Vol. 19, No.

4 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality December 2005

Coming soon…
MQD’s own CCT challenge coin!
 The Standard
Vol 19, No. 4, December 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: yokota-69@charter.net
or jay.bucher@promega.com
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
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.........................................................4
THE LEARNING CURVE.............................................................5
METROLOGY JOB DESCRIPTION INITIATIVE ......................9
EDUCATOR’S CORNER ............................................................11
MAX JAY UNIS AWARD ..........................................................12
EVENTS CALENDAR ................................................................12
MQD TELECONFERENCE MINUTES .....................................13
MQD 2004-2005 FINANCIAL SUMMARY...............................16
MQD HISTORICAL FINANCIAL SUMMARIES .....................17
JOINT MQD—ID CONFERENCE……………………………...18
ACCREDITATION NEWS………………………………….…..22
MQD OFFICERS AND COMMITTEE CHAIRS…………….....23
METROLOGY AS A COMPETITIVE WEAPON…………34 ~ 38
CALIBRATION: WHAT IS IT?.........................................72, 74, 76
CALIBRATION: WHO DOES IT?........................................ 80 ~ 81
CALIBRATION: WHY IT’S IMPORTANT………………….66, 69
NIST SCHEDULE OF LABORATORY METROLOGY
SEMINARS……………………………………………..Last 4 pages
FROM THE DESK OF THE EDITOR/PUBLISHER
Before I forget, let me remind our readers that the first
edition of 2006 should arrive at our MQD web site
around the middle of March, instead of the end of Feb-
ruary. We would like to include any and all news from
the Measurement Science Conference (MSC) 2006. It
will be held a little later than usual because to the large
influx of visitors due to Disneyland holding their 50th
anniversary the first of the year. We have been granted
permission to reprint a few articles from Quality Pro-
gress and Cal Lab Magazine. The articles are relevant,
timely, and in Graeme’s case, easier to follow when read as one article.
You’ll find them attached at the end of our normal ‘stuff’. However, you
may have noticed that there are no page numbers for those articles, only
their titles in the Table of Contents. No, I am not suffering from dementia
(at least nobody has brought it to my attention). There is a simple answer.
The articles were sent to me in Adobe's Portable Document Format (PDF).
Therefore, I am unable to give them their proper page numbers. They are
assigned page numbers from the order in which they were posted in their
particular magazines. Hope that makes sense. I would like to express my
sincere appreciation to the editors of Quality Progress and Cal Lab Maga-
zine for their generosity in allowing us to reprint these articles. The front
cover? Everyone earning
their CCT will receive
one of these unique coins
in the near future. More
information to come in
your quarterly newsletter:
The Standard.
MQD Page 3

CHAIR’S COLUMN available records, this marks the first time the Divi-
sion has published four issues in one calendar year
By Graeme C. Payne or one fiscal year. This has been made possible by
Notes from All Over the hard work of Jay Bucher and his staff, those of
you who contribute material for the newsletter, and
Instead of the usual mes- Jay's push to drive us to a primarily electronic pub-
sage on a theme, for this lication instead of an all-print publication.
issue I an jotting down a
Publishing principally as an electronic newsletter is
number of notes about
things that have happened also a major cost saving for your division. For the
in the past few months. year ending June 30, 2005 publishing the newslet-
ter cost just under $5,000 and I expect it to be
lower than that for the current year. In the previous
Rewards and Recogni-
five years it has been as much as $21,000 per year,
tion up to 67% of the Division's expenses. That will
make funds available for other work that benefits
It is always a pleasure to recognize a member who you and our profession.
has received awards or other recognition for their
volunteer work. th
MQD's 15 Anniversary Approaching!
In a separate article, you will see that Dan Harper
15 years! Can you believe that? July 2006 will
has received ASQ's Freund-Marquardt Medal for
mark the start of our 15th year as a Division. I'd like
his long and hard work on international standards,
to say “let's have a party” but with members all
and has also been recognized by the US TC-176
over North America and in 25 other countries
TAG for his work on the new Customer Satisfac-
around the world, that will probably be too hard to
tion standard.
arrange. Still, I would like to explore what special
things we can do. For example, I would like it if
At the Division's annual conference in September
our Charter Members could each send me a note
(held jointly with the Inspection Division) past
with something like where you were then, what
Chair Dilip Shah received the Division's Max J.
you are doing now, your ideas to improve the fu-
Unis Award for his achievements in forming the
ture of the profession and the Division, and maybe
partnership with Inspection Division, re-starting
a current photo. I'll see if we can publish those,
the annual conferences (which had been suspended
spread over the 2006-2007 issues of The Stan-
since 2001) and other accomplishments during his
dard. (I hope my mailbox doesn't go into over-
two years as Division Chairperson.
load!) Send me more ideas as well! Or, put them on
the Measurement Quality discussion board on the
Kudos to Jay! ASQ web site.
This issue of The Standard is the fourth one to be (continued on page 4)
published during 2005. As far as we can tell from
The Standard is published quarterly by the Measurement Quality Division of ASQ; deadlines are February 15,
May 15, August 15 and November 15. Text information intended for publication can be sent via electronic mail as
an attachment in MS Word format (Times New Roman, 11 pt). Use single spacing between sentences. Graphics/
illustrations must be sent as a separate attachment, in jpg format. Photographs of MQD activities are always wel-
come. Publication of articles, product releases, advertisements or technical information does not imply endorse-
ment 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
(Continued on page 14)
countries are reserved. Website information: MQD’s homepage can be found at http://www.asq.org/measure.
© 2005 ASQ, MQD. All rights reserved.
Vol. 19, No. 4 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality December 2005
MQD Page 4

Letters To The Editor Now for the third degree. I was on the receiving
end of the mass mailing that went out from ASQ
headquarters in the form of an email, with every-
First Impressions, Second Thoughts, one’s address available for all to see and use. I also
and The Third Degree! received the note from one of those on the same list
By The Laird of Glencairn as me advertising for a calibration technician. Very
bad taste from my point of view. Two wrongs
Please consider this don’t make a right, and piggy-backing on one per-
an open letter to the son’s mistake is just plain ignorant. I’m told an
editor, officers of the apology was received from a big wheel at ASQ
Measurement Quality headquarters, and that is the least we should ex-
Division (MQD), its pect. Hopefully, all have learned a lesson, and we
members, and cali- can move forward without any repeats of the same
bration practioners mistake.
My pooch incognito everywhere.
Well, my pooch is trying to tell me he has to ‘go’,
My first impression (from a little birdie who so I might as well, too. I would like to wish all my
squawked in my ear about the teleconference call friends a safe and happy holiday season since we
had by the MQD in October) is this, “Best get your will be in the new year when the next edition of
act together boys and girls...ya’ don’t get too many this rag comes out. If you head to the pub...walk
shots to get it right.” Seems there’s a bit of dissen- back home, take a ride, or let one of those desig-
sion in the ranks about how to run the budget, nated people do the transporting. Tip one for me
spend their hard earned funds, working with head- and remember what that fella said to the Australia
quarters, and filling their duties as volunteers. Or bloke…”No matter where ya’ go, there ya’ are”.
was it a mere misunderstanding? I think Mr. Payne
(MQD’s new Chair) will do his best to sort out the Howp ye enjoy whit we hae tae offer, so just sign
facts, and get the group back on track. But years of me…A Juicy Hub Loser!
not being held accountable may take their toll. As
the old sea dogs used to say, “Stand by for ram”.
And we are not referring to the sheep variety, ei- The following email ‘conversation’ took place be-
ther. tween Professor Dr. Don Ermer, and Rich DeR-
oeck. I have placed them in chronological order,
As for my second thoughts, I’m told by your illus- with the oldest being first…
trious editor, Mr. Bucher, that there was only one
comment to my previous composition and that re- On Jul 29, 2005, at 9:25 AM, rich-
mark was surprise that nobody had made any com- ard.deroeck@skyworksinc.com wrote:
ments. Either your readership is extremely healthy,
and doesn’t give two hoots about their results from Dear Sir,
the hospital...or nobody reads this rag and so there I just finished reading your fine article in the
is no one to comment. I find the latter hard to be- STANDARD regarding the faulty analysis in cal-
lieve since this is supposed to go out to almost culating the ratios of the R&R studies. I am also
3,000 members. I did, however, ask my health care familiar with Don Wheeler's work and criticism in
providers about their test equipment certifications, this area.
and they told me they had their equipment manu-
facturers come in and provide preventive mainte- My question is this: Have you approached the
nance inspections and calibration (where appropri- AIAG group with this information and if you have,
ate) on a regular basis (read that as yearly). I feel a are there plans to correct these mistakes?
little better. Both in mind and body. I hear ya’
laughing. But I have a philosophy of “mind over
matter”. I don’t mind since you don’t matter. (Continued on page 8)

Laugh at that.
Vol. 19, No. 4 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality December 2005
MQD Page 5

THE LEARNING CURVE participants that I could identify asking them to

edit their own testimony. So far Boss, you are the
By Phil Painchaud only one, other than Dr. Watson, who has re-
sponded. Therefore, I guess that you are to become
This is the forty-third in an un-
the Star Witness in this issue of this column.
interrupted series of harangues,
often magniloquent, chartered to
We do have a second source of material for this
be on the general topic of Me-
issue, although it is from outside our Quality/
trology Education. Readers fre-
Metrology cocoon, it is both complimentary and
quently confuse this mandate
supplementary to the efforts we are put forth on the
with one of Calibration Train-
subject of Metrology Education. Most of you
ing—which it is most definitely
should be aware of the Institute of Electrical and
not, and for which the author
Electronics Engineers (IEEE); it is probably the
claims no transcendent attrib-
largest professional society in the world and has
utes. Thus by both dictate as well as by qualifica-
roots going back into the 1870’s. It is composed of
tion, he must adhere to the chartered subject. Un-
many sub-organizations, one of which is the Instru-
fortunately, there are times, such as possibly, now,
mentation & Measurement Society. Mr. Harold
there is a dearth of news on the specified topic and
Goldberg is a regular columnist in their monthly
he is forced to digress per his whims. This may be
journal. Hal, whom I have known casually for
another such occasion. As usual, it is in the format
many years, has had a very long industrial career
of an open letter to our Boss, the Editor-Chief of
and currently is a professor at Tufts University in
this periodic journal.
Medford, MA.
Dear Boss:
But first let us go to what you had to say Boss, but
Those prolusions to this column are frequently
of course, we should explain to our readers some-
composed well in advance of the actual creation of
thing about this seminar. The intent was that it was
the particular column to which it may be prefaced.
to be not the usual panel discussion with most of
Not in keeping with my prediction we do, at this
the talk between the panelists themselves, but
time have pertinent material upon which to dwell.
rather more like a colloquium where the audience
On January 21, 2005, during the Annual Measure-
themselves do most of the discussion and led and
ment Science Conference, our Measurement Qual-
moderated by a true expert in the field. However,
ity Division sponsored a Seminar on Metrology
we modified this format a bit by having a panel of
Education. Both audio and video recording was
experts rather than a single individual to answer
made of the entire session. The plan was to have
questions and another expert roving the audience
the testimony transcribed for distribution. The
with a hot microphone acting as moderator.
video was intended as a source for identifying the
speaker. Somehow, the video record got lost and
You will recall Boss, that as Session Developer, I
the transcriber had to work entirely from the audio
had the task of introducing those concerned. Our
tape.
roving Moderator and Facilitator was none other
that Dr. Gene Watson, the recently retired Coordi-
Our volunteer transcriptionist, Ms. Cathy French,
nator of the Measurement Science Program at the
of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, in Los
California State University, Dominguez Hills. Sit-
Alamos, New Mexico, was not able to attend the
ting on the Panel of Experts we had: Emil
session, and was a thousand miles away from it and
Hazarian, former Chief Metrologist for the County
from any of the participants. She finely got her
of Los Angeles and currently Staff at the Naval
rough draft of the transcription based on just the
Measurement Science Directorate at Corona, CA;
audio tape to me early in November. She is to be
Arthur J. Plourde, President of Metron Corpora-
highly praised for her Herculean efforts to create
tion, the parent company of the Metron Institute of
some order out of the audio tape while working
blindly without the video supplement. I immedi- (Continued on page 6)
ately sent hard copies of her transcript to all of the
Vol. 19, No. 4 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality December 2005
MQD Page 6

(Continued from page 5)
Measurement Technology; Herb O’Neil, Professor
at Ridgewater College (formerly known as Hut-
chinson Technical Institute) in Minnesota; Dean
Schmeck, of the Naval Measurement Science Di-
rectorate, the organization that was underwriting
this seminar; and of course myself.
do, and I let people know about it. I give speeches
at NCSLI Sectional and Regional meetings, and
the MSC. As far as education goes, I go to my
daughter’s middle school, and give presentations
in their math classes; they actually have a meas-
urement section. And I took in my Egyptian Cubit
and got them all interested in measurements.”

Dr. Watson started the discussion by asking, “Does If that were not enough, you really got wound up
anyone have anything to say to the educational and rightly started to point the finger at the rest of
community about Metrology Education?” That did the Metrology Community—that means you, my
it—you might say, “it broke the dam”. readers; me; and all of the rest of you folks who
regularly complain about a lack of Metrology Edu-
Nearly everyone who had any knowledge of Me- cation opportunities. Boss, you said:—
trology Education ‘cut loose’ with virtually the
same complaint. The potential students, their man- —“ So far as sitting around whining that nobody
agers, their organizations all proclaim loudly that is doing anything about educating or informing
they need, want, and will support Metrology Edu- metrology, in England they are making kits
cation, nevertheless when it is offered they avoid through NPL that they send out to the high
and ignore the offer! It was testified from Ridge- schools – you know what I’m talking about – that
water they instituted a Metrology Program upon have different calipers, micrometers, and different
direct orders from the Governor’s Office after a things like that to teach them about measurement.
trade association claimed that they could send one Why aren’t we doing that here in the US? We’re
hundred students a year and a corporation in Min- supposed to be leading the way in the free world.
neapolis offered to send 25 to 50 per year. None You wouldn’t know it, of course. But, why isn’t
ever came from either of these sources! Dr. Watson everybody here going out to their high schools
told that after seven years of preparatory work, the and saying, “Hey, here’s what we’re doing.
Dominguez Hills Program went online with a Me- Here’s the Egyptian Cubit. Here’s what the Egyp-
trology Statistics course, with the top measurement tians did 5,000 years ago,” and explain it to them.
statistician of this Nation teaching it—it drew but a Talk about metrology; and biotechnology; phar-
single student! I pointed out that at California Poly- maceuticals; the airlines industry; automotive;
technic State University in San Luis Obispo, after and everything else that you ladies gentlemen do.
five years, the program had only attracted a single Why [do] not all of us do something about it in-
student and that was a transfer from within the Uni- stead of sitting on our cans saying, “Hey, no-
versity rather that a recruit from outside! And it body’s doing anything”? We ought to get out and
went on! do it, because we’re the leaders right now. And
obviously you guys are a little older than most in
Boss you stayed pretty quiet during these earlier this room, so you need young people to go out and
discussions, then you started to inject your “two do it. What can I say? I’m proud of what I do. I
bits worth” or maybe it was more like a “buck and caught a killer today. A lot of the people who were
a half worth”. You started off:— identified after the World Trade Center tragedy
were identified because of Promega products. We
—“I’m the Manager of Metrology Services for taking a lot of pride in what we do. We’ve got a
Promega Corporation in Madison, Wisconsin. I quality system. We’re ISO certified. My depart-
agree with most of what you gentlemen have said, ment is cGMP compliant. You gentlemen have all
but not all. Number one, today because of what I that knowledge. Put the task on everyone else and
do, six killers were caught, a couple of rapists are say, “Hey, what are you doing?” instead of just
in jail, and someone [else] was let loose after 18 saying nobody is doing anything. Let’s get out
years of incarceration all through genetic identity and do it. “ —
and DNA testing. I take a lot of pride in what I (Continued on page 7)

Vol. 19, No. 4 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality December 2005
MQD
(Continued from page 6)
Boss, that is as well put as I have ever heard it, i.e.
the blame is on all of us. We each are responsible
for the promotion of our profession—each indi-
vidually in his own way. I have often pointed out in
this column that the intellectual advancement, tech-
nical extended education, further training (call it
what you will) is the responsibility of the individ-
ual, also. It is not the responsibility of management
or supervision. This also applies to the promulga-
tion of information concerning our profession.
However, as Mr. Goldberg points out in his article
that I am about to quote, management and supervi-
sion must be made responsible to encourage ex-
tended education and the spreading of the word of
the Metrology credo (My dictionary defines credo
as : “a system of beliefs, principles, or opin-
ions”). We must spread knowledge of our beliefs
widely and deeply so that the entire populace un-
derstands, a Metrologist is not a chemist who
works with metals nor is he (or she) a weather
prognosticator!
Harold Goldberg, in his column entitled THE
LASTWORD, in the October 2005 issue of the
IEEE INSTRUMENTATION & MEASURMENT
MAGAZINE, puts the blame directly upon man-
agement. While he was writing specifically con-
cerning electronics engineers, what he says applies
equally to Metrologists. He had just been inter-
viewing the engineering dean of a respected engi-
neering school who told him, “We teach them fun-
damentals, broadly, beyond their specialties. And
then, we teach them to keep learning all of their
lives”. But who is to do the teaching and how is it to be
done? So far, progress has been nil. Deans, pro-
Mr. Goldberg retorts —“Keep learning? Fat vosts, corporate and engineering [and Metrology]
chance! Never happen! They just won’t do it. leaders, come on. Talk to each other!” —
That’s not completely true. Those who continue
their education to a doctorate usually do keep
studying. But they usually end up in academia or
research and find that leaning is part of their job
description.
What about the majority of the graduates, those
who tumble into an industrial career? They’re
dead! It’s the rare bird who succeeds in keeping
up with the art. Their job is to produce, whether
it’s a product or a process [or a service for that
Vol. 19, No. 4 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality
Page 7
matter–pap]. If they are going to learn, it must be
on their own time, and they have precious little of
that.
Jacques Vanier of the National Research Council
of Canada put it succinctly when he wrote to me
that management believes that it is a waste of time
to attend conferences since the knowledge will be
available in a short time anyway. Corporations
worry that “loose lips” engineers will spill pro-
prietary secrets or, worse, find another job. Stay
away from meetings! Don’t talk to other engi-
neers! Take courses! Stay current with the state
of the art! And do it at your own expense.
BALDERDASH!! It won’t work! Academics and
researchers get time to attend, learn, and profit by
the interchange. Engineers [and Metrologists–
pap] in industry are pressed for time, don’t get the
expense money, and don’t profit by the inter-
change since there isn’t any”.— — —
In a later paragraph, he continues:— “This calls
for a complete change in philosophy on the part
of corporate management. They’ve got to realize
that their technical staff needs to learn the latest
and newest. They need to learn that their biggest
hope to stay alive technically is a marriage with
their academic brethren. And academia must find
better ways to spoon feed the information. That
goes for [the Professional] Societies [and Trade
Associations] as well. What we are doing today
just isn’t working!
Thank you Hal for allowing me to quote you, your
article has complemented our case perfectly. We
are in your debt. But now back to the testimony
from the Metrology Education Seminar at the re-
cent Measurement Science Conference. You build
a powerful case, Boss, and Mr. Goldberg in his
article supplemented it very well. Towards the
close of the Seminar session, at Dr. Watson’s re-
quest, I made a contribution that I believe ce-
mented both of your cases together.
(continued on page 8, column 2)
December 2005
MQD Page 8

(Continued from page 4) (Continued from page 7)

Thanks,
Rich DeRoeck
Supplier Quality Engineer/SPC Coordinator
Calibration Manager
Skyworks Solutions Inc.
20 Sylvan Rd
Woburn, MA 01801
Dr. Ermer wrote back:
Hi Rich, sorry it has taken me so long to get back
to you. Thanks for your comment -it is very much
appreciated. I haven't approached AIAG, but my
article will be published in two parts in Quality
Progress in March and May, 2006; and I will be
presenting the Paper at the ASQ WCQI in Milwau-
kee on May 1-3, 2006. I've taught SPC for over 3
decades & for Ford in the early "80's".
Don
Donald S. Ermer, Ph.D. & PE
Procter & Gamble Professor Emeritus in Total
Quality Departments of Industrial & Systems Engi-
neering and Mechanical Engineering
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Recipient in 2000 of the National Eugene L. Grant
Medal from ASQ, Fellow of ASQ and SME
Rich responded:
I said’—“If I can amplify what just been said, I
think the previous speakers were saying two
things. One, you can’t do what we have been try-
ing to do the way we have been trying to do it, that
is working up from the bottom. Based upon my
previous experiences you’ve got to get this man-
dated downward from the top. You’ve got to con-
vince whatever the higher powers may be that me-
trology education is mandatory at all levels
throughout the school system, as well as in the
industrial system. The other thing – as automa-
tion increases you must recognize that you need
fewer and fewer calibration technicians and more
and more metrologists. I’m not talking about Me-
trology Engineers. They too are quite necessary.
They are the designers. Engineers are fundamen-
tally designers. Metrology is a science. It’s an in-
dependent science. Metrologists are the scientists
who analyze the measurement related problems,
set parameters and criteria, and devise solutions.
And, in automation they are the people you need
to study those problems and to properly program
solutions into the automated system. The engi-
neers are there to design the system and the in-
strumentation for the system, but the Metrologist
must first develop the criteria for the system.”—
We’ll cover more of the testimony given in that
Metrology Education Seminar in latter issues as I
receive edited copy back from the participants.

Don, Well Boss, I guess that wraps it up for this issue. I

That's great. I'm looking forward to your article in am sure that there are folks who might get to argue
QP. Hopefully, it will be the sparkplug to get with me. I’ll be at the same old stand.
AIAG to correct their calculations. These inflated
percentages are causing me a lot of heartburn at Phil Painchaud
work. 1110 West Dorothy Drive
Brea, CA 93821-2017
Thanks, Phone: 1-714-529-6604
FAX: 1-714-529-1109
Rich DeRoeck E-mail: painchaud4@cs.com
Supplier Quality Engineer/SPC Coordinator
Calibration Manager
Skyworks Solutions Inc.
20 Sylvan Rd
Woburn, MA 01801

Vol. 19, No. 4 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality December 2005
MQD
METROLOGY JOB DESCRIPTION
INITIATIVE
By Chris Grachanen
Talk to almost any
calibration practitio-
ner on the subject of
new talent entering
the Metrology pro-
fession and you will
probably get the
same response,
“there are not enough young folks entering the
field to replace the many seasoned professionals
getting ready to retire”. The Metrology profession,
similar to other engineering disciplines in the U.S,
is facing a recruitment crisis of epic proportions.
One reason young folks are not entering the Me-
trology profession is simply they are unaware of it
at the time in their lives when they are making
critical decisions about what career they would like
to pursue. Students in their last years of high
school and first years in college often rely on edu-
cators to learn about professions which are congru-
ent with their likes and interest. To this end, educa-
tors frequently reference U.S. Department of Labor
publications in order to provide students informa-
tion about professions as well as forecasts about
future job growth. The main system used by the
U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Sta-
tistics to identify occupations is the Standard Occu-
pational Classification (SOC) system. 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 used as the guide for de-
veloping the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupa-
tional Outlook Handbook. The Occupational Out-
look Handbook is a nationally recognized source of
career information, providing valuable assistance
to individuals making decisions about their future
work lives. The Handbook describes what workers
do on the job, working conditions, the training and
education required, average earnings as well as
expected job prospects in a wide range of occupa-
tions.
The SOC's current job descriptions for calibration
practitioners are fragmented among many different
Vol. 19, No. 4 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality
Page 9
job titles, and are inaccurate in communicating job
expectations. 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 accu-
rately determined. In early 2006, the Bureau of La-
bor Statistics will begin soliciting input for updates
and additions to the SOC listing for the next formal
release. The SOC is updated once every ten years.
The last SOC update was completed in 2000. Bu-
reau of Labor Statistics administrators agreed that
updating the SOC would be the first logical step in
assuring the Occupational Outlook Handbook ac-
curately depicts calibration practitioner occupa-
tional information and associated demographics.
Recognizing the fleeting window of opportunity to
correct disparities in the SOC, the American Soci-
ety for Quality (ASQ) Measurement Quality Divi-
sion (MQD) and NCSL International have joined
forces to create the Metrology Job Description
(MJD) Initiative. NCSL International provided an
organizational focus by establishing the 163.1
Working Group on Standard Occupational Classifi-
cations. Working group members, commonly re-
ferred to as ‘the core team’ are volunteers from
both NCSL International and MQD.
In 2004 I proposed a game plan for correcting dis-
parities in the SOC. The proposal contained the
following key elements:
1.Compile job descriptions from U.S. Me-
trology / calibration industry for calibration
Technicians, Calibration Engineers and
Metrologists
2.Identify topics of commonality derived
from submitted job descriptions for Cali-
bration Technician, Calibration Engineer
and Metrologist
3.Develop survey items for soliciting input
on topics of commonality from U.S. Me-
trology calibration industry regarding ap-
plicability, agreement, etc.
4.Send out survey
5.Compile and summarize survey results
(Continued on page 10)
December 2005
MQD
(Continued from page 9)
Generate 3 to 5 sentence descriptive narra-
tives i.e. job descriptions, from survey results
to submit to the 2005 SOC for Calibration
Technician, Calibration Engineer and
Metrologist
MQD officers and the NCSL International Board
of Directors approved the proposal and it was later
submitted to Professional Examination Services
(PES) of New York, NY for administration. PES
was chosen based upon a proven track record of
success, having been instrumental in administering
the job analysis survey during the creation of
ASQ’s Certified Calibration Technician (CCT)
program. After contacting PES with the proposal
they agreed with the concept and submitted the
following roadmap:
Step 1. Solicit job descriptions
PES will work with the project leader to identify
parameters for soliciting job descriptions from the
U.S. metrology/calibration industry for three spe-
cific titles: Calibration Technician, Calibration En-
gineer, and Metrologist. The project leader will
disseminate the request for job descriptions. PES
will review the submitted descriptions and select
up to 25 for each job title, such that they provide
broad representation of the metrology/calibration
industry in terms of organization type, geographic
representation, organization size, etc. If additional
job descriptions are needed to fill categories of rep-
resentation, the project leader will solicit targeted
descriptions. This phase is now complete.
Step 2. Identify commonalities and differences
in job descriptions
PES will analyze the selected job descriptions to
identify commonalities and differences in the de-
scriptions for Calibration Technician, Calibration
Engineer, and Metrologist. PES will prepare a draft
summary of the job elements for the three positions
and distribute it via e-mail to the core team for re-
view and comment. PES will work with the project
leader to finalize the job elements. This phase is
now complete.
Step 3. Develop and pilot test survey
PES will develop and pilot test a brief web-based
survey instrument including job elements that may
Vol. 19, No. 4 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality
Page 10
be specific to Calibration Technicians, Calibration
Engineers, and Metrologists in order to solicit input
from industry representatives regarding the job ele-
ments. Ratings for the job elements might focus on
uniqueness to Metrology and by whom they are
performed. The survey will also contain a demo-
graphic background questionnaire and an open-
ended comments section. PES recommends that
members of the core team nominate individuals to
participate in the survey pilot test. This phase is
now complete.
Step 4. Disseminate survey
PES will disseminate a link to the online survey to
a sample not to exceed 1000. The project leader
will be responsible for providing PES with the e-
mail addresses of the survey sample. PES will con-
sult with the project leader to identify the partici-
pants. This phase finished at the end of October
2005.
Step 5. Analyze survey data
PES will compile and summarize the survey results
and present them to the core team for review and
comment.
Step 6. Generate job descriptions
PES will create 3 to 5 sentence descriptive narra-
tives (i.e. job descriptions) from survey results to
submit to the 2005 SOC for Calibration Techni-
cian, Calibration Engineer, and Metrologist. PES
will circulate the descriptions to the core team for
review and comment and incorporate their feed-
back into revised job descriptions as appropriate.
By the beginning of November 2005, hundreds of
jobs descriptions had been collected from calibra-
tion professionals throughout the U.S. These job
descriptions were used to identify topics of com-
monality which became the basis of a test survey.
Once the test survey was tweaked and approved by
the core team an open invitation was sent to MQD
and NCSL International constituents to take the
survey. Over 500 calibration professionals have
taken the survey, the results of which are currently
being compiled and summarized. We anticipate
that finalized job descriptions will be ready to sub-
mit to the SOC in January 2006.
(Continued on page 11)
December 2005
MQD
(Continued from page 10)
Christopher L. Grachanen is the manager of Hew-
lett-Packard’s Houston Metrology group. Chris
spearheaded the development of ASQ’s CCT pro-
gram, is MQD’s secretary and certification chair
and is NCSL International’s south central U.S. re-
gion coordinator. Chris received the ASQ Certifi-
cation Board’s 2003 Award for Excellence and the
Measurement Quality Division’s Max J. Unis
Award for 2003, and was named Test Engineer of
the Year for 2004 by Test and Measurement World
magazine.
Editor’s note: This article will be published in the
January edition of Quality Progress in the Meas-
ure For Measure section. You read it here, first.
EDUCATOR’S CORNER
Christopher L. Grachanen
In this issue of the
Educators Corner we
will be highlighting
an exciting program
and a valuable re-
source for encourag-
ing and promoting
the engineering
fields for our young folks. Many articles have been
written and studies conducted that raise concern
over the decreasing numbers of graduating engi-
neers in the U.S. as well as the adverse effect of
these decreasing numbers on the U.S. competitive
technology edge and our national security. Over
the time period 1992-2002 there was a 50% decline
in students interested in engineering and a 14%
decline in engineering degrees awarded to U.S.
students1. It is projected2 that in order to meet cur-
rent job forecasts, we need to add 100,000 engi-
neers every year for a decade (the U.S. graduates
approximately 60,000 engineers a year). Some hard
hitting facts are 3:
• Europe graduates 3 times as many engineers
as the U.S.; Asia 5 times
• 46% of the degrees awarded in China are
engineering degrees
Only 5% of U.S. degrees are in engineering
So what is U.S. industry doing to help reverse this
trend?
Vol. 19, No. 4 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality
Page 11
THE INFINITY PROJECT
Engineering Education for Today's Classroom
The Infinity Project is a K-12 and early college
math and science based engineering and technol-
ogy education initiative designed to help educators
deliver a maximum of engineering exposure with a
minimum of training, expense and time. The Infin-
ity Project was created to help students see the real
value of math and science and its varied applica-
tions to high tech engineering. Often high school
students pose the question, "When am I ever going
to use all this math and science in the real world?",
without fully appreciating that they are already us-
ing it when they use cell phones, MP3 players, the
Internet and many other technological innovations.
The Infinity Project content was developed by a
world-class team of university faculty, high school
teachers, working engineers, and leading research-
ers originally sponsored by the Southern Methodist
University School of Engineering and Texas In-
struments. The Infinity Project uses advanced Digi-
tal Signal Processing (DSP) technology developed
by Texas Instruments to show how science and
math lead directly to technology products and solu-
tions. Most importantly it shows how engineering
can be an exciting way to combine technical
knowledge with creativity to build a rewarding ca-
reer in engineering. For educators the Infinity Pro-
ject is a turnkey program that transforms their
classroom into a hands-on engineering learning
environment. The program provides all of the re-
sources needed to teach a year's worth of engaging
coursework. The key elements of the Infinity Pro-
gram are:
• State-of-the-art curriculum
• Easy-to-use, classroom technology kits
Best-in-class professional development and teacher
support for science, math or technology teachers.
The Infinity Project is working with schools all
across the country to bring the best of engineering
to their students. If your child’s school doesn't al-
ready participate in the Infinity Project, you can do
your part to inform their teachers and administra-
tors about the Infinity Project by having them visit:
http://www.infinity-project.org
(Continued on page 12)
December 2005
MQD Page 12

(Continued from page 11)
AGILENT EDUCATOR'S CORNER
Sharing Resources with Engineering Educators
Agilent Technologies Educator's Corner is a web
based resource for college and university engineer-
ing educators and researchers looking to enhance
their higher education curriculum and research ca-
pabilities. Within it’s many web pages one will
find electrical engineering insight, pre-written and
interactive experiments, lecture assistance, refer-
ence materials, lab exercises, teaching tools, engi-
neering student resources, and various research
materials, as well as valuable information on edu-
cation discounts from Agilent Technologies. Of
particular note is the wealth of teacher tools for use
in classroom or labs such as slide presentations,
pre-written lab experiments, Java animations, free
computer-based training tutorials, and application
notes in all areas of test and measurement. Agilent
Technologies Educator's Corner also hosts an ex-
tensive range of engineering references, lab re-
sources, student resources, as well as links for en-
gineering sites, general education, general science,
etc. To visit Agilent Technologies Educator's Cor-
ner go to: http://www.educatorscorner.com.
While you are there you may want to check out one
of my favorite Metrology based websites, Agilent
Technologies Metrology Forum at: http://
metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/.
1 Source: National Science Board: Science and
Engineering Indicators 2002
2 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 2001
3 Source: Infinity-Project.org, Engineering Educa-
tion for Today’s Classroom
Max Jay Unis Award
The Max J. Unis award is the highest honor be-
stowed by MQD, to recognize outstanding contri-
butions to the Metrological community. The recipi-
ents in the recent past have been the late Phil Stein,
in 2002, Chris Grachanen in 2003, Jay Bucher in
2004, and Dilip Shah in 2005.

MQD TELECONFERENCE CALL SCHEDULE

Date Day Time Place
January 20, 2005 Thursday 6 pm PST Disneyland - MSC
March 8, 2005 Tuesday 2 pm EST Teleconference
May 17, 2005 Tuesday 6 pm PDT Seattle - WCQI
August 10, 2005 Wednesday 4:15 pm EDT DC - NCSLI
October 11, 2005 Tuesday 2 pm EDT Teleconference
January 10, 2006 Tuesday 2 pm EST Teleconference
March 2, 2006 Thursday 6 pm PST Disneyland - MSC
May 2, 2006 Tuesday 6 pm CDT Teleconference
August 9, 2006 Wednesday 6 pm CDT Nashville - NCSLI
October 10, 2006 Tuesday 2 pm EDT Teleconference
November 14, 2006 Tuesday 2 pm EST Teleconference
January xx, 2007 Thursday 6 pm PST Disneyland - MSC

EVENTS CALENDAR
MSC February 27th ~ March3rd, 2006 Anaheim, CA 866-672-6327 www.msc-conf.com
NCSLI August 6th ~ August 10th, 2006 Nashville, TN 303-440-3339 www.ncsli.org
Vol. 19, No. 4 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality December 2005
MQD Page 13

MQD Teleconference Minutes on the Measurement Science Conference scheduled

for February 28 – March 4 can be added.
October 11, 2005
MQD Booth
Attendees:
There are two booths – the older both which is tri-
Dilip Shah Bill McCullough
fold and has the old logo on it – Item number
Jay Bucher Graeme Payne
S0292 (this one has not been returned to ASQ dis-
Karl Wigdal Karen Prosser
tribution center) and the newer booth which is a
Don Ermer Randy Farmer
pop-up top and has the new logo on it – Item num-
ber S0265. Use the newer booth when requested.
Minutes
Dilip has the conference phone.
Call started (at 1:05 Central time) with Conference
Review. Bud Gookins gave a presentation on Qual-
WCQI
ity in Measurement – Tools for Weight Loss which
Exhibit contracts are due by November 1. Dilip has
was highly regarded. The conference attendance
completed this form via Share Point on 9/15. There
was approximately in the 20’s. It was felt that bet-
will be two Papers this year: Don Ermer – Im-
ter & earlier promotion of this conference needs to
provements in Gage R&R Calculations, and Bob
happen. This year the email reminders did not go
Graham from Sandia Labs – Ensuring the Quality
out until September 10th. MQD is very disap-
of your Measurement Data. There seems to be
pointed with service the past two months and
some confusion in the WCQI committee as these
would like to know what amount of lead time is
are referred to as 1 paper. Late news: Dilip has
needed to get things to happen at headquarters.
been informed that because of time limits and the
very large number of papers submitted, the MQD
Financial
session will only have time for two papers in 2006.
Checking account = $18,622. Savings Account =
$73,343. ASQ had been paid the Capital Campaign
Standards
pledge of $5,000. Keith Conerly is checking why it
Nothing measurement-related from the ISO 9001
took so long for headquarters to bill for the Capital
review. ANSI/NCSL Z540-1 revision had a favor-
Campaign. Revenue is down 12.4% from same
able full committee review MQD still owns ANSI/
time last year. Reflects same downward trend has
ASQ M-1. A motion was made to let M-1 expire
been seen for the Society and the Economy in gen-
and then notify ANSI. ASQ still owns M-1 so
eral. Graeme will be mailing his expenses for the
housekeeping can be done to retain the valuable
last month. Original receipts are needed for head-
parts and remove the obsolete. A motion passed
quarters.
with all in approval to have M-1 expire – to notify
ANSI – and to save the good parts to be rewritten
CCT Program and Coin
into a technical note. Graeme will look for the let-
Discussion regarding the colors - to make sure the
ter at home and will relate this motion to Dan
blue is ASQ branding compliant. Once Graeme
Harper (who can then notify ANSI)
checks the actual ASQ blue that needs to be used
and verifies it is the correct one on the proof, the
Simmons Scholarship
coin is ready to go!
2 applicants were received this year, but neither
found qualified for the scholarship, so it will not be
Certification
rewarded this year. This scholarship is supported
Slight discussion on the new Six Sigma Green Belt
by MQD, MSC, and NCSLI. The bank account
Certification.
needs to get non-profit status and Norm Belecki
has been working on completing the 150 page ap-
The Standard Newsletter
plication. In the meantime, it was discussed that if
November 15th is the deadline to get articles into the $3000 annual amount that MQD has committed
Jay for the next issue. The next deadline of Febru- to should be moved into this bank account instead
ary 15th will hold, even though The Standard will
(Continued on page 15)
not be published until mid March – so information
Vol. 19, No. 4 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality December 2005
MQD Page 14

(Continued from page 3) sharing information. Two of the discussion boards

Something's in the Wind likely to be of interest are:

For several years the ASQ officers and Board of Metrology – an ASQ Member discussion
Directors have noticed signs that there is increased board focused on metrology, laboratory ac-
member dissatisfaction and reduced membership in creditation, measurement traceability, meas-
the Society. In October they started doing some- urement processes, measurement uncertainty
thing about it. For the first time ever, they called a and other issues.
“summit meeting” of all Division and Section Measurement Quality – MQD's discussion
Chairs. We had two long days of very intense board, now open to all ASQ members. This
meetings in Milwaukee. There was – as the diplo- may have topics of interest to all division
mats say – a very frank exchange of ideas, but the members (I do have plans to use it in some
sessions were very productive. non-traditional ways) and everyone is invited
to participate.
Some things are already happening as a result. For
example, starting in the second week of November New Online Discussion Board at Fluke
the online discussion boards of each Division are
now open to ALL members. (See more below.) Fluke Corporation has started a new online discus-
sion board dubbed the Test & Measurement Tool
There may be other near-term changes, and more Users Community, at URL www.fluke.com/
after some things are acted on by the Board in community. Yet another way for you to get and
May. For more information on this, you are invited share information.
to look at the November 9 issue of the ASQ Wire
email and follow the link after the headline “ASQ
Member Value Summit Results in Strengthened
Sense of Community”, or Type this address into Dan Harper Recognized for
y o u r w e b b r o w s e r :
http://www.asq.org/media-room/ International Standards Work
news/2005/10/31-leadership-summit.html
MQD founding member and past chair Dan Harper
All ASQ Online Discussion Boards Now has recently been the recipient of a couple of
Open to ALL Members awards for his work on international standards.

There used to be three types of ASQ online discus-
sion boards: those open to everyone including the
general public, those open to all ASQ members,
and the ones restricted to members of specific Di-
visions. As of the beginning of the second week of
November, the restricted discussion boards are now
open to ALL ASQ members. That means you can
now, for example, as for assistance on a topic in
another Division's body of knowledge without hav-
ing to be a member of that Division. After you log
in to your My ASQ page, you will see a list of the
discussion boards you are automatically subscribed
to by virtue of your Division memberships. Under-
neath them is a link for more discussion boards – if
you click on that you will now be able to see all of
them. These are a good resource for information –
both getting it yourself and for helping others by
At the ASQ World Conference on Quality and Im-
provement in Seattle last May, Dan received
ASQ’s Freund-Marquardt Medal, which is pre-
sented to nominees who have applied quality prin-
ciples to the development, implementation, and
literature of management standards. Dan was rec-
ognized for his significant service in the US Tech-
nical Advisory Group (TAG) to ISO Technical
Committee 176 (TC 176) on quality management
standards.
More recently, the US TAG to TC-176 also recog-
nized Dan for his work that resulted in the publica-
tion of ISO 10002:2004, Quality management –
Customer satisfaction – Guidelines for complaints
handling in organizations.
(Continued on page 15)

Vol. 19, No. 4 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality December 2005
MQD Page 15

(Continued from page 14) ASQ Privacy Policy: http://www.asq.org/privacy-

TC-176 is the ISO technical committee that devel- policy.html
ops standards on quality management, including ASQ Code of Ethics: http://www.asq.org/about-
the ISO 9000 series and its supporting standards asq/who-we-are/ethics.html
and technical reports. Many of the supporting
documents contain specific measurement-related
requirements. As a member of the US TAG, Dan is
directly involved in representing the United States
(continued from page 13)
in the standards development process.
of holding it in the normal checkbook. It was real-
ized that $9000 is due to this scholarship account
Congratulations, Dan!
which will deplete the checking account half its
worth.

Confidentiality of Member
Information
ASQ and all member units, including the Measure-
ment Quality Division, take special care to protect
your personal and contact information, including
your postal and electronic mail addresses. That is
why the membership applications, renewal in-
voices, and the “My ASQ” area of the ASQ web
site all have provisions for you to choose what kind
of contact you want to permit. Postal address lists
are available to your Sections and Divisions for
approved uses such as newsletter or bulletin mail-
ings. Postal address lists may occasionally be
rented to carefully selected partner organizations,
but only on a single-use basis with strict confiden-
tiality conditions. In addition, the e-mail list is not
released at all. You have probably noticed that
most mailings from ASQ come from a “list man-
ager” application and your name is the only one
visible.
But ASQ is an organization of people, and very
occasionally mistakes happen. Some members re-
cently received an e-mail from ASQ, sent out for
MQD, which may have had a number of other
member’s e-mail addresses visible. That should not
have happened. ASQ Headquarters has apologized
for it and I do also.
If you received one of those messages, please abide
by ASQ’s privacy policy and the Code of Ethics,
and do not release those addresses any further or
use them in any inappropriate way. Thank you.
(see links in next column)
Vol. 19, No. 4 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality
Next Teleconference
The November Teleconference has been canceled,
so the next scheduled teleconference will be on
Tuesday, January 10th.
Meeting adjourned and call ended at 2:00 Central
time.
Editor’s note: Thanks go out to Karen Prosser,
ASQ Headquarters for taking the minutes. Karen
was MQD’s Community Care Administrator, but
has moved on and is being replaced by Community
Care Administrator, Jeannette Cooke. Welcome
aboard, Jeanette.
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
Editor’s note: The following two
pages contain information (in
chart form), put together by our
illustrious Chair, Graeme Payne,
that show the current status of
MQD’s finances. The first chart
shows the 2004 ~ 2005 informa-
tion. The second chart shows
2000 ~ 2005. To format properly,
some rows without data have
been removed from these charts.
December 2005
 MQD Page 16
ASQ MQD 2004-2005 Financial Summary
Assets
Cash & cash-equivalents 103,063
Current Receivables 4,418
Capital Assets
Long-term Investments
Total $107,481

Liabilities
Current liabilities 3,763
Deferred Income 10,866
Long-term Liabilities
Total $14,629
Net Worth $92,852

Overall % of Total Newsletter World conf. Division conf Courses Admin

Income
Member Dues 30,701 78% 30,701
Retail Sales -
Advertising -
Conference Registrations 1,675 4% 1,675
Tours -
Exhibits -
Workshops & Tutorials -
Contributions -
Interest 556 1% 556
Royalties 6,483 16% 6,483
Miscellaneous -
Total $39,415 $- $- $1,675 $- $37,740
% of Total 0% 0% 4% 0% 96%
Overall % of Total Newsletter World conf. Division conf Courses Admin
Expenses
Temporary Help -
Printing 2,471 10% 2,321 150
Cost of Sales -
Promotional Items 583 2% 583
Postage 1,746 7% 1,481 265
Contract/Professional Work 6,328 25% 1,187 5,141
Meetings & Meals 3,672 14% 3,672
Travel 7,020 28% 7,020
Supplies 1,011 4% 1,011
Telephone 564 2% 564
Joint-Venture/Partnership Pmt -
Awards 1,500 6% 1,500
Donations/Scholarships -
Other 590 2% 590
Total $25,485 $4,989 $- $- $- $20,496
% of Total 20% 0% 0% 0% 80%
Net Income $13,930 $(4,989) $- $1,675 $- $17,244

Vol. 19, No. 4 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality December 2005
MQD Page 17

Year ending June 30 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000

Assets
Cash & cash-equivalents 103,063 85,187 88,094 82,824 123,116 92,157
Current Receivables 4,418 6,576 5,986 6,390 7,275 7,440
Capital Assets - - - - - -
Long-term Investments - - - - - -
Other - - - - - -
Total $107,481 $91,763 $94,080 $89,214 $130,391 $99,597

Liabilities
Current liabilities 3,763 388 4,818 7,173 26,813 3,850
Deferred Revenue 10,866 12,475 11,162 14,431 20,580 23,618
Long-term Liabilities - - - - - -
Total $14,629 $12,863 $15,980 $21,604 $47,393 $27,468
Net Worth $92,852 $78,900 $78,100 $67,610 $82,998 $72,129
2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000
Income
Member Dues 30,701 28,631 31,177 34,440 37,155 40,905
Retail Sales - - - - - -
Advertising - 105 - - 1,600 -
Conference Registrations 1,675 - - 5,850 - 5,800
Tours - - - - - -
Exhibits - - - - - -
Workshops & Tutorials - - - - - -
Contributions - - - - - -
Interest 556 403 739 1,461 3,428 3,322
Royalties 6,483 - - - - -
Miscellaneous - - - - 150 5,143
Total $39,415 $29,139 $31,916 $41,751 $42,333 $55,169
Expenses
Temporary Help - - - - - -
Printing 2,471 6,521 2,061 10,886 13,524 7,812
Promotional Items 583 - - - - -
Postage 1,746 5,078 2,964 6,832 6,424 6,275
Contract/Professional Work 6,328 5,060 15,757 29,432 3,885 5,738
Advertising - 907 - - - -
Equipment Purchase < $500 174 - - - - 163
Equipment Rental 366 749 - 1,303 - 534
Meetings & Meals 3,672 - - 1,571 1,087 906
Travel 7,020 8,692 313 3,585 2,937 22,913
Supplies 1,011 164 74 592 70 170
Telephone 564 773 257 939 3,539 1,665
Awards 1,500 216 - 2,000 - -
Donations / Scholarships - - - - - 7,000
Other 50 180 - - - 184
Total $25,485 $28,340 $21,426 $57,140 $31,466 $53,361
Net Income $13,930 $799 $10,490 ($15,389) $10,867 $1,809
Vol. 19, No. 4 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality December 2005
MQD Page 18

Joint Measurement Quality-Inspection Division Conference

By Dilip Shah

The conference was held at US Naval Surface War- for organizing the use of the pavilion facilities. A
fare Corona (NSWC) facility on September 21-23, big Thank You also goes out to Duane Allen (past
2005. On September 21, two workshops were held MQD Chair) and Chet Franklin who acted as
(Calibration & Use of Weighing Devices in an immediate liaison and facilitators between the con-
Analytical Environment, Geometric Dimensioning ference committee and NSWC and Ms. Jennifer
& Tolerancing). Many thanks go to Mark Ruefen- Persful of the Inspection Division, who helped out
acht of HEUSSER NEWEIGH and ASQ Fellow with speaker transportation and other conference
and Inspection Division Chair, Gregory S. Gay logistics. The conference appreciates the thoughtful
for organizing the workshops. Ten presentations donation of bags and pens by Sabin Corporation
were made during the conference and a tour of the (Ms. Persful’s employer).
Measurement Science and Technology Labora-
tory at the Corona facility was also included. As evidenced by the conference photographs in this
issue of the Standard, attendees enjoyed the confer-
Our gratitude and appreciation go out to Douglas ence and left with useful tools and knowledge to
Sugg and Arman Hovakemian of NSWC Corona implement in their workplace.

Conference attendees enjoying the view before Thursday morning’s sessions begin.
Vol. 19, No. 4 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality December 2005
MQD Page 19

View of a session in progress.

Greg Gay (Inspection Division Chair), Jenny Persful, and Navin Dedhia.

Vol. 19, No. 4 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality December 2005
MQD Page 20

During the conference, Past Chair, Dilip Shah (right) was presented with
MQD’s 2005 Max J. Unis Award by the current Chair, Graeme Payne.

Dr. E. F. “Bud” Gookins

& Dilip Shah

Phil Painchaud
(writer of The Learning Curve)

Navin Dedhia
(National Director)

Vol. 19, No. 4 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality December 2005
MQD Page 21

Scenery across the lake from the back of the conference center
(Thursday morning).

NSWC Corona Conference Center

Scenery from the front of the conference center (Friday morning).

Vol. 19, No. 4 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality December 2005
MQD
ACCREDITATION NEWS
Compiled by Dilip A. Shah
PRESS RELEASE: October 31, 2005
The American Association for Laboratory Accredi-
tation (A2LA) announced today that on October
28, 2005 the A2LA Board of Directors voted to
terminate membership and discontinue involve-
ment with the National Cooperation for Laboratory
Accreditation (NACLA) effective 31 December
2005.
The initial goal of NACLA was to reduce the re-
dundant accreditations of laboratories in the United
States in accordance with the Congressional policy
of the National Technology Transfer and Advance-
ment Act (NTTAA). This goal is consistent with
the A2LA vision of “one accreditation accepted
everywhere”. A2LA was one of the founding
members and advocates of the NACLA organiza-
tion. In December 2004, A2LA had withdrawn its
signatory status to the NACLA Mutual Recogni-
tion Agreement (MRA). After a prolonged series
of attempts to implement reduction of duplicative
accreditations, it was determined that the current
direction of NACLA is contrary to achieving the
original goal.
“We need to concentrate our energies on participa-
tion in effective international MRAs (i.e.: ILAC,
APLAC, EA, IAAC) to reduce the redundant ac-
creditation burden on our accredited laboratories.”
said Dr. William G. Kavanagh, Chairman of the
A2LA Board of Directors.
A2LA will continue to support and assist efforts to
reduce or eliminate the need for redundant, dupli-
cative accreditations. A2LA is committed to work-
ing towards a viable system of MRAs among do-
mestic accreditation bodies by relying on interna-
tional MRAs.
The American Association for Laboratory Accredi-
tation (A2LA) is a nonprofit, non-governmental,
public service, membership society. The mission
of A2LA is to provide comprehensive accreditation
services for laboratories, inspection bodies, profi-
ciency testing providers, and reference material
Vol. 19, No. 4 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality
Page 22
producers. Services are available to any type of
laboratory or inspection body, be it private or gov-
ernment. A2LA is the largest multi-discipline ac-
creditation body in the United States, and the
second largest in the world.
If you would like additional information please
contact Philip Smith by phone at 301 644 3204 or
by email at psmith@a2la.org.
A2LA also announced the following training
schedule for 2006:
Title: Introduction to Measurement Uncertainty
• January 30-31, 2006 – Charleston,
SC ($795.00, $745.00)
• March 27-28, 2006 – San Francisco,
CA ($795.00, $745.00)
• June 5-6, 2006 – Chicago, IL ($795.00,
$745.00)
Title: ISO/IEC 17025 and Accreditation
• February 1-3, 2006 –Charleston,
SC ($995.00, $945.00)
• March 29-31, 2006 – San Francisco,
CA ($995.00, $945.00)
• June 7-9, 2006 – Chicago, IL ($995.00,
$945.00)
Title: Assessment of Laboratory Competence
• May 1-5, 2006 – Atlanta, GA ($1595.00,
$1545.00)
Title: Quality Assurance Analysis Tools for
Calibration and Testing Laboratories
• May 22-23, 2006 – Novi, MI ($795.00,
$745.00)
A continental breakfast and lunch are provided on
each day of class. Please contact Julie Stevens
(jstevens@a2la.org) at 301 644 3235 for more de-
tails.
December 2005
MQD Page 23

MEASUREMENT QUALITY DIVISION OFFICERS AND COMMITTEE CHAIRS

Chair, Examining Chair Immediate Past Chair / Nominating Chair
Graeme C. Payne Joe Simmons Scholarship MQD Representative
GK Systems, Inc. Program Chair
4440 Weston Drive SW, Suite B Dilip A. Shah
Lilburn, GA 30047 USA E = mc3 Solutions
Voice: (770) 931-4004 / Fax (866) 887-9344 197 Great Oaks Trail #130
E-mail: Graeme@gksystems.biz Wadsworth, Ohio 44281-8215
Voice (330) 328-4400 / Fax (330) 336-3974
E-mail: emc3solu@aol.com, dashah@aol.com
Chair-Elect, Publication Chair, Newsletter Edi-
tor/Publisher, Share Point Administrator
Jay L. Bucher Joe Simmons Scholarship
Bucherview Metrology Services Norm Belecki
6700 Royal View Dr. 7413 Mill Run Dr
De Forest, WI 53532-2775 Derwood, MD 20855-1156
Voice (608) 277-2522 / Fax (608) 846-4269 Voice (301) 869-4520
E-mail: jay.bucher@promega.com, E-mail: n.belecki@ieee.org
yokota-69@charter.net

Historian
Secretary, Certification Chair, Website Keela Sniadach
Manager, NCSL International Representative Promega Corp.
Christopher L. Grachanen 5445 East Cheryl Parkway
Manager, Houston Metrology Group Hewlett- Madison, WI 53711
Packard Voice (608) 298-4681 / Fax (608) 277-2516
P. O. Box 692000 MS070110 E-mail: keela.sniadach@promega.com
Houston, TX 77269-2000
Voice (281) 518-8486 / Fax (281) 518-7275
E-mail: Chris.Grachanen@hp.com ASQ Division Administrator
Ms. Jeannette Cooke
Voice (800) 248-1946
Treasurer E-mail: JCooke@asq.org
Karl Wigdal
Promega Corp.
5445 East Cheryl Parkway Regional Councilors represent the Division
Madison, WI 53711 to members and Sections in their geo-
Voice (608) 277-2633 / Fax (608) 277-2516 graphic areas. Regional Councilors are ap-
E-mail: karl.wigdal@promega.com pointed for renewable two-year terms, and
are advisory members of the Division lead-
ership team.
Standards Committee Representative
Bill McCullough
Region 1 (CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT)
McCullough Consulting
1936 June Cr Volunteer Opportunity!
Carson City, NV 89706
Region 2 (NJ, NY, PA)
Voice: (775) 883-3042 Fax: (775) 883-3042
Cell: (775) 220-6424 Volunteer Opportunity!
E-mail: billmccullough@gbis.com

Vol. 19, No. 4 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality December 2005
MQD Page 24

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.

Region 3 (CT, NJ, NY) Region 10 (OH, MI)

Mr. Eduardo M. Heidelberg Volunteer Opportunity!
Pfizer
Parlin, NJ 08859 Region 11 (NC, SC, TN, VA)
E-mail: eheidelb@yahoo.com Volunteer Opportunity!
Region 4 (Canada) Region 12 (IL, MN, ND, SD, WI)
Mr. Alexander T. C. Lau Dr. Donald S. Ermer
ExxonMobil ASQ Fellow; Eugene L. Grant Medal (2001)
Whitby, ON L1R 1R1 University of Wisconsin—Madison
E-mail: alex.t.lau@exxonmobil.com Madison, WI 53706
E-mail: Ermer@engr.wisc.edu
Region 5 (DC, DE, MD, PA, VA)
Mr. Richard A. Litts Region 13 (CO, IA, KS, MO, NE, SD, WY)
Litts Quality Technologies Volunteer Opportunity!
Downington, PA 19335
E-mail: info@littsquality.com Region 14 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX, part of
Mexico)
Region 6 (AK, CA, HI, ID, MT, OR, UT, WA, Mr. R. Keith Bennett
WY) TRANSCAT
Volunteer Opportunity! Kingwood, TX 77339
E-mail: kbennett@transcat.com
Region 7 (AZ, CA, NV, part of Mexico)
Region 15 (AL, FL, GA, LA, MS, Puerto Rico)
Mr. Randy D. Farmer
Metrology Solutions Mr. E. Bryan Miller
Chula Vista, CA 91913 ASQ Fellow
E-mail: farmerrd2@cox.net Bryan Miller Consulting
Florence, AL 35633
Region 8 (OH, PA) E-mail: milleb@mindspring.com
Volunteer Opportunity!
Region 25 (all other countries)
Region 9 (IN, KY, OH) Volunteer Opportunity!
Ryan Fischer, ASQ CCT
Laboratory Accreditation Bureau
Please see next page for a map
New Haven, IN 46774
of the US Regions
E-mail: rfischer@l-a-b.com

Vol. 19, No. 4 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality December 2005
MQD Page 25

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR THE FOLLOWING PAGES:

METROLOGY AS A COMPETITIVE WEAPON

Ralph E. Bertermann…………………………….. 34 ~ 38
CALIBRATION: WHAT IS IT?
Graeme C. Payne………………………………… 72, 74, 76
CALIBRATION: WHO DOES IT?
Graeme C. Payne…………………………………. 80 ~ 81
CALIBRATION: WHY IT’S IMPORTANT
Graeme C. Payne…………………………………. 66, 69
NIST SCHEDULE OF LABORATORY
METROLOGY SEMINARS…………………… Last 4 pages
MEASUREMENT SCIENCE CONFERENCE FLYER
NCSLI WORKSHOP & SYMPOSIUM FLYER

Vol. 19, No. 4 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality December 2005
 Metrology As a
Competitive Weapon
Ralph E. Bertermann
Lighthouse Training Group

To some, the term metrology brings to mind scientists pushing state of the art measurements in various measurement
disciplines or a technician making a nominal measurement in a lab or process area. To others, a metrology department is
often thought of as a necessary evil, an overhead function, whose only responsibility is to maintain a company in compliance
with some regulatory requirements. Seldom, if ever, does the word metrology bring to mind a competitive weapon that can
be used by a corporation to provide benefits, dropping directly to the bottom line and giving the company a market advantage.
Outlined are a series of guidance steps, a plan of attack or strategy, that can be followed. Application of these unique tools
within a corporation can result in measurable benefits, both tangible and intangible, helping that company to succeed.

Introduction herself on a continuing basis. The contributions of

Metrology is seldom if ever, considered a competitive
weapon, a tool that can be used to give a corporation a
market advantage. The function of metrology is usually
looked at as a necessary evil, an overhead function, even
though corporations will spend many hundreds of
thousands of dollars on personnel, equipment, and
facilities to meet regulatory requirements, which in the
case of Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) are only
minimum requirements.
Metrology can, when implemented properly, result in
tangible as well as intangible benefits and have a direct
bearing on the bottom line of a corporation. But this
process doesn’t just happen. It needs planning. As with
quality initiatives, competitive initiatives should be
started with the end in mind. Turning metrology into a
competitive weapon can give immediate results, but the
majority of the time it is a long-term undertaking with
the results of implementing a program of this type,
building and gaining momentum over time.
The definition of competition is 1: A striving or vying
with another or others for profit, prize, position, or the
necessities of life; rivalry, 2: A contest, match, or other trial
of skill or ability, 3: The rivalry between two or more
businesses striving for the same customer or market.[1]
And, the definition of weapon, 1: An instrument of
offensive or defensive combat: something to fight with,
2: a means of contending against another.[1]
Is metrology really cost effective? Is metrology
contributing to the survival of the corporation in a viable
way? Can a short list of cost savings directly attributable
to better measurements be generated? Is metrology un-
leveling the playing field in a measurable way to give
their corporation an advantage? These are questions that
each metrology manager should be asking himself or
metrology to a corporation must be recognizable and
measurable. If they are not, the long-term outlook for
the function can be a fairly flat response and less than
optimal support level from management. A cause and
effect relationship must exist between metrology and the
financial results of the corporation. These tangible results
can demonstrate the worth of the metrology function and
can result in greater support and long term funding.
How do we measure it? Simply:
Company Profits = Income - Expenses
For metrology to have an affect on company profits,
the function has to have a strategy to reach this goal.
Metrology can either help increase the income of the
company by contributing to the selling of more products
by satisfying customer requirements and in the process
building a loyal customer base, or by helping get that
product to the market before the competition, by
contributing to improved quality in the product, or to
reduce the internal expenses that go into making those
products. These internal expenses, which may be due to
scrap, rework, or marginal quality, are hidden expenses
and as such are a source of hidden profits. Metrology
can address these, by contributing to increased sales with
superior products and to decrease expenses through
internal cost cutting methods employing better
measurements, which result in better and more efficient
production methods. The effects of metrology should
permeate through the entire corporation, as shown in
Figure 1.
Fulfilling customer requirements is not something that
is done just to meet a quality regulation but is done so
that a company can succeed in business. It is much more
expensive to regain that customer than it is to retain the
customer in the first place.

JUL • AUG • SEP 2005 34

 METROLOGY AS A COMPETITIVE WEAPON
RALPH E. BERTERMANN

METROLOGY • When new instruments are purchased, are they the best
Good Science, Traceability, Standards, that you can afford with the highest accuracy, or
Methods/Procedures, Regulatory Compliance, instruments, which just meet today’s requirements?
Training, Documentation, Good Decisions, Problem Avoidance • What is the current quality level of operation and what
I are the trends?
Research
I Before taking the metrology program to the next level,
Development the program should be operating in a regulatory
I
compliant manner and exhibit high quality in its
In-Coming Quality
I operation. Is the program bullet proof?
Scale Up/Technology Transfer
I Becoming a Competitive Weapon
Process Validation/
Final Specifications In order for metrology to become that competitive
I weapon and strategic tool for the corporation, the
Production/Manufacturing metrology function must define itself in the broadest
I possible terms and take a leadership role and aggressively
Final Product
and creatively pursue all avenues to assist a corporation
I
Customer Confidence to succeed. The metrology function has unique
I capabilities and is in the possession of unique information,
Profit and it is these unique tools that can be used to give a
corporation a competitive edge. Metrology should choose
Figure 1. The permeation of metrology through an organization. its ground carefully so that it is not overextended and
gets into areas away from core expertise. As metrology
Planning to Be Competitive pushes from the bottom, it is incumbent on management
to mine the hidden assets of knowledge and capabilities
Positioning the metrology function to contribute to the that a metrology lab possesses and use that information
bottom line of the corporation begins with a basic review to solve measurement problems.
of where a program is at the present time. This is true Metrology can help the corporation succeed by
regardless of the size of an organization or if a program is applying it’s expertise to internal functions first and then
in it’s infant stages or is a larger, mature operation. extend this to external clients, as appropriate.
The end result of this review will give areas for cost
avoidance, elimination of waste, and also direct savings. Internal Development
• Has the program been designed to meet current The process starts with the development of a synergistic
regulations such as Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) team approach, including functions such as R&D,
or Current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP)? production, quality, purchasing, validation, and
• Has the program incorporated industry best practices marketing. The goals of this team will be twofold: to
that are found in international standards such as ISO manage and direct the assets of the corporation, and to
17025 or ANSI/NCSL Z540-1-1994 and ISO 9000:2000? gather, analyze, and accept or reject all areas where
improvement in measurements or application of
• Do recent audit reports confirm the fact that the program
instrumentation can be made. Like a six sigma approach
is operating in a state of control and any deficiencies
to quality improvements, potential areas for improvement
noted by investigators have been resolved?
highlighted by the team can then be prioritized and
• Have all complaints been resolved and the root cause solved, resulting in the largest return for the investment
determined, eliminating it from happening again? and resulting in a program of continuous improvement.
• Have peer comparisons been made to make sure the Metrology is probably the one place in a corporation
program is meeting industry expectations? where the performance of all equipment is monitored and
• What does your network sources of competitive recorded. The development of instrument “standards”
intelligence tell you? based on demonstrated performance raises the level of
• Are you investing in your employees through a planned measurement capabilities throughout the corporation.
training program based on an analysis of deficiencies? This one step develops into a win-win situation and
• Are customer satisfaction surveys reviewed for insights allows everyone to do their jobs in a more efficient
of deficiencies? manner. Better measurements are made, instrument
performance is improved, intervals can be lengthened,

35 JUL • AUG • SEP 2005

METROLOGY AS A COMPETITIVE WEAPON
RALPH E. BERTERMANN
which results in less work for metrology and less interruption
for affected departments, increasing the utilization of this
expensive research and process instrumentation, and poor
performing (bad actor) instruments can be removed from
the workplace.
Production and Validation
Develop a partnership and solicit the sharing of any
problem areas that production and validation have. The
development of realistic instrument specifications and
assistance in the IQ/OQ process will minimize unrealistic
tolerances based on estimates or guesses, and replace
these with decisions based on numbers that are realistic
and achievable. These realistic specifications equal a
higher in-tolerance quality level, longer intervals, and less
intrusion on the schedules of a production area. These
better measurements must address the process and
systems, which in turn should focus on preventing future
variations in the production process. The goal of
production is to meet production targets and to produce
these products on schedule with minimal quality
problems. Better measurements will assist production
personnel to meet their goal by measuring their process
accurately. Check standards can also be introduced into
the measurement process to detect any drifting of a
process towards a limit and allow for early corrections in
real time, which will then require less rework or the
production of scrap.
Quality
Develop a partnership with the quality department.
This department has an overall view of how a corporation
is functioning and where potential problems may be
located. Quality can highlight these areas needing
improvement and due to their authority can assist in
implementing changes across departmental boundaries.
R&D
Improving measurements in the R&D process is vital
to the long-term growth of a corporation.
“Good” Numbers = Good Decisions
The future of the corporation rests on the infusion of
new products into the pipeline. Giving those in the R&D
process the ability to make the best measurements
possible and assisting them in solving measurement
problems, will allow the correct decisions to be made
regarding the potential future of a new product.
Marketing
Assist marketing with product specifications that are
realistic and supported with data that reflect the true
performance capabilities of a product. This builds long-
term trust and loyalty with customers.
JUL • AUG • SEP 2005
Marketing can also supply information on what
customers are asking for, what is the root cause of lost
sales, how a product compares to a competitor, and the
role, if any, where better measurements could result in
improved sales or acceptance of a product.
Purchasing
All the purchases for a corporation funnel through the
gate keeping and processing function of the purchasing
department. Metrology may not be aware of what
instrumentation is being purchased in large organizations,
but assisting the purchasing function and the user
community with information on recommended
“standard” types of instruments to purchase, or preferred
vendors and suppliers, will help in more intelligent
decisions being made and an overall improvement of the
deployed database of instruments across a corporation.
This will have the following benefits:
• Volume purchasing agreements and better pricing
• Better measurements
• Elimination of poor performing instruments from the
database
• Longer calibration intervals
• More efficient instrument support, including calibration,
maintenance, and spare parts
Positioning for Success
Continued improvement and success requires
continued development beyond the status quo and just
maintaining a program that meets minimum
requirements.
There are a number of ways to maintain this edge
• Join a professional organization.
• Network
• Join professional technical committees
• Give a paper or talk at conferences
• Volunteer for standards writing committees
• Benchmark
• Invest in people at all levels
• Develop a program of improving measurement
capabilities
• Welcome audits as a way making a program better
• Develop internal standards of operation
• Measure internal performance
• Pursue accreditation
• Participate in Measurement Assurance Programs (MAP)
or round robins
• Offer assistance when asked
• Insist on ethical performance at all levels
• Get involved
• Raise the bar
• Listen
36

It is important to maintain leadership and superiority
in measurements. Clear-cut leaders set the standard of
measurement and these standards of operation in
metrology technology will soon be incorporated into
cGMP regulations and as best industry practices, as
auditors review a process and then apply this criteria or
methods to other companies in an industry. When a
company is at the forefront of a technology or practice,
this development can be done in a thorough and complete
manner. Duplicating this process in a catch up mode with
the possibility of deadlines, regulatory scrutiny, training
staff, and purchasing equipment, in addition to the daily
pressures of meeting users demands, can have a
demoralizing affect on a department.
International standards, such as ISO 17025 and its
predecessors, have a typical 5 year life cycle and then they
are reviewed and revised to incorporate the latest
developments and thinking in industry best practices.
Being a member of that process gives the opportunity to
contribute to the development process, to understand the
standards that industry will be expected to meet in future
years, and helps to refine the focus for a metrology
organization.
Be a leader at something. This might include becoming
an expert in a particular measurement discipline such as
temperature, flow, mass, etc. It could also focus on a
process within an organization such as freeze-drying,
particle counting, conductivity, water for injection (WFI)
systems, etc. Leaders are sought out and when people
need information, they will go to the ‘experts’ to get it.
Dialog starts and offers an opportunity to get information
in areas where a person may be weak. Another win-win
situation and it fits well into the definition of Competition:
“Cooperating with a business competitor in an attempt
to improve both your performances.”
Being a leader is a more interesting position to be in —
the view only changes for the lead dog in a dog sled team!
Do you influence what is happening? Or do you wonder what
happened?
External Development
As a metrology function matures and gains in
leadership, it also gains measurement expertise in many
measurement areas. The staff is highly trained, the
program runs efficiently with possibly some of the
measurement disciplines having been automated, the
program is meeting regulatory requirements, and it
follows or is accredited to international standards such
as ISO 17025. At this point, the organization may find
itself with excess capacity and the ability to assume work
from external sources.
To arrive at this point, a corporation has invested
heavily in equipping the metrology organization as well
as the training and investment in the staff. The question
37
METROLOGY AS A COMPETITIVE WEAPON
RALPH E. BERTERMANN
at this point is does the metrology function solicit outside
work to help the metrology group develop as a profit
center or is the expertise maintained in the department
and not shared with outside organizations?
Although taking in work from external customers will
help the overall profits of a corporation, it must be realized
that the internal customers of a metrology function must
take priority over all other functions and are the key
reason that the function was established in the first place
and are vital to the health of a corporation.
Tangible Benefits
Numerous examples exist of corporations that have
recovered hundreds of thousands of dollars as a direct
result of better measurements.
A Midwest pharmaceutical company improved the
measurement in a fermentation process and eliminated
the flushing of very expensive product and allowed its
recovery.
A leading manufacturer of test equipment gives
detailed specifications regarding tolerances and time in
tolerance, giving a high degree of confidence to potential
customers in the values reported and enabling that
manufacturer to become a market leader.
A missed opportunity for savings at a nuclear utility
where a fine would have been avoided had an instrument
been properly calibrated and an unlawful radiation
release would not have occurred.
Companies that produce superior products are able to
charge premium prices.
Intangible Benefits
The intangible benefits of an aggressive metrology
program are more difficult to quantify, but these proactive
or preventative actions are many times more beneficial
to an organizations than corrective actions. For example:
• Avoiding a product recall by making better
measurements. What would the cost of that recall
entail? The actual dollars in immediate lost sales, the
long term lost sales to competitors, erosion of customer
confidence, bad press, falling stock price, etc.
• Making better measurements in the R&D process which
allows more intelligent decisions to be made regarding
the future development of that potential product. It
also expedites moving a potential product forward in
the development pipeline.
• Making better measurements in the R&D process
allowing a product to be approved earlier than a
competitor. Being first to the market offers a definite
marketing advantage and pays dividends for the life
of the product.
JUL • AUG • SEP 2005
METROLOGY AS A COMPETITIVE WEAPON
RALPH E. BERTERMANN

• Metrology being the conscience and affecting the If you think metrology can make your company more
mindset or character of an organization through the competitive, or if you think metrology cannot make your
repeated requirements of discipline, integrity, and company more competitive, you’re right.
accountability of all regulated measurement processes.
• The ability to transfer a technology or product Better Measurements = Better Products = Better Profits
seamlessly throughout a corporation, requiring
minimal backtracking or rework. References
Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary
• Uniformity of measurement and production activities
______________________________
across the organization when reviewed by regulatory
agencies. Includes standardization of equipment,
Ralph E. Bertermann, Lighthouse Training Group, tel/fax
tolerances, methods, documentation, training, and
847-392-9796, rberter@aol.com, www.lighthousetraining.
labels.
com.
• The passing of an audit where no observations are
recorded and no follow up is required. Or conversely,
failing an audit, resulting in warning letters and consent
decrees, bad publicity in the press, loss of confidence
by stockholders, and longer or canceled new product
approvals.
• Through proper advance planning, incorporate
contingency plans for continued support of production
during times of crises, emergencies, or disasters.
• Demonstrating a commitment to continuous
improvement and meeting the intent of the FDA “PATS”
regulatory initiative.

Conclusion
There is a lot of wasted effort and expense in the
instrument calibration process. Rules and regulations
abound, and many times little thought is given to technical
adequacy. Metrology must continue to educate customers
and company personnel regarding realistic accuracies and
specifications that produce a quality product but do not
burden a company with unrealistic specifications.
Metrology is in a position to assist a corporation in
answering these questions because of the many unique
tools and information inherent in a metrology function.
All of these tools and information must be used to move
the corporation forward.
Metrology is the science of measurement, a science that
uses objective evidence to enhance a corporation’s
performance.
Due diligence is required to maintain this competitive
advantage. The entire process can be sidetracked or
derailed by a loss of management support, loss of key
people, cut back in budgets, or the unethical behavior of
a team member.
The process of metrology is not a static activity but is
continually changing and evolving. It is imperative that
a person invests in ones self to be aware of the latest trends
and changes in the regulations and international
standards areas and to invest in measurement capabilities
in order to maintain that competitive advantage.

JUL • AUG • SEP 2005 38

 MEASURE
FOR MEASURE
Calibration: What Is It?
by Graeme C. Payne
W
hen members of just about
any profession talk among
themselves, they usually use
specialized terms they all under-
stand—jargon. There is usually con-
sensus among them about the meaning
of the terms, but they often forget new-
comers or interested parties from other
fields may not have the same under-
standing. There are also cases in which
the common use of a word is different
from or even opposite its technical def-
inition. “Metrology” and “calibration”
are two such words.1
The International Vocabulary of
General and Basic Terms in Metrology
(VIM) is an internationally accepted
document that provides technical def-
initions of metrology, calibration and
many other measurement related
terms.2
Why do we need to refer to this tech-
nical glossary instead of a common
desktop dictionary? One reason is the
VIM is a listed authoritative reference
in ISO 9000 and ISO 10012. Another
reason is technical dictionaries and
glossaries define the accepted technical
meanings of terms, while common dic-
tionaries merely record the ways
words are used or misused in a lan-
guage and most of their meanings.
According to the VIM, metrology is
“the science and practice of measure-
ment.”3 Metrology is important in some
way to every human endeavor. More
specifically, it is critical to all the physi-
cal, chemical and biological sciences
and the technologies and manufactur-
ing processes that flow from them.
In daily life, metrology affects us in
commerce and law enforcement and
in regulated industries such as health-
care and aviation. Whenever you pur-
chase a gallon of gasoline or a pound
of onions, drive by an officer with a
radar gun on the highway or have an
electrocardiograph taken, you have
directly interacted with metrology by
means of a calibrated measuring
instrument. One practical application
of metrology—a subset of the whole
field—is the system of ensuring mea-
72 I MAY 2005 I www.asq.org
surements conform to certain defined
relationships.
A Process of Comparison
Broadly speaking, calibration is the
process of determining the relation-
ship between the readings obtained
by a measuring instrument or system
The common use
of this word is quite
different from its
technical definition.
and the applicable units of some
defined system of measurement.
According to records uncovered by
archaeologists, people have been
doing this for at least 5,000 years. At
first, units of measure were often
based on things such as the volume of
grain that could be held in two hands
(cup) or the distance between the
point of the Pharaoh’s elbow and
longest fingertip plus the width of his
palm (cubit). Now, our defined set of
measurement references is known as
the International System of Units (SI).4
Calibration quantifies the relation-
ship between the readings of a microm-
eter, voltmeter, thermometer, weighing
balance, mass spectrometer or graduat-
ed cylinder and the relevant units in
the SI system. Paraphrasing the formal
definition in the VIM, the instrument’s
readings are compared to the values of
a measurement standard under con-
trolled and specified conditions.5
Each measurement result can be
related to the SI units by the property
of traceability, which accounts for the
known or estimated uncertainty of the
measurement process.6 The measure-
ment standard has, in most cases, gone
through the same process. Calibration
is repeated at regular intervals to pro-
vide continued assurance the instru-
ment’s performance is suitable for its
use.
Calibration is essentially a process
of comparison. An instrument is used
to measure or is measured by a cali-
bration standard, and the result is
compared to two things: the known
value and uncertainty of the standard
and the performance specifications
required by the customer. The concept
is simple, but the work is in the
details. Some of the details include:
• The assigned value of the mea-
surement standard, which is usual-
ly determined from its calibration
history.
• The known uncertainty of the
standard, which comes from sev-
eral places, including the historical
reports of calibration and the
internal statistical process control
(SPC) methods many calibration
labs have for their measurement
systems. Labs that have an effec-
tive measurement SPC system
know how their systems perform
in that location, so their uncertain-
ty values are likely to be more
realistic—not always better, just
more realistic.
• The environment of the calibration
activity, which almost always
includes temperature and relative
humidity. Depending on the mea-
surement, other influences such as
absolute barometric pressure, the
local gravitational vector, electro-
magnetic fields or building vibra-
tion may also have measurable
effects.
• The methods and equipment used
to make the comparisons.
• The uncertainty of the measure-
ment system relative to the pub-
lished performance specifications of
the item being calibrated or the cus-
tomer’s requirements, if different.
All the details have to be evaluated
to provide a measure of the relation-
ship between the measurements made
with the instrument and the reference
SI values. That relationship is the
uncertainty, and its documentation
defines traceability, which is the char-
acteristic of the measurement result

 MEASURE
FOR MEASURE
that demonstrates its accuracy in
terms of the SI. Taken together, the
relationship and its documentation
indicate the quality of the measure-
ments that can be made with that
instrument when it is used correctly.
A calibration is performed using a
calibration procedure, which is a doc-
umented, validated and controlled
method for making the comparisons.
The procedure may be a written paper
or electronic document, or it may be a
particular test program on an auto-
mated calibration system.
Many calibration procedures are
written in conformance to the guide-
lines in Recommended Practice 3:
Preparation of Calibration Procedures
(NCSL RP-3), which defines the proce-
dures’ purpose and content.7
The purpose of a calibration proce-
dure is to determine and document
the measurement relationships of the
item being calibrated. It should define
the parameters to be measured, the
measurement standards to be used
74 I MAY 2005 I www.asq.org
and the data to be collected. It should
also list any safety precautions and
preliminary steps and make note of
the particular method of the compar-
isons, the calibration environment and
anything else that is important for the
items covered by the procedure.
A calibration procedure is written
with the fundamental premises that
the item being calibrated is in good
working order and the person per-
forming the calibration is trained and
qualified and understands the scien-
tific and physical principles of the
measurements.8
What About Adjustment?
Up to this point, I haven’t said any-
thing about adjustment. That’s
because it’s not part of the formal def-
inition of calibration, nor is it part of
the description of a calibration proce-
dure in NCSL RP-3. The results (data)
of a calibration procedure may indi-
cate a need for adjustment or other
repair, but taking such action is a sep-
arate process. After the adjustment or
repair is complete, the calibration pro-
cedure should always be repeated to
verify the proper measurement rela-
tionship has been re-established.
There are two reasons adjustment is
not part of the formal definition of
calibration:
1. The historical calibration data on
an instrument can be useful when
describing the normal variation
of the instrument or a population
of substantially identical instru-
ments. That information can also
be used for process improvement.
For example, it can be used to
evaluate the reliability of the
instruments and change the recal-
ibration interval. If the instru-
ment is adjusted before the data
from a full calibration run have
been collected, then there is no
historical value, and it cannot be
used to improve the system.
2. Any set of similar measurements
may be considered a statistical

 MEASURE
FOR MEASURE

process, and a single measure- GRAEME C. PAYNE is the president of GK

ment from that process is a ran- Systems Inc., a technical consulting company
dom sample from the probability near Atlanta. A Senior Member of ASQ, Payne
density function that describes it. has been working in electronic calibration and
product testing since 1981. He is a certified
Without other knowledge, there is
quality engineer, calibration technician and
no way to know if the sample is quality technician. He is also the chair-elect of
within the normal variation lim- the Measurement Quality Division and a
its. The history gives us that infor- member of NCSL International.
mation. If the measurement is
within the normal variation and
not outside the specification lim-
its, there is no reason to adjust it.
In fact, making an adjustment Please
could just as likely make it worse comment
as it could make it better. W.
Edwards Deming discusses the If you would like to comment on this
problem of overadjustment in article, please post your remarks on
chapter 11 of Out of the Crisis.9 the Quality Progress Discussion
The most common uses of the word Board at www.asq.org, or e-mail
“calibration” outside the metrology them to editor@asq.org.
community include the concept of
adjusting the instrument, and most cus-
tomers expect it. In addition, many
manufacturers have calibration proce-
dures in their manuals that are not per-
formance comparisons but, instead, are
the test, alignment or adjustment pro-

Customer
cedures used for a new or repaired unit
that is in an unknown condition.
Remember, a true calibration proce-
dure assumes the instrument is in good
working order. So, while acknowledg-
Care Center
ing the formal technical definition, cali-
bration providers also have to
recognize the practical realities of busi- ASQ’s customer care center is
ness and work with the common defin-
staffed with representatives to
ition as well.
personally answer each incom-
REFERENCES AND NOTES ing phone call and e-mail
1. This article is the first in a series of three.
The July column will examine some of the differ- during its hours of operation,
ent views of calibration, and the September col-
umn will discuss the importance of calibration. which are Monday through
2. International Vocabulary of Basic and General
Terms in Metrology, second edition, International Thursday from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Organization for Standardization, 1993. It is com-
monly referred to as the VIM, an acronym taken
and Friday from 7a.m.to 5 p.m.,
from the French title, Vocabulaire International de
Termes Fondamentaux et Généraux de Métrologie.
3. VIM, section 2.2, see reference 2.
Central Standard Time.
4. SI is an acronym taken from the French
name, Le Systéme International d'Unités.
5. VIM, section 6.11, see reference 2. 800-248-1946 or
6. VIM, section 6.10, see reference 2.
7. Recommended Practice 3: Preparation of 414-272-8575
Calibration Procedures, NCSL International (for-
merly National Conference of Standards help@asq.org
Laboratories), 1990.
8. Ibid.
www.asq.org.
9. W. Edwards Deming, Out of the Crisis,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1982.

76 I MAY 2005 I www.asq.org

 MEASURE
FOR MEASURE
Calibration: Who Does It?
by Graeme C. Payne
T
his column is the second of
three that explore what calibra-
tion is, who does it and why it
is important. The May 2005 column
discussed the nature of metrology and
calibration and the types of confusion
that arise because of differences
between the technical definitions and
common usage of the words. This
month’s column looks at how calibra-
tion is viewed in different ways by
different groups.
Scientific View
Dedicated scientists and engineers
make exacting measurements in the
scientific, high level realm of calibra-
tion. They are often called metrolo-
gists and may spend years examining
one particular measurement problem
or physical characteristic that is sub-
ject to measurement, trying to trans-
form theory into practical application.
Making measurements with the
highest levels of precision and accuracy
is routine. At this level, the sometimes
abstract definitions of measurement
units are realized as closely as possible,
usually in terms of a reproducible
method. New discoveries in funda-
mental physics, chemistry, mechanics
and other sciences are often tested to
see whether they can be used for mea-
surements with lower uncertainty than
previous methods provided.
For example, one of today’s current
measurement challenges is to find
methods that use natural phenomena
to replace the international prototype
kilogram artifact as the definition of
the unit of mass. This work is impor-
tant because the kilogram is the only
unit of the International System of
Units (SI) that is still defined by a
physical artifact, and we know it
changes slightly over time even
though it was manufactured to be as
perfect as possible.
Units based on fundamental physi-
cal phenomena, on the other hand, do
not change. One method being stud-
ied is a watt balance that would use a
magnetic field to determine mass;
80 I JULY 2005 I www.asq.org
another method is to count the num-
ber of atoms in a crystal of pure sili-
con.1
The scientific view comprises metrol-
ogists with national metrology insti-
tutes such as the National Institute of
Three groups each
have their own distinct
view of calibration.
Standards and Technology, interna-
tional organizations such as the
International Bureau of Weights and
Measures, the corporate metrology
standards laboratories of some major
corporations and some other govern-
ment laboratories.
The national metrology institutes
(NMI) calibrate transfer standards
from other calibration laboratories, and
those calibrations are a vital link in the
documented series of comparisons that
provide traceability from a quality
practitioner’s work to the SI units. In
most countries, the SI units as main-
tained by the NMI are the basis of legal
metrology—the measurements made
in commerce and regulated industries.
End User’s View
The end user of calibrated tools has
another view. A typical end user has
a requirement to use calibrated
inspection, measurement and test
equipment. The requirement may be
corporate policy, but it was likely
derived from external sources such as
ISO 9001, a regulatory body or a cus-
tomer requirement.
Many end users view calibration as a
nonvalue added expense that should
be minimized. Given the parameters of
fast service, high quality and low cost
and asked to pick any two, they often
want the fastest possible service and
the lowest possible cost. They are more
concerned about compliance with
requirements than measurement quali-
ty. They also don’t always understand
what calibration is, how poor measure-
ments affect the quality of their prod-
ucts or why calibration is important.
Average Practitioner’s View
The majority of people who do the
work of calibration have, by necessity,
a more practical view of calibration.
The biennial benchmark survey done
by NCSL International2 indicates only
3% of calibration laboratories classify
themselves as standards labs. That
means they only calibrate measure-
ment standards for other calibration
laboratories. The other 97% have cus-
tomers who use calibrated equipment
for all types of jobs.
This is where results of NMI level
science are applied to meet the needs
of the end user, and the perfection of
pure science is balanced against the
demands of the customer paying the
bills. The work has to be done quickly
and at low cost to provide customer
satisfaction, efficiently to generate
enough profit to stay in business and
accurately and precisely to maintain
traceability and give confidence in the
measurement results. These goals
often conflict with each other, and it
does not help that most calibration
laboratories are small organizations.
One indicator of laboratory size is
the NCSL International benchmark
survey. The proportion of calibration
laboratories that are in organizations
of 50 or fewer people has increased
from approximately 21% in 1999 to
about 44% in 2003. A different NCSL
International survey of the small and
independent calibration laboratories
in 2000 showed approximately 79%
had 20 or fewer employees.3
Both surveys indicate most calibra-
tion labs are small businesses, which
implies they have limited resources.
As with any other small business, cali-
bration practitioners and their compa-
nies have to continually balance the
triad of speed, quality and cost while
(continued on p. 81)
(continued from p. 80)
being mindful of each customer ’s
needs and desires.
There are many job titles applied to
the practical worker in calibration.
Calibration technician is one, but a
recent check showed at least seven
other common job titles that include cal-
ibration duties.4 The ASQ Measurement
Quality Division is currently working
jointly with NCSL International to
update the calibration related standard
occupational descriptions published by
the U.S. Department of Labor.
Qualified calibration technicians
must be educated in the relevant sci-
ence to the extent necessary to perform
the work for which they are responsible.
Technicians must be adaptable
because the lab probably supports
hundreds of types and models of
equipment, and the technicians are
usually expected to become qualified
to calibrate most or all of them. To
keep up with advances in the mea-
surement fields, calibration techni-
cians should also partake in ongoing
professional education.
Instead of seeking the “best possi-
ble” measurement, the practical view
of calibration looks for efficient cali-
bration procedures and measure-
ments that are sufficient for the task.
If the measurement uncertainty is
sufficient (a 4:1 to 10:1 ratio from the
specification to the measurement stan-
dard), there is little incentive to seek
out a better measurement standard or
method. No matter how much the lab
might want to approach the scientific
ideal, the customers will probably not
pay for the extra time or equipment.
Instead, most labs will try to improve
productivity by automating as many
measurement systems and laboratory
processes as possible.
Automation does not always—or
even necessarily—increase speed. It
does, however, improve repeatability of
the procedure and may reduce the
uncertainty of the method. If the unit
under test is controlled by the measure-
ment system, automation may nearly
double productivity by allowing the
technician to start a procedure on one
system and then start calibrating anoth-
er unit at another workstation.
Many calibration laboratories are
exploring other ways to improve ser-
vice and productivity and reduce
overall costs. Within the past 10 years,
for example, available technology has
enabled the development of calibra-
tion applications for notebook or
handheld computers, allowing on-site
calibrations without the need for
paper procedures or data recording
and eliminating errors from manual
data transfers.
At the same time, there has been a
proliferation of calibration oriented
laboratory databases and information
systems. These systems typically
manage inventory, data collection and
recording, procedures and other doc-
uments, calibration recall systems and
physical traceability from measure-
ment standards to the workload items
they have been used on.
Many systems also aid regulatory
compliance or quality management
system conformance with features
such as user identification and data
security, automatic data audit trails
and authentication and digital signa-
tures based on public-key encryption.
Other improvements include apply-
ing barcode tags to equipment to
speed laboratory check-in processes
and using the laboratory database to
print calibration labels to eliminate
the problem of dates mismatched
between the computer record and
handwritten label.
Three Interdependent Layers
The essential measurements, the
research and development to support
them and the national and interna-
tional standards of measurement that
are a foundation of global commerce
all exist in the high level, scientific
view of calibration. Those who use
calibrated inspection, measurement
and test equipment to make the mea-
surements essential to production,
service and commerce see the end
user’s side of calibration. In between
those two groups are the organiza-
tions that perform the majority of cali-
brations and must balance the
perfection of science with the realities
of the competitive marketplace. Most
of the time the end users do not see
the high levels of science and engi-
neering associated with calibration or
the countless dedicated technicians,
engineers, metrologists, scientists,
managers and administrators who
make the whole system work.
In the September 2005 column, I
will discuss how calibration reduces
variation in a production process,
facilitates global commerce and affects
the products you buy every week.
REFERENCES
1. Michael Shirber, “Time To Redefine the
Kilogram, Scientists Say,” LiveScience.com, April
25, 2005, www.livescience.com/technology/
050425_redef_kilo.html.
2. J. Wade Keith III, “2003 NCSL International
Benchmarking Survey,” proceedings of the
NCSL International Workshop and Symposium,
August 2003.
3. Malcolm Smith and Carol Rake, “Small
Business Issues,” proceedings of the NCSL
International Workshop and Symposium,
August 2004.
4. Christopher L. Grachanen, “Metrology Job
Description Initiative,” presentation to the NCSL
International Board of Directors, January 2005.
GRAEME C. PAYNE is the president of GK
Systems Inc., a technical consulting company
near Atlanta. A Senior Member of ASQ, Payne
has been working in electronic calibration and
product testing since 1981. He is a certified
quality engineer, calibration technician and
quality technician. He is also the chair of the
Measurement Quality Division and a member
of NCSL International.
Please
comment
If you would like to comment on this
article, please post your remarks on
the Quality Progress Discussion
Board at www.asq.org, or e-mail
them to editor@asq.org.
QUALITY PROGRESS I JULY 2005 I 81
 MEASURE
FOR MEASURE
Calibration: Why It’s Important
I
n my July 2005 installment in this
series of articles on calibration, I
talked about the trilogy of fast ser-
vice, high quality and low price.
Though some may think calibration lab-
oratories skimp on quality because cus-
tomers often demand low price and fast
service, most calibration laboratories
strive to deliver the best work they can
while meeting other demands of the
marketplace. Why? Because the people
doing and managing the work know
how important it is. Disagreements in a
lab are more likely to center around one
question: Yes, it’s good, but why can’t
we do it better? It is a culture in which
“close enough” isn’t part of the vocabu-
lary; we can always do better.
Metrology and calibration are impor-
tant to all areas, from global commerce
to our personal lives. There have been
legal requirements for the accuracy and
standardization of weights and mea-
sures for at least 5,000 years. The cur-
rent system of international agreements
on weights and measures has existed
since 1875, when the Metre Convention
treaty was signed by the United States
and 16 other nations. There are now
almost 70 member and associate
nations.1 The International System of
Units, also called the modern metric
system, is the legal basis for measure-
ments in almost every country and is in
common daily use in every major
country except the United States.2
An Impact on Multiple Levels
At the international level, measure-
ment incompatibility is recognized as a
serious trade barrier. In the foreword to
S.K. Kimothi’s book, The Uncertainty of
Measurements, S.K. Joshi discusses the
issue of products manufactured in one
country that aren’t accepted for use in
another.3 The World Trade Organization
also addresses it in the Technical
Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement.4
Article 5 of the agreement recognizes the
right of each country to establish appro-
priate, fair and equitable standards for
protection of its environment, public
safety and health interests without giv-
ing domestic products an unfair advan-
tage. It also expects member countries
to minimize barriers by having confor-
mity assessment arrangements.
66 I SEPTEMBER 2005 I www.asq.org
Joshi says these conformity assess-
ment arrangements address the opera-
tion of calibration and testing
laboratories in conformance to
ISO/IEC 17025 and the operation of
manufacturing and service organiza-
tions in conformance to the ISO 9000
It affects everything
from global commerce
to our personal lives.
series of standards. Article 6 of the
TBT Agreement established the sys-
tem of international mutual recogni-
tion arrangements among conformity
assessment bodies.
On the national and state levels, his-
torical records show virtually all
nations regulate weights and mea-
sures. For example, one of the promis-
es acceded to by King John in the
Magna Carta was the establishment of
a single system of weights and mea-
sures throughout England. 5 In the
United States, establishment of uni-
form national weights and measures
can be traced back to Article IX of the
Articles of Confederation in 1777.6 Ten
years later, the same governmental
authority was added to Article I, sec-
tion 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
Today, the federal government regu-
lates many measurements and has
several calibration requirements.
Federal regulations cover areas such
as accuracy requirements for radio sta-
tion transmitter frequencies, aircraft
altimeters and automobile speedome-
ters, conditions such as ozone and
other pollutant levels in the air or
water, and occupational health and
safety. In most cases, any measure-
ment taken to assess compliance with
a regulatory requirement must be
made with a calibrated instrument.
In the United States, each of the 50
states, plus American Samoa, the
District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto
Rico and the Virgin Islands, has an
office of weights and measures. These
offices regulate weighing and mea-
suring instruments used for com-
merce in the state. Some examples of
by Graeme C. Payne
measuring devices regulated by the
states include electricity meters, gaso-
line pumps, supermarket scales,
parking meters, and rulers and steel
measuring tapes. All these devices
measure products or services you buy
because the state wants to ensure you
get what you pay for.
In most industries, using calibrated
instruments is important for financial
reasons. Good measurement quality is
essential to minimize the costs of pro-
duction processes. Measurements are
useful only when they are made at the
correct time and place, have sufficient
accuracy and precision for the task, and
are repeatable and reproducible. If these
conditions are met and the data are
recorded and used appropriately, the
measurement data can aid management
in making important business decisions.
Accurate data can help reduce process
variation, scrap, rework and other costs
of poor quality. However, good quality
measurements can only be achieved if
calibrated instruments are used.
Calibration, as part of an overall mea-
surement management process, reduces
the risks associated with measurements
(such as form, fit and function), regula-
tory requirements and international
acceptability. Measurements made with
uncalibrated instruments could con-
ceivably result in various legal liability
issues. It is not economically possible to
eliminate the risks, but a good measure-
ment management process can quantify
the level of risk and make it visible to
top management. ISO 9001 refers to ISO
10012 as the relevant guidance for a
measurement management system.7, 8
Positive Effects
What, exactly, can a calibrated
weighing device do? Here are some
examples:
• A scale can be used to make mass
measurements that are part of
an interlaboratory comparison
among several national metrology
institutes (NMIs). The results can
provide assurance of measure-
ment comparability at the interna-
tional level.
• An NMI can calibrate mass stan-
dards using the same scale for state,
(continued on p. 69)
 MEASURE
FOR MEASURE
(continued from p. 66)
corporate and independent com-
mercial calibration standards labs
that use them as transfer standards.
• Manufacturers of package weigh-
ing instruments can use their own
standards, which are calibrated
using the transfer standards, to
check and adjust their products. If
their standards are not calibrated
properly, then the scales produced
may be inaccurate.
• Weight can affect an international
shipping company that recently
purchased a package weighing
scale in several ways. First, pack-
ages are transported in the compa-
ny’s aircraft. All airplanes have
limits on the amount of weight
they can carry, and the weight has
to be properly distributed so the
plane will fly correctly. Weight and
balance calculations are a critical
part of preflight checks on every
airplane.
Second, all packages are, at some
point, transported in trucks. Both
the truck and the road have weight
limits, and states tax or fine truck
drivers based on the weight they
are carrying.
Third, the shipper charges the
customer by weight. If too little
was paid for shipping, the cus-
tomer has to pay an additional fee.
These and other reasons require the
package shipping company to reg-
ularly calibrate its scales to reduce
loss from insufficient revenue or
increased costs.
• A producer of bulk materials can
use a scale to fill packages. The
price charged is based on a count,
but rather than count a large num-
ber of small items, the company
uses the average mass and fills
packages by weight. If the scale is
not properly calibrated, the com-
pany could either ship fewer or
more items than intended. To min-
imize both types of loss, the com-
pany should calibrate its scale.
• A small business uses a scale to
weigh packages to determine the
shipping cost. If it doesn’t pay
enough, the package will be
returned, causing rework. If the
company pays too much, it is sim-
ply wasting money. (I have never
seen a package or letter come back
because I paid too much to send it.)
Top management has to balance the
cost of regular calibration of the
scale against the rework cost or the
unknown cost of paying too much
for shipping.
Calibration can make an impact at
several levels: international, national,
state, business and individual.
Therefore, it is important to remember
the dedicated men and women at the
heart of the system who strive to pro-
vide their customers with the best
possible calibration service in a timely
manner and at a fair price.
REFERENCES AND NOTES
1. International Bureau of Weights and
Measures, www.bipm.fr/en/convention.
2. United States Metric Association, www.
metric.org.
3. S.K. Kimothi, The Uncertainty of
Measurements, ASQ Quality Press, 2002.
4. World Trade Organization, “Agreement on
Technical Barriers to Trade,” www.wto.org/
english/docs_e/legal_e/legal_e.htm.
5. National Archives and Records
Administration, Magna Carta exhibit, www.
archives.gov/exhibit_hall/featured_documents/
magna_carta/index.html. See clause 25 in the
translation of the Magna Carta as reconfirmed
by King Edward I in 1297.
SIX SIGMA BLACK BELT TRAINING
Chicago, IL
Week One - September 12-16
Week Two - October 17-21
Week Three - November 14-18
Week Four - December 12-16
SIX SIGMA GREEN BELT TRAINING
September 19-23
Southfield, MI
October 10-14
Chicago, IL
6. Erik Bruun and Jay Crosby, Our Nation's
Archives, Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers,
1999, pp. 138-142.
7. ANSI/ISO/ASQ Q9001-2000: Quality
Management Systems: Requirements, note to clause
7.6, ANSI/ASQ, 2001.
8. ISO 10012:2003: Measurement Management
Systems—Requirements for Measurement Processes
and Measuring Equipment, International
Organization for Standardization, 2003.
GRAEME C. PAYNE is the president of G.K.
Systems Inc., a technical consulting company
near Atlanta. A Senior Member of ASQ, Payne
has been working in electronic calibration and
product testing since 1981. He is a certified qual-
ity engineer, calibration technician and quality
technician. He is also chair of the Measurement
Quality Division and a member of NCSL
International.
Please
comment
If you would like to comment on this
article, please post your remarks on
the Quality Progress Discussion
Board at www.asq.org, or e-mail
them to editor@asq.org.
NEXT
WAVE STARTS
JAN. 30, 2006 IN
ORLANDO, FL
1-800-374-3818
WWW.XLP.COM
QUALITY PROGRESS I SEPTEMBER 2005 I 69
October 12, 2005

MEMORANDUM FOR State, Industry, Foreign Government Directors,

Metrologists and other interested parties

From: Val Miller

Weights and Measures Division
Laboratory Metrology Group

Subject: Fall 2005 to 2007 Laboratory Metrology Training

Types of Laboratory Metrology Seminars & Description

A number of laboratory metrology seminars will be offered by the NIST Weights and
Measures Division between 2005 and 2007. A description of each course, cost and travel
guidance are available on our Internet site at http://www.nist.gov/labmetrology. The
current schedule and a sign-up form to be returned by e-mail, mail or facsimile are
attached and are also available on the Internet site. The duration of all courses (unless
otherwise noted) is one week, with the exception of the Basic Mass, Length, and Volume
seminar for States, which is two weeks. The current course offerings are:

• Basic Mass, Length, Volume - for State legal metrologists;

• Basic Mass - for Industry;
• Basic Mass & Weighing – Double Substitution, Workhorse of Mass Metrology -
MSC (two-day course with online registration through MSC) – 2006
• Intermediate Mass, Length, Volume; and
• Advanced Mass (new material is presented each time the course is offered).
• Advanced Hands-On Class (Advanced Mass is a prerequisite!)

Location

All courses will meet at the NIST Gaithersburg, MD Campus unless otherwise indicated.

Sign-up and Confirmation

The sign-up form must be returned by facsimile, e-mail, or mail. Telephone requests will
not be accepted. Once your application is received you, will be notified whether the
class is still available, and a confirmation notice will be sent to you approximately six to
eight weeks before the seminar with detailed information about the schedule, suggested
accommodations, local travel information and location of the seminar.

Other training opportunities:

2006 Measurement Science Conference, Symposium and Workshop
NCSL International 2006 Workshop and Symposium

These events will be of tremendous value to metrologists, providing opportunity to add to

their metrology knowledge base and opportunity to interface with like minded persons.
 Current Schedule of Laboratory Metrology Seminars
2005 Dates* Course/Conference Title

September 19 to 23, 2005 NEMAP, VT ***

October 3 to 7, 2005 SWAP, OK ***

October 17 to 21, 2005 MidMAP, WI ***

October 24 to November 4, 2005 Basic Metrology - States, NIST

November 14 to 18, 2005 Intermediate Metrology, NIST

2006 Dates* Course/Conference Title

January 22 to 25, 2006 NCWM Interim, Jacksonville, FL

February 6 to 10, 2006 Advanced Mass Hands-On, NIST

February 27 to 28, 2006 MSC Mass Short Course, CA

March 1 to 3, 2006 Measurement Science Conference, CA

March 27 to April 7, 2006 Basic Metrology - States, NIST

May 8 to 12, 2006 Basic Mass Industry, NIST

July 9 to 13, 2006 NCWM, Chicago, IL

August 6 to 10, 2006 NCSLI, Nashville, TN

Combined Regional Meeting, Broomfield, CO ***

October 29 to November 3, 2006 Regional break-out meetings to discuss round robins will
begin on Sunday afternoon and finish on Friday morning
with round robin planning and business sessions

December 4 to 8, 2006 Basic Mass Industry, NIST

December 11 to 15, 2006 Intermediate Metrology, NIST

2007 Dates* Course/Conference Title

January TBD MSC Mass Short Course, CA

January TBD Measurement Science Conference

January 21 to 24, 2007 NCWM Interim, Jacksonville, FL

February 5 to 9, 2007 CaMAP, TBD***

February 26 to March 2, 2007 8th Advanced Mass, NIST

March 5 to 9, 2007 Advanced Mass Hands-On, NIST

April 16 to 20, 2007 SEMAP, TBD***

March 19 to 30, 2007 Basic Metrology - States, NIST

April 30 to May 4, 2007 Basic Mass Industry, NIST

May 14 to 18, 2007 WRAP, TBD***

July 8 to 12, 2007 NCWM, Park City, UT

July 29 to Aug 7, 2007 NCSLI, St. Paul, MN

September 17 to 21, 2007 NEMAP, TBD***

October 15 to 19, 2007 SWAP, TBD***

October 22 to 26, 2007 MidMAP, TBD***

October 29 to November 2, 2007 Basic Mass Industry, NIST

November 5 to 9, 2007 Intermediate Metrology, NIST

2008 Dates* Course/Conference Title

January 13 to 16, 2008 NCWM Interim, New Orleans, LA

January TBD MSC Mass Short Course, CA

January TBD Measurement Science Conference, CA

*Courses will be added or canceled based on demand and availability of instructors

**Applications for FULL courses will be accepted and retained on a waiting list for
cancellations.
***Send e-mail to val.miller@nist.gov for meeting contact information.

Last Updated: August 4, 2005

 Weights and Measures Metrology Seminar Application
FAX To: 301-926-0647
NIST, Weights and Measures Division
Attention: Val Miller

Seminar Title: __________________________________________________________

Please indicate desired attendance (select your first and second choices):

1st Date: __________________________________________________________

2nd Date: __________________________________________________________

Name of Participant: __________________________________________________________

Title: __________________________________________________________

Organization: __________________________________________________________

Address: __________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

U.S. Citizen? ____ Yes ___ No If No: Country of Citizenship ____________________

Phone: _____________________________ FAX: ___________________________

E-mail: __________________________________________________________

Submitted by: __________________________________________________________

Address: __________________________________________________________
(If different than above)
__________________________________________________________

Phone: __________________________________________________________

Please attach a brief bio/resume of participant (if not a State metrologist).

Is current laboratory accreditation dependent on this attendance? If so, how?

Any additional questions, special requests or explanations:

 MSC 2006
CONFERENCE SPECIAL OFFER
TH E M E
” T H E SC I E N CE , T E CH NOL O GY , A N D C ON T R OL OF ME AS UR E ME N T S ”

NEW DATES FOR 2006

FEBRUARY 27 – MARCH 3, 2006
DISNEYLAND HOTEL, ANAHEIM, CA

Help Us Craft Next Year’s Technical Program – Visit the MSC 2006 Booth
TECHNICAL PROGRAM
Preliminary Program Tracks:
DoD METCAL Base Realignment and Closure
What Will Change in DoD? Automation of Measurement
RF & Microwave Lab Management
State of Support for Professional Associations
State of Education in our Profession and all the Associated Issues and Challenges
Math Behind the Measurements – Calculating Uncertainties, Intervals, MAPs, correlation, etc.
Accreditation: Everything You Should Know About Lab Accreditation Process
Tutorials Workshops or Seminars
Develop a Session or Paper
Panel Discussion
Suggestions Welcome
Please put in the suggestion box
at the MSC 2006 Booth

MSC TWO-DAY CONFERENCE

Regular conference attendees who sign up for the two-day MSC
registration before COB February 28, 2005 will receive $50 Disney
Dollars, given to you when you arrive at next years’ MSC. You can
spend these Disney Dollars here on your hotel, Disney restaurants,
or in the gift shops.

Exhibitors, sign up before COB

February 28, 2005 and receive
discount on the exhibit booth.

Please Visit the MSC Website www.msc-conf.com for the latest updates.