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

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

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 Measurement Quality Division or ASQ.

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 February. 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 Progress 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 Magazine 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.

Letters to the Editor
The Standard welcomes letters from members and subscribers. Letters should clearly state whether the author is expressing opinion or presenting facts with supporting information. Commendation, encouragement, constructive critique, suggestions, and alternative approaches are accepted. If the content 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 quality 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 ascertain that facts are correctly stated and to assure that opinion and fact are clearly distinguished one from another. The Editor reserves the right to edit any paper.

MQD

Page 3

available records, this marks the first time the Division has published four issues in one calendar year By Graeme C. Payne or one fiscal year. This has been made possible by the hard work of Jay Bucher and his staff, those of Notes from All Over you who contribute material for the newsletter, and Instead of the usual mes- Jay's push to drive us to a primarily electronic pubsage 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 year ending June 30, 2005 publishing the newsletin the past few months. ter cost just under $5,000 and I expect it to be lower than that for the current year. In the previous Rewards and Recognifive 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

CHAIR’S COLUMN

MQD's 15 Anniversary Approaching!

In a separate article, you will see that Dan Harper has received ASQ's Freund-Marquardt Medal for his long and hard work on international standards, and has also been recognized by the US TC-176 TAG for his work on the new Customer Satisfaction standard. At the Division's annual conference in September (held jointly with the Inspection Division) past Chair Dilip Shah received the Division's Max J. Unis Award for his achievements in forming the partnership with Inspection Division, re-starting the annual conferences (which had been suspended since 2001) and other accomplishments during his two years as Division Chairperson.

Kudos to Jay!
This issue of The Standard is the fourth one to be published during 2005. As far as we can tell from

15 years! Can you believe that? July 2006 will mark the start of our 15th year as a Division. I'd like to say “let's have a party” but with members all over North America and in 25 other countries around the world, that will probably be too hard to arrange. Still, I would like to explore what special things we can do. For example, I would like it if our Charter Members could each send me a note with something like where you were then, what you are doing now, your ideas to improve the future of the profession and the Division, and maybe a current photo. I'll see if we can publish those, spread over the 2006-2007 issues of The Standard. (I hope my mailbox doesn't go into overload!) Send me more ideas as well! Or, put them on the Measurement Quality discussion board on the ASQ web site.
(continued on page 4)

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 welcome. Publication of articles, product releases, advertisements or technical information does not imply endorsement by MQD or ASQ. While The Standard makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of articles, the publication disclaims responsibility for statements of fact or opinion made by the authors or other contributors. Material from The Standard may not be reproduced without permission of ASQ. Copyrights in the United States and all other (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
First Impressions, Second Thoughts, and The Third Degree!
By The Laird of Glencairn Please consider this an open letter to the editor, officers of the Measurement Quality Division (MQD), its members, and calibration practioners everywhere.

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 everyone’s address available for all to see and use. I also received the note from one of those on the same list as me advertising for a calibration technician. Very bad taste from my point of view. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and piggy-backing on one person’s mistake is just plain ignorant. I’m told an apology was received from a big wheel at ASQ headquarters, and that is the least we should expect. Hopefully, all have learned a lesson, and we can move forward without any repeats of the same mistake. Well, my pooch is trying to tell me he has to ‘go’, so I might as well, too. I would like to wish all my friends a safe and happy holiday season since we will be in the new year when the next edition of this rag comes out. If you head to the pub...walk back home, take a ride, or let one of those designated people do the transporting. Tip one for me and remember what that fella said to the Australia bloke…”No matter where ya’ go, there ya’ are”. Howp ye enjoy whit we hae tae offer, so just sign me…A Juicy Hub Loser!

My pooch incognito

My first impression (from a little birdie who squawked in my ear about the teleconference call had by the MQD in October) is this, “Best get your act together boys and girls...ya’ don’t get too many shots to get it right.” Seems there’s a bit of dissension in the ranks about how to run the budget, spend their hard earned funds, working with headquarters, and filling their duties as volunteers. Or was it a mere misunderstanding? I think Mr. Payne (MQD’s new Chair) will do his best to sort out the facts, and get the group back on track. But years of 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, either.

The following email ‘conversation’ took place between Professor Dr. Don Ermer, and Rich DeRoeck. 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, richmark 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 callieve 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 manufacturers 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 (Continued on page 8) matter”. I don’t mind since you don’t matter. Laugh at that.
Vol. 19, No. 4 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality December 2005

MQD

Page 5

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 responded. Therefore, I guess that you are to become This is the forty-third in an unthe 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 Meissue, although it is from outside our Quality/ trology Education. Readers freMetrology cocoon, it is both complimentary and quently confuse this mandate supplementary to the efforts we are put forth on the with one of Calibration Trainsubject 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 attriblargest professional society in the world and has utes. Thus by both dictate as well as by qualificaroots going back into the 1870’s. It is composed of tion, he must adhere to the chartered subject. Unmany sub-organizations, one of which is the Instrufortunately, 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.

THE LEARNING CURVE

Dear Boss: Those prolusions to this column are frequently composed well in advance of the actual creation of the particular column to which it may be prefaced. Not in keeping with my prediction we do, at this time have pertinent material upon which to dwell. On January 21, 2005, during the Annual Measurement Science Conference, our Measurement Quality Division sponsored a Seminar on Metrology Education. Both audio and video recording was made of the entire session. The plan was to have the testimony transcribed for distribution. The video was intended as a source for identifying the speaker. Somehow, the video record got lost and the transcriber had to work entirely from the audio tape. Our volunteer transcriptionist, Ms. Cathy French, of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, in Los Alamos, New Mexico, was not able to attend the session, and was a thousand miles away from it and from any of the participants. She finely got her rough draft of the transcription based on just the audio tape to me early in November. She is to be highly praised for her Herculean efforts to create some order out of the audio tape while working blindly without the video supplement. I immediately sent hard copies of her transcript to all of the
Vol. 19, No. 4

But first let us go to what you had to say Boss, but of course, we should explain to our readers something about this seminar. The intent was that it was to be not the usual panel discussion with most of the talk between the panelists themselves, but rather more like a colloquium where the audience themselves do most of the discussion and led and moderated by a true expert in the field. However, we modified this format a bit by having a panel of experts rather than a single individual to answer questions and another expert roving the audience with a hot microphone acting as moderator. You will recall Boss, that as Session Developer, I had the task of introducing those concerned. Our roving Moderator and Facilitator was none other that Dr. Gene Watson, the recently retired Coordinator of the Measurement Science Program at the California State University, Dominguez Hills. Sitting on the Panel of Experts we had: Emil Hazarian, former Chief Metrologist for the County of Los Angeles and currently Staff at the Naval Measurement Science Directorate at Corona, CA; Arthur J. Plourde, President of Metron Corporation, the parent company of the Metron Institute of
(Continued on page 6)

The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality

December 2005

MQD
(Continued from page 5)

Page 6

Measurement Technology; Herb O’Neil, Professor at Ridgewater College (formerly known as Hutchinson Technical Institute) in Minnesota; Dean Schmeck, of the Naval Measurement Science Directorate, the organization that was underwriting this seminar; and of course myself. Dr. Watson started the discussion by asking, “Does anyone have anything to say to the educational community about Metrology Education?” That did it—you might say, “it broke the dam”.

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 measurement section. And I took in my Egyptian Cubit and got them all interested in measurements.”

If that were not enough, you really got wound up and rightly started to point the finger at the rest of the Metrology Community—that means you, my readers; me; and all of the rest of you folks who regularly complain about a lack of Metrology EduNearly 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 Egyptrology 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; pharsingle 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 instudent and that was a transfer from within the Uni- stead of sitting on our cans saying, “Hey, noversity 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 departagree 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. “ — (Continued on page 7) and DNA testing. I take a lot of pride in what I
Vol. 19, No. 4 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality December 2005

MQD
(Continued from page 6)

Page 7

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 individually in his own way. I have often pointed out in this column that the intellectual advancement, technical extended education, further training (call it what you will) is the responsibility of the individual, also. It is not the responsibility of management or supervision. This also applies to the promulgation of information concerning our profession. However, as Mr. Goldberg points out in his article that I am about to quote, management and supervision must be made responsible to encourage extended education and the spreading of the word of the Metrology credo (My dictionary defines credo as : “a system of beliefs, principles, or opinions”). We must spread knowledge of our beliefs widely and deeply so that the entire populace understands, a Metrologist is not a chemist who works with metals nor is he (or she) a weather prognosticator!

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 proprietary secrets or, worse, find another job. Stay away from meetings! Don’t talk to other engineers! 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 interchange 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!

Harold Goldberg, in his column entitled THE LASTWORD, in the October 2005 issue of the IEEE INSTRUMENTATION & MEASURMENT MAGAZINE, puts the blame directly upon management. While he was writing specifically concerning electronics engineers, what he says applies equally to Metrologists. He had just been interviewing the engineering dean of a respected engineering school who told him, “We teach them fundamentals, 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, proMr. Goldberg retorts —“Keep learning? Fat vosts, corporate and engineering [and Metrology] leaders, come on. Talk to each other!” — chance! Never happen! They just won’t do it. 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

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 recent 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 request, I made a contribution that I believe cemented both of your cases together.
(continued on page 8, column 2)

The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality

December 2005

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

Page 8

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 Milwaukee 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 Engineering and Mechanical Engineering University of Wisconsin-Madison Recipient in 2000 of the National Eugene L. Grant We’ll cover more of the testimony given in that Medal from ASQ, Fellow of ASQ and SME Metrology Education Seminar in latter issues as I receive edited copy back from the participants. Rich responded: Don, That's great. I'm looking forward to your article in QP. Hopefully, it will be the sparkplug to get AIAG to correct their calculations. These inflated percentages are causing me a lot of heartburn at work. Thanks, Rich DeRoeck Supplier Quality Engineer/SPC Coordinator Calibration Manager Skyworks Solutions Inc. 20 Sylvan Rd Woburn, MA 01801

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 trying 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 mandated downward from the top. You’ve got to convince whatever the higher powers may be that metrology education is mandatory at all levels throughout the school system, as well as in the industrial system. The other thing – as automation increases you must recognize that you need fewer and fewer calibration technicians and more and more metrologists. I’m not talking about Metrology Engineers. They too are quite necessary. They are the designers. Engineers are fundamentally designers. Metrology is a science. It’s an independent 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 engineers are there to design the system and the instrumentation for the system, but the Metrologist must first develop the criteria for the system.”—

Well Boss, I guess that wraps it up for this issue. I am sure that there are folks who might get to argue with me. I’ll be at the same old stand. Phil Painchaud 1110 West Dorothy Drive Brea, CA 93821-2017 Phone: 1-714-529-6604 FAX: 1-714-529-1109 E-mail: painchaud4@cs.com

Vol. 19, No. 4

The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality

December 2005

MQD

Page 9

METROLOGY JOB DESCRIPTION INITIATIVE
By Chris Grachanen
Talk to almost any calibration practitioner on the subject of new talent entering the Metrology profession 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 Metrology 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 educators to learn about professions which are congruent with their likes and interest. To this end, educators frequently reference U.S. Department of Labor publications in order to provide students information 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 Statistics to identify occupations is the Standard Occupational 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 disseminating data. The SOC is used as the guide for developing the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Outlook Handbook. The Occupational Outlook 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 occupations. The SOC's current job descriptions for calibration practitioners are fragmented among many different
Vol. 19, No. 4

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 accurately determined. In early 2006, the Bureau of Labor 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. Bureau of Labor Statistics administrators agreed that updating the SOC would be the first logical step in assuring the Occupational Outlook Handbook accurately depicts calibration practitioner occupational information and associated demographics. Recognizing the fleeting window of opportunity to correct disparities in the SOC, the American Society for Quality (ASQ) Measurement Quality Division (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 Classifications. Working group members, commonly referred to as ‘the core team’ are volunteers from both NCSL International and MQD. In 2004 I proposed a game plan for correcting disparities in the SOC. The proposal contained the following key elements:

1.Compile job descriptions from U.S. Metrology / calibration industry for calibration Technicians, Calibration Engineers and Metrologists 2.Identify topics of commonality derived from submitted job descriptions for Calibration Technician, Calibration Engineer and Metrologist 3.Develop survey items for soliciting input on topics of commonality from U.S. Metrology calibration industry regarding applicability, agreement, etc. 4.Send out survey 5.Compile and summarize survey results
(Continued on page 10)

The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality

December 2005

MQD
(Continued from page 9)

Page 10

Generate 3 to 5 sentence descriptive narratives 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 specific titles: Calibration Technician, Calibration Engineer, 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 representation, 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 descriptions 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 review 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

be specific to Calibration Technicians, Calibration Engineers, and Metrologists in order to solicit input from industry representatives regarding the job elements. Ratings for the job elements might focus on uniqueness to Metrology and by whom they are performed. The survey will also contain a demographic background questionnaire and an openended 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 email addresses of the survey sample. PES will consult with the project leader to identify the participants. 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 narratives (i.e. job descriptions) from survey results to submit to the 2005 SOC for Calibration Technician, Calibration Engineer, and Metrologist. PES will circulate the descriptions to the core team for review and comment and incorporate their feedback into revised job descriptions as appropriate. By the beginning of November 2005, hundreds of jobs descriptions had been collected from calibration professionals throughout the U.S. These job descriptions were used to identify topics of commonality 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 submit to the SOC in January 2006.
(Continued on page 11)

The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality

December 2005

MQD
(Continued from page 10)

Page 11

Christopher L. Grachanen is the manager of Hewlett-Packard’s Houston Metrology group. Chris spearheaded the development of ASQ’s CCT program, is MQD’s secretary and certification chair and is NCSL International’s south central U.S. region coordinator. Chris received the ASQ Certification 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 Measure For Measure section. You read it here, first.

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 technology education initiative designed to help educators deliver a maximum of engineering exposure with a minimum of training, expense and time. The Infinity Project was created to help students see the real value of math and science and its varied applications 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 using 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 researchers originally sponsored by the Southern Methodist University School of Engineering and Texas Instruments. The Infinity Project uses advanced Digital Signal Processing (DSP) technology developed by Texas Instruments to show how science and math lead directly to technology products and solutions. Most importantly it shows how engineering can be an exciting way to combine technical knowledge with creativity to build a rewarding career in engineering. For educators the Infinity Project is a turnkey program that transforms their classroom into a hands-on engineering learning environment. The program provides all of the resources needed to teach a year's worth of engaging coursework. The key elements of the Infinity Program 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 already participate in the Infinity Project, you can do your part to inform their teachers and administrators about the Infinity Project by having them visit: http://www.infinity-project.org
(Continued on page 12)

EDUCATOR’S CORNER
Christopher L. Grachanen
In this issue of the Educators Corner we will be highlighting an exciting program and a valuable resource for encouraging 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 engineers 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 current job forecasts, we need to add 100,000 engineers 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

December 2005

MQD
(Continued from page 11)

Page 12

AGILENT EDUCATOR'S CORNER Sharing Resources with Engineering Educators Agilent Technologies Educator's Corner is a web based resource for college and university engineering educators and researchers looking to enhance their higher education curriculum and research capabilities. Within it’s many web pages one will find electrical engineering insight, pre-written and interactive experiments, lecture assistance, reference materials, lab exercises, teaching tools, engineering student resources, and various research materials, as well as valuable information on education 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 extensive range of engineering references, lab resources, student resources, as well as links for engineering sites, general education, general science, etc. To visit Agilent Technologies Educator's Corner 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 Education for Today’s Classroom

Max Jay Unis Award
The Max J. Unis award is the highest honor bestowed by MQD, to recognize outstanding contributions to the Metrological community. The recipients 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 Teleconference 2 pm EST May 17, 2005 Tuesday Seattle - WCQI 6 pm PDT August 10, 2005 Wednesday 4:15 pm EDT DC - NCSLI October 11, 2005 Tuesday Teleconference 2 pm EDT January 10, 2006 Tuesday Teleconference 2 pm EST March 2, 2006 Thursday 6 pm PST Disneyland - MSC May 2, 2006 Tuesday Teleconference 6 pm CDT August 9, 2006 Wednesday 6 pm CDT Nashville - NCSLI October 10, 2006 Tuesday Teleconference 2 pm EDT November 14, 2006 Tuesday Teleconference 2 pm EST January xx, 2007 Thursday 6 pm PST Disneyland - MSC

EVENTS CALENDAR
MSC NCSLI
Vol. 19, No. 4

February 27th ~ March3rd, 2006 August 6th ~ August 10th, 2006

Anaheim, CA Nashville, TN

866-672-6327 303-440-3339

www.msc-conf.com www.ncsli.org
December 2005

The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality

MQD

Page 13

MQD Teleconference Minutes
October 11, 2005
Attendees: Dilip Shah Jay Bucher Karl Wigdal Don Ermer Bill McCullough Graeme Payne Karen Prosser Randy Farmer

on the Measurement Science Conference scheduled for February 28 – March 4 can be added. MQD Booth There are two booths – the older both which is trifold and has the old logo on it – Item number S0292 (this one has not been returned to ASQ distribution center) and the newer booth which is a pop-up top and has the new logo on it – Item number S0265. Use the newer booth when requested. Dilip has the conference phone. WCQI Exhibit contracts are due by November 1. Dilip has completed this form via Share Point on 9/15. There will be two Papers this year: Don Ermer – Improvements in Gage R&R Calculations, and Bob Graham from Sandia Labs – Ensuring the Quality of your Measurement Data. There seems to be some confusion in the WCQI committee as these are referred to as 1 paper. Late news: Dilip has been informed that because of time limits and the very large number of papers submitted, the MQD session will only have time for two papers in 2006.

Minutes Call started (at 1:05 Central time) with Conference Review. Bud Gookins gave a presentation on Quality in Measurement – Tools for Weight Loss which was highly regarded. The conference attendance was approximately in the 20’s. It was felt that better & earlier promotion of this conference needs to happen. This year the email reminders did not go out until September 10th. MQD is very disappointed with service the past two months and would like to know what amount of lead time is needed to get things to happen at headquarters. Financial Checking account = $18,622. Savings Account = $73,343. ASQ had been paid the Capital Campaign pledge of $5,000. Keith Conerly is checking why it took so long for headquarters to bill for the Capital Campaign. Revenue is down 12.4% from same time last year. Reflects same downward trend has been seen for the Society and the Economy in general. Graeme will be mailing his expenses for the last month. Original receipts are needed for headquarters.

Standards Nothing measurement-related from the ISO 9001 review. ANSI/NCSL Z540-1 revision had a favorable full committee review MQD still owns ANSI/ ASQ M-1. A motion was made to let M-1 expire and then notify ANSI. ASQ still owns M-1 so housekeeping can be done to retain the valuable parts and remove the obsolete. A motion passed 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 letDiscussion 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 apThe 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
(Continued from page 3)

Page 14

Something's in the Wind
For several years the ASQ officers and Board of Directors have noticed signs that there is increased member dissatisfaction and reduced membership in the Society. In October they started doing something about it. For the first time ever, they called a “summit meeting” of all Division and Section Chairs. We had two long days of very intense meetings in Milwaukee. There was – as the diplomats say – a very frank exchange of ideas, but the sessions were very productive.

sharing information. Two of the discussion boards likely to be of interest are: Metrology – an ASQ Member discussion board focused on metrology, laboratory accreditation, measurement traceability, measurement processes, measurement uncertainty and other issues. Measurement Quality – MQD's discussion board, now open to all ASQ members. This may have topics of interest to all division members (I do have plans to use it in some 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 Fluke Corporation has started a new online discusnow open to ALL members. (See more below.) 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 : International Standards Work http://www.asq.org/media-room/ 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 awards for his work on international standards. Open to ALL Members There used to be three types of ASQ online discussion boards: those open to everyone including the general public, those open to all ASQ members, and the ones restricted to members of specific Divisions. 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 having 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. Underneath 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
Vol. 19, No. 4

At the ASQ World Conference on Quality and Improvement in Seattle last May, Dan received ASQ’s Freund-Marquardt Medal, which is presented to nominees who have applied quality principles to the development, implementation, and literature of management standards. Dan was recognized for his significant service in the US Technical Advisory Group (TAG) to ISO Technical Committee 176 (TC 176) on quality management standards. More recently, the US TAG to TC-176 also recognized Dan for his work that resulted in the publication of ISO 10002:2004, Quality management – Customer satisfaction – Guidelines for complaints handling in organizations.
(Continued on page 15)

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/privacyTC-176 is the ISO technical committee that devel- policy.html ops standards on quality management, including ASQ Code of Ethics: http://www.asq.org/aboutthe 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 realized 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 Measurement 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 invoices, 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 mailings. Postal address lists may occasionally be rented to carefully selected partner organizations, but only on a single-use basis with strict confidentiality 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 manager” application and your name is the only one visible. But ASQ is an organization of people, and very occasionally mistakes happen. Some members recently 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

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 information. The second chart shows 2000 ~ 2005. To format properly, some rows without data have been removed from these charts.
December 2005

The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality

MQD ASQ MQD 2004-2005 Financial Summary Assets Cash & cash-equivalents Current Receivables Capital Assets Long-term Investments Total Liabilities Current liabilities Deferred Income Long-term Liabilities Total Net Worth 103,063 4,418

Page 16

$107,481

3,763 10,866 $14,629 $92,852 Overall % of Total Newsletter World conf. Division conf Courses Admin

Income Member Dues Retail Sales Advertising Conference Registrations Tours Exhibits Workshops & Tutorials Contributions Interest Royalties Miscellaneous Total % of Total Expenses Temporary Help Printing Cost of Sales Promotional Items Postage Contract/Professional Work Meetings & Meals Travel Supplies Telephone Joint-Venture/Partnership Pmt Awards Donations/Scholarships Other Total % of Total Net Income
Vol. 19, No. 4

$$$1,675 $- $37,740 0% 0% 4% 0% 96% Overall % of Total Newsletter World conf. Division conf Courses Admin 2,471 583 1,746 6,328 3,672 7,020 1,011 564 1,500 590 $25,485 $13,930

30,701 1,675 556 6,483 $39,415

78%

30,701

4%

1,675

1% 16%

556 6,483

10% 2% 7% 25% 14% 28% 4% 2% 6% 2%

2,321

150 583 265 5,141 3,672 7,020 1,011 564 1,500 590 $- $20,496 0% 80% $- $17,244
December 2005

1,481 1,187

$4,989 20% $(4,989)

$0% $-

$0% $1,675

The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality

MQD Year ending June 30 Assets Cash & cash-equivalents Current Receivables Capital Assets Long-term Investments Other Total Liabilities Current liabilities Deferred Revenue Long-term Liabilities Total 2005 103,063 4,418 $107,481 2004 85,187 6,576 $91,763 2003 88,094 5,986 $94,080 2002 82,824 6,390 $89,214 2001 123,116 7,275 $130,391

Page 17 2000 92,157 7,440 $99,597

3,763 10,866 $14,629

388 12,475 $12,863

4,818 11,162 $15,980

7,173 14,431 $21,604

26,813 20,580 $47,393

3,850 23,618 $27,468

Net Worth

$92,852
2005

$78,900
2004 28,631 105 403 $29,139 6,521 5,078 5,060 907 749 8,692 164 773 216 180 $28,340

$78,100
2003 31,177 739 $31,916 2,061 2,964 15,757 313 74 257 $21,426

$67,610
2002 34,440 5,850 1,461 $41,751 10,886 6,832 29,432 1,303 1,571 3,585 592 939 2,000 $57,140

$82,998
2001 37,155 1,600 3,428 150 $42,333 13,524 6,424 3,885 1,087 2,937 70 3,539 $31,466

$72,129
2000 40,905 5,800 3,322 5,143 $55,169 7,812 6,275 5,738 163 534 906 22,913 170 1,665 7,000 184 $53,361

Income
Member Dues Retail Sales Advertising Conference Registrations Tours Exhibits Workshops & Tutorials Contributions Interest Royalties Miscellaneous Total Expenses Temporary Help Printing Promotional Items Postage Contract/Professional Work Advertising Equipment Purchase < $500 Equipment Rental Meetings & Meals Travel Supplies Telephone Awards Donations / Scholarships Other Total 30,701 1,675 556 6,483 $39,415 2,471 583 1,746 6,328 174 366 3,672 7,020 1,011 564 1,500 50 $25,485

Net Income
Vol. 19, No. 4

$13,930

$799

$10,490 ($15,389)

$10,867

$1,809
December 2005

The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality

MQD

Page 18

Joint Measurement Quality-Inspection Division Conference
By Dilip Shah
The conference was held at US Naval Surface Warfare Corona (NSWC) facility on September 21-23, 2005. On September 21, two workshops were held (Calibration & Use of Weighing Devices in an Analytical Environment, Geometric Dimensioning & Tolerancing). Many thanks go to Mark Ruefenacht of HEUSSER NEWEIGH and ASQ Fellow and Inspection Division Chair, Gregory S. Gay for organizing the workshops. Ten presentations were made during the conference and a tour of the Measurement Science and Technology Laboratory at the Corona facility was also included. for organizing the use of the pavilion facilities. A big Thank You also goes out to Duane Allen (past MQD Chair) and Chet Franklin who acted as immediate liaison and facilitators between the conference committee and NSWC and Ms. Jennifer Persful of the Inspection Division, who helped out with speaker transportation and other conference logistics. The conference appreciates the thoughtful donation of bags and pens by Sabin Corporation (Ms. Persful’s employer).

As evidenced by the conference photographs in this issue of the Standard, attendees enjoyed the conferOur 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

Page 22

ACCREDITATION NEWS
Compiled by Dilip A. Shah
PRESS RELEASE: October 31, 2005 The American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) announced today that on October 28, 2005 the A2LA Board of Directors voted to terminate membership and discontinue involvement with the National Cooperation for Laboratory Accreditation (NACLA) effective 31 December 2005. The initial goal of NACLA was to reduce the redundant accreditations of laboratories in the United States in accordance with the Congressional policy of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 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 organization. In December 2004, A2LA had withdrawn its signatory status to the NACLA Mutual Recognition 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 participation in effective international MRAs (i.e.: ILAC, APLAC, EA, IAAC) to reduce the redundant accreditation 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, duplicative accreditations. A2LA is committed to working towards a viable system of MRAs among domestic accreditation bodies by relying on international MRAs. The American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) is a nonprofit, non-governmental, public service, membership society. The mission of A2LA is to provide comprehensive accreditation services for laboratories, inspection bodies, proficiency testing providers, and reference material
Vol. 19, No. 4

producers. Services are available to any type of laboratory or inspection body, be it private or government. A2LA is the largest multi-discipline accreditation 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 details.

The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality

December 2005

MQD

Page 23

MEASUREMENT QUALITY DIVISION OFFICERS AND COMMITTEE CHAIRS
Chair, Examining Chair Graeme C. Payne GK Systems, Inc. 4440 Weston Drive SW, Suite B Lilburn, GA 30047 USA Voice: (770) 931-4004 / Fax (866) 887-9344 E-mail: Graeme@gksystems.biz Immediate Past Chair / Nominating Chair Joe Simmons Scholarship MQD Representative Program Chair Dilip A. Shah E = mc3 Solutions 197 Great Oaks Trail #130 Wadsworth, Ohio 44281-8215 Voice (330) 328-4400 / Fax (330) 336-3974 E-mail: emc3solu@aol.com, dashah@aol.com

Chair-Elect, Publication Chair, Newsletter Editor/Publisher, Share Point Administrator Jay L. Bucher Bucherview Metrology Services 6700 Royal View Dr. De Forest, WI 53532-2775 Voice (608) 277-2522 / Fax (608) 846-4269 E-mail: jay.bucher@promega.com, yokota-69@charter.net

Joe Simmons Scholarship Norm Belecki 7413 Mill Run Dr Derwood, MD 20855-1156 Voice (301) 869-4520 E-mail: n.belecki@ieee.org

Secretary, Certification Chair, Website Manager, NCSL International Representative Christopher L. Grachanen Manager, Houston Metrology Group HewlettPackard P. O. Box 692000 MS070110 Houston, TX 77269-2000 Voice (281) 518-8486 / Fax (281) 518-7275 E-mail: Chris.Grachanen@hp.com

Historian Keela Sniadach Promega Corp. 5445 East Cheryl Parkway Madison, WI 53711 Voice (608) 298-4681 / Fax (608) 277-2516 E-mail: keela.sniadach@promega.com

Treasurer Karl Wigdal Promega Corp. 5445 East Cheryl Parkway Madison, WI 53711 Voice (608) 277-2633 / Fax (608) 277-2516 E-mail: karl.wigdal@promega.com

ASQ Division Administrator Ms. Jeannette Cooke Voice (800) 248-1946 E-mail: JCooke@asq.org 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 1 (CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT) Volunteer Opportunity! Region 2 (NJ, NY, PA) Volunteer Opportunity!

Standards Committee Representative Bill McCullough McCullough Consulting 1936 June Cr Carson City, NV 89706 Voice: (775) 883-3042 Fax: (775) 883-3042 Cell: (775) 220-6424 E-mail: 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) Mr. Eduardo M. Heidelberg Pfizer Parlin, NJ 08859 E-mail: eheidelb@yahoo.com Region 4 (Canada) Mr. Alexander T. C. Lau ExxonMobil Whitby, ON L1R 1R1 E-mail: alex.t.lau@exxonmobil.com Region 5 (DC, DE, MD, PA, VA) Mr. Richard A. Litts Litts Quality Technologies Downington, PA 19335 E-mail: info@littsquality.com Region 6 (AK, CA, HI, ID, MT, OR, UT, WA, WY) Volunteer Opportunity! Region 7 (AZ, CA, NV, part of Mexico) Mr. Randy D. Farmer Metrology Solutions Chula Vista, CA 91913 E-mail: farmerrd2@cox.net Region 8 (OH, PA) Volunteer Opportunity! Region 9 (IN, KY, OH) Ryan Fischer, ASQ CCT Laboratory Accreditation Bureau New Haven, IN 46774 E-mail: rfischer@l-a-b.com Region 15 (AL, FL, GA, LA, MS, Puerto Rico) Mr. E. Bryan Miller ASQ Fellow Bryan Miller Consulting Florence, AL 35633 E-mail: milleb@mindspring.com Region 25 (all other countries) Volunteer Opportunity! Please see next page for a map of the US Regions Region 10 (OH, MI) Volunteer Opportunity! Region 11 (NC, SC, TN, VA) Volunteer Opportunity! Region 12 (IL, MN, ND, SD, WI) Dr. Donald S. Ermer ASQ Fellow; Eugene L. Grant Medal (2001) University of Wisconsin—Madison Madison, WI 53706 E-mail: Ermer@engr.wisc.edu Region 13 (CO, IA, KS, MO, NE, SD, WY) Volunteer Opportunity! Region 14 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX, part of Mexico) Mr. R. Keith Bennett TRANSCAT Kingwood, TX 77339 E-mail: kbennett@transcat.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
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 unleveling 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

herself on a continuing basis. The contributions of 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 Good Science, Traceability, Standards, Methods/Procedures, Regulatory Compliance, Training, Documentation, Good Decisions, Problem Avoidance I Research I Development I In-Coming Quality I Scale Up/Technology Transfer I Process Validation/ Final Specifications I Production/Manufacturing I Final Product I Customer Confidence I Profit Figure 1. The permeation of metrology through an organization.

• When new instruments are purchased, are they the best that you can afford with the highest accuracy, or instruments, which just meet today’s requirements? • What is the current quality level of operation and what are the trends? Before taking the metrology program to the next level, the program should be operating in a regulatory compliant manner and exhibit high quality in its operation. Is the program bullet proof?

Becoming a Competitive Weapon
In order for metrology to become that competitive weapon and strategic tool for the corporation, the metrology function must define itself in the broadest possible terms and take a leadership role and aggressively and creatively pursue all avenues to assist a corporation to succeed. The metrology function has unique capabilities and is in the possession of unique information, and it is these unique tools that can be used to give a corporation a competitive edge. Metrology should choose its ground carefully so that it is not overextended and gets into areas away from core expertise. As metrology pushes from the bottom, it is incumbent on management to mine the hidden assets of knowledge and capabilities that a metrology lab possesses and use that information to solve measurement problems. Metrology can help the corporation succeed by applying it’s expertise to internal functions first and then extend this to external clients, as appropriate.

Planning to Be Competitive
Positioning the metrology function to contribute to the bottom line of the corporation begins with a basic review of where a program is at the present time. This is true regardless of the size of an organization or if a program is in it’s infant stages or is a larger, mature operation. The end result of this review will give areas for cost avoidance, elimination of waste, and also direct savings. • Has the program been designed to meet current regulations such as Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) or Current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP)? • Has the program incorporated industry best practices that are found in international standards such as ISO 17025 or ANSI/NCSL Z540-1-1994 and ISO 9000:2000? • Do recent audit reports confirm the fact that the program is operating in a state of control and any deficiencies noted by investigators have been resolved? • Have all complaints been resolved and the root cause determined, eliminating it from happening again? • Have peer comparisons been made to make sure the program is meeting industry expectations? • What does your network sources of competitive intelligence tell you? • Are you investing in your employees through a planned training program based on an analysis of deficiencies? • Are customer satisfaction surveys reviewed for insights of deficiencies?

Internal Development
The process starts with the development of a synergistic team approach, including functions such as R&D, production, quality, purchasing, validation, and marketing. The goals of this team will be twofold: to manage and direct the assets of the corporation, and to gather, analyze, and accept or reject all areas where improvement in measurements or application of instrumentation can be made. Like a six sigma approach to quality improvements, potential areas for improvement highlighted by the team can then be prioritized and solved, resulting in the largest return for the investment and resulting in a program of continuous improvement. Metrology is probably the one place in a corporation where the performance of all equipment is monitored and recorded. The development of instrument “standards” based on demonstrated performance raises the level of measurement capabilities throughout the corporation. This one step develops into a win-win situation and allows everyone to do their jobs in a more efficient 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

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

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 longterm trust and loyalty with customers.

JUL • AUG • SEP 2005

36

METROLOGY AS A COMPETITIVE WEAPON RALPH E. BERTERMANN

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?

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.

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

JUL • AUG • SEP 2005

METROLOGY AS A COMPETITIVE WEAPON RALPH E. BERTERMANN

• Metrology being the conscience and affecting the mindset or character of an organization through the repeated requirements of discipline, integrity, and accountability of all regulated measurement processes. • The ability to transfer a technology or product seamlessly throughout a corporation, requiring minimal backtracking or rework. • Uniformity of measurement and production activities across the organization when reviewed by regulatory agencies. Includes standardization of equipment, tolerances, methods, documentation, training, and labels. • 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.

If you think metrology can make your company more competitive, or if you think metrology cannot make your company more competitive, you’re right.
Better Measurements = Better Products = Better Profits

References
Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary ______________________________ Ralph E. Bertermann, Lighthouse Training Group, tel/fax 847-392-9796, rberter@aol.com, www.lighthousetraining. com.

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

hen members of just about any profession talk among themselves, they usually use specialized terms they all understand—jargon. There is usually consensus among them about the meaning of the terms, but they often forget newcomers or interested parties from other fields may not have the same understanding. There are also cases in which the common use of a word is different from or even opposite its technical definition. “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 definitions of metrology, calibration and many other measurement related terms.2 Why do we need to refer to this technical 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 dictionaries merely record the ways words are used or misused in a language and most of their meanings. According to the VIM, metrology is “the science and practice of measurement.”3 Metrology is important in some way to every human endeavor. More specifically, it is critical to all the physical, chemical and biological sciences and the technologies and manufacturing processes that flow from them. In daily life, metrology affects us in commerce and law enforcement and in regulated industries such as healthcare and aviation. Whenever you purchase 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-

W

surements conform to certain defined relationships. A Process of Comparison Broadly speaking, calibration is the process of determining the relationship 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 relationship between the readings of a micrometer, voltmeter, thermometer, weighing balance, mass spectrometer or graduated 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 controlled 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 measurement standard has, in most cases, gone through the same process. Calibration is repeated at regular intervals to provide continued assurance the instrument’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 calibration 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 measurement standard, which is usually determined from its calibration history. • The known uncertainty of the standard, which comes from several 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 effective measurement SPC system know how their systems perform in that location, so their uncertainty 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 measurement, other influences such as absolute barometric pressure, the local gravitational vector, electromagnetic fields or building vibration may also have measurable effects. • The methods and equipment used to make the comparisons. • The uncertainty of the measurement system relative to the published performance specifications of the item being calibrated or the customer’s requirements, if different. All the details have to be evaluated to provide a measure of the relationship 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 characteristic of the measurement result ®

72

I MAY 2005 I www.asq.org

MEASURE FOR MEASURE
that demonstrates its accuracy in terms of the SI. Taken together, the relationship and its documentation indicate the quality of the measurements that can be made with that instrument when it is used correctly. A calibration is performed using a calibration procedure, which is a documented, 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 automated calibration system. Many calibration procedures are written in conformance to the guidelines in Recommended Practice 3: Preparation of Calibration Procedures (NCSL RP-3), which defines the procedures’ purpose and content.7 The purpose of a calibration procedure 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 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 comparisons, 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 performing the calibration is trained and qualified and understands the scientific and physical principles of the measurements.8 What About Adjustment? Up to this point, I haven’t said anything about adjustment. That’s because it’s not part of the formal definition of calibration, nor is it part of the description of a calibration procedure in NCSL RP-3. The results (data) of a calibration procedure may indicate a need for adjustment or other repair, but taking such action is a separate process. After the adjustment or repair is complete, the calibration procedure should always be repeated to verify the proper measurement relationship 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 instruments. 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 recalibration interval. If the instrument 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 ®

74

I MAY 2005 I www.asq.org

MEASURE FOR MEASURE
process, and a single measurement from that process is a random sample from the probability density function that describes it. Without other knowledge, there is no way to know if the sample is within the normal variation limits. The history gives us that information. If the measurement is within the normal variation and not outside the specification limits, there is no reason to adjust it. In fact, making an adjustment could just as likely make it worse as it could make it better. W. Edwards Deming discusses the problem of overadjustment in chapter 11 of Out of the Crisis.9 The most common uses of the word “calibration” outside the metrology community include the concept of adjusting the instrument, and most customers expect it. In addition, many manufacturers have calibration procedures in their manuals that are not performance comparisons but, instead, are the test, alignment or adjustment procedures used for a new or repaired unit that is in an unknown condition. Remember, a true calibration procedure assumes the instrument is in good working order. So, while acknowledging the formal technical definition, calibration providers also have to recognize the practical realities of business and work with the common definition as well.
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-elect 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.

Customer Care Center
ASQ’s customer care center is staffed with representatives to personally answer each incoming phone call and e-mail during its hours of operation, which are Monday through Thursday from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. and Friday from 7a.m.to 5 p.m., Central Standard Time. 800-248-1946 or 414-272-8575 help@asq.org www.asq.org.

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1. This article is the first in a series of three. The July column will examine some of the different views of calibration, and the September column will discuss the importance of calibration. 2. International Vocabulary of Basic and General Terms in Metrology, second edition, International Organization for Standardization, 1993. It is commonly referred to as the VIM, an acronym taken from the French title, Vocabulaire International de Termes Fondamentaux et Généraux de Métrologie. 3. VIM, section 2.2, see reference 2. 4. SI is an acronym taken from the French name, Le Systéme International d'Unités. 5. VIM, section 6.11, see reference 2. 6. VIM, section 6.10, see reference 2. 7. Recommended Practice 3: Preparation of Calibration Procedures, NCSL International (formerly National Conference of Standards Laboratories), 1990. 8. Ibid. 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

his column is the second of three that explore what calibration 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 calibration is viewed in different ways by different groups.

T

another method is to count the number of atoms in a crystal of pure silicon.1 The scientific view comprises metrologists with national metrology institutes such as the National Institute of

concerned about compliance with requirements than measurement quality. They also don’t always understand what calibration is, how poor measurements affect the quality of their products or why calibration is important. Average Practitioner’s View

Scientific View Dedicated scientists and engineers make exacting measurements in the scientific, high level realm of calibration. They are often called metrologists and may spend years examining one particular measurement problem or physical characteristic that is subject to measurement, trying to transform 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 fundamental physics, chemistry, mechanics and other sciences are often tested to see whether they can be used for measurements 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 important 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 physical phenomena, on the other hand, do not change. One method being studied is a watt balance that would use a magnetic field to determine mass;
80

Three groups each have their own distinct view of calibration.

Standards and Technology, international organizations such as the International Bureau of Weights and Measures, the corporate metrology standards laboratories of some major corporations and some other government 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 maintained 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 customer 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

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 measurement standards for other calibration laboratories. The other 97% have customers 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 calibration labs are small businesses, which implies they have limited resources. As with any other small business, calibration practitioners and their companies have to continually balance the triad of speed, quality and cost while
(continued on p. 81)

I JULY 2005 I www.asq.org

(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 calibration 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 science 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 measurement fields, calibration technicians should also partake in ongoing professional education. Instead of seeking the “best possible” measurement, the practical view of calibration looks for efficient calibration procedures and measurements 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 standard), 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 measurement system, automation may nearly double productivity by allowing the

technician to start a procedure on one system and then start calibrating another unit at another workstation. Many calibration laboratories are exploring other ways to improve service and productivity and reduce overall costs. Within the past 10 years, for example, available technology has enabled the development of calibration 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 documents, calibration recall systems and physical traceability from measurement 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 signatures based on public-key encryption. Other improvements include applying 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 international 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 measurements essential to production, service and commerce see the end

user’s side of calibration. In between those two groups are the organizations that perform the majority of calibrations 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 engineering 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

by Graeme C. Payne

I

n my July 2005 installment in this series of articles on calibration, I talked about the trilogy of fast service, high quality and low price. Though some may think calibration laboratories skimp on quality because customers 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 vocabulary; we can always do better. Metrology and calibration are important to all areas, from global commerce to our personal lives. There have been legal requirements for the accuracy and standardization of weights and measures for at least 5,000 years. The current 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 measurements 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, measurement 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 appropriate, fair and equitable standards for protection of its environment, public safety and health interests without giving domestic products an unfair advantage. It also expects member countries to minimize barriers by having conformity assessment arrangements.
66

Joshi says these conformity assessment arrangements address the operation of calibration and testing laboratories in conformance to ISO/IEC 17025 and the operation of manufacturing and service organizations 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 system of international mutual recognition arrangements among conformity assessment bodies. On the national and state levels, historical records show virtually all nations regulate weights and measures. For example, one of the promises acceded to by King John in the Magna Carta was the establishment of a single system of weights and measures throughout England. 5 In the United States, establishment of uniform 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, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Today, the federal government regulates many measurements and has several calibration requirements. Federal regulations cover areas such as accuracy requirements for radio station transmitter frequencies, aircraft altimeters and automobile speedometers, conditions such as ozone and other pollutant levels in the air or water, and occupational health and safety. In most cases, any measurement 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 measuring instruments used for commerce in the state. Some examples of

measuring devices regulated by the states include electricity meters, gasoline 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 production 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 measurement management process, reduces the risks associated with measurements (such as form, fit and function), regulatory requirements and international acceptability. Measurements made with uncalibrated instruments could conceivably result in various legal liability issues. It is not economically possible to eliminate the risks, but a good measurement 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 measurement comparability at the international level. • An NMI can calibrate mass standards using the same scale for state,
(continued on p. 69)

I SEPTEMBER 2005 I www.asq.org

MEASURE FOR MEASURE
(continued from p. 66)

corporate and independent commercial calibration standards labs that use them as transfer standards. • Manufacturers of package weighing 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, packages are transported in the company’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 customer has to pay an additional fee. These and other reasons require the package shipping company to regularly 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 number of small items, the company uses the average mass and fills packages by weight. If the scale is not properly calibrated, the company could either ship fewer or more items than intended. To minimize both types of loss, the company 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 simply 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 provide their customers with the best possible calibration service in a timely manner and at a fair price.
REFERENCES AND NOTES

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.

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.

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 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.

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

NEXT WAVE STARTS JAN. 30, 2006 IN ORLANDO, FL

SIX SIGMA GREEN BELT TRAINING
September 19-23 Southfield, MI October 10-14 Chicago, IL

1-800-374-3818 WWW.XLP.COM

QUALITY PROGRESS

I SEPTEMBER 2005 I 69

October 12, 2005

MEMORANDUM FOR

State, Industry, Foreign Government Metrologists and other interested parties

Directors,

From:

Val Miller Weights and Measures Division Laboratory Metrology Group Fall 2005 to 2007 Laboratory Metrology Training

Subject:

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*
September 19 to 23, 2005 October 3 to 7, 2005 October 17 to 21, 2005 October 24 to November 4, 2005 November 14 to 18, 2005

Course/Conference Title
NEMAP, VT *** SWAP, OK *** MidMAP, WI *** Basic Metrology - States, NIST Intermediate Metrology, NIST

2006 Dates*
January 22 to 25, 2006 February 6 to 10, 2006 February 27 to 28, 2006 March 1 to 3, 2006 March 27 to April 7, 2006 May 8 to 12, 2006 July 9 to 13, 2006 August 6 to 10, 2006

Course/Conference Title
NCWM Interim, Jacksonville, FL Advanced Mass Hands-On, NIST MSC Mass Short Course, CA Measurement Science Conference, CA Basic Metrology - States, NIST Basic Mass Industry, NIST NCWM, Chicago, IL 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 December 11 to 15, 2006

Basic Mass Industry, NIST Intermediate Metrology, NIST

2007 Dates*
January TBD

Course/Conference Title
MSC Mass Short Course, CA

January TBD January 21 to 24, 2007 February 5 to 9, 2007 February 26 to March 2, 2007 March 5 to 9, 2007 April 16 to 20, 2007 March 19 to 30, 2007 April 30 to May 4, 2007 May 14 to 18, 2007 July 8 to 12, 2007 July 29 to Aug 7, 2007 September 17 to 21, 2007 October 15 to 19, 2007 October 22 to 26, 2007 October 29 to November 2, 2007 November 5 to 9, 2007

Measurement Science Conference NCWM Interim, Jacksonville, FL CaMAP, TBD*** 8th Advanced Mass, NIST Advanced Mass Hands-On, NIST SEMAP, TBD*** Basic Metrology - States, NIST Basic Mass Industry, NIST WRAP, TBD*** NCWM, Park City, UT NCSLI, St. Paul, MN NEMAP, TBD*** SWAP, TBD*** MidMAP, TBD*** Basic Mass Industry, NIST Intermediate Metrology, NIST

2008 Dates*
January 13 to 16, 2008 January TBD January TBD

Course/Conference Title
NCWM Interim, New Orleans, LA MSC Mass Short Course, CA 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 ____________________ FAX: ___________________________

Phone: _____________________________ 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:

CONFERENCE SPECIAL OFFER
” 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 ”
TH E M E

MSC 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

NEW DATES FOR 2006

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.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful