Measurement System Analysis

Group #1 - Assignment # 1B

Ana Maria Castro Trujillo

Estela Garcia Rasquinho Silva

Conestoga College
Process Quality Engineering
QUAL8015-Measurement System and Process Evaluation
Professor Veronica García Bermúdez

October 17, 2021

 Executive Summary

The main objective of this report is to present graphical and analytical information related to the set of 4
studies carried out to a group of data provided by the instructor, in order to evaluate the validity of the
Measurement System Analysis, determine the number of variations that contribute to the system, and propose
improvement actions that help to minimize the current variation of the process. First, information related to the
development of the resolution and stability study carried out to the process is detailed to determine if the
instrument to be used in the measurements (Vernier Caliper) has the adequate resolution, and if the
measurements taken by the appraisers indicate that the process is stable and consistent over time.

Subsequently, the bias studies are presented which allows to determine the proximity of the
measurements to the reference value and therefore how accurate the measurement instrument is and the
reliability of the process measurements, and the GR&R study based on the which evaluates the precision of
the system under the terms of repeatability and reproducibility in relation to the measurements made by the
appraisers and their consistency. Finally, with the information obtained in the analyzes, the relationship
between the variations of the system, the operators and the measuring instrument is established and some
main causes for which these variations occur, and recommendations are presented in order to improve the
process. As a conclusion of the project, it is inferred that the system is not completely acceptable and cannot
be used in some applications, therefore it is necessary to carry out the proposed improvement actions and
monitor the process.
Resolution Analysis

In order to determine if the resolution of the instrument (Vernier Caliper) used to measure the
Lego Part it is appropriate, we proceed to calculate the Required Resolution as shown bellow:

RR = Tolerance / 10 = (0.25 x 2)/10

RR = 0.050 > 0.010

Basis on the result, we can say that the smallest unit of measure of the instrument Vernier Caliper is
0.01mm, this resolution is smaller than the required resolution of 0.05mm, therefore this instrument is
acceptable for the study.
 Caliper Readings
Day 1 2 3 4 5
1 2,50 2,49 2,50 2,51 2,48
2 2,51 2,50 2,51 2,49 2,50
3 2,49 2,48 2,48 2,49 2,47
4 2,49 2,50 2,49 2,50 2,50
5 2,49 2,50 2,48 2,49 2,48
6 2,49 2,48 2,47 2,48 2,49
7 2,47 2,48 2,48 2,49 2,50
8 2,50 2,51 2,50 2,49 2,49
9 2,50 2,48 2,49 2,51 2,48
10 2,50 2,49 2,51 2,49 2,50
11 2,48 2,47 2,48 2,49 2,47
12 2,49 2,50 2,49 2,48 2,49
13 2,51 2,50 2,48 2,49 2,51
14 2,49 2,48 2,47 2,48 2,49
15 2,47 2,48 2,48 2,49 2,50
16 2,50 2,51 2,50 2,49 2,49
17 2,51 2,50 2,48 2,49 2,51
18 2,49 2,48 2,47 2,48 2,49
19 2,48 2,48 2,48 2,49 2,50
20 2,49 2,49 2,50 2,49 2,49

Stability data
 Stability results
and analysis:

•After graphing the data, it can be inferred that the

Measurement System is Stable because in the
charts there are not out of control conditions (there
are no obvious special cause effects visible). So,
the quality team can continue with the
measurement system analysis, and the data can
be used for further analysis.
•In case the system had out of control points,
these would be shown in red within the graphs.
 READING # VALUE BIAS
1 2.47 0
2 2.45 -0.02
3 2.46 -0.01
4 2.47 0
5 2.46 -0.01
6 2.48 0.01
7 2.49 0.02

Bias Data
8 2.47 0
9 2.48 0.01
10 2.47 0
11 2.46 -0.01
12 2.48 0.01
13 2.47 0
14 2.47 0
15 2.48 0.01
16 2.49 0.02
17 2.46 -0.01
18 2.47 0
19 2.46 -0.01
20 2.45 -0.02
Bias study results and analysis
1) No abnormalities on the histogram.
2) Zero lies inside the 95% confidence
interval. bias is acceptable (statistically
zero) and therefore we can continue with
the MSA study

3) The bias p-value > 0.05, we accept the

null hypothesis. 

Bias is acceptable (statistically zero) 

 GRR Study data
Part Number Appraiser Trial Value Part Number Appraiser Trial Value
1 A 1 2.5 1 A 2 2.5
2 A 1 2.47 2 A 2 2.48
3 A 1 2.27 3 A 2 2.26
4 A 1 2.44 4 A 2 2.41
5 A 1 2.44 5 A 2 2.42
6 A 1 2.45 6 A 2 2.43
7 A 1 2.74 7 A 2 2.73
8 A 1 2.45 8 A 2 2.43
9 A 1 2.59 9 A 2 2.57
10 A 1 2.55 10 A 2 2.56
1 B 1 2.49 1 B 2 2.47
2 B 1 2.46 2 B 2 2.44
3 B 1 2.26 3 B 2 2.24
4 B 1 2.42 4 B 2 2.37
5 B 1 2.41 5 B 2 2.38
6 B 1 2.41 6 B 2 2.38
7 B 1 2.7 7 B 2 2.7
8 B 1 2.43 8 B 2 2.42
9 B 1 2.56 9 B 2 2.53
10 B 1 2.54 10 B 2 2.53
GRR numerical results and analysis
 GRR numerical results and analysis
• The %Study Variation equals to 19.26%, which means that the study is
marginally acceptable, and it depends on application, because the
percentage falls between 10-30% 
• The p-value found for part and operator equals 0.905, which is > 0.05,
therefore, p-value is not significant, and the interaction is not significant.
• Number of Distinct Categories = 7, which means that the measurement
system can distinguish between parts and the resolution is acceptable.
• The precision of the measurement system is equal to 0.1424.
• The percentage of the Total Variation consumed by the measurement
system is 19.26%
GRR Graphical
results and
Analysis
 GRR Graphical results and Analysis
Range Chart – Most of the points fall within the control
limits, operator B has some higher measurements
values. Both operators A and B have one measurement on
the lower control limit line.
Average Chart – More than half of the points are outside of
the control limits, which indicates that the system
resolution is acceptable.
Run Chart - The measurements for each part are close
together and there are no apparent outliers, which
indicates that part to part variation is larger than within
part variation (or repeatability).
Value by Appraiser Chart – The horizontal line across
operators is not very straight, which indicates that the
mean measurements for each operator are not very
similar.  •
Part*Appraiser Interaction Chart – The line for operator B
is consistently lower than the line for operator A, which is
consistently higher than the line for operator B. This
indicates that an operator adds bias to the measurement
by consistently measuring high or low.
Reproducibility is the source of variation that most contributed
to the measurement system. 
Possible causes for poor reproducibility might be related to the
average difference when measuring types of parts A,
B, C, when using instruments A, B, C, between appraisers A,
B, C, and others. 
Causes for poor reproducibility (or poor repeatability) affecting
the source of variation can be related to the SWIPE elements: 
• Standard, 
• Work Piece (part/samples), 
• Instrument (or gauge), 
• Person (Appraiser/Operator) and Procedures, 
Environment. 
These main categories of causes can be displaced on an
Ishkawa or Fishbone diagram, where all the causes related to
each category can be found and organized.
 Considering the bias data and studies performed, the
measurement system is accurate and acceptable. Regarding
the GRR study, the system is considered marginally
acceptable, and since is not completely acceptable, we would
Conclusions and not approve this study for use in production. Some
Recommendation
improvements on the measurement system could be a review
s
of the equipment calibration and maintenance documents,
prior review of the measuring instrument, review of the data
collection method, prior evaluation of the experience and skills
of each operator, previous inspection of the parts and qualified
training to the operators. 
References
Chrysler Group LLC. (2010). Measurement System Analysis. 43-44. Fourth Edition. 27-95

García, V. (2021). Resolution and Stability. Slides 16-17. Conestoga College.

2-Resolution and Stability - QUAL8015-21F-Sec4-Measurement System and Process E (desire2learn.com)

García, V. (2021). 1-Bias and Linearity. Slides 10-19. Conestoga College.

2-Bias and Linearity - QUAL8015-21F-Sec4-Measurement System and Process E (desire2learn.com)

García, V. (2021). 2-Variable GRR ANOVA Method. Slides 7-36. Conestoga College.
2-Variable GRR ANOVA Method - QUAL8015-21F-Sec4-Measurement System and Process E (desire2learn.
com)