• Main website
  • Case Studies Home
  • Case Studies
    • Green Belt
      • Example Green Belt Projects-Health Care
      • Example Green Belt Projects-Manufacturing
      • Example Green Belt Projects-Services
    • Black Belt
      • Example Black Belt Projects-Health Care
      • Example Black Belt Projects-Manufacturing
      • Example Black Belt Projects-Services
    • Master Black Belt
    • Lean Success Stories
  • Articles
    • LSS topics of common interest
    • Insights for Green Belts
    • Green Belt tool application examples
    • Insights for Black Belts
    • Black Belt Tool Application Examples
    • Lean Insights
    • Lean Six Sigma Leadership
    • For Master Black Belts
    • New to Lean Six Sigma
      • Lean Expert Basics
      • Six Sigma Basics
    • Leisure and Fun
  • Blog

A Comparison of Measurement System Analysis Metrics: Part 1

Measurement System Analysis With key guidelines from the original Automotive Industry Action Group reference manual, measurement system analysis has been a significant part of process characterizations and improvements. There has been some scrutiny, especially of summary metrics like gauge repeatability and reproducibility (GR&R) and percent tolerance, as well as what are considered acceptable tolerances. Measurement system assessments may influence decisions that have a significant impact on the lives of patients in industries such as medical devices. As a result, the effect of measurement system analysis on decision making, particularly as it relates to the likelihood of misclassification, is critical.

 

Assessment of Measurement Precision

The relative spread in calculated values for a common object is referred to as precision. A GR&R is generally used to calculate the accuracy of a measurement device. Gage variance is quantified in GR&R tests, and this variance can be compared to a specific measurement range. The range could include the GR&R study’s variability, the variability of a different population, or a fixed interval. When gauge variance is minimal relative to the measurement range of interest, a gauge is usually considered accurate enough.

A GR&R research is a planned experiment that investigates factors that influence gauge variance using a complete factorial design. In most GR&R studies, two factors are usually considered: 1) a random factor that represents bits, and 2) a factor that affects measurement variance (operator is commonly chosen as the second factor). Additional variables may be used, each of which could reflect a different source of variation. Based on the factorial structure of the controlled experiment, a GR&R analysis will classify contributions to gauge variance in terms of repeatability and reproducibility. When the same component is calculated several times with all other variables held constant, repeatability defines the contribution of a measurement device to gauge variance. The relative contribution of additional factors and interactions between additional factors and parts to gauge variance is defined by reproducibility.

 

GR&R Metrics Associated with Gage Precision

The relative percentage that gauges error absorbs over a measurement range is a common way to describe gauge efficiency. Using gauge standard deviation (g) from an ANOVA review of a GR&R sample, three different percentages can be easily calculated:

 

  1. Percent study variation
  2. Percent process
  3. Percent tolerance

Percent R&R indicates how well a measurement device can separate parts from one another across the spectrum of measured variance found during the gauge analysis. Over a historical process operating range, the percent process offers insight into the measurement system’s ability to separate components. If the gauge sample sections are indicative of historic process variation, the percent study variation would be similar to the percent process variation. However, in many situations, the sections selected for the GR&R analysis have a narrower or wider range than the planned or observed process operating range. The percent process can be larger or smaller than the percent sample in these situations. The capacity of a measurement device to differentiate parts from one another across a range of part acceptance specified by specification limits is measured in percent tolerance. The range is determined by twice the distance between the population mean and the specification limit in the case of a one-sided specification.

Gauge precision is determined in each of these cases by comparing gauge variance to a measurement range of interest. The gauge is well suited to distinguish or compare calculated values across the range when the gauge precision error is small relative to the measurement range of interest.

See full story on isixsigma.com

July 14, 2014   Benchmark Six Sigma
Articles, For Master Black Belts, Green Belt tool application examples, Insights for Green Belts
×

  • Is Your Company Solving the Right Problems?
  • Four misconceptions of lean process management

Categories

  • Articles
    • Black Belt Tool Application Examples
    • For Master Black Belts
    • Green Belt tool application examples
    • Insights for Black Belts
    • Insights for Green Belts
    • Lean Insights
    • Lean Six Sigma Leadership
    • Leisure and Fun
    • LSS topics of common interest
    • New to Lean Six Sigma
      • Lean Expert Basics
      • Six Sigma Basics
  • Case Studies
    • Black Belt Qualified
      • Example Black Belt Projects-Health Care
      • Example Black Belt Projects-Manufacturing
      • Example Black Belt Projects-Services
    • Green Belt Qualified
      • Example Green Belt Projects-Health Care
      • Example Green Belt Projects-Manufacturing
      • Example Green Belt Projects-Services
    • Master Black Belt
  • Featured Articles
  • Lean Qualified
    • Lean Success Stories
  • Project Management Articles
  • Uncategorized

Archives

  • April 2021
  • November 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • February 2012
  • March 2011
Copyright © 2023 Benchmark Six Sigma