result of each type of inspection, measurement, and test equipment system identified in the control plan. The analytical method and acceptance criteria used shall conform to those in reference manual on measurement system analysis. Other analytical method and acceptance criteria may be used if approved by the customer."

ANNEX B: Bibliography – supplemental automotive lists the following reference manuals for MSA:

• AIAG – measurement system analysis (MSA)
• ANFIA – AQ 024 MSA Measurement system analysis
• VDA – Volume 5 “Capability of Measuring System

My interpretation is that you would have to get all your impacted customers to approve your use of Wheeler's EMP manual. A rather weak argument could be based on the fact that the AIAG MSA manual lists Wheeler and Lyday's Evaluating the Measurement Process book in the Reference section.

 

[Watton1440]

That's exactly what I was seeing. The content of ANNEX B makes it difficult to make any argument against using AIAG in our case.

My hope was that someone had tried it before and that it held water during an Audit.

 

[Bev D]

I’ve used it before with automotive SQEs who knew about Wheeler or Shainin (The isoplot is just a Youden plot) and they accepted it. Some SQEs know the AIAG official approach is inferior in provideing useful insight but many don’t . Especially auditors. Having a backup passing AIAG R&R is the only real guarantee to my knowledge. Of Course the common R&R method can have failing values while the Wheeler/Youden approach can show acceptable results.

Science is just not having a great time these days…

 

[Golfman25]

That's exactly what I was seeing. The content of ANNEX B makes it difficult to make any argument against using AIAG in our case.

My hope was that someone had tried it before and that it held water during an Audit.

Bottom line you have to use "the books" for your audited material, customers, etc. However, you can "supplement" those books with a method you think is better for you own internal personal use. Just another reason IATF sucks, IMO.

 

[Golfman25]

I’ve used it before with automotive SQEs who knew about Wheeler or Shainin (The isoplot is just a Youden plot) and they accepted it. Some SQEs know the AIAG official approach is inferior in provideing useful insight but many don’t . Especially auditors. Having a backup passing AIAG R&R is the only real guarantee to my knowledge. Of Course the common R&R method can have failing values while the Wheeler/Youden approach can show acceptable results.

Science is just not having a great time these days…

This issue with the AIAG books goes back quite a while before any issues with "science."