You are on page 1of 10

This article was downloaded by:[University at Buffalo (SUNY)] On: 11 February 2008 Access Details: [subscription number 784375719] Publisher

: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Quality Engineering
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713597292

Evaluating Measurement Systems and Manufacturing Processes Using Three Quality Measures
Karl D. Majeske a; Richard W. Andrews a a The University of Michigan Business School, Ann Arbor, MI, U.S.A.

Online Publication Date: 01 December 2002 To cite this Article: Majeske, Karl D. and Andrews, Richard W. (2002) 'Evaluating Measurement Systems and Manufacturing Processes Using Three Quality Measures', Quality Engineering, 15:2, 243 - 251 To link to this article: DOI: 10.1081/QEN-120015856 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/QEN-120015856

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

such as Cp that scales the tolerance by the standard deviation of the product (sp). Key Words: Measurement system analysis. 243–251. Majeske* and Richard W. All rights reserved.dekker. This material may not be used or reproduced in any form without the express written permission of Marcel Dekker. Manufacturers and suppliers also use one or more measures of process capability. INC. A measure used to assess the ability for two parties to communicate via dimension data is the correlation in repeat measurements that we derive as a function of sg and sp. acceptable and nonacceptable regions for measurement systems are defined. 1532-4222 (Online) www. By plotting the precision-to-tolerance ratio and the correlation in repeat measurements on the sg and sp axes. 2. Andrews† The University of Michigan Business School. Correlation. Precision-totolerance ratio. • 270 MADISON AVENUE • NEW YORK. E-mail: kdm@umich. pp. Ann Arbor. Supplier quality *Corresponding author. NY 10016 Downloaded By: [University at Buffalo (SUNY)] At: 16:51 11 February 2008 ©2002 Marcel Dekker. Process capability. When we add Cp (a measure of process capability) to the mix.MARCEL DEKKER. 243 DOI: 10.com . This approach of plotting the quality measurement criteria in the sg and sp axes precisely defines the quality situation and lends to improvement suggestions. QUALITY ENGINEERING Vol. Inc. No.edu † Deceased.1081/QEN-120015856 Copyright q 2002 by Marcel Dekker. a relationship between the three measures suggests a method for determining an acceptable level for the correlation criterion and defines additional regions. Inc. 2002– 03 Evaluating Measurement Systems and Manufacturing Processes Using Three Quality Measures Karl D. 0898-2112 (Print). 701 Tappan Street. 15. Inc. Many manufacturers and suppliers use the precision-to-tolerance ratio— scaling the standard deviation of gauge error (sg) by the design tolerance—to approve a measurement system. MI 48109-1234 ABSTRACT Manufacturers and suppliers use quality measures calculated from dimensional data to make informed decisions regarding measurement systems and product quality. to approve a manufacturing process.

. the automobile manufacturer and the tool construction supplier will communicate using quality measures based on dimensional data. Inc. Inc. this is not the case. Consider the case in which a supplier is developing custom tooling. the measurement system would generate data that exactly represents the geometry of the part. The remainder of this article has the following organization. This material may not be used or reproduced in any form without the express written permission of Marcel Dekker. the so-called tool buy-off. We present the following model for measurements taken on a quality characteristic. and r. “Correlation in Product Measurements” explores the correlation of repeat measurements in the presence of measurement error. INC. sg Þ: Lastly. Let P represent the true unknown value for the part. It is common for manufacturers to approve a supplier’s process by setting required values for measures of quality. We assume the product dimension P. We assume that G follows a normal distribution 2 with variance sg and mean mg or 2 G . Normalðmp . The correlation measures the correspondence between the measurement processes. When making the decision to purchase the tool or die. developing dies for stamping automotive sheet metal components such as doors. and recommends how to resolve the dilemmas that may occur when using multiple quality measures. e. consider the situation in which manufacturers and suppliers use dimensional data as a basis of communication when trying to resolve build problems in assembly.MARCEL DEKKER. The understanding of these relationships will assist quality managers in setting required values. Cp. assuming mg ¼ 0. Normalðmg . are additive resulting in X ¼ P þ G: ð1Þ In an attempt to force accuracy into the readings. 244 Majeske and Andrews INTRODUCTION To make objective decisions regarding product and process quality. All three of the quantities—P/T. The final section contains the conclusions from this research.[1] present a method for calibrating an optical measuring device used to measure large automotive sheet metal stampings. The act of calibration removes any potential bias in the measurements generated using the gauge. sp Þ: Let G represent the gauge error induced by the measuring process. we have mx ¼ mp : To determine the variance in the measurements we take the variance of Eq. We show that in some situations. and r—measure different aspects of the quality relationship between manufacturers and suppliers. We suggest adding the correlation in repeat measurements r as a third measure in the manufacturer – supplier relationship. We assume that P follows a normal distribution with 2 mean mp and variance sp or 2 P . “Relating Precision-to-Tolerance Ratio to Correlation” shows a relationship between correlation and the precision-to-tolerance ratio. we assume a manufacturer requires their suppliers to meet quality criteria as measured by (1) the precision-to-tolerance ratio P/T and (2) the process capability measure Cp. By assuming that gauge error is statistically independent of the quality characteristic. In reality. We explore the relationships among these three measures and show the importance of understanding these relationships when setting required values.e. • 270 MADISON AVENUE • NEW YORK. Cp. “Measurement System Acceptance Criteria” discusses the precision-to-tolerance ratio P/T. and Correlation r” develops a relationship between the three quality measures P/T. By assuming the gauge has been calibrated: i. Gong et al. the setting of required values can lead to contradictory and confusing conclusions regarding the measurement system. All rights reserved.g. manufacturers will calibrate a gauge. “Process Capability” discusses the measure of process capability Cp. “Relating P/T. “Measured Values” presents a model for the data generated when measuring a quality characteristic. (1). NY 10016 Downloaded By: [University at Buffalo (SUNY)] At: 16:51 11 February 2008 ©2002 Marcel Dekker. a measurement system acceptance criterion.. In this article. the variance in the measurements is 2 2 sx2 ¼ sp þ sg : ð2Þ . and fenders. hoods. The precision-to-tolerance ratio is a statistic used to make a decision about the acceptability of the measurement system. The relationships among these three quality measures are shown using both equations and graphs. The capability index Cp shows the potential of the production process to produce products within design specifications. and the measurement error G. As another example. The graphs plot the measures on Cartesian coordinates with the axes being the standard deviation of the measurement gauge (sg) and the standard deviation of the quality dimension (sp). MEASURED VALUES Ideally. manufacturers and their suppliers use quantitative quality measures. Process Capability Cp. the random variable X represents the measurement.

we will show how P/T relates to correlation in repeat measurements and how it relates to process capability. We have observed situations between a manufacturer and supplier where differences in the mean and variance are statistically insignificant. 0:1: P=T . the gauge is not capable. The precision-to-tolerance ratio applies when the quality characteristic has a two-sided design specification or tolerance. sx2 ¼ sp MEASUREMENT SYSTEM ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA A commonly used quantity for assessing the precision of a measurement system is the precision-to-tolerance ratio. P=T . the correlation is one. for a given part. This material may not be used or reproduced in any form without the express written permission of Marcel Dekker. note that E½X Š ¼ E½E½X jPŠŠ ¼ E½PŠ. the closer the correlation is to . This lack of correlation in the repeat measurements inhibits the two parties from reaching an agreement on the condition of the stamping die.5. r. Inc. however. the two sets of measurements have very low correlation. The correlation is given by rðX 1 . i. but not on the product variance. and Cov½X 1 .MARCEL DEKKER. and LSL denote the lower specification limit. All rights reserved. Montgomery[2] suggests that gauges with a P/T of 0.. to the automobile manufacturer. rðX 1 . relative to the part to part variance. The tool construction supplier will measure the stampings and ship them. INC. automobile industry follow AIAG guidelines[3] that suggest using a precisionto-tolerance ratio defined as 5:15sg 5:15sg P ¼ ¼ : ð4Þ T USL 2 LSL TOL The supplier or manufacturer will compare P/T to some standard for the purpose of approving the gauge. Notice that the correlation is always greater than zero and that the smaller the gauge variance. Montgomery[2] suggests using six standard deviations to express the width of the measurement error distribution and thus calculating the precision-to-tolerance ratio as 6 sg 6 sg P ¼ ¼ : T USL 2 LSL TOL ð3Þ a set of 5– 10 panels. In the following sections. respectively. 2 2 Var½X Š ¼ sg þ sp . Letting USL denote the upper specification limit. P=T .e. and the ratio of sigma gauge to sigma part. automobile manufacturers will have the supplier stamp Equation (5) shows the relationship between the correlation in repeat measurements. 2. 3. the correlation is 0. along with the dimensional data. The automobile manufacturer measures the panels again generating a second set of measurements. Let X1 and X2 represent the supplier and manufacturer measurements. Normalðmx ¼ mp . the gauge may be capable. The AIAG suggests three ranges of their statistic: 1. 2 Cov½X 1 . we formally define the tolerance as TOL: Tolerance ¼ USL 2 LSL ¼ TOL: Even though the theoretical width of G is infinite. X 2 Š ¼ E½X 1 X 2 Š 2 E½X 1 Š½X 2 Š ¼ E½X 1 X 2 Š 2 ðE½PŠÞ2 : Now E½X 1 X 2 Š ¼ E½E½X 1 X 2 jPŠŠ ¼ E½E½X 1 jPŠE½X 2 jPŠŠ ¼ E½PPŠ ¼ E½P 2 Š so. 0:3: 0:1 . X 2 Þ sX 1 sX 2 and can be expressed in terms of gauge variance and product variance. When gauge variance equals product variance. 0:3: the gauge is capable. NY 10016 Downloaded By: [University at Buffalo (SUNY)] At: 16:51 11 February 2008 ©2002 Marcel Dekker. Inc. X 2 Š ¼ E½P 2 Š 2 ðE½PŠÞ2 ¼ Var½PŠ ¼ sp and Notice that the precision-to-tolerance method depends only on the variance of the measurement system and the width of the design specifications.S. When the ratio is zero (zero measurement error variance) the repeat measurements are perfectly correlated. • 270 MADISON AVENUE • NEW YORK.1 or less should be adequate. X 2 Þ ¼ CovðX 1 . First. Three Quality Measures 245 This results in X following a normal distribution 2 2 þ sg Þ: X . X 2 Þ ¼ 2 sp 1 ¼ : 2 þ s2 s2 sp g 1 þ sg2 p ð 5Þ CORRELATION IN PRODUCT MEASUREMENTS When purchasing stamping dies from a supplier. Domestic manufacturers in the U.

(3) the following inequality P # d0 . NY 10016 Downloaded By: [University at Buffalo (SUNY)] At: 16:51 11 February 2008 ©2002 Marcel Dekker. 1 into four regions: Region 1: Region 2: Region 3: Region 4: The gauge satisfies both criteria. INC. the manufacturer and supplier can derive from Eq. Inc. Inspecting Fig. 1 is constructed to graphically depict the precision-to-tolerance ratio and the correlation criteria. for a given r0. Conversely. Of course. • 270 MADISON AVENUE • NEW YORK. both variances are of interest and it is important to keep both of them small. a large correlation is bad news for the production process and/or good news for the measurement process. relative to part-to-part variance. RELATING PRECISION-TOTOLERANCE RATIO TO CORRELATION Consider the situation where a manufacturer has determined that a measurement system must possess a precision-to-tolerance ratio of P=T # d0 to be considered appropriate for measuring parts. In other words. the larger the gauge variance. 1. (7). the manufacturer requests that the correlation with the supplier’s measurements be at least r $ r0 : Notice that for a given d0. The gauge satisfies P/T but fails to meet the correlation criterion. In addition. From Eq. for a fixed tolerance. These two lines divide Fig. Fig. the correlation criteria depend on both gauge and product variability. Also. the precision-to-tolerance criteria depends on gauge variability alone. 1 1 þ sg 2 p s2 $ r0 . whereas a small correlation is good news for the production process and/or bad news for the measurement process.MARCEL DEKKER. (6) and (7) in the sg and sp space. (5) the following inequality r $ r0 . This analysis shows that correlation by itself does not provide all the answers. the supplier can derive from Eq. All rights reserved. sg # d0 TOL 6 ð 6Þ We suggest manufacturers use this approach to assess their measurement system by constructing a graph in Figure 1. This material may not be used or reproduced in any form without the express written permission of Marcel Dekker. you can see that gauges whose sg is on or to the left of the vertical line would pass the P/T criteria while gauges on or above the dotted line would satisfy the correlation criteria. Inc. TOL to satisfy the P/T criteria. T 6 sg # d0 . . The correlation criteria should be used with other measures of quality such as the precisionto-tolerance ratio and process capability measures. By plotting Eqs. 246 Majeske and Andrews one. The gauge does not meet either criterion. the smaller the correlation. However. from Eq. Comparing P/T and correlation gauge approval criteria. rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi r0 1 2 r0 sp $ sg ð7Þ to satisfy the correlation criteria. (6) we see that. The gauge does not satisfy P/T but it passes the correlation criterion.

(6) and (7). NY 10016 Downloaded By: [University at Buffalo (SUNY)] At: 16:51 11 February 2008 ©2002 Marcel Dekker. and Correlation r” we further explore the anomalies of regions 2 and 4 by including process capability as a third quality measure. We suggest the manufacturer attempt to improve the gauge by reducing the variability in measurement error. (6) and (7) and obtains the equations for two lines in the sg and sp space..8. PROCESS CAPABILITY Process capability indices represent a class of quality measures for quantifying process output relative to Figure 2. TOL—The design tolerance for the quality characteristic.MARCEL DEKKER. 2. While this variability is small relative to the tolerance. assume the measuring situation has a tolerance of width 1 unit. suppose the manufacturer requires the precision-to-tolerance ratio to meet a criterion of 0. the manufacturer requires the correlation in repeat measurements to be at least 0. In “Relating P/T. The manufacturer then substitutes the above three values into Eqs. they must use d0 ¼ 0:3: Also. the manufacturer would obtain sg ¼ d0 TOL 0:3ð1Þ ¼ ¼ 0:05 and 6 6 To evaluate the gauge. 3. the two criteria provide opposing assessments of the measurement system. the manufacturer estimates the quantities sg and sp. If the gauge falls in region 1. it meets both criteria and the manufacturer should approve the gauge. i. r0—The minimum acceptable value for the correlation criteria. however. In region 4. the correlation criterion is satisfied. plots the point on the chart. To construct this graph. ¼ sg 1 2 0:8 1 2 r0 which we plot in Fig. By plotting these two lines. 2. If the gauge lies in region 3. Plotting P=T # 0:3 and r $ 0:8 approval criteria.e. P/T rejects the gauge as not being precise enough to measure parts. This material may not be used or reproduced in any form without the express written permission of Marcel Dekker. it is large relative to product variability. d0—The maximum value for P/T to consider a gauge acceptable. we also suggest the manufacturer attempt to reduce the gauge error variability. 1. so r0 ¼ 0:8: Lastly. • 270 MADISON AVENUE • NEW YORK. the precision-to-tolerance ratio accepts the gauge but the correlation criterion is not satisfied. rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi r0 0: 8 sp ¼ sg ¼ 2 sg . . All rights reserved.3. Inc. Process Capability Cp. it fails both criteria and the manufacturer should reject the gauge. For example. In region 2. In regions 2 and 4. Three Quality Measures 247 the form of Fig. It is this phenomenon of a precise gauge with a small correlation that initially motivated this research. the manufacturer will obtain the desired chart. Inc. In region 4. TOL ¼ 1: Substituting these values into Eqs. the manufacturer needs to identify the following quantities: 1. INC. and determines the associated region for the gauge.

(6). INC. an automotive supplier who uses a capability criterion of C 0 ¼ 1:67 and a precision-totolerance limit of r0 ¼ 0:3 to define a capable process and approve a measurement system. (10) for sg. A “yes” indicates that the process or measurement system satisfies the column criteria.e. and using Eq. sg ¼ T 6 Equation (12) for sp. 2. This material may not be used or reproduced in any form without the express written permission of Marcel Dekker. using six standard deviations to quantify width. processes with C p $ 1:67 are approved for production. sp ¼ TOL . AND CORRELATION r In this section. The process capability measure Cp ¼ USL 2 LSL TOL ¼ 6 sp 6 sp ð 8Þ product variability sp. TOL $ C0 . By solving Eq.. d0—The maximum value for P/T to consider a gauge acceptable. 3. [4. and then solve for r using Eq. the manufacturer will obtain the desired chart. we have forced the three lines in Fig. 3 that represent the possible scenarios for a manufacturer or supplier assessing a production process and measurement system. By using a r0 value that satisfies the relationship of Eq. Inc. the manufacturer needs to identify the following quantities: 1. respectively. 6 sp and substituting these values into Eq. PROCESS CAPABILITY CP. ð11Þ 4. To graphically depict the relationship between the three quality measures. Notice from Eqs. r¼ 1 1 þ sg 2 p s2 .MARCEL DEKKER. 3. Inc. By plotting these three lines. For a given C0. (13). 3. We suggest manufacturers use this graphical approach to assess their measurement system and manufacturing process simultaneously by constructing a figure in the form of Fig. we discuss how manufacturers and suppliers can use three quality measures—the precisionto-tolerance ratio 6 sg P ¼ . We suggest the manufacturer solve for this value using Eq. r0—The minimum acceptable value for the correlation criteria. (13). C0—The minimum acceptable value for the process capability criteria. T TOL the correlation in repeat measurements ð10Þ Manufacturers who wish consistency in their quality measures should determine acceptable values for P/T and Cp. all three quality measures are uniquely defined by two values: gauge variability sg and The manufacturer then substitutes the above four values into Eqs. (10) – (12) that for a given tolerance. 248 Majeske and Andrews the tolerance or width of the design specification. ÀPÁ TOL . (6). Suppliers approve a process for production and delivery using measures of process capability such as Cp and Cpk (see Refs. we obtain the relationship r¼ 1þ 1 ÀP T Cp Á2 : ð13Þ sp # TOL : 6C 0 ð 9Þ RELATING P/T. (7). (7). For example. and (9) to obtain the equations for three lines in the sg and sp space. All rights reserved. (8). which appears as Fig. i. • 270 MADISON AVENUE • NEW YORK. and process capability TOL Cp ¼ 6 sp ð12Þ —together to make decisions about their processes and measurement systems. To construct this figure. Table 1 shows the six regions of Fig. 3 to intersect. NY 10016 Downloaded By: [University at Buffalo (SUNY)] At: 16:51 11 February 2008 ©2002 Marcel Dekker. (13). should . TOL—The design tolerance for the quality characteristic measured by the gauge. and (9) in the sg and sp space. Manufacturers and suppliers approve a process for production if C p $ C0 : Automobile manufacturers and suppliers that follow AIAG[6] guidelines use a cut-off of C 0 ¼ 1:67. (11).5]). we plot Eqs. the manufacturer or supplier can derive the following inequality Cp $ C0 . 6C p is the ratio of two widths: the TOL and the distribution of the quality characteristic.

NY 10016 Downloaded By: [University at Buffalo (SUNY)] At: 16:51 11 February 2008 ©2002 Marcel Dekker. however. correlation. • 270 MADISON AVENUE • NEW YORK. To evaluate the gauge/manufacturing process combination. Table 1 Region Classification by Decision Outcome Region 1a 1b 2 3a 3b 4 Correlation Yes Yes Yes No No No Precision to Tolerance Yes Yes No No No Yes Process Capability No Yes No No Yes Yes . plots the point on the chart. (6). we suggest they approve the process for production and immediately begin improvements to the measurement system. the manufacturer should conclude they have a good measurement system and a process that is not capable. and (9). 6 6 rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi r0 0:8 ¼ 2 sg . There is a benefit of being in region 1a in that the manufacturer has the ability to detect an improvement in process capability when such improvement occurs. the process is capable. the manufacturer would obtain d0 TOL 0:3ð1Þ ¼ ¼ 0:05. Substituting these values into Eqs. The manufacturer should not approve the process for production and continue trying to reduce measurement error and the product variation. In region 3a. All three requirements are met in region 1b and the manufacturer and supplier should approve both the process and the measurement system. Three Quality Measures 249 Figure 3. Can the manufacturer conclude they have a capable process while concluding that the measurement system is not acceptable? In this region. INC. Inc. the manufacturer estimates the quantities sg and sp. sp $ sg ¼ sg 1 2 0: 8 1 2 r0 sg # and sp # TOL 1 ¼ 0:1 ¼ 6C 0 6ð1:67Þ which we plot as Fig. Comparing P/T. Region 3b can present a quandary for the manufacturer. none of the three criteria are satisfied.MARCEL DEKKER. (7). Inc. and process capability. All rights reserved. use d0 ¼ 1þ 1 ÀP T Cp Á2 ¼ 1 ¼ 0: 8 1 þ ð0:3ð1:67ÞÞ2 as a cut-off for the correlation criteria. 4. In region 1a. and determines the associated region. Both measurement system criteria suggest the gauge should not be used. This material may not be used or reproduced in any form without the express written permission of Marcel Dekker.

Cp. NY 10016 Downloaded By: [University at Buffalo (SUNY)] At: 16:51 11 February 2008 ©2002 Marcel Dekker. Because of the relationships shown in this article. the gauge error variation must be reduced with product variation in order to satisfy all three criteria. P/T. satisfying all three criteria.D.MARCEL DEKKER. • 270 MADISON AVENUE • NEW YORK. This material may not be used or reproduced in any form without the express written permission of Marcel Dekker. 1991.. We recommend that manufacturers consider all three quality measures. and Ph. Dr. Based on the sp. Majeske has previously held appointments as an Assistant Research Scientist at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute and Adjunct-Assistant Professor in both the College of Engineering and the College of Literature... the assessment of these three measures should take place with the aid of the ðsp . 3 that if a manufacturer’s measurements are in region 1b. and 1995. M. Therefore.S. Also notice from Fig. it should proportionally decrease gauge error variation to maintain the same level of correlation. the estimates of sp and sg will signal which of the three quality criteria have been met. sg region. He has worked for the University of Michigan since 1991 and currently holds the appointment of Lecturer in the Statistics and Management Science Department at the University of Michigan Business School. All rights reserved. This suggests that as a manufacturer decreases product variation. Plotting P=T # 0:3. Once the constraining lines are plotted. and r. sg Þ plot. This conundrum occurs because the ratio sg/sp is too large. the more capable a process (smaller sp). Majeske received the B. Therefore. We suggest that the manufacturer reduce both gauge error variation and product variation. respectively. degrees in industrial and operations engineering from the University of Michigan in 1985. the more precise a gauge must be to pass the correlation criteria. In region 4. we have made suggestions regarding the approval of the measuring system and/or the manufacturing process. r $ 0:8. Science and the Arts at the University of Michigan. From 1985 to 1986 he was a Reliability CONCLUSION It is often the case that manufacturers use dimensional data as a basis for communication with suppliers. Inc. Cp $ C 0 ) without reducing sg would put the manufacturer in region 3b where both P/T and r reject the measurement system. 250 Majeske and Andrews Figure 4. . Inc. In region 2. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The first author was supported in part by NSF grant SBR-9712997 to The University of Michigan.S. and Cp $ 1:67 approval criteria. INC. the measurement system satisfies the correlation criterion but does not meet the precision-totolerance ratio or the capability requirement.e. it could move to region 4 as process capability increases (decrease sp) through continual improvement. even though the process satisfies the capability criteria and the gauge satisfies the precisionto-tolerance ratio. in this communication. in a continual improvement environment. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Karl D. It seems contradictory to tell a supplier that his process is capable and his measurements meet the precision requirements. but we cannot adequately correlate our measurements. the correlation constraint fails to be met. the case that gave rise to this research. Reducing sp to the point that they pass the capability requirement (i.

J. Manuf. 3rd Ed. Automotive Industries Action Group (AIAG). S. NY. Montgomery.. Three Quality Measures 251 Engineer for General Motors Corporation.S.. REFERENCES 1. AIAG: Southfield.: New York. 1997. 2002. J. Borrego. 3. This material may not be used or reproduced in any form without the express written permission of Marcel Dekker. INC. 1992. Owen. Dr. D. Sci. from 1989 to 1991 he worked for Ford Motor Company. Gong. 2nd Ed. Eng. Ni..A. Chou. Franklin. Naval Academy and his Ph. Qual. He has previously held teaching and research appointments at the University of North Florida and Southampton University. Bootstrap Lower Confidence Limits for Capability Indices.. 24 (4). 174– 181. 6. G.C. All rights reserved. Wasserman. 2nd Ed. J. Y. L. A Self-Calibration Method for Robotic Measurement System. May 29. ASME 2000. in statistics from Virginia Polytechnic Institute in Blacksburg. from 1986 to 1989 he was a Consultant for Andersen Consulting. Technol. Lower Confidence Limits on Process Capability Indices. . 196– 210.. J. MI. Andrews was an ASQ member.M. 1997. 22 (3).. Qual. MI. 4. Jingxia. England.A. Y.. 2. 223– 229. Science. C. Technol.B. AIAG: Southfield. Andrews was an associate professor of statistics and held appointments in both the Statistics and Management Science Department at the University of Michigan Business School and the Statistics Department in the College of Literature.. Inc. Trans. Production Part Approval Process. John Wiley & Sons Inc. D. • 270 MADISON AVENUE • NEW YORK. Richard W. Inc. 1990. NY 10016 Downloaded By: [University at Buffalo (SUNY)] At: 16:51 11 February 2008 ©2002 Marcel Dekker. He received his undergraduate education at the U. Automotive Industries Action Group (AIAG). 5.. Statistical Quality Control. 1995.D.MARCEL DEKKER. and the Arts at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor until his death. 122 (1). Measurement Systems Analysis.