EXPERTANSWE
Efficient measurement studies
Q: My organization manufactures 150 differ-
ent products with a range of property grams
per square meter. There are 19 characteristics
to be measured. We can’t use a gage repeat-
ability and reproducibility (R&R) study on each
product because it would be too time con-
suming. Our goal is to know the value of the
R&R or have a general idea of the measure-
ment system’s suitability. Given the number of
products and characteristics, what alternative
approach would you suggest to perform a
minimum number of studies?
A: This is a common challenge in manu-
facturing. Each R&R study takes time and
resources. If you conducted a study for all
150 of your products and 19 characteristics
(assuming you studied them one at a time),
that would result in 2,850 studies for just the
initial assessment.
Continuing these studies at periodic
intervals would be a major undertaking. You
can apply risk-based thinking to this situation
by asking: “How different are the 150 prod-
ucts and the 19 characteristics?” “Are they
significantly different from one another, or is
there only a subtle difference in form, fit and
function?” “Will this difference affect the R&R
result?” This is because product attributes
play a role in reproducibility errors.
You can find a measurement system vari-
ability cause and effect diagram in Measure-
ment Systems Analysis. In the fishbone dia-
1
gram, under the bone representing the “part,”
Product type and characteristics
matrix / TABLE 1
Product grouping Characteristics
(150 products) group A
Product group A (1-50) 1,7,16
Product group B (51-100) 13,19
Product group C (101-150) 4,9,15
Note: This matrix assumes there are three groups of products and three groups of characteristics. The
total number of required studies will be nine.
8 QP • www.qualityprogress.com
there are examples of attributes that the can
result in measurement system variability, such
as mass, elastic deformation, elastic proper-
ties, supporting features, interrelated charac-
teristics, cleanliness, adequate data, hidden
geometry or operation definition.
Depending on your product, there may be
others. These product attributes can result in
significantly different R&R errors when mea-
surements are made. At the same time, you
cannot afford to do 2,850 studies from the
example discussed earlier. If you can group
the products into categories that consider the
attributes mentioned earlier, this can reduce
the total number of studies.
With 19 characteristics, you should con-
sider these questions:
• How are these characteristics different?
• For example, do the products fall under
four thicknesses, five diameters, five
lengths and five angles?
• Are any of the characteristics unique?
• Will they require different equipment?
• Even if they have similar characteristics,
is the measurement range significantly
different?
Conduct an assessment based on
product type, characteristics and develop
a matrix (see Table 1). From the example,
group 150 products and 19 characteristics
by a pre-defined criteria using product at-
tributes. You would pick characteristics 1, 7
or 16 and a product from 1 to 50, and follow
these three steps:
1. Select 10 parts of the chosen product from
Characteristics Characteristics
group B group C
17 3,12,14
2,10 6,18
5,8 11
the manufacturing process that represents
the process variation.
2. Select three appraisers that are representa-
tive of the appraiser population.
3. Conduct three trials, and calculate the R&R.
Using risk-based thinking and conducting
this type of measurement system analysis
should significantly reduce your number of
possible studies. There may be better ideas,
but I’d suggest this approach because the
question was to “have a general idea of the
measurement system’s suitability.”
Govind Ramu
Senior director, global quality
management systems
SunPower Corp.
San Jose, CA
REFERENCE
1. Measurement Systems Analysis, fourth edition, Automotive
Industry Action Group, 2010, p. 17.
A personnel or system issue?
Q: I am working with an engineering con-
sultant, and my organization’s engineering
team has to perform adequate checking and
verification before it releases the deliver-
able product to the customer. Our quality
management system’s (QMS) procedures and
practices were created so that any employee
could easily understand and use the require-
ments. We regularly gather the team for initial
or refresher QMS training programs. But de-
spite using these training sessions and raising
corrective action requests, product deviations
recur. What is the best way to prevent these
deviations?
A: Most quality professionals are familiar with
this question: “After all this training, why can’t
people follow simple instructions and just do
what they are supposed to do?” One method
to address this is to hold people accountable,
add these instances to their performance
reviews, discipline them for noncompliance
and replace them if necessary.
RS This, however, is not considered a best
practice by quality and management experts.
While it can be difficult for some managers to
accept, W. Edwards Deming said that 85% of
problems in any process are system-related
and management’s responsibility, and a mi-
nority of issues are controlled by workers.1
For people to do what’s right, Deming
promoted developing an intrinsic motiva-
tion in them. Social psychologist Douglas
McGregor’s theories X and Y can provide
managers insight into motivation.
Theory X assumes people dislike work,
lack motivation and are irresponsible. But
Theory Y assumes that if people have re-
spectful management, they want to do their
best and genuinely do not want to make
mistakes.2
Today, Theory Y is considered a best prac-
tice. Many books on management suggest
using tools such as compassionate leader-
ship, empowerment, engagement, behavioral
management or cognitive psychology. In this
situation, put the burden on management, and
ask yourself, “What are its responsibilities?”
Assume that people making mistakes
would agree there is a problem, and they’d
be happy if the mistakes went away. Per-
haps deviations occur because the work
is not considered interesting or important.
Maybe training sessions are boring, or
people are too busy to pay attention to
minor details in their work.
Open a dialogue with people who are
making mistakes, and let them explain what’s
causing problems. If an organization’s culture
does not have trust among its staff members,
however, a confidential and neutrally facili-
tated focus group could draw out the source
of the problems.
An organization’s culture is where man-
agement can make a difference. Managers
must make it easier for people to follow
procedures than not follow them.
That’s true, but managers also must
think beyond quality system process devel-
opment. They must cultivate a culture that
engages and intrinsically motivates staff
members: where they want to do the right
thing for the organization whether it’s easy
or not. The key is creating an environment
in which “I have to” becomes “I want to.”
Daniel Pink, author of Drive: The Surpris-
ing Truth About What Motivates Us,3 wrote
that rewards and punishment have limited
effects. People are motivated by autonomy,
mastery and purpose.
Autonomy is the freedom to choose
how to work with respect to tasks, teams,
techniques or time management. In this case,
perhaps the people making mistakes would
like to revise relevant processes and docu-
ments to fit their preferences. To gauge the
autonomy of an organization’s culture, Pink
suggested performing an autonomy audit.4
Mastery can be the most influential staff
motivator: The feeling of making progress in
meaningful work and continuously improving
at it. With regard to your deliverables, staff
members must understand that these deter-
mine the organization’s success.
They also must be challenged to continu-
ously improve the processes involved in
creating your products in terms of quality,
time and cost. They should be owners and
masters of these processes. The QMS proce-
dures, checks and verifications are all tools
toward this end and also can be improved.
Pink’s concept of purpose suggests that
people ultimately work for a cause larger
than themselves, and management can help
instill this feeling.
Rally people around a higher cause, not
just the work. Focus on what types of prod-
ucts you produce, their function in society
and what happens if they are not produced
in a timely fashion with high quality.
Karen Martin, author of The Outstand-
ing Organization, wrote that chaos must be
eliminated before organizations can reach
their potential.5 Chaos is a lack of clarity,
focus, discipline and engagement. Promot-
ing engagement is a key to preventing
seemingly simple mistakes, and it requires
an organization to emphasize the roles of
connection, control and creativity.
People making the mistakes have the
power. They can choose to work with you
and solve the problem, or they can choose
to perpetuate the current state. Your job is
to be they type of leader they accept and
want to let influence them. Author Manley
Hopkinson wrote about different bases of
power, writing that reward and coercion
were the lowest levels.6
Managers should strive to reach the
higher levels of influence. A culture that
draws out the best in people can be subtle.
Small words matter. Hopkinson recom-
mends referring to people respectfully. Call
them and think of them as people, not as
bodies, workers, resources or something
that can be used.
Read the books on leadership I men-
tioned earlier, and apply management styles
that make sense for your organization. It is
possible for anyone to take an organization’s
culture to the next level.
I focused on Deming’s 85% probability
that the issues are in management’s control.
There may be a reason to return to the first
part of this answer: Some people might just
be bad hires. These individuals will resist any
attempt to build a positive, engaging culture.
If they don’t improve after management has
tried every reasonable step to motivate them,
they are not fit to work in your organization.
Scott A. Laman
Senior manager, quality engineering
and risk management
Teleflex Inc.
Reading, PA
EDITOR’S NOTE
To view the full list of references, visit this article’s webpage at
www.qualityprogress.com.
March 2016 • QP 9