2005-June

Vol. 19, No. 2 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality June 2005

This is an optical illusion... This is not! See inside for details...

The Standard is published quarterly by the Measurement Quality Division of ASQ; deadlines are February 15, May 15, August 15 and November 15. Text infor-mation intended for publication can be sent via electronic mail as an attachment in MS Word format (Times New Roman, 11 pt). Use single space between sentences. Graphics or illustrations must be sent as a separate attachment, in jpg format. Pho-tographs of MQD activities are always appreciated. Publication of articles, product releases, advertisements or technical information does not imply endorsement by MQD or ASQ. While The Standard makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of articles, the publication disclaims responsibility for statements of fact or opinion made by the authors or other contributors. Material from The Standard may not be reproduced without permission of ASQ. Copyrights in the United States and all other countries are reserved. Website information: MQD’s homepage can be found at http://www.asq.org/measure. © 2005 ASQ, MQD. All rights reserved.

The Standard Vol 19, No. 2, June 2005

Editor and Publisher Jay L. Bucher 6700 Royal View Dr. De Forest, WI 53532-2775 Voice: 608-277-2522 Fax: 608-846-4269 Email: [email protected] or [email protected] Advertising Submit your draft copy to Jay Bucher, with a request for a quotation. Indicate size desired. Since The Standard is published ‘in-house’ the requester must submit a photo or graphic of their logo, if applicable. The following rates apply:

Business card size ............................ $100 1/8 page .......................................... $150 1/4 page ........................................... $200 1/3 page ........................................... $250 ½ page ............................................. $300 Full page ......................................... $550

Advertisements will be accepted on a ‘per issue’ basis only; no long-term contracts will be available at present. Advertising must be clearly distinguished as an ad. Ads must be related to measurement quality, quality of measurement, or a related quality field. Ads must not imply endorsement by the Measure-ment Quality Division or ASQ.

Letters to the Editor The Standard welcomes letters from mem-bers and subscribers. Letters should clearly state whether the author is expressing opin-ion or presenting facts with supporting infor-mation. Commendation, encouragement, constructive critique, suggestions, and alter-native approaches are accepted. If the con-tent is more than 200 words, we may delete portions to hold that limit. We reserve the right to edit letters and papers. Information for Authors The Standard publishes papers on the qual-ity of measurements and the measurement of quality at all levels ranging from relatively simple tutorial material to state-of-the-art. Papers published in The Standard are not referred in the usual sense, except to ascer-tain that facts are correctly stated and to as-sure that opinion and fact are clearly distin-guished one from another. The Editor re-serves the right to edit any paper.

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAIR’S COLUMN ......................................................................3 CHAIR-ELECT’S COLUMN ........................................................4 CCT UPDATE................................................................................6 METROLOGY COMMUNITY NEWS.........................................6 THE METROLOGY HANDBOOK..................................................7 ASQ RECERTIFICATION PRIMER ............................................8 THE STANDARDS COMMITTEE ACTIVITY ...........................9 THE LEARNING CURVE...........................................................10 THE LEARNING CURVE...........................................................11 ANNOUNCEMENTS...................................................................12 METROLOGY JOB DESCRIPTION INITIATIVE....................13 MQD MEETING MINUTES .......................................................15 EVENTS CALENDAR ................................................................16 MQD SPONSORED NCSLI SESSION .......................................21 CORRECT & IMPROVED GAGE R&R MEASUREMENT STUDIES ......................................................................................22 MQD OFFICERS AND COMMITTEE CHAIRS .......................33

FROM THE DESK OF THE EDITOR/PUBLISHER In this edition, you’ll find a double dose of The Learn-ing Curve, columns 40 and 41, beginning on pages 10 and 11, respectively. Also, I’ve done most of my edito-rializing in my column on The Metrology Handbook. Not enough space here, so I took the liberty of using the available space. Our illustrious Chair, Dilip Shah gives his out-going remarks, while the Chair-elect, Graeme Payne (it is pronounced ‘pain’...a little humor from a friend; read his column and you’ll understand) introduces himself and gets off to a running start. We also have a reprint from Professor, Dr. Donald S. Ermer. I may not be cor-rectly using his titles in the previous sentence, but at least we published his important article. Thanks, Don, for resubmitting. I again ask our readers for their submissions. Just email me, and we will go from there. Enjoy!

June 2005 The Standard MQD

Vol. 19, No. 2 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality

CHAIR’S COLUMN By Dilip Shah

This is my last column in my capacity as Measure-ment Quality Division Chair. I have not known how fast my time has flown by. That means that I had very good ex-periences working with the volunteers at the di-vision and national level. I have had an opportu-nity to meet some of you

at various conferences and events. Many things have happened during my term as Di-vision Chair. The CCT exam has really taken off. The latest news from the certification department was that a record 223 candidates had signed up to take the June 2005 exam. The Division sponsored the publication of its first book under the auspices of ASQ’s Quality Press. The Metrology Handbook has had very good press reviews. As we go to press, it will be ready for its second print run. We are leading efforts to classify metrology profes-sions under the Department of Labor job listing. This opportunity comes once every 10 years and it is imperative that we do it now or we have to wait another ten years for proper classification of me-trology professionals. We had our first Division Conference in 5 years, jointly with the Inspection Division in September 2004 in Heath, Ohio. This event attracted members from both divisions and received very good feed-back We have increased our publicity by hosting ses-sions at the Measurement Science Conference (MSC) and the National Conference of Standards Laboratories (NCSL) International. We have coop-erated with these two fine organizations where we have synergy to ensure that the metrology profes-sion benefits from these activities. We have repre-sentation on Standards Committees that we sup-port. We continue to support the Joe Simmons Scholarship co-sponsored by the Division, MSC and the NCSLI.

For all these activities to happen, we require a core group of volunteers. We have a good group that has provided these success stories. Yet, we can al-ways use more volunteers to mentor and provide for succession planning. Therefore, I am asking you to consider the Chair-Elect, Graeme’s plea for more volunteers in his column. Graeme is part of the success story behind this di-vision and I wish him well and I urge the division to support him in his capacity as Division Chair as you have supported me. I would like to thank the many folks on the Divi-sion Council who have helped the MQD in its suc-cess story: • The late Phil Stein for coaxing me into the Chair

Position. He knew what was good for me before I knew it. Phil always delivered what he said he would. He was a good mentor and is sorely missed.

• Chris Grachanen for being who he is. A selfless

individual who has spent countless hours promot-ing various metrology causes (freeware Uncer-tainty Calculator software; bringing the Certified Calibration Technician exam from an idea to re-ality; and The Department of Labor Job Classifi-cation). Chris also has a day job at Hewlett Pack-ard.

• Jay Bucher for leading The Metrology Handbook

project. Writing this handbook with eight co-authors across the country was a challenge that he managed with success. A perfect example of a good project management study to benchmark.

• Graeme Payne for his patience and wisdom when

working on The Metrology Handbook project and being able to deliver excellent written work for submission to Quality Progress.

• Duane Allen (Immediate Past Chair): For letting

me develop into the Chair position and being there when needed and staying out of the way when not needed. I have valued my friendship with Duane that has developed over the last two years.

(Continued on page 22)



Chair-Elect’s Column Graeme C. Payne

I want to take a few min-utes to introduce myself, and some information that I have learned about the Measurement Quality Divi-sion. By the time this is published I may have met you and other members of the Division in Seattle but I am reasonably confident that not everyone will have been there.

I know that people I have not met – that is, most of you – first want to know how to pronounce my name. Just say it as if it is spelled “graham”. The variation in spelling is regional; “Graham” is from Scotland and “Graeme” is from southern England, where I was born. The name with my spelling is common in England, somewhat less common in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and very rare in the United States. While preparing to take over as Chair in July, I have been reviewing the state of the Measurement Quality Division, who we are and what we do. I have been reading the bylaws, policies and proce-dures; double-checking various lists of volunteers; reviewing old copies of The Standard to see what previous Chairs have said and done; talking with several of you, and so on. Even though I have been a member of the Division since 1991, I did find a few things that surprised me. For example, I am sure you know that ASQ is a global organization. A quick look at the MQD membership list shows that almost 87% of our members are in the USA, including Puerto Rico and military members sta-tioned overseas. Another 5.6% of our members are in Canada, spread from the Maritime provinces to British Columbia. The rest of our members are lo-cated in 58 other countries, showing the global na-ture of the Division and the global importance of metrology. One thing that did not surprise me was the ongoing need for people to volunteer to be active in leader-ship and committee positions. This is not a new

issue, nor is it unique to MQD. I noted that past Chairs Duane Allen and Mark Schoenlein wrote about the same thing in the Fall 2000 issue of The Standard. I saw the same challenge as a Section Chair 10 years ago, and in a few other places and organizations. There are a number of personal benefits to serving MQD as a volunteer. The primary one I see is the personal satisfaction derived from doing work that benefits the Division, the metrology community at large, and ASQ. Another benefit is the opportunity to expand your network of professional contacts. For many people, volunteer work is an opportunity to develop leadership, management and communi-cation skills. Another important benefit of ASQ volunteer service is recertification points. Finally, if you, like me, have an employer that does not give financial support for your ASQ work it is also an opportunity to accumulate deductible expenses and increase your income tax refund. An important benefit to the Division is the vitality developed from new ideas from new volunteers. The Measurement Quality Division has many op-portunities for volunteer work. The bylaws man-date a leadership team composed of the elected officers, standing committees and regional council-ors; and the Division has created additional com-mittees for certain tasks. We also have an ongoing need for members who are Certified Calibration Technicians to review and maintain the CCT ex-amination and body of knowledge. Another thing I learned in my review was the num-ber and variety of volunteer opportunities in the Division. I had been aware of only a few, so I want to briefly list the volunteer positions. They fall into categories of elected officers, roles listed as re-quired in the bylaws, and other committees estab-lished by the leadership team. The MQD leadership team includes all of the elected officers, committee chairs and regional councilors listed below. In addition to the responsi-bilities of the function, each of these people should make every effort to attend the Division leadership meetings. The officers are elected for one-year




terms, and the Chair and Treasurer are limited to two consecutive terms in those positions. The by-laws define several permanent or “standing” com-mittees; the chairs of those committees are voting members of the leadership team.

Chair: the chief executive of the Division. Cannot

serve more than 2 consecutive terms. Chair-Elect: acts as Chair in his/her absence. As-

sists the Chair in managing the Division. Secretary: provides meeting notices, takes minutes

and keeps records. Treasurer: the financial manager and record-keeper

of the Division. Cannot serve more than 2 con-secutive terms.

Bylaws committee: this committee is to “observe & apply” the bylaws. If changes are desired, the committee presents the change to the Division leadership, and manages the change approval as it moves through the ASQ Division Affairs Council, ASQ Bylaws Com-mittee and finally the ASQ Board of Directors.

Examining committee: this committee nominates members for grade advancement and awards. The committee Chair and all members must be Senior Members, ASQ Fellows or Honorary Members.

Nominating committee: this committee accepts nominations and searches for candidates for all of these positions. They have to qualify and nominate at least one candidate for each elected office & regional councilor position. The Division Immediate Past Chair and the Chair-Elect are automatic members of this committee, and the Immediate Past Chair is the committee chair.

Programs committee: this committee plans & man-ages Division events, such as the Fall Techni-cal conference and the Division’s participation in the ASQ WCQI, the NCSL International Symposium and the Measurement Science Conference. The committee chair is the liaison to the ASQ & Regional Conference Boards.

Publications committee: this committee plans & manages Division publications, such as this newsletter. The committee chair is the liaison to ASQ Publication Management Board.

Strategic Planning committee: this committee is responsible for planning the Division’s long

term development. At least one member must be a past Chair of the Division.

The bylaws also permit the Division to have Re-gional councilors, defined as non-voting members of the Division leadership team. As well as being advisory members of the leadership team, they are a local point of contact for members, organizations and other parties in their regions. We should have at least one RC for each region, and they may also appoint assistants. The bylaws allow the Division to create other com-mittees as needed. Committee chairs are appointed by the Division Chair for a term of 2 years. The Chairs of these committees are non-voting mem-bers of the leadership team. The leadership team can vote to make a committee chair a voting mem-ber of the team; that must be renewed each fiscal year. In this category, we currently have a Certifi-cation committee that plans and manages the Certi-fied Calibration Technician Body of Knowledge, and the examinations. MQD also has a volunteer liaison to NCSL Interna-tional. A liaison person reports relevant informa-tion between the organizations, serves as a contact person, and helps coordinate joint activities. I would also like to see liaisons to other ASQ Divi-sions – this is an idea that was first proposed by Duane Allen several years ago and I believe it still has merit. If you are a member of another Division, consider how metrology affects that area and then consider becoming a liaison volunteer. I always encourage participation and feedback. You are the customer of the Division leadership team, and the voice of the customer is just as im-portant here as the voices of your customers are to you. MQD generally has four or five leadership team meetings each year, and any member can at-tend. All of the meetings can be attended by tele-conference – ask any officer for details. Three of the meetings are held during conventions and can be attended in person. Those meetings are held dur-ing these events:

• ASQ World Congress on Quality and Improve-ment (WCQI, formerly AQC), held annually in

(Continued from page 4)




May. For the purposes of the bylaws, this is considered the Division’s annual meeting.

• NCSL International Workshops and Sympo-sium, held annually in August.

• Measurement Science Conference, held annu-ally in January, in Anaheim, California. (Due to venue scheduling conflicts, the 2006 confer-ence will be in February.)

Your Division is currently working on several pro-jects. For example, we held a technical conference in September 2004 as a joint event with the Inspec-tion Division, and we are now working on plans for another one in September 2005 – that will be held in Norco, California. I look forward to supporting this and other projects in the coming months. Please feel welcome to contact me with your com-ments, concerns, or offers to help. Graeme C. Payne E-mail: [email protected] Fax: 1-866-887-9344 (USA & Canada only, toll-free)

CCT UPDATE By Chris Grachanen

MQD Certification Chair

ASQ headquarters, in a show of flexibil-ity and responsive-ness for ‘future’ ASQ member needs, extended the April 2005 application deadline for its June

2005 CCT exam offering. This unusual extension was granted to accommodate CCT exam applicants who requested more time in order to get their appli-cation paperwork processed through their com-pany’s continuing education departments. As of this writing (early May 2005), there are a total of 233 applicants for the June 2005 CCT exam offer-ing, a new record! Previous record for total number of CCT exam applicants was 139. Good luck to those taking the June 2005 CCT exam but of course luck has little to do with pass-ing it.

Metrology Community News Note: neither ASQ nor MQD endorses any accred-iting agency, training programs, or institutions; and this news is only provided as a service to the measurement community.

Fall 2005 Training Course Schedule Provided by A2LA

Title: Introduction to Measurement Uncertainty • September 26-27, 2005 – Novi, MI ($795.00, $745.00) November 14-15, 2005 – Orlando, FL ($795.00, $745.00) Title: ISO/IEC 17025 and Accreditation • September 28 – 30, 2005 –Novi, MI ($995.00, $945.00) November 16-18, 2005 – Orlando, FL ($995.00, $945.00) Title: Control Charting for Metrology Applica-tions October 3-4, 2005 – Cleveland, OH ($795.00, $745.00)

Title: The World of EMC Standards-Present and Future October 5, 2005 – Cleveland, OH ($395.00, $345.00) Title: Assessment of Laboratory Competence October 17-21, 2005 – Annapolis, MD ($1595.00, $1545.00) For additional information, please contact Ms. Julie Stevens, A2LA Training Coordinator, at 301 644 3235 or [email protected].




The Metrology Handbook By Jay L. Bucher

Editor & co-author Allow me to start this edition by thanking the readers that took time out of their busy schedules to provide me feedback on our new electronic edition of The Standard. Some items brought to my attention never crossed my mind, while others sugges-tions might have been beat to death long before we went to

press. From the feedback I’ve received, both through email and second hand from my fellow MQD officers, we were not too far off the mark in both publishing electronically, and in the format and content. I think a big thank you should go to Dilip Shah, Graeme Payne, Chris Grachanen, Karl Wigdal, Keela Sniadach, and Cori Pinchard for their suggestions, comments and reviews. Without the inputs from non-biased members of MQD, I could not have gotten this “rag” off the ground in a timely manner. This is the last edition for our current Chair, Dilip Shah, to grace our publication with his words of wisdom, foresight, and guidance. It has truly been a pleasure for me to work with Dilip over the past couple of years; as an SME during CCT work-shops, a co-author of The Metrology Handbook, and finally as an officer with the MQD. ‘Thank you’ doesn’t seem to quite do it justice, but we have many more years of working together within the MQD, and on future projects to continue our friendship. I continue to rely on his vast knowledge and experience to expand my own ‘tool box’. On that note, this edition contains a brief introduc-tion from our Chair-elect, Graeme Payne. I have also worked with Graeme as an SME, co-author, and officer in the MQD. I’m excited about where Dilip has taken the MQD, and the path Graeme will continue to lead us down during his term as Chair. The passing of the torch is July 1st. I suppose it is time to write about The Metrology Handbook. It has incorporated all of the errata

sheet information, and gone to press for its second printing. How would our illustrious readers know which edition they have in their possession? Here’s the scoop on identifying which is which. On page iv (the page opposite the Table of Contents), at the top, there is a number code that currently reads as follows: 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 5 4 3 2 1. The next printing will change from ‘1’ to ‘2’. So the last five digits will read 5 4 3 2 2. At least this is what my acquisition editor informs me. Please keep in mind this is a reprint of the original book, with the cor-rections listed on the errata sheet, which can also be found on the MQD website, and down loaded for free. This is NOT a revision, incorporat-ing new information. When we start any revision, you’ll be the first to hear any calls for authors, or reviewers, right here in The Standard. Here is another optical illusion...as you fixate on the central dot and move closer and further from the page, the pair of circles will appear to rotate.



ASQ RECERTIFICATION PRIMER Christopher L. Grachanen

Recertification, within a specified timeframe, is required for many ASQ peer certifica-tion programs. MQD sponsored Certified Calibration Techni-cian (CCT) program is one such program that requires recerti-fication. The time-

frame for CCT recertification is once every three years. So, what is recertification? What are the criteria for recertification? What is the recertifica-tion process? These are a few of the questions that will be addressed in this primer along with some pointers on to how to make the task of recertifica-tion a little easier. For many seasoned ASQ alumni this information may be old news but for many CCT graduates, that do not hold other ASQ certifi-cations, the requirements for recertification may seem daunting. Simply put, recertification is the ‘act of attesting to meeting a standard, again’. With this simple defini-tion in mind, why would someone want to make recertification a requirement if one had already proven themselves capable of meeting a standard in the first place? I think it would be helpful to define standard at this time relative to ASQ peer certifica-tion programs, as ‘demonstrating acceptable com-prehension (as defined by ones peers) of a specific body of knowledge (also defined by ones peers) at a particular point in time’. With that being said, I would like to regress to the time when the CCT program was but a glimmer in a few volunteer eyes, long before the program was officially ac-cepted by both ASQ’s Certification Board and ASQ’s Board of Directors. During multiple, on-line ‘virtual’ debates CCT committee members were generally of the consensus that recertification was a necessary evil because they perceived that a significant portion of the CCT body of knowledge was dynamic in nature and that the requisite to keep updated was self evident. This was particu-larly true in areas impacted by technology changes such as instrumentation hardware, software valida-tion and automation techniques as well as changing

quality standards, shifting industry accepted prac-tices and new data reporting schemes/formats. Without being actively involved (to some level) in the Metrology field, most CCT committee mem-bers agreed that a CCT graduate would become outdated in regards to new Metrology concepts, methodologies and hardware that they either knew nothing about or possessed inadequate knowledge about. CCT committee members also generally agreed that Metrology knowledge would ‘fade’ over time unless put into practice and/or reviewed periodically. CCT committee members strongly felt it essential that any ASQ Metrology based certification pro-gram should require recertification in order to maintain an acceptable level of competence relative to subject matter deemed necessary for satisfacto-rily performing Metrology related tasks. Of course the definition of what is an ‘accepted level of com-petence’ is subjective in nature and must be estab-lished for all ASQ certification exams as a ‘pass/fail’ threshold based on statistical significance and peer review. Note: Without an ‘accepted level of competence’ it is difficult to determine marginal performance limits in contrast to performance ex-tremes which are easily classified as being satisfac-tory or unsatisfactory. To summarize the mind set of the CCT committee, most members agreed that recertification was needed to 1) help keep CCT alumni updated about changes in the field and 2) help them from getting ‘too rusty’ regarding the knowledge needed to perform required tasks. It was also felt that recertification would eventually weed out one time, ‘cram for the exam, pass and not remain active in the field’ graduates. Now that we have addressed the ‘whys’ of recerti-fication let us now focus on the criteria needed for ASQ recertification. First, one can be recertified by again taking and passing an ASQ certification exam (not normally the preferred method for get-ting recertified due to the chance of failing the exam and the cost incurred - $105 retake fee). Re-certification can also be granted by compiling a minimum number of Recertification Units (RU) over a specific timeframe (most preferred method for getting recertified - $30 application fee). RUs are granted for participation in activities deemed




THE STANDARDS COMMITTEE ACTIVITY

By Bill McCullough The US Technical Advisory Group (TAG) met in the sunny-southland for our spring meeting, Atlanta Geor-gia to be exact. This meeting’s focus was to move the work on the design specifications for the next ISO 9001 and 9004 revision forward. The TAG is on tar-get and schedule at this point.

One of the general topics of concern to the TAG is a subject that I have touched on in the past; the credibility of the ISO certificate. It is extremely important that ISO 9001 certificates identify only firms that have met all the requirements of the stan-dard. The TAG is attempting to identify issues where that is not the case and most importantly, why? One issue under discussion is fierce comple-tion among assessors to get and certify firms. Com-petition is generally a good thing but is it in this case; it is easy to see resultant problems.

The certificate, not the quality system, be-comes the goal

The firm is purchasing the certificate from the lowest bidder

If one certifying firm becomes too demand-ing, the firm can buy the certificate elsewhere

It is in the best interest of the certifying firm to pass his customer

A permissive certifying firm undermines internal auditors and consultant’s sug-gestions and findings

In the United States, we do not seem to have good answers to these issues. In other countries, their governments may be involved. It would seem that we, the users of ISO 9001, are the best resource to identify or resolve the issues, but I understand that such input can be sensitive. As ISO 9001 users, we are caught in the middle between our management and the auditors. If we have not sold management

on the value of an effective quality management system, management may be promoting the inef-fective audits. In short, if you blow the whistle, you may be looking for work. If that is the case, I am offering to be the clearing-house of anonymous concerns, stories and antidotes having to do with the credibility of 9001. Email me at [email protected] with “confidential” in the subject line and before I even read it, I will erase your name and company. If that is not anonymous enough, snail-mail it to me without a return ad-dress. The next TAG will be in Washington DC the last week of August. I will deliver your inputs then. The NCSLI 174 (Z540-1 update) Work Group cir-culated a draft document to the full committee for comment. The working group discussed those com-ments, and based a new draft document on those comments. We will meet this month to refine this draft and present the results to the committee at the August NCSLI Conference. I have reviewed the new draft and think that it is truly a superior cali-bration standard. I am proud of the hard work of our leader Del Caldwell, the working group, and honored to be part of it. INTERACTIVE SECTION When performing a calibration or designing a test specification or procedure, how many test-points are sufficient? ISO 9001 says, “…provide evidence of conformity of product to determined requirements.” Most of the time determined requirements means the instru-ments specifications. ISO 17025 says: “appropriate methods and procedures for all tests and/or calibra-tions within its scope.” Does “scope” mean instru-ment specification? Z540-1(R2002) says: “Calibration procedures shall contain the required ranges or uncertainty of each item or unit parame-ter being calibrated.” Z540 get closer but have any of these standards provided guidance for what needs to be tested or calibrated? When discussing generalized calibration, an audio amplifier is a good example because it is some-




THE LEARNING CURVE By Phil Painchaud

This is the fortieth in a contigu-ous series of rambling essays, charted obstensively to be on the subject of Metrology Educa-tion, but which often wanders astray at the whim of the author. As this one gets underway, it could do the same. Our readers do not seem to mind or at least not enough of them have peti-

tioned the MQD to exacerbate it. As usual, this will be in the form of an open letter to our Boss the Edi-tor-in-Chief of this Journal. Dear Boss: Have you ever noticed what a frenzied hurry-up world we seem to live in? We take our meals on the run at fast food emporia. We frequent drive-thru banks and ATM machines for our financial matters. We watch abbreviated encapsulated news briefs on TV rather than read the whole story in newspapers. We want convenience stores on every corner. Why do we forget or fail to recognize that some things take time to develop? Fine wines do not come directly off the vine. Concrete can take up to 50 years to cure completely. It takes twelve years of basic education and practice to produce a qualified physician, even before he is eligible to receive specialized training in a specific field. Why is it then that so many individuals seem to think that Metrologists can be created instantly by ap-pointment or by being exposed to some crash course? The noted Nineteenth Century philosopher and po-litical analyst de Tocqueville (full name: Alexis Chales-Henri-Maurice-Clérel de Tocque-ville) toured the United States early in the 1830’s to study the American democracy. After he returned to France, he complied and published a massive two-volume pandect of his analyses of everything he saw while here, particularly those things he ob-served concerning the American people them-selves. This work entitled “De la Democratie en Amerique”, has been a sina qua non for scholars for the past century and a half. Of the hundreds of

observations he expressed concerning the Ameri-can people none is more germane to our theme herein than: “THE OUTSTANDING CHARACTERISTIC OF AMERICANS IS THEY ARE A PEOPLE WHO ARE ALWAYS IN A HURRY” — Boss, it appears that ‘the more things change, more they stay the same’. It seems that despite 167 years of alleged progress since de Tocqueville published his observations, we are still in a blind hurry. I have been writing this column for twelve years now and have literally lost track of the number of times that individuals have approached me, written to me, called me on the telephone, or e-mailed me asking in effect, “How can I become a Metrologist instantly?” They never seem to ask me how they can become a qualified Metrology Technician or Certifiable Calibrator over night, they want the ul-timate, the technological vertex, and they want it instantly, or at least in not so long a time that it takes them away from their Monday night football. It is often a case where they have just been ap-pointed by some dunderhead in Management to head a scientific unit within their employer organi-zation. They ask me how they can suddenly be-come qualified to fill that position. What book can they read? What video can they watch? What quickie on-line course can they subscribe to that will make them a learned experienced Metrologist before the boss finds out that they really are not qualified to fill that position. Sounds ridiculous does it not? Improbable? I agree, but it has hap-pened to me innumerable times during the past sev-eral years—and it will probably continue to happen indefinitely into the future. Sometimes these approaches come from the other extreme. I often receive one of these messages say-ing something like, “I graduated with honors form the DOD Calibration School at the XYZ Base (or from the ABC Vocational School). I can calibrate a multifrequency, syncrochannel, terahertz spectrum analyzer in a half an hour flat; what’s more is there to learn about Metrology?” I hear this or something quite similar altogether too frequently. I could (and




THE LEARNING CURVE By Phil Painchaud

This is the forty-first in a con-tiguous series of essays that be-gan publication in this journal in 1992, with a charter of promot-ing Metrology Education. While it has generally attempted to adhere to that mandate, it has at times, and more frequently of late, has deviated at the whim of the author. As we progress in

this iteration, it probably might do the same. As usual it will be in the format of an open letter to our Boss, the Editor-in-Chief of this periodical. Dear Boss: If I may borrow a line from Lewis Carroll; “—The time has come, — to talk of many things: Of shoes—and ships—and sealing wax—of cab-bages—and of kings—”. In other words, Boss we have many different things to discuss in this issue. First in importance however is the review of a new book entitled “THE METROLOGY HAND-BOOK” of which you are the Editor and is spon-sored by our Measurement Quality Division. But, let us leave that for later in this column and first tell of some important news about a Metrology Education program. On March 18, 2005 I received a telephone call from Dr. Gene Watson (you should remember him, he was, before his retirement, the Coordinator of the Quality and Measurement Sciences programs at California State University Dominguez Hills) tell-ing me that my presence was requested at a special meeting to be held at Dominguez Hills on March 23. Naturally, I went and upon arrival, found most of the old Curriculum Advisory Committee and several new individuals, all of whom were intro-duced as graduates of Dr. Watson’s earlier “Masters in Quality Program. Dean Margate Gordon presided as usual and in-formed us that because of the success of the Qual-ity Assurance Program (that includes our Measure-ment Science option) the University as elevated Extended Education Division to a full College

status with her heading it. From now on, it is to be the COLLEGE OF EXTENDED AND INTERNA-TIONAL EDUCATION within the California State University–Dominguez Hills. To you not familiar with academia, let me explain that this is a tremen-dous boost in academic status and prestige. It pro-vides solidity and assurance for our Bachelor of Science in Quality (Measurement Science Option). Furthermore, for those of us who were present, it changed our status from members of a temporary advisory committee to members of a permanent Curriculum Review Board. For those of you who have been holding back because you were afraid that you could become involved in some “rickey tick” vocational training promotion, you can now be assured that an education you might receive through the Dominguez Hills program will be fully accredited and accepted worldwide. Remember, you do not have to travel to the Dominguez Hills campus in Carson, CA. You can do all of this on-line. The Dominguez Hills staff, under Dr. Watson, for nearly fifteen years have been involved in “Distant Learning”; they have unparallel experience in on-line teaching. To date they have graduated nearly 300 Masters in Quality. Why wait? Enroll now! Those of you, who have been reading this column for any period of time, will recognize that I can be a stickler for the use of proper nomenclature. I am hard on people who try to invent new terms where proper ones already exist and have been in the vocabulary for eons. I regularly receive e-mail advertising from a company that produces metrol-ogy related training seminars. I have never at-tended one of theirs, but if the instructors and the material is only half as good as their advertising copywriters, the seminars must be great. Recently I received from them an announcement of a new seminar entitled “Analytical Metrology”. I have been around the Measurement Sciences for about sixty years and this was a new one on me. So I wrote to the Sales Manager asking, “What is it?” The answer came back, “It’s all about titration, spectroscopy, chromatography, colorimetry, and the like in chemical measurements.” “Why are you not calling it ‘Stoichiometry’? That is the cor-




thing that most of us own that has specifications that we can understand. It has specified audio fre-quency, amplitude ranges, and noise levels. Practi-cally, we take the amplifier home, plug it into our CD and speakers, and see if it plays and sounds good enough, but what if we actually wanted to calibrate the amplifier? A good starting point is to, as I called it, “test the corners.” That is, in respect to the 1 kHz reference point, to test the specifica-tion at the highest power out at the highest and lowest frequencies. Then repeat it for the lowest amplitude or noise floor. Having done that is the amplifier calibrated? Taking it a step further, is the amplifier tested or calibrated? What is the differ-ence? ISO 17025 specifies test and calibration so the last question is relevant. Look at the difference be-tween test and calibration, at least as we see it in the U.S. It is more than the cal lab taking care to ensure that more of the instrument is tested. There is a process difference. Because of cost and time constraints, production test should be testing, as little as possible that will ensure the product’s in-tegrity. The key to adequate production testing is keeping metrics on historical parameters. These metrics may come from internal data collection, calibration, repair services or customer feedback. When a metric identifies a parameter with a low probability of failure, the test may be removed. This is good test logic but is questionable calibra-tion logic. Calibration should be testing all of the specifications. Back to the audio amplifier, good Metrologists know to sweep the frequency bandwidth or at least check some intermediate points along with linear-ity or distortion tests. The problem is the pointy haired boss wants cost driven from calibrations because the Lick-em and Stick-em Calibration Company (LSCC) is bringing their van in to the territory. Their calibration procedure checks the 1 kHz reference point and calls the amplifier cali-brated. Too often large customer’s purchases cali-bration like any commodity, from the lowest bid-der. The boss, a person with a MBA and no techni-cal leanings could find nothing in the standards that defines what an adequate calibration is and thinks that LSCC is on to something. Your choice is fol-

low LSCCs shady example or to convince the boss and more importantly the customer of the inade-quacy of LSCC’s procedure. The talking points are; shouldn’t the standards de-fine an adequate calibration? How should an ade-quate calibration be defined in a standard without requiring an infinite number of tests? Should the knowledge that an instrument uses the same path or algorithm for more that one function or range be used to reduce the number of test points? New standards may use a standard resistor and voltage source to effect calibration, is that calibration with-out further test points? In the interactive section of my report I have pre-sented a dilemma that could easily undermine our industry. I am very interested in your solution to the dilemma. Bill McCullough McCullough Consulting 1936 June Cr Carson City, NV 89706 Phone 775-883-3042 Cell 775-220-2464 Email [email protected]


ANNOUNCEMENTS

MQD is proud to announce that Mr. Dan Harper, proprietor/retired of HQA received the Freund-Marquardt Medal in recognition for an individual who has held positions of responsibility for devel-opment of standards that focus on the management system of an organization. Congratulations Dan! We are proud of you for earning this well deserved award. Dan had been MQD's standards representa-tive for a long time before Bill McCullough took over. ASQ ID/MQD Fall Conference, September 22nd & 23rd, 2005, in Norco, CA. The Inspection Division and Measurement Quality Division of ASQ an-nounce the 2005 fall conference. Call for papers and conference information is available at www.asq.org/measure.



METROLOGY JOB DESCRIPTION INITIATIVE By Chris Grachanen

As of this writing (end of April 2005), the National Conference of Stan-dards Laboratories International (NCSLI) has sent a broadcast e-mail to its constituents requesting job descriptions for Calibration Technician, Cali-bration Engineer and Metrologist be sent to Pat Muenzen of Professional Examination Services (PES). ASQ headquarters is planning to do the same as well as sending out postcards to those MQD constituents that pre-fer to be contacted by ‘snail’ mail. Readers may remember the PES has been contracted to administer the

MJT initiative for the MQD and, as a first step in correcting inadequacies in the U.S. Dept. of Labor’s Standard Occupational Listing (SOC) system, is requesting job descriptions be sent to them in order to determine common requirements / expectations for each description. Once these requirements / expecta-tions are compiled and summarized they will be used to develop questions for a national survey schedule for the fall of 2005. PES has received total of 130 job descriptions to date, including 50 from government and 85 from indus-try sources. PES has compiled more job descriptions for Calibration Technicians (86) than for Metrolo-gists and Calibration Engineers (49). PES will continue to accept job descriptions till the end of May 2005. In support of the MJD initiative a core team has been established. The following MQD and NCSLI con-stituents have volunteered for the core team:

Jay Bucher – Promega Corporation

Christopher L. Grachanen (Project Leader) - Hewlett-Packard Company

Shawn B Mason - St. Jude Medical

Gloria J Neely – US Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Center

Graeme C. Payne - GK Systems, Inc.

Don Ruth - US Army TMDE

Howard Zion – Transcat

These volunteers have a passion for the Metrology field and understand the need to help enable / attract new comers to it. The core team is tasked with the following: • Participation in overseeing the common job elements developed from submitted job descriptions • Participation in the pilot job description survey Participation in overseeing the final compiled job descriptions



rect term for chemically related measurements”, I asked. The answer I received astounded me, “Our instructor has never heard of the term, and he says that he wants to call the seminar ‘Analytic Metrol-ogy’. Our policy is to allow our instructors to use whatever terms they desire”. I immediately went to some reference sources to ascertain that I was not the one at fault. According to my on hard disk dictionary, the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: : STOICHIOMETRY: The quan-titative relationship between reactants and prod-ucts in a chemical reaction. I then tried some chemical references to see how far back I could go. I found it in The Wardsworth Dictionary of Science and Technology, 1995 Edi-tion. Not old enough? How about the 1976 Edition of The Handbook of Chemistry and Physics? Are there still doubts? Let’s try Norris’s. Organic Chemistry, 1930 Edition or back further yet, Mar-shall’s Notes on Chemical Lectures, 1888 Edition. Now that is going back a ways! In fact, it goes back even further than I do—even before my fa-ther. Of course, all of these definitions are not pre-cisely the same. With different authors, it would not be logical to expect them to be, but they all do involve the measurements of chemical quantities and/or reactions. This is a good example of why we do need standardization of terms and vocabulary. So let us settle for:

—Stoichiometry is that branch of the Measurement Sciences that encompasses all measurements both in the theory and in the prac-tice of the Chemical Sciences as well as those in Chemical Engineering.—

The moral of my homily here is: “Do not make a fool of yourself by broadcasting your ignorance; an ignorance characterized by inventing terms to suit your fancy where well established terms al-ready exist! Do some research before you go off “half-cocked”! A month ago, April 2, 2005 to be precise, in Rome, the world lost a prominent and influential individ-ual. While he was probably a great influence on the

morals and ethics of many, including those in-volved in Metrology, I doubt very much if he con-tributed anything directly to the technology of our science. Two days earlier, March 31, 2005 in a small town in Kentucky, the Metrology and Cali-bration community lost an individual, virtually un-known to most practitioners in our field, yet one who had at times exerted a tremendous influence on them. I am referring to retired U.S. Navy Master Chief Petty Officer Claude Fourroux. Unbe-knownst to most, his passing has caused a void to hundreds of you who passed through the DOD School at Lowry Air Force Base at Denver, Colo-rado. While he only taught a very few classes him-self, in his primary role as Master Chief Instructor (i.e., Superintendent of Instruction), from behind the scenes, he controlled everything you were taught and how it was taught to you. He and I first met in1984 while he was trying to revive a com-mercial calibration operation he had acquired after his retirement. His honesty and integrity and down to earth know how impressed me and we became close friends. In 1996, from his retirement home in Kentucky, he wrote me a long letter in support of the positions I was presenting in these columns. The letter was intended for publication in this journal, but it “fell through the cracks” and somehow it never was. It is too lengthy to include fully here, however I would like to quote a few paragraphs to you now. ——I have been following your column in the ASQC Measurement Quality Division newsletter, "THE STANDARD" for some time. I am beginning to be concerned with what I keep hearing from various organiza-tions and individuals about Mili-tary Calibrators. What I am concerned about is the self-promotion of military trained calibrators to the title of Metrologist. In reality, this is an issue of definition/terminology. I want you know that I have a “thing” about using correct definitions. I believe that you firmly hit the nail on the head with your defining the two (2) key words; Education and Training.—— At this point in his letter, he went into a long and detailed description of his thirty-year military his-tory in both the Army and the Navy, and his ap-





MQD PHONE CONFERENCE ASQ WORLD CONFERENCE ON QUALITY AND IMPROVEMENT

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 17 MAY 2005

ATTENDEES - Present

Dilip Shah Graeme Payne Colleen Gadbois (Dan Harper’s daughter and past treasurer of MQD) Dan Harper Jeff Pfouts

ATTENDEES - Phone Norm Belecki Chris Grachanen Keith Bennett Phillip Painchaud

OPENING Dilip and Graeme welcomed everybody. Dilip noted that we had a quorum to conduct the busi-ness meeting. Dilip related that Dan Harper received the Freund-Marquardt Medal in recogni-tion for an individual who has held positions of responsibility for development of standards that focus on the management system of an organization. Congratulations Dan!

STANDARDS COMMITTEE – Dan Harper The work on the final revision of NCSLI Working Group 1 for ANSI/BCSLI Z-540 is still con-tinuing. ANSI/ASQC M1-1996, American National Standard for Calibration Systems, is slated to expire in 2006. The MQD is the owner of M1-1996. Dan related that in order to retain the knowledge it contains (specifically about calibration systems) that probably the best thing to do is to withdraw it from active ANSI standard status and keep it as an ASQ publication. Dan noted that sales for M1-1996 is still strong and ASQ wants to keep it in its inventory. Dan and Bill McCullough will draft a letter of recommendation to MQD regarding the future of M1-1996.

OPEN ACTION ITEMS FROM LAST MEETING – CCT Coin Chris suggested that Keela’s CCT coin design be used for starting point. Dilip recommended aligning the ASQ & MQD logos and making sure they are in agreement with formatting guide-lines. Dilip will make any necessary changes to Keela’s design and submit to MQD officers for comments.

NIST MEASURMENT INITIATIVE – Norm Belecki NIST announced a Measurement Initiative ‘Roadmapping America's Measurement Needs for a Stronger Innovation Infrastructure, A Private-Public Initiative for the Future,’ to develop a comprehensive picture of the U.S. Measurement System as it exists now and what needs are ex-pected in the future. NIST would like to partnership with other Metrology / Measurement asso-ciations in order to:

Identify and analyzer existing roadmaps for the future Identify most obvious gaps between reality and projected needs Conduct workshops to generate white papers on obvious gaps

Norm led a discussion as to the reality of NIST having to re-appropriate existing funds towards emerging technologies such that some existing services would probably be curtailed or discon-




tinued. Norm recommended that MQD get involved in this initiative and act as a bridge to ASQ. Dilip recommended that all visit the NIST Measurement Initiative website and discuss plans for participation. Dilip suggested this initiative may be an opportunity for partnership with NCSL International. The NIST Measurement Initiative may be found at: http://usms.nist.gov/

JOE D. SIMMONS MEMORIAL SCHOLARSHIP UPDATE – Norm Belecki Three applicants have been received for this year’s scholarship award. Norm led a discussion about the rating system used to award the scholarship, in particular about assigning a weight to an education level. Norm recommended that MQD develop an opinion about education level weighting in regards to the Simmons Scholarship rating system.

CERTIFIED CALIBRATION TECHNCIAN (CCT) PROGRAM UPDATE – Chris There are a total of 223 applicants for the June 2005 CCT exam offering, a new record! Previous single record for total number of CCT exam applicants was 139. There are no scheduled work-shops for remainder of 2005.

METROLOGY JOB DESCRIPTION (MJD) INITIATIVE – Chris Professional Examination Service (PES) communicated that they had surpassed the minimum requirement of 25 examples for each job description. They requested additional time (till the end of May) to continue compiling job descriptions as they were still receiving a steady steam of E-mails and wanted to have a good sampling from all over the U.S. It is anticipated that by mid-June 2005, PES will submit their completed report to the MJD Ini-tiative core team. This report will be used in developing a pilot questionnaire survey. An open survey will be conducted later this year to solicit input on what Metrology/Calibration practitio-ners believe should be included in the aforementioned job descriptions.

GENERAL DISCUSSION – All Dilip is working with Georgia Harris. VP of NCSL International Education and Training, about

the possibility of ASQ granting CE units for NSCL International conferences. MQD will be receiving a free booth for the NCSL International conference in Aug. 2005 –

MQD officers and other volunteers needed for ‘Booth’ duty. MQD will be hosting a session at NCSL International Conference in Aug. 2005. Chris suggested

posting MQD papers abstracts in The Standard. The Metrology Handbook is in its 2nd printing – NCSL International is offering it at a dis-

counted rate. MQD’s 2005 conference will be co-sponsored by ASQ’s Inspection Division. Duane Allen,

MQD conference coordinator, is obtaining conference information (location, hotel accom-modations, etc.) for publication in The Standard and MQD website. The conference is scheduled for the week of Sept. 19th.

Graeme led discussion on listed MQD regional councilors who are not active in ASQ, are not member of MQD, etc. He proposed giving a ‘vacant’ councilor status to those regions with-out an active ASQ MQD member listed. Graeme noted that there are MQD members from 58 countries but only one region representing countries outside North America. Further dis-cussion recommended on region representation.

Dilip was nominated for the 2005 Max J. Unis award in recognition for his outstanding leader-ship and contributions to CCT program and metrology/ measurement community. MQD officers unanimously approved the nomination.

NEW ACTION ITEMS: Dilip – Revision and submittal of CCT coin design to MQD officers for comment Dilip and Graeme – contact NIST regarding participation in their Measurement Initiative MQD officers – visit : http://usms.nist.gov/ and discuss participation game plan





Chris – Contact Georgia Harris about the NIST Measurement Initiative regarding possibility of

partnering on it. Dilip, Graeme, Norm – Develop MQD opinion on education level weighting in regards to the

Simmons Scholarship rating system Dilip – Send Georgia Harris info on ASQ procedures on awarding CE units Dilip – Send Jay NCSL International conference paper abstract for posting in The Standard Graeme – Revise MQD regional Councilor status to reflect only listing of active ASQ MQD

members. Graeme to forward to Jay for posting in The Standard and Chris for posting to MQD website.

Respectfully Submitted, Christopher L. Grachanen

Financial Report (March 2005) Submitted by Karl Wigdal, MQD Treasurer

The division continued to have a strong asset balance compared to its minimal liability load. All assets were in cash and receivables. The month’s membership revenue was up substantially from the same month last year ($2,428.80 vs $1,591.40). Interest income from the division’s money market account was $57.13 for the month. The division also recorded $3,357.43 in royalty revenue from ASQ Quality Press activity from the July thru December 2004 sales cycle. This brought revenue for March to $5,843.36. Total revenue for the first nine months of the current fiscal year was $36,669.80. This was an increase of 33.5% from the same nine month period total of $27,476.74 the previous year. Expenses for the month were $6,129.09 and were primarily for travel reimbursements and professional contract services. Total expenses for the nine months of the current fiscal year were $19,677.18. A 2% increase from last year’s total of $19,234.12. Total expenses less total revenues resulted in a net income surplus for the current fiscal year of $16,992.62. A 106% improvement when compared to last year’s net surplus of $8,242.62 for the same nine months.


There shall be standard measures of wine, beer and corn...throughout the whole of our kingdom, and a standard width of dyed russet and cloth; and there shall be standard weights also.

Clause 35, Magna Carta, 1215

Immersion in water makes the straight seem bent; but reason, thus confused by false appearance, is beautifully restored by measuring, numbering and weighing; these drive vague notions of greater or less or more or heavier right out of the minds of the surveyor, the computer, and the clerk of the scales. Surely it is the better part of thought that relies on measurement and calculation.

Plato (The Republic)



sometimes do) ask, “Can you calibrate a Genovese Suisse Coordinate Measuring Machine; or write the calibration procedure for your spectrum analyzer; or develop and solve the algorithms for the error analysis of any of these calibrations?” Well natu-rally, they cannot! Well then, what is a Metrologist? Of course, that question must be answered before we can attempt to tell anyone how to become one. Many years ago, long before the ASQC became the ASQ, my late good friend Phil Stein headed a Task Group charged to develop an incontestable definition of the term “METROLOGIST” (Note carefully that this assignment was to develop a definition and not a job description; i.e., it was to stress qualification factors and not functions performed.) Of the many drafts considered, only one has survived. Unfortu-nately for us about that time Mr. Stein’s responsi-bilities increased greatly (e.g., his personal busi-ness, his Chairmanship of the Measurement Qual-ity Division, his Directorship in the ASQ, etc) and he was forced to turn to more pressing matters. He and I had discussed resuming the task when his ASQ responsibilities diminished, but with his un-fortunate passing last June, the project vanished. Thus, that surviving draft never got through the acceptance process, but for what ever it is worth here is a copy that I have hoarded for many years. METROLOGIST: A Metrologist is a Profes-sional; a Scientist, capable of practicing a profi-ciency in the Theories, the Arts, and the Prac-tices of the Measurement Sciences. A Metrolo-gist will have had a broad-spectrum educational background, which of necessity, shall have in-cluded in depth, the Studies and the Practices of Chemistry, of Mathematics, and of Physics. A Metrologist shall have the demonstrative capa-bility to Personally conduct independent re-search and development in the Measurement

Sciences, and the ability to direct similar activi-ties among subordinate personnel. A Metrolo-gist shall be competent to document for accurate communication and for archival, all activities within a specific domain. A Metrologist shall, at all times and without fail, hold personal and professional ethics and integrity as para-mount.— Now, I ask you, can the specified combination of those attributes be acquired in a hurry? No way normally! First of all the term “Professional” as used in that definition, is the stand alone noun, not the word when used in its adjective sense. Next, such a composition requires a genuine conflation of intensive and extensive scientific education, con-siderable technical training, and long empirical ex-perience in depth. I know of no way one can get there from here overnight. Unfortunately, what we see so frequently is that instead of trying to bring the aspirant individuals up to the specified levels many people are constantly trying to lower the standards down to their existing levels. Well Boss, that ought to wrap it up for this issue, and as for our readers, I know that some of them may want to challenge what I have said above. I solicit controversy. I answer all mail, USPS or oth-erwise, telephone calls, and/or Faxes. You might not like my answer, but you will receive one—I guarantee it! You can still reach me at the same old stand: Phil Painchaud 1110 West Dorothy Drive Brea, CA. 92821-2017 Phone: 714-529-6604 FAX: 714-529-1109 E-Mail: [email protected] or [email protected]


EVENTS CALENDAR

NCSLI August 7th ~ 11th, 2005 Washington, DC 303-440-3339 www.ncsli.org

ASQ ID/MQD September 22nd ~ 23rd, 2005 Corona, CA www.asq.org/measure

MSC February 27th ~ March3rd, 2006 Anaheim, CA 866-672-6327 www.msc-conf.com



congruent with increasing / enhancing ones com-prehension of a certification programs body of knowledge. Note: RUs must be substantiated by supporting documentation to be valid. For each recertification activity there is a specific number of RUs allotted as well as a maximum number of RUs that will be accepted for each activity. CCT recerti-fication requires a minimum of 18 RUs over a 3 year period. Recertification activities, RU credits and their maximum totals allowed are:

Table 1 Note: Employment RU credit must fall in the perti-nent certification(s) body of knowledge. All recer-tification activities must fall in the pertinent certifi-cation(s) body of knowledge or be directly job en-hancing/related. CEU is Continuing Education

Unit, FT is Full Time, PT is Part Time Information about RU’s may be found at http://www.asq.org/cert/recert/rucredits/requirements.html . Acceptable documentation for substantiating par-ticipation in a recertification activity includes, but is not limited to: • Conference name badges, program agendas, attendance registration sheets • Past and present employment verification let-ters • Professional society meeting attendance re-ceipts • Letters of participation and/or continuing ser-vice on professional society committees • Student transcripts • Training records—certificates, course outlines, employee training records, attendance rosters • Instructor records of courses taught (for in-structor credit) Letters from clients whom you have serviced (for self-employed) Let us now discuss the recertification process. The recertification process is essentially broken down into three steps: 1) Documenting (logging) recerti-fication activities, 2) Obtaining documented evi-dence of participation and 3) Submitting them to ASQ headquarters along with a completed Appli-cation for RU Credits Recertification. A RU Cred-its journal and Application for RU Credits Recerti-fication may be found at: http://www.asq.org/cert/recert/rucredits/application.html To make the ASQ recertification process as un-problematic as possible it is highly recommended that recertification activity attendees document (log) the activity and obtain documented evidence of participation as soon as practical. This reduces the chances of forgetting to document (log) the ac-tivity and increases the likelihood that documented evidence of participation is obtainable (it is often next to impossible to obtain documented evidence





pointment as a Master Chief Instructor at the DOD School at the Lowry AFB, establishing his qualifi-cations for expressing the facts he was presenting herein.

——“I am qualified to offer an opinion on

the differ-ence between education and training. At all times the purpose of the Lowry Calibration School was to train Calibrators...”——

———“Our purpose and goal as DOD Cali-bration Instructors was to train a Calibration Technician to perform a routine calibration, and how to document that calibration properly accord-ing to the individual service's requirements. When the Calibrator graduated from Lowry AFB, he was capable of entering a calibration laboratory and calibrating a piece of test equipment. Within that framework, we were very successful. With time and experience, that trainee could become a very com-petent Calibrator. It has never been the intention, the goal or the mission of this or any DOD training facility to educate Metrologists. It must be firmly stated that the DOD schools are training facilities and not educational institu-tions. It must be re-membered that despite the location of the Lowry school on an Air Force facility, it is not an Air Force School, it is a DOD school delegated to the Air Force to operate for the benefit of whichever organizations DOD may designate.”—— ——“Equally important is what we did not train them to do. We did not train them to write a calibration procedure; we did not train them to design a calibration process; we did not train them in error analysis, we did not train them in deter-mining calibration intervals; we did not teach them mathematics, chemistry or phys-ics; we did not teach them to be engineers or Metrologists.”——— ——“Military trained Calibrators should be proud of their title and training. If they want to become Metrologists, they should go back to school and study engineering or a science and earn an appro-priate degree. I realize that there are not many institutions of higher learning educating in-dividuals to become Metrologists. I have to admit that I do not know of a single college or university

(Continued from page 14) t h a t o f f e r s a f o u r - y e a r d e g r e e in Metrology. However, a formal technical/professional degree can provide the proper back-ground to enable one to become a Metrologist with additional study and experience.”—— ——“I too have been following Butler Commu-nity College over the years. I realize that it is a this moment only a two year institution but, it gives me hope that at last some reputa-ble institution will at last take on the task of providing indus-try with creditable, Professional Metrologists. This country desperately requires formally edu-cated Professional Metrolo-gists.”—— Remember that letter was written to me nine years ago and that none of the italicized text above is mine. It all came from the best possible authority. If any of you should like a copy of the complete text, just ask and I shall be happy to send you a copy. However, this was not the only thing that Claude wrote. Most of you should be able to re-member that in circa 1991-92 friendly aircraft shot down a US Army helicopter over Northern Iraq killing all onboard including several important Kurdish civilian officials who were traveling as passengers. Using his personal expertise in IFF technology and data published through the several news sources, Claude, sitting in his home in Ken-tucky, was able to analyze the probable cause of this failure. He wrote a “White Paper” on the sub-ject focusing the blame directly on the incompati-ble calibration policies among the three services. This document eventually found its way into the hands of a US Senator who was so impressed that he had it read into the Congressional Record. This action caused Congress to force the US Air Force to cease the cover up and to openly investigate. If any of you should like a copy of that “White Pa-per”, I will be pleased to oblige. A couple of issues ago, I told you about Professor Louis Hart, of the West Liberty State College, in West Liberty, West Virginia, and his efforts to es-tablish a Measurement Science Curriculum within that institution. I asked each of you to write him a letter supporting his efforts; a letter that he might use to support those efforts before his academic management. Your response was underwhelming—




shame on you all! I am told that there are in excess of ten thousand potential readers of this column; of that number, only one individual took the time to write Dr. Hart a letter of support. Our congratula-tions to STEVE SCOTT of the Duffy Tool & Stamping Co., of Muncie, Indiana. Steve was the only one to write such a letter, he copied me and a fine letter it was. Thank you, Steve, and I know that Dr. Hart thanks you also. Now let us get down to reviewing that new book that I promised at the outset of this column: Title: METROLOGY HAND-BOOK, THE Editor: Bucher, Jay L. ISBN: 0-87689-620-3 LOC#: 2004-003464 Publisher: ASQ Quality Press Milwaukee, Wisconsin Copywrite: 2004

Price: $95.00 USD List Price; $75.00 to ASQ Members if ordered from ASQ headquarters. [It is important to note that our own MQD receives a sizable rebate when ordered from ASQ Headquarters.] (Amazon price $53.55, but no rebate to MQD)

You may recall a couple of issues ago I reviewed a book with nearly the same title. i.e., Metrology, the Science of Measurement Handbook by Nobuo Suga. However, the resemblance ends there. Mr. Suga’s work is an excellent loose leaf bound, ‘how to do it’, Mitutoyo ‘catalogue cum text book’, lim-ited to the discipline of Dimensional Metrology. An excellent elementary text in itself, but of an entirely different breed than what we are reviewing here. Our tome of interest is a hardbound volume con-sisting of 544 pages and 98 illustrations/ figures/ tables, (with a supplemental CD ROM). It is not a textbook in the customary sense but rather a com-pendium of monographs covering a broad spectrum of disciplines, by eight different authors, compiled, unified, and edited by Mr. Bucher. It consists of seven major sections or parts, divided into forty-two chapters. It also includes seven appendices, a

(Continued from page 20) bibliography, and biographies of the eight contrib-uting authors. At first glance, the sheer scope and depth of the inventory of ingredients comprising this volume can be overwhelming especially to the neophyte beginning or contemplating a career in Metrology. But when one, already an advanced advisee in the Measurement Sciences, the author’s and Editor’s approach becomes quite logical. Part I gives a brief historical background of the science as is usually done in most texts on the subject. Part II in sixteen chapters covers a detailed overview of Quality Sys-tems applicable to Metrology practice, including recommendations of certificates, labels, standards, calibration intervals, traceability, records, and other applicable documentation. Part III brings another five chapters covering the basic Concepts of Metrology a subject vital to any-one organizing or managing a viable Metrology organization. Part IV provides a refresher course of another five chapters in the use of Mathematics and Statistics as applied to the practice of Metrology. Part V in a single chapter discusses the use of those mathematical concepts in the determination of Measurement Uncertainty. Part VI entitled Meas-urement Parameters provides an introduction to several of the more common technical disciplines within the extremely broad scope of Metrology The subject matter of Part VII, “MANAGING A METROLOGY DEPARTMENT OR CALIBRA-TION LABORATORY” could have been a entire shelf of ponderous volumes in itself, but the author, Mr. Bucher himself has managed to condense it into seven chapters of thirty-six pages. The in-cluded CD-ROM contains much of the resource material included in the tables in the hard copy (I have already copied it to the Reference Folder on my hard drive for quick reference when I am writ-ing.) The only major complaint I have found so far is in Chapter 22, wherein his explanation of how work around specified but unavailable equipment, he specifically names actual items of equipment by manufacture and model number. Such specific des-ignations, even allowing that the mentioned gear is obsolete and no longer available on the market, is never the less a tacit recommendation for that spe-cific item. Specific recommendations, tacit or oth




(Continued from page 21) erwise, of any commercial article in references of this sort are quite out of line. This book is obviously not a primer, that is an ele-mentary how to do it text for the raw green neo-phyte in the Metrology/Calibration field; however, it could be a very desirable item for such an indi-vidual to keep nearby if he intends to upgrade him-self. On the other hand, I can seriously recommend that it be on the bookshelf of every Senior Calibra-tor, Senior Metrology Technician, Metrological Engineer, Metrologist, and Administrative Metrologist. And don’t forget, order it from ASQ Headquarters. This column has been a little longer than usual, but as I said in the beginning, we had many things to discuss this time. If you would like either of the two documents I mentioned earlier or, want to ar-gue with me, I can be reached at the same old stand. And before I forget it, please write a letter of encouragement to Professor Hart at West Liberty State College and copy me. Phil Painchaud 1110 West Dorothy Drive Brea, CA. 92821-2017 Phone: 714-529-6604 FAX: 714-529-1109 E-Mail: [email protected] or [email protected]

(Continued from page 3) I leave the division with good experiences and a little wiser. I will not be completely gone as I will volunteer my duties as Program Chair arranging conferences and hosting sessions at other confer-ences. It has been a pleasure serving you. Sincerely, Dilip A. Shah E = mc3 Solutions 197 Great Oaks Trail #130 Wadsworth, Ohio 44281-8215 Voice (330) 328-4400 / Fax (330) 336-3974 E-mail: [email protected]

of participation years after a conference / meeting was attended). Remember to get completion certifi-cates for any corporate mandated courses such as electrical safety and hazardous material training that may be germane to a certifications body of knowledge. Also many conferences and seminars have been granted CEU credits by academic insti-tutions and, if applicable, can be used for recertifi-cation credits (check with conference/seminar ad-ministrators). Lastly, take advantage of multimedia training and meeting opportunities that can be used for recertification credit such as web casts and net meetings. The key to a relatively painless ASQ recertification experience is to take advantage of recertification credit opportunities and to document them as soon as possible


Another optical illusion… This is the Ouchi illusion, named after Japanese artist Hajime Ouchi. As you scan your eyes over the figure the center disc appears to move.

Volunteers aren't paid... Not because they're worthless, but because they're priceless

Please consider volunteering with MQD. If anyone has questions or needs more information, contact any officer or committee chair.

Thank You!



Please join us for the Measurement Quality Division Sponsored session (Session 7C: 10:45 AM – 12:15 PM) at National Conference of Standards Laboratory International (NCSLI) on Wednesday, August 10, 2005. For information about the NCSLI Conference, please see the conference brochure elsewhere in the newsletter or visit http://www.ncsli.org/conference/2005/

Speaker: Keith Bennett Title: Understanding Test Uncertainty Ratio Helps Improve Calibration Service

Abstract: Test and measurement equipment (T&ME) must be periodically calibrated to ensure it's op-erating within its specified parameters. Of course, the uncertainty of the system used to cali-brate the equipment shouldn't add appreciable error to this process. As TURs decrease the confidence of the UUT being in tolerance also decreases.

Speaker: Graeme Payne

Title: The Metrology Handbook: Experiences of a Virtual Team

Abstract: Publication of The Metrology Handbook in April 2004 marked the end of a year-long team effort. While working on the book itself, the team members also learned a lot about working effectively together as members of a nationwide virtual team, use of enabling technology that did not exist a few years earlier, and the intricate details of writing for book publication. All of the team members are actively working in metrology as engineers, technicians, man-agers, consultants, educators or auditors; none have written anything longer than a technical report before. They were able to deliver the completed work on time, and the book is now in its second printing. The things they learned about the process of working on this project can be applied in many other areas.

Speaker: Dilip Shah

Title: ASQ’s Certified Calibration Technician Exam Update

Abstract: The ASQ’s Certified Calibration Technician (CCT) Exam has now been offered for more than two years and over 400 candidates have passed the exam since its first offering in June of 2003. This presentation provides the report on the exam progress, industry acceptance and the body of knowledge covered. Misconceptions on the expectation of the exam are pre-sented. The Measurement Quality Division’s involvement with the exam sponsorship, de-velopment and exam volunteer opportunities are discussed.

Speaker: Christopher L. Grachanen

Title: Metrology Job Description Initiative

Abstract: In 2005, the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics will be soliciting input for updates and additions to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) listing for the next formal release. The SOC system is used by all Federal statistical agencies to classify workers into occupational categories for the purpose of collecting, calculating, and dissemi-nating data. The SOC is updated every ten years. The last SOC update was completed in 2000. The SOC's current job descriptions for calibration practitioners are inaccurate in com-municating job expectations. Educators use the SOC to provide students with career guid-ance information. Without faithful job descriptions, it is unlikely that prospective candidates will be steered into the Metrology field by educators. In addition, demographic information, such as how many folks are in the Metrology profession, how many folks are leaving the profession, etc., can not be accurately determined. In an effort to remedy these shortcomings the American Society for Quality (ASQ) Measurement Quality Division (MQD) has teamed up with the National Conference of Standards Laboratories International (NCSLI) to create the Metrology Job Description (MJD) Initiative.



CORRECT AND IMPROVED GAGE R&R MEASUREMENT STUDIES* By Dr. Donald S. Ermer

Why Do We Need Correct Quality Measurement Studies? Many manufacturers are using statistical tools like Statistical Process Control (SPC) and Design of Experiments (DOE) to monitor and improve product quality and process productivity However, if the data collected are not accu-rate and precise, they do not represent the true characteristics of the part or product being measured even though organizations are using the quality im-provement tools correctly. Therefore, it is very important to have a valid quality measurement study beforehand to ensure that the gage R&R data col-lected are accurate and precise, and that the power of SPC and DOE are fully utilized. Accuracy, i.e., no bias, is the function of calibration and is per-

formed before a correct measurement study of the precisions of the gage and its operators. In this paper, the “Gage” R&R study in the AIAG manual (1) is reviewed for its weakness in determin-ing the true capability of the different parts of the measurement system. Then the paper uses a geometri-cal approach to describe the components of the total measurement variance. This shows why the stan-dard deviations or measurement errors of the equipment, appraiser, and product in the AIAG Method are not additive and cannot be compared directly in a ratio. A useful worksheet for correctly executing a measurement process capability study is also provided, which combines the advantages of the improved measurement study discussed in the paper. The proposed method also uses the correct d2* values (d2 when k<25) and a small correction factor in the Average Range Method for the product or part variation. The Gage R&R Study in the AIAG Manual The Repeatability and Reproducibility (R&R) study in the AIAG Manual (1) uses a data collection sys-tem that is very well structured and very helpful in collecting the proper data. However, the data are then used to calculate the standard measurement errors or standard deviations of the equipment, ap-praiser and product. The total measurement error or standard deviation is then obtained by taking the square root of the sum of the squares of the equipment, appraiser and the product standard deviations. Next, the measurement ratios are calculated by comparing the equipment and the appraiser standard de-viations to the total measurement error or total standard deviation. These ratios are used to see how sig-nificant the effects of the equipment, appraiser, and the product error variations are on the total measure-ment system. Table 1 shows a summary of all the calculations that are used in this method, but only one standard deviation is used, instead of finding a 95% Confidence Interval as in (1). Unfortunately, there are two errors in the above AIAG R&R study. The first one is a minor incorrect calculation of the part variation; i.e., there should be a correction factor which accounts for the variation induced by the measuring equipment. If this correction factor (although it may be very small) is not fig-ured into the calculation, then equipment variation would be “counted double” in the total variation. The second and most significant error is that the final Variation Ratios (e.g., %EV, %AV, and %PV) are calculated using standard deviations instead of variances, and the results obtained exaggerates the pro-portional effects of the equipment, appraiser, and part variation, as shown in the second column of Table 2, the AIAG Method. Therefore, this incorrect type of study cannot provide an index of whether the components of the measurement process are capable for the part or product under study. *A more complete paper by Ermer and Yang E-Hok was originally published in the Winter 1997 issue of The Standard, and then was republished in the June 1998 edition of Contributed Publications of the MQD.



The Correct Calculation of R&R The measurement equipment error and product variation can be related by the following equation, as-suming that measurement error is independent of the product variation within a range defined by the natural process limits for the specified product.

(1) where

= Variance of Actual Product Measurement

= True Variance of Product

= Variance of Measurement Equipment Error

The above relationship can also be represented by a right triangle as shown in Figure 1. For example, if

sm=5, se=3, and sp=4, then 32 + 42 = 52, and , which is NOT equal to

, and which is NOT equal to . This is a simple illustra-

tion of some of the misleading results for the final variation ratios in the AIAG method. Thus, a unit

change in either the True Product Standard Deviation (σp), or the standard deviation for Measurement

Equipment Error (σe), will not result in a unit change in the Standard Deviation for the Actual Product

Measurements (σm). On the other hand, one unit change in the True Product Variance ( ) or

Measurement Equipment Error Variance ( ) will respond to one unit change in the Variance of

Actual Product Measurement ( ), since , i.e., .

epm222 σσσ +=

m2σ

p2σ

e2σ

36.0259

53

2

2

==

64.02516

54 and ;60.0

53

2

2

=== 8.054

=

p2σ

e2σ

m2σ epm

222 σσσ += epm σσσ +≠



This shows that part of the results of the Gage R&R Report in the AIAG method is incorrect and there-fore the person doing the study should use variances to find the true % R&R ratio values instead of the standard deviations where:

(2)

(3) and = Average of all of the within ranges of the trials for each part

= Range of the actual parts averages = 1.128 and 1.6926 for 2 and 3 trials respectively from Table 5 (assuming n=10 parts and k=3 appraisers)

= 2.48 and 3.18 (see at bottom of Table 5) for 5 and 10 parts respectively and k=1; and see Table 5 for other d2* values (2).

Thus, if a correct R&R measurement analysis is not used, all the on-line or off-line quality improvement efforts could lead to incorrect results and very limited product quality improvements. Introduction of Appraiser Variation (A.V.) Although the above proper variances indicate the capability of the measurement process, they are only good when one operator is measuring the product, i.e., the appraiser variance is assumed to be insignifi-cant. In actual situations, it is very difficult to isolate or eliminate the appraiser error in the measure-ment process. Therefore, it is necessary to include the operator or appraiser variance(BC), as shown in Figure 2, where:

= Appraiser/operator variation (4)

= Range of the operator averages

= 1.41 and 1.91 (see first row of Table 5) for 2 and 3 operators respectively.

With the addition of appraiser variation, the relationship among all the variances is changed as follows

(4): (5)

ee d

WR

,2

ˆ =σ

md

Rpm

,2*

ˆ =σ

WRpR

ed ,2

md ,2*

0,2*

ˆ 00

d

R=σ

0R

0,2*d

oepm2222 σσσσ ++=′



where = New Total Product Measurement Variation (assuming no interaction between Parts

and Appraiser) and substituting Equation 1, we get:

(6) The relationships among all the variations can be illustrated in Figure 2. The total product measurement

error ( ) will respond with one unit change when there is a unit change in gage, appraiser, or true

product variance, i.e. NOT with standard deviations.

In the AIAG original study (1), the constants d2,e, d2,m, and d2,o are all assumed equal to d2 for the different sample sizes in the subgroup. However, these three values may be equal to either d2 or d2

*, depending on the number of subgroups and the sample size of the subgroup. If the number of subgroups is greater than or equal to 25, then d2 should be used in the calculation, otherwise d2

* should be used. The number of subgroups and subgroup size depends on the number of parts, operators, and trials used in the R&R study. For d2e, the total number of within ranges used to calculate the average is the number of subgroups (nxk) while the number of trials (r) of each part will be the sample or subgroup size. For d2,m and d2,o the number of subgroups is always equal to unity and the sample size is the number of parts (n) tested, or the number of operators (k) in the measurement study, respectively. For example, if a measurement study used 5 parts, each part measured twice by each of the three operators then d2e would

be based on only k=15 subgroups for the sample size equal to 2 (and ). The d2,m value

would be based on only one subgroup and a sample size of 5 (and ), while d2,o would

be based on only one subgroup and a sample size of 3 (and ). Therefore for this exam-ple, d2,e, d2,m, and d2,o should all use d2

* instead of d2. The values of d2* (and d2) are given in Table 5.

In addition, a more accurate estimate of the operator or appraiser variance can be obtained, i.e., a correc-tion factor should be used to eliminate the contamination caused by the measurement equipment vari-ance in the data. The modified equation is:

(7)

where is the correction factor (C.F. #1).

m′2σ

omm222 σσσ +=′

m′2σ

15.1*,2 =ed

48.2*,2 =md

91.1*,2 =od

))((

2ˆ

0,2*

2ˆ

2

rne

d

Ro

oσ

σ −⎟⎟⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜⎜⎜

⎝

⎛

=

))((

2ˆ

rneσ



The estimation of the true product or part variation can be improved by also including a correction factor in its calculation, although it will not be large. The correction factor is similar to C.F. #1 but with a dif-ferent denominator in the last term. The improved estimation of the part or product variation is as fol-lows:

(8)

where is the relatively small correction factor (C.F. #2)

Given the changes above, the new measurement study will be more accurate, as well as correct.

Summarizing the Results Obtained by Different R&R Studies Table 2 shows the results of using different Gage R&R studies on the same set of measurement data from Table 3 (Data Set A), where the ANOVA Method is the most accurate since it uses all of the data, not just the ranges. The last column shows the correct percent variations calculated from the New Method described in the previous section. It should be noted that with the New Method, the % Repeat-ability and the % Reproducibility and % Part Variation add up to 100%, which is not true with the AIAG Method (1). Comparing the AIAG R&R Method (1) with the ANOVA (for the Random Effects Model) Method, which uses all of the data for its analysis, and the NEW method, it can be seen that the Gage R&R from AIAG exaggerates the effect of the percentages for E.V., A.V. and P.V.; that is, the %E.V., %A.V., and %P.V. as obtained in the AIAG R&R study are incorrectly greater than the actual results, as shown in the second column. This is due to their incorrect approach of comparing the standard devia-tions to the total standard deviation versus the correct approach of using the additive law of variances. This mistake in the AIAG R&R study could lead to a judgment that the measurement process is incapa-ble when the measurement process is actually capable (4). Thus, mistakes like these will mislead the organization to direct their improvement effort to improve a capable measurement process, while the same effort should be used in reducing the process or product variance. The results of the ANOVA Method and New Method agreed closely. This can be seen by comparing the results from the ANOVA method with the New Method in Table 2, i.e., the third column versus the fourth column. Therefore the NEW Method should be employed for a proper measurement process study, as given in Table 4. Solving the Identified Problem Areas of the Measurement Process The next step will be solving any identified problems and improving the measurement process capability or resolution (6). For a measurement process with a problem in the equipment/gage variation area, there are several steps to check for the root cause of the problem. The first step is to check whether the meas-urement system has an adequate number of decimal places; i.e., a resolution good enough for measuring the product variation. If the actual product measurement unit is larger than the gage standard division or unit, the measurement unit is considered inadequate for the product. That is, the gage is not capable to perform a measurement that requires such accuracy. If this problem of resolution occurs, one must con-sider using a measurement unit that is smaller than the gage standard division.

))((

2ˆ

,2*

2ˆ

2

rke

md

Rp

pσ

σ −⎟⎟⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜⎜⎜

⎝

⎛

=

))((

2ˆ

rkeσ



However, if the measurement unit cannot be changed, then the organization has to use an alternate gage or measuring device with better resolution to perform the measurement. For example, if the measure-ment unit of a data set is 0.01, then the gage standard division must be smaller than 0.01, e.g., .001, in order to have a resolution good enough for the study. Another possible area in the improvement of gage accuracy is to calibrate the gage on a regular basis. Although most of the measurement gage manufacturers provide calibration services to their customers, it is the gage users’ responsibilities to make sure their gages are calibrated before a Gage R&R Study. The users should also make sure that their gages are performing at the standard claimed by the gage manu-facturers (7). When an operator bias effect is detected, the problem can be temporarily solved by offsetting the amount of bias to all the measurements made by that particular appraiser. However, the long term solution is to understand why that appraiser/operator has a bias on all the measurements; whereas, when an appraiser inconsistency effect is detected, the questionable operator is usually having problems using the equip-ment properly. For example, they may not align the product correctly before taking a measurement or have a problem reading the finer marks on the gage. Also, they may not have clear instructions on which part of the product should be measured. Many of these problems are the result of insufficient training of the appraiser or an ineffective training program. Therefore, either the operator will need to undergo a training program or a new training program will be needed for effective gage measurements, depending on the situation. If the measurement problems cannot be identified by the above methods, there are many tools available to help finding the root cause. Some examples are DOE and some of the other basic quality tools (e.g., Fishbone diagram, Check sheet, Scatter Plot, Pareto Diagram, etc.). No matter what type of quality tool is used, it is always important to have the personnel that are affected by the problem involved in the problem solving process. This will provide a better understanding of the measurement problem and fa-cilitate communications within the company. Summary A graphical analysis helps in understanding the components of the measurement system, and their rela-tive importance. Current AIAG R&R methods may be misleading, and should be modified according to the methods given in this paper. At the same time, with the widespread availability of computers, appro-priate software could be used to calculate the correct d2* values and the correction for part variation as a basis for a more precise variable measurement study. Thus, this paper shows how important reliable measurement data and its analysis is, and hopefully will help all quality conscientious organizations fur-ther improve the quality of their products and the productivity of their processes. Donald S. Ermer, Ph.D., P.E., & CMfg.E. Procter & Gamble Bascom Professor Emeritus in Total Quality Departments of Industrial & Systems Engineering and Mechanical Engineering University of Wisconsin-Madison 1513 University Avenue Madison, WI 53706 Phone: 608-262-2557 FAX: 608-265-2316 Email: [email protected]



Bibliography 1. Brown, L.A., Daugherty, B.R., Lowe, V.W., “Measurement Systems Analysis,” Auto Industry Action

Group (AIAG), Troy, MI, May 2003, Second Edition. 2. Duncan, A.J., Quality Control and Industrial Statistics, 5th Ed., Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood,

Illinois, 1986. 3. Prond, P. and Ermer, D.S., “A Geometrical Analysis of Measurement System Variations,” ASQC An-

nual Quality Congress Transactions, 1993. 4. Ermer, D., “Pythagorean Theorem to the Rescue or Reliable Data is an Important Commodity,” The

Standard, The Measurement Quality Division of ASQ, Vol. 15, No. 1, Spring 2001/Winter 2000. 5. Wheeler, D.J., “Problems With Gage R&R Studies,” ASQ Annual Quality Congress Transactions,

May, 1992. 6. Stein, Philip, “All You Ever Wanted to Know About Resolution,” Quality Progress, July 2001. 7. Bucher, J.L., The Metrology Handbook, ASQ, 2004.



Table 1—SUMMARY OF EQUATIONS (FOR ONE STANDARD DEVIATION) USED IN THE AIAG GAGE R&R STUDY(1)

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FROM DIFFERENT R&R STUDIES

(DATA SET A IN TABLE 3)

Repeatability-Equipment Variation (E.V.) 1*.. KWRVE = =Avg. of the within range of the trials of

each part ( )

WR

eR %E.V.=100[E.V./T.V.] Trials (r)

K1 2

4.56 3

3.05 Reproducibility-Appraiser Variation (A.V.)

( )

rnVEKXVA Diff*

.).(*..22

2 −= = Range of the operator averages (R0) DiffX

%A.V.=100[A.V./T.V.] n=number of parts r=number of trials

Operators (k) K2

2 3.65

3 2.70

Part Variation (P.V.)

P.V.=Rp*K3 Rp=Range of the part averages

%P.V.=100[P.V./T.V.] Parts (n) K3

5 2.08

10 1.62

Repeatability and Reproduci-bility (R&R)

R&R=

%R&R=100[R&R/T.V.]

22 .).(.).( VAVE + %R&R<10%--process is capable 10%<R&R<20%--barely capable over 20%--requires improvement

Total Variation (T.V.)

T.V.= 22 .).()&( VPRR +

MEASUREMENT UNIT ANALYSIS

I

AIAG Method

II

ANOVA (uses all of the data)

III

NEW Method (using d2

*, and Variances)

IV E.V. 3.783 4.41 3.710

A.V. 4.286 3.50 4.293

R&R 5.717 5.63 5.674

P.V. 23.45 23.05 23.43

T.V. 24.13 23.71 24.11

%(E.V./T.V.) 15.68% 3.45% 2.45%

%(A.V./T.V.) 17.76% 2.18% 3.09%

%(P.V./T.V.) TOTAL

97.18% ”130.62%”

94.37% 100.00%

94.46% 100.00%



TABLE 3—RAW DATA FOR COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT R&R STUDIES

General Information

Part Information from Data Sheet

I. Data Set A

Operator A A WR(A)

B B WR(B)

C C WR(C)

Part Average

Trial 1 2 1 2 1 2

Part 1 67 62 5 55 57 2 52 55 3 58.0

Part 2 110 113 3 106 99 7 106 103 3 106.2

Part 3 87 83 4 82 79 3 80 81 1 82.0

Part 4 89 96 7 84 78 6 80 82 2 84.8

Part 5 56 47 9 43 42 1 46 54 8 48.0

Within Range Average ( ) WR 5.6 3.8 3.4

Operator Average 81.0 72.5 73.9

Overall Within Range Average

( ) WR4.267

Range of Part Average ( )pR 58.16

7

Range of Operator Average,

)( odiff RX

8.5

Part No. & Name: Data Set A Gage Name: Date: / / Characteristics: Gage No.: Performed by: Specification: Gage Type: Plant: Tolerance: Gage Calibration Exp.: / / Gage Resolution:

No. of Trials (r) = 2 No. of Appraisers (k) = 3 Number of Parts (n) = 5

= 4.267 WR Ro = 8.5

Rp = 58.167 = 75.8 X



TABLE 4—OUTPUT FOR “NEW” METHOD

Measurement Unit Analysis

Repeatability—Equipment Variation (E.V.)

E.V. = = 4.267/1.15 = 3.71 = σe

edWR ,2*/

%45.2100)11.24()710.3(100

.).(

.).(2

2

2

2

=×=×VTVE

Reproducibility—Appraiser Variation (A.V.)

A.V. =

= = 4.293 = σo

⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛×

−⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛

rnVE

dR

o

o2

2

,2

..*

⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛−⎟

⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

1076.13

91.15.8 2

%09.3100)11.24()293.4(100

.).(

.).(2

2

2

2

=×=×VTVA

Repeatability and Reproducibility (R&R)

R&R =

= = 5.674

22 .... VAVE +

22 )293.4()710.3( +

%54.5100)11.24()674.5(100

.).()&(

2

2

2

2

=×=×VT

RR

Product or Part Variation

P.V. =

= = 23.43 = σp

⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛×

−⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛

rkVE

dR

m

p2

2

,2

..*

⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛−⎟

⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

676.13

48.2167.58 2

%46.94100)11.24()43.23(100

.).(

.).(2

2

2

2

=×=×VTVP

Total Variation

T.V. =

= = 24.11

( ) 22 .).(& VPRR +

22 )43.23()674.5( +

Check: 94.46% + 3.09% + 2.45% = 100%



TABLE 5—CONSTANTS FOR CONVERTING A RANGE TO A STANDARD DEVIATION

Values of d2*, d2, and d3 Sample Size (n)

Number of subgroups (k)

2 3 4 5 6 7

1 1.41 1.91 2.24 2.48 2.67 2.83 2 1.28 1.81 2.15 2.40 2.60 2.77 3 1.23 1.77 2.12 2.38 2.58 2.75 4 1.21 1.75 2.11 2.37 2.57 2.74 5 1.19 1.74 2.10 2.36 2.56 2.73 6 1.18 1.73 2.09 2.35 2.56 2.73 7 1.17 1.73 2.09 2.35 2.55 2.72 8 1.17 1.72 2.08 2.35 2.55 2.72 9 1.16 1.72 2.08 2.34 2.55 2.72 10 1.16 1.72 2.08 2.34 2.55 2.72 11 1.16 1.71 2.08 2.34 2.55 2.72 12 1.15 1.71 2.07 2.34 2.55 2.72 13 1.15 1.71 2.07 2.34 2.55 2.71 14 1.15 1.71 2.07 2.34 2.54 2.71 15 1.15 1.71 2.07 2.34 2.54 2.71 16 1.15 1.71 2.07 2.34 2.54 2.71 17 1.15 1.71 2.07 2.34 2.54 2.71 18 1.15 1.71 2.07 2.33 2.54 2.71 19 1.14 1.70 2.07 2.33 2.54 2.71 20 1.14 1.70 2.07 2.33 2.54 2.71 25 1.14 1.70 2.07 30 1.14 1.70 50 1.13 d2 1.128 1.6926 2.0588 2.3258 2.5344 2.7044 d3 0.8525 0.8884 0.8798 0.8641 0.8480 0.8332 Source: A.J. Duncan, “The Use of Ranges in Comparing Variabilities,” Ind. Qual. Control, Vol. 40, No. 5, February, 1955; No. 8, April, 1955. (note for k=1 and n=10, d2* = 3.18)



Chair (2003-2005), Program Chair (2005-2006) Joe Simmons Scholarship MQD Representative Dilip A. Shah E = mc3 Solutions 197 Great Oaks Trail #130 Wadsworth, Ohio 44281-8215 Voice (330) 328-4400 / Fax (330) 336-3974 E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] Chair-Elect, Examining Chair Graeme C. Payne GK Systems, Inc. 4440 Weston Drive SW, Suite B Lilburn, GA 30047 USA Voice: (770) 931-4004 / Fax (866) 887-9344 E-mail: [email protected] Treasurer Karl Wigdal Promega Corp. 5445 East Cheryl Parkway Madison, WI 53711 Voice (608) 277-2633 / Fax (608) 277-2516 E-mail: [email protected] Secretary, Newsletter Editor/Publisher, Share Point Administrator Jay L. Bucher Bucherview Metrology Services 6700 Royal View Dr. De Forest, WI 53532-2775 Voice (608) 277-2522 / Fax (608) 846-4269 E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] Certification Chair, Website Manager, NCSL International Representative Christopher L. Grachanen Manager, Houston Metrology Group Hewlett-Packard P. O. Box 692000 MS070110 Houston, TX 77269-2000 Voice (281) 518-8486 / Fax (281) 518-7275 E-mail: [email protected] Standards Committee Representative Bill McCullough McCullough Consulting 1936 June Cr Carson City, NV 89706 Voice: (775) 883-3042 Fax: (775) 883-3042 Cell: (775) 220-6424 E-mail: [email protected]

Immediate Past Chair / Nominating Chair Duane Allen U. S. Navy, P. O. Box 5000, Code MS11, Corona, CA 92878-5000 Voice (909) 273-4783 / Fax (909) 273-4599 E-mail: [email protected] Joe Simmons Scholarship Norm Belecki 7413 Mill Run Dr Derwood, MD 20855-1156 Voice (301) 869-4520 E-mail: [email protected] Historian Keela Sniadach Promega Corp. 5445 East Cheryl Parkway Madison, WI 53711 Voice (608) 298-4681 / Fax (608) 277-2516 E-mail: [email protected]

Regional Councilors Region 5 Richard A. Litts 100 Evergreen Dr Downingtown, PA E-mail: [email protected] Region 7 Randy D. Farmer Metrology Solutions 1488 Via Hacienda Chula Vista, CA 91913 (619) 934-4948 / (858) 688-2672 cell E-mail: [email protected] Region 14 Keith Bennett Transcat Voice (713) 465-4395 E-mail: [email protected] ASQ Division Administrator Ms. Karen Prosser Voice (800) 248-1946, x7471 E-mail: [email protected]

MEASUREMENT QUALITY DIVISION OFFICERS AND COMMITTEE CHAIRS



Region 1 (CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT) Volunteer Opportunity!

Region 2 (NJ, NY, PA)

Volunteer Opportunity!

Region 3 (CT, NJ, NY)

Mr. Eduardo M. Heidelberg Pfizer Parlin, NJ 08859 E-mail: [email protected]

Region 4 (Canada)

Mr. Alexander T. C. Lau ExxonMobil Whitby, ON L1R 1R1 E-mail: [email protected]

Region 5 (DC, DE, MD, PA, VA)

Mr. Richard A. Litts Litts Quality Technologies Downington, PA 19335 E-mail: [email protected]

Region 6 (AK, CA, HI, ID, MT, OR, UT, WA, WY)


Region 7 (AZ, CA, NV, part of Mexico)

Mr. Randy D. Farmer Metrology Solutions Chula Vista, CA 91913 E-mail: [email protected]

Region 8 (OH, PA)


Region 9 (IN, KY, OH)


Region 10 (OH, MI)


Region 11 (NC, SC, TN, VA)


Region 12 (IL, MN, ND, SD, WI)

Dr. Donald S. Ermer ASQ Fellow; Eugene L. Grant Medal (2001) University of Wisconsin—Madison Madison, WI 53706 E-mail: [email protected]

Region 13 (CO, IA, KS, MO, NE, SD, WY)


Region 14 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX, part of Mexico)

Mr. R. Keith Bennett TRANSCAT Kingwood, TX 77339 E-mail: [email protected]

Region 15 (AL, FL, GA, LA, MS, Puerto Rico)

Mr. E. Bryan Miller ASQ Fellow Bryan Miller Consulting Florence, AL 35633 E-mail: [email protected]

Region 25 (all other countries)


ASQ MEASUREMENT QUALITY DIVISION REGIONAL COUNCILORS

Regional Councilors represent the Division to members and Sections in their geographic areas. Regional Councilors are appointed for renewable two-year terms, and are advisory members of the Division leadership team.

Advances in Scienceand Technology –Their Impact on Metrology

Advances in Scienceand Technology –Their Impact on Metrology

R

2005 NCSLI Workshop & Symposium

Washington, DC August 7–11, 2005

Washington Hilton & Towers

Get the know-how you need – now!

• Learn from top experts

• Network with your colleagues

• Discover innovative solutions and services

Get the know-how you need – now!

• Learn from top experts

• Network with your colleagues

• Discover innovative solutions and services

303-440-3339 • www.ncsli.org/conference/

Advances in Science and Technology continue at an ever increasing rate. This is especially true in the fields of Medicine, Nanotechnology, Biology, and

Space Sciences. The 2005 NCSLI Workshop and Symposium, to be held in Washington, DC, is designed to provide a forum for people in metrology and

calibration to learn, and to share ideas. To help people in the world of calibration meet the challenges created by these advances, the 2005 NCSLI

Workshop and Symposium includes workshops covering quality, management, and international issues, plus many technical sessions that provide a

person with education in the latest advances in standards and calibration processes.

Also, there are many NCSLI working committees that will be meeting to discuss issues of mutual interest, including the development of the future Z540

standards, intrinsic standards, ISO standards, Small Business needs, etc. You are invited to become active and begin working with peers from around

the world in setting the direction metrology will take in the future.

KEYNOTE

Dr. Hratch G. Semerjian is the acting

director of NIST. As the U.S. National

Metrology Institute (NMI), NIST is

constantly expanding the frontiers of

measurement to promote innovation, advance U.S.

manufacturing, facilitate trade, improve public safety and

security, and improve the quality of life. Through cutting

edge research in areas as diverse as nanotechnology,

biotechnology, quantum computing, and homeland

security, NIST supports U.S. industry needs for new and

unique metrology and measurement services. While NIST

is expanding its measurement capabilities into new areas,

it is continuing to address the measurement challenges

posed in creating an “electronic” kilogram and measuring

frequency to the femtosecond level.

The commissioning of NIST's new Advanced Measurement

Laboratory in 2004 has provided NIST scientists and

engineers with a unique facility that allows both cutting

edge research and

state-of-the-art

measurement capabil-

ities. These include the

provision of calibrations,

standard reference

materials (SRM's),

standard reference data (SRD) and accreditation of labora-

tories, both for calibration and testing. The services

themselves, and the ways in which they are provided, are

being improved, as NIST strives to meet new demands by

its customers and by changing technology. Dr. Semerjian

will describe NIST's response to today's measurement and

standards challenges.

TECHNICAL PROGRAM SUMMARYThe 2005 NCSLI Technical Program will cover ten sessions spread over four days, with over

150 speakers and panelists covering a wide range of metrology topics and issues. Because of

the strength of the abstracts received, the Technical Program has been expanded from five to

six parallel tracks in each session this year.

PLENARY SESSIONS: DEVELOPMENTS IN NATIONAL MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS THE BIPM, ILAC, AND MRA

> Management of the UK National Measurement System

> Experiences of the National Measurement Institute of Japan

> BIPM/ILAC Collaboration

> Issues for NMIs in the Asia Pacific Metrology Program (APMP)

> The ILAC MRA Mark

SPECIAL TOPICS

> 2005 NCSLI Benchmarking Survey

> 2005 State Laboratory Program Workload Survey

> Update on the Revision of the VIM

> Status of the GUM Supplements

TECHNICAL PRESENTATIONS

> ISO 17025 Revision and Laboratory Accreditation

> Traceability Issues in Industrial Laboratories

> Temperature Calibration at Fixed Points

> Pressure, Mass, Capacitance, AC, and Flow Measurements

> NIST Optical Short Courses

> Dimensional Measurements and Temperature Control

> Legal Metrology Issues

> Uncertainty Evaluations and Software

PANEL DISCUSSIONS

> Future of Metrology Education and Training

> Metrology Educators Forum

> Measurement Needs in the Year 2020

> Testing Laboratory Calibration Needs

> Equipment Management Forum

> ASQ Certified Calibration Technician

> Small Business Panel

> Conventional vs. Bayesian Statistical Methods

ADVANCES IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY — THEIR IMPACT ON METROLOGY

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

www.ncsli.org

A.K.O. Inc.

A2LA

ACLASS

AcuCal, Incorporated

Agilent Technologies

AMETEK, Test & Calibration Inst.

Andeen-Hagerling, Inc.

Army Primary Standards Laboratory

ARTEL

Asia Pacific Metrology Programme

AssetSmart

ATC, Inc.

BAE SYSTEMS

Beamex

Bios International Corporation

Blue Mountain Quality Resources, Inc.

Brother International Corporation

Bruel & Kjaer

Buck Research Instruments, LLC

Cal Lab Magazine

Cal Lab Solutions

Clarke-Hess Communication Research

Colorado Engineering Experiment

Station, Inc.

Condec

Crystal Engineering

Data Proof

Davis Inotek Instruments

DH Instruments

DH-Budenberg Inc.

Diversified Data Systems, Inc.

Dynamic Technology, Inc.

East Hills Instruments

Edison ESI

Electronic Development Labs

ESSCO Calibration Laboratory

EUROMET

EXELON

Flow Dynamics, Inc

Flow Systems

Fluke Corporation

GE Infrastructure Sensing

GE Instrumentation Services

GE Pressurements

GE Ruska Instrument Corporation

GIDEP

Guildline Instruments Inc.

Hart Scientific

Heusser Neweigh

ICL Calibration Laboratories, Inc.

IET Labs, Inc.

IndySoft

INSCO Metrology

Instrulab Inc.

Instrument Rental Labs

Interface, Inc.

International Accreditation Service, Inc.

ISOTECH North America

Kaymont Consolidated

King Nutronics Corporation

Laboratory Accreditation Bureau

Lockheed Martin Technical Operations

Masy Systems, Inc.

Measurements International

Mensor Corporation

Metronom U.S. Inc.

Mettler Toledo

NACLA

National Assoc. For Proficiency Testing

National Physical Laboratory

National Research Council of Canada

Naval Surface Warfare Center

Navy Primary Standards Laboratory

NIST/Calibration Program

NIST/NVLAP

Northrop Grumman Corporation

Northwest Metrology

Norvada, LLC

Oak Ridge Metrology Center

On Time Support, Inc.

OPTO-CAL, Inc.

Pacific Edge, Inc.

Parameter Generation & Control, Inc.

Paroscientific, Inc.

PolyScience

Pond Engineering Laboratories, Inc.

Prime Technology, LLC

Process Instruments, Inc.

QUAMETEC

RH Systems

Rice Lake Weighing Systems

Richard J. Bagan, Inc.

Rohde & Schwarz, Inc

SanSueB Software

Sartorius Corp.

SIM

SIMCO Electronics

Solance Technologies

Standards Council of Canada

Sypris Test & Measurement

TAC/TourAndoverControls

TEGAM, Inc.

Tektronix

Testo Inc.

The Bionetics Corporation

The Modal Shop, Inc.

Thunder Scientific Corp.

Tovey Engineering, Inc.

Transcat

Troemner, LLC

Unified Industries Incorporated

Universal Label Technologies

Vaisala, Inc.

Veriteq

Western Environmental Corp.

Workplace Training

Wyle Laboratories

Yokogawa Corporation of America

Get the KNOWLEDGE you need-now!

NCSLI brings metrology to life. You meet face-to-face with the top experts

in their field. “You can learn more in three days at an NCSLI Workshop

and Symposium than you may ever learn on your own!”

Discover the keys to success with NCSLI

NCSLI focuses on giving you the knowledge you need to solve your

metrology and business problems, from accreditation to quality systems

to uncertainty analysis to procedures. From the experts you’ll discover

what’s important (and what’s not), and how to make it all work for you

right now.

Learn what you NEED to know about metrology

With dozens of NCSLI technical, quality, and management sessions to

choose from – including committee meetings and impromptu discussions

– you can discuss your ideas and learn.

Learn from experts

NCSLI gives you a unique opportunity to expand your education and

conquer your technical challenges in an in-depth, friendly, and relaxed,

personal setting. Educational sessions are presented by leading experts,

and include the likes of the acting director of NIST, well-known scientists,

and corporate pros, all dedicated to your success. This mix of expertise

ensures that you get the real story on how it all works.

Explore hot solutions and services

In the Exhibition Hall you’ll discover what’s new in calibration hardware

and software. You’ll also find innovative software and management tools.

Best of all, you meet and talk to calibration education and training

organizations, and effectively determine what will best work for you.

Network with your colleagues

NCSLI attracts high-caliber attendees from around the world, so you can

learn from them, as well as at the technical sessions and social events.

You will develop a valuable network of peers. And you’ll make friends –

good business starts with a handshake.

Boost your smarts, skills, and success

There is no better investment than in yourself. Come to the 2005 NCSLI

Conference and see your knowledge grow and expand. In just a few days

you’ll gain abundant new ideas, insight, and detailed know-how you can

not get anywhere else. Don’t miss this year’s unique opportunity!

Lunch with the Speakers

At NCSLI you’re welcomed into the community and are provided lunch

every day at discussion round-tables! What better way to meet and learn

than by joining the speakers during lunch? Ask questions, share your

solutions, and learn more about current topics.

Who should attend?

The technical, educational and quality sessions are valuable for technical

executives and managers, scientists, consultants, engineers, tech

administrators, business solution providers, trainers, and anyone who

wants to learn about the top products, key technologies and best

practices in metrology.

Team up to win . . . and save money

To get the maximum benefit, don’t miss out on any of the educational

sessions and workshops. Bring colleagues with you! By registering three

or more people from your organization, you can effectively cover all of

the sessions and thereby take home the maximum knowledge. Plus, the

team can focus on priority projects free from office distractions.

BENEFITS OF ATTENDING

EXHIBITORS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NIST TOURSA special opportunity to tour the new NIST Advanced Measurement Laboratories (AML). All Day Friday – very limited attendance space.

> Category 1: Physical/Dimensional Labs

The Standard Kilogram; Dimensional Metrology: Ultra-High Accuracy Coordinate; The NIST Small Force Metrology Laboratory.Maximum number of participants: 36.

> Category 2: Electrical LabsVoltage Metrology; Resistance Metrology; Power and Energy Metrology. Maximum number of participants: 36.

> Category 3: Optical/Physics Labs.High Accuracy Cryogenic Radiometry; Spectral Irradiance and Radiance Responsivity using Uniform Sources (SIRCUS); Quantum Information Processing with Neutral-Atom Qubits. Maximum number of participants: 36.

> Category 4: NIST Center for Neutron Research (NCNR) and Advanced Measurement Laboratory (AML) Nanofabrication Facility NIST Center for Neutron Research and Nanofabrication Facility. Maximum number of participants: 24.

TUTORIALS

SATURDAY, AUGUST 6 8:00 — 12:00 PM HALF DAY SESSIONS

> T1 Fundamentals of Temperature Calibration Ron Ainsworth and Tom Wiandt

> T2 Balance and Scale Calibration and Use Val Miller

SATURDAY, AUGUST 6 1:00 — 5 :00 PM HALF-DAY SESSIONS

> T3 Temperature Calibration Uncertainty Analysis Ron Ainswoth and Tom Wiandt

> T4 Balance and Scale, and Weighing Process Uncertainties Val Miller

> T5 Measurement Uncertainty Made Easy Mike Ouelette

SUNDAY, AUGUST 7 8:00 — 12:00 PM HALF DAY SESSIONS

> T6 Very Low Pressure Calibration Kurt Kurtz, Mike Bair, Matt Daniels

> T7 Practical Modeling of Measurements for the Uncertainty Evaluation Klaus-Dieter Sommer

> T8 Laboratory Accreditation: The Process from A to Z Dana Leaman

> T9 Running an Effective Laboratory: The Measurements Beyond Metrology Gregg Powell and Malcolm Smith

> T10 Good, Bad, or Indeterminate: Using Guardbands to Help Make the Call David Deaver

> T11 Measurement of Customer Satisfaction: An Application of “Soft” Metrology Jean Claude Krynicki

SUNDAY, AUGUST 7 1:00 — 5:00 PM HALF DAY SESSIONS

> T12 Very Low Pressure Applications Kurt Kurtz, Mike Bair, Matt Daniels

> T13 Evaluating Measurement Uncertainty in Chemical Laboratories Wolfgang Richter, Klaus-Dieter Sommer

> T14 Pipette Calibration and Use: Methods for Reducing Variability via Uncertainty Analysis Ron Ainsworth, Tom Wiandtand Bench-top Verification

> T15 Force Calibration: Methods and Uncertainties Mike Tovey

> T16 The Shocking Aspects of ESD: Things You Should Know About Electronic Discharge Patrick Andre

> T17 Measurement System Analysis Handbook for the Automotive Industry Steve Stahley

FRIDAY, AUGUST 12 8:00 — 12:00 PM HALF DAY SESSIONS

> T18 Advanced Topics in Uncertainty Analysis Howard Castrup

> T19 Laboratory Data Management: If the Data Don’t Match, the Answers Won’t Hatch Don Wyatt

> T20 Inventory Data Normalization: The Whys, Whats, and Techniques Charlie Motzko

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Discover how to identify, manage, and master your measurement challenges at NCSLI 2005.

www.ncsli.org

PLATINUM SPONSORS

GOLD SPONSORS

SILVER SPONSORS

NCSLI PRESIDENT’S RECEPTION SPONSOR

SCHEDULE

WASHINGTONHILTON & TOWERS

1919 Connecticut Avenue NWWashington, DC 20009202-483-3000Group Code: NSL

SATURDAY AUGUST 6

> 8:00 AM – 12:00 PM Tutorials: T1, T2

> 1:00 PM – 5:00 PM Tutorials: T3, T4, T5

SUNDAY AUGUST 7

> 8:00 AM – 12:00 PM Tutorials: T6, T7, T8, T9, T10, T11

> 1:00 PM – 5:00 PM Tutorials: T12, T13, T14, T15, T16, T17

> 7:00 PM – 9:00 PM Exhibitors’ Reception

MONDAY AUGUST 8

> 8:00 AM – 8:30 AM Exhibit Viewing

> 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM Registration

> 8:30 AM – 9:00 AM Introduction to NCSL International

> 9:00 AM – 10:00 AM Conference Opening / Keynote

> 10:00 AM – 10:45 AM Exhibit Viewing

> 10:45 AM – 12:15 PM Technical Sessions

> 12:15 PM – 1:45 PM Lunch

> 1:45 PM – 2:30 PM Exhibit Viewing

> 2:30 PM – 4:00 PM Technical Sessions

> 4:00 PM – 4:30 PM Exhibit Viewing

> 4:15 PM – 6:00 PM Committee Meetings

> 6:00 PM – 8:00 PM NCSLI President’s Reception

TUESDAY AUGUST 9

> 8:00 AM - 8:30 AM Exhibit Viewing

> 8:30 AM - 10:00 AM Plenary Session


> 10:45 AM - 12:15 PM Technical Sessions

> 12:15 PM - 1:45 PM Lunch

> 1:45 PM - 2:30 PM Exhibit Viewing

> 2:30 PM - 4:00 PM Technical Sessions


> 4:15 PM - 6:00 PM Committee Meetings

> 7:00 PM - 10:30 PM NCSLI Annual Banquet

WEDNESDAY AUGUST 10


> 8:30 AM - 10:00 AM Plenary Session


> 10:45 AM - 12:15 PM Technical Sessions

> 12:15 PM - 1:45 PM Lunch


> 2:30 PM Exhibits Closed

> 2:30 PM - 4:00 PM Technical Sessions

> 4:15 PM - 6:00 PM Committee Meetings

> 6:00 PM - 10:30 PM International Event

THURSDAY AUGUST 11

> 8:00 PM – 8:30 PM Continental Buffet

> 8:30 AM – 10:00 AM Technical Sessions

> 10:00 AM – 10:45 AM Break

> 10:45 AM – 12:15 PM Technical Sessions

> 12:15 PM – 1:45 PM Lunch

> 1:45 PM – 3:15 PM Technical Sessions

FRIDAY AUGUST 12

> 8:00 AM – 12:00 PM Tutorials: T18, T19, T20

> 9:00 AM – 4:00 PM NIST Tours

ROOM RATES

Single - $153Double – $163Towers single – $185Towers double - $195

NCSLI promotes competitiveness and success of its

members by improving the quality of products and services

through excellence in calibration, testing, and metrology

education and training.

NCSL INTERNATIONAL2995 Wilderness Place, Suite 107Boulder, Colorado 80301-5404

REGISTER NOW!Via the web at www.ncsli.org/conference/

Register by May 3rd and save up to $150

For registration questions and answers,please call 303-440-3339

R

FEES

REGISTRATION RATES (in U.S. Dollars)

Advance Regular Late

By May 3 May 4–June 26 After June 26

Member $699 $749 $849

Non-Member $899 $949 $1,049

TUTORIAL RATES

Before June 26 After June 26

Member $110 $130

Non-Member $140 $160

NIST ADVANCED MEASUREMENT LAB TOUR

August 12, 2005 $35 (select one tour)

> Tour A Physical/Dimensional

> Tour B Electrical

> Tour C Optical/Physics

> Tour D Neutron Research/Nanofabrication

INTERNATIONAL EVENT

Sunset dinner cruise on the Potomac aboard the Dandy riverboat $75

Authors

LAB MANAGEMENT ACCREDITATION TECHNOLOGY MATH AND STATS

AUTOMATION OF MEASUREMENT RF AND MICROWAVE

MSC features topics of interest to the test, metrology & calibration, and precision measurement communities. MSC exists to promote education and professionalism in the measurement science and related disciplines. Technical and managerial experts in the measurement sciences are invited to lead sessions, panel discussions, and to present papers or workshops on topics of importance to the global measurement community. Participants from government, aerospace, medical, and environmental backgrounds meet to share the most up-to-date information.

You are invited to participate in the 2006 Conference by presenting a paper on any topic of interest to those involved in the application of measurement disciplines.

Please notify the Program Chairman as soon as possible of your interest. The deadline for submitting your abstract is April 30, 2005. To present

at MSC, you must submit a paper.

If you are interested in developing a technical session, please contact the Program Chairman. Send your name, address, telephone number, and a short biographical sketch to the Program Chairman and indicate your area of interest. Preference will be given to the developers with a full slate of papers.

MSC has an extensive tutorial workshop program, which are half-day (4-hour) instructional seminars. You are invited to

submit a tutorial workshop proposal in addition to, or instead of, a conference paper.

Please Reply by Mail, eMail or Website Directlyto the Contact on the Back of this Postcard.w w w . m s c - c o n f . c o m

CALL FOR PAPERSM e a s u r e m e n t S c i e n c e C o n f e r e n c e

Disneyland Hotel, Anaheim, February 27 – March 3, 2006

“The Sc ience , Technology, and Contro l o f Measurements”Pas t , P resen t , and Fu tu re

Session Developers

Tutorial Workshops

Suggested Topics

PROPOSED TRACKS

Technical TopicsElectrical Pressure Resistance Capacitance

Temperature Vibration Time Frequency

Mass Gas, Liquid Flow Humidity RF & Microwave

Air Quality Optical Short Wave Light Transducers Verification

Coordinate Measuring Machines Automation Advanced Technologies (NANO, etc.)

Fields

Chemical Process Manufacturing Pharmaceutical Environmental Medical Biological Homeland Defense

Management TopicsTraceability Laboratory Accreditation Laws & Regulations

Interval Adjustment Procedures Development Automation

Technician Training Error & Data Analysis Metrology Budgets

Outsourcing Services Audits & Quality Control Equipment Development

On-Site Calibration Reference Standard Maintenance Equipment Management

ISO and Other Written Standards Hazardous Materials Handling Quality Standards

Capability Maturity Model Integration

M E A S U R E M E N T S C I E N C EC O N F E R E N C E

2 0 0 6

C

M

Y

CM

MY

CY

CMY

K

2006 call for papers.ai 1/7/2005 12:00:39 PM2006 call for papers.ai 1/7/2005 12:00:39 PM

2005-June

Documents

Transcript of 2005-June