Vol. 27 No. 1 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society...

Vol. 27 No. 1 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality March 2013

WWEE HOPEHOPE TOTO SEESEE YOUYOU ATAT THETHE 20132013 WWORLDORLD CCONFERENCEONFERENCE ONON

QQUALITYUALITY ANDAND IIMPROVEMENTMPROVEMENT..

The Standard is published quarterly by the Measurement Quality Division of ASQ; deadlines are February 15, May 15, August 15 and November 15. Text infor-mation intended for publication can be sent via electronic mail as an attachment in MS Word format (Times New Roman, 12 pt). Use single spacing between sen-tences. Graphics/illustrations must be sent as a separate attachment, in jpg format. Photographs of MQD activities are always welcome. Publication of articles, prod-uct 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 countries are reserved. Website information: MQD’s homepage can be found at http://www.asq.org/measure. © 2013 ASQ, MQD. All rights reserved.

The Standard Vol 27, No. 1, March 2013

Managing Editor and Publisher Jay L. Bucher, Ph.D., ASQ-CCT 6700 Royal View Dr. De Forest, WI 53532-2775 Voice: 608-846-6968 Email: [email protected]

Advertising Submit your draft copy to Jay Bucher, with a request for a quotation. Indicate size desired. Since The Standard is published ‘in-house’ the requester must submit a photo or graphic of their logo, if applicable. The following rates apply:

Business card size ............................ $100 1/8 page ........................................... $150 1/4 page ............................................ $200 1/3 page ............................................ $250 ½ page ............................................. $300 Full page .......................................... $550

Advertisements will be accepted on a ‘per issue’ basis only; no long-term contracts will be available at present. Advertising must be clearly distinguished as an ad. Ads must be related to measurement quality, quality of measurement, or a related quality field. Ads must not imply endorsement by the Measure-ment Quality Division or ASQ.

Letters to the Editor The Standard welcomes letters from mem-bers and subscribers. Letters should clearly state whether the author is expressing opin-ion or presenting facts with supporting infor-mation. Commendation, encouragement, constructive critique, suggestions, and alter-native approaches are accepted. If the con-tent is more than 200 words, we may delete portions to hold that limit. We reserve the right to edit letters and papers. Information for Authors The Standard publishes papers on the qual-ity of measurements and the measurement of quality at all levels ranging from relatively simple tutorial material to state-of-the-art. Papers published in The Standard are not referred in the usual sense, except to ascer-tain that facts are correctly stated and to as-sure that opinion and fact are clearly distin-guished one from another. The Editor re-serves the right to edit any paper. Please sin-gle space after sentences and use Times New Roman, 12 pt font.

TABLE OF CONTENTS The Chair’s Corner ......................................................................... 3 Understanding Directional Coupler Terms ..................................... 4 MQD Officers and Committee Chairs ............................................ 7 Measure For Measure Columns (2009) .......................................... 8

FROM THE DESK OF THE EDITOR/PUBLISHER/CHAIR

To continue one of the themes from the past four issues of The Standard, we are again reprinting six articles that were printed in the Measure For Measure col-umn of Quality Progress during the year 2009. They are attached at the back of this edition of The Standard, in their original format as published in the Measure For Measure column in QP. They include the bios of the authors at that time, and also advertisements from those pages. In a way, it might be thought to be a journey through time as seen through the ‘eye’ of the Measure For Measure column. I hope each of you enjoys it as much as I have putting it together. This issue starts out 2013 as the ninth year that we have been publishing electronically. So far, we have been able to meet our goals of posting each issue in a timely manner, and having 4 issues each and every calendar year. Thanks go out to the individuals who help make that possible - namely the contributors, authors and re-viewers who send in their articles to help keep the wheels turning. This issue will not have an edition of The Learning Curve, but we hope that Phil can contribute something in the coming year. MSC 2013 will be soon upon us, and we hope any that can attend will stop by to say hello. Dilip has more information in his column. Hope everyone is safe and warm, and enjoying 2013.

MQD Page 3

Vol. 27, No. 1 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality March 2013

The Chair’s Corner Dilip Shah, ASQ Fellow, CCT, CQA, CQE

Happy Belated New Year! As I write this column, we are already in the middle of February 2013. It seems like time goes faster as I grow older. Or, per-haps I am busier than ever and do not notice the passage of time. Or, perhaps it is both. 2012 was a busy year for the MQD officers and 2013 promises to be as busy. I would like to welcome Sharry Masarek from Transcat as our new Audit Chair. Sharry and her audit committee provide a valuable second set of eyes to ensure transparency of the Division finances when they conduct an annual finan-cial audit of MQD. We are always looking to add more volunteers to our leader-ship team so we can provide more value to our membership and community. Please contact any of the leadership team members if you want to volunteer in any capacity.

This year, we will again participate in the 2013 Measurement Science Conference (MSC) as co-sponsors. We will have four MQD sponsored workshops (CCT Exam preparation workshop and Meas-urement Uncertainty Workshop by Dilip Shah, Paperless Records and Traceability to SI by Jay Bucher). Jay Bucher will also present a session titled “Slaying your Dragons – Educating the ISO and FDA Audi-tor/Inspector About Calibration, Traceability and Uncertainty”. The Measurement Science Conference has a good variety of tutorials and session to benefit many areas of metrology and quality. ASQ will also administer the ASQ CCT Exam on Wednesday, March 20, 2013 for those who want to take the exam after the refresher workshop. After we are finished with the MSC, we turn around and get ready for ASQ’s World Conference on Quality and Improvement in Indianapolis, IN. MQD will present a session by Jay Bucher. As always, we will have an MQD booth in Exhibit area (Booth# 232). If you are attending the WCQI in Indianapo-lis, please stop by our booth and say “hi”. We are always glad to see you and chat with you about meas-urement issues or any other feedback you may have for us. We will have a nice MQD giveaway for those that visit our booth. MQD volunteers have done a lot community outreach to educate others in the metrology field and those in K-12 school to generate interest in science. We provided speakers to ASQ and NCSLI (with whom we have a Memorandum of Understanding) section meetings on subjects such as Measurement Uncertainty and participated in the US Navy, Corona sponsored STEP conference in Riverside, CA last year. Those efforts will continue this year. Most of these meetings are free to members and nonmembers alike and they feature industry recognized speakers. If there is one in your area, it is a good opportunity to get new training or brush up on your knowledge. After the 2013 WCQI ends in Indianapolis, NCSLI is conducting a regional training event in Fort Wayne, IN on May 9-10, 2013. I will conduct a one-day workshop on Measurement Uncertainty at the regional event. So, if you have travelled to Indianapolis for the WCQI, it may be worthwhile to ex-tend your trip and stay over for the 2-day hands-on metrology related training. For details on this re-gional training event, please go to the NCSLI web site (www.ncsli.org). We look forward to seeing you at many of the events where we provide speakers and other sponsorship. Please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Dilip

MQD Page 4


Understanding Directional Coupler Terms. Christopher L. Grachanen

One of the most prolific devices used in microwave applica-tions is often misunderstood when it comes to understanding its specifications and how these specifications reflect performance limitations. I am talking about microwave devices known as direc-tional couplers. Directional couplers are basically devices which have the ability to separate (couple) reflected microwave energy (power in directional coupler’s coupled ports) from incident microwave en-ergy (power in directional coupler’s main port). Directional cou-plers can have one or more coupling ports and are physically design

to operate over a specified range of frequencies as facilitated by their input/output connectors i.e. waveguide, N-Type, APC-3.5mm, etc.

Fig. 1 Typical Directional Coupler Signal Paths - Single Coupled Port

One can envision incident and reflected microwave power in terms of a stone being tossed into a pond and watching the ripples expanding outward (incident microwave power) until they hit an object or shore and then ripple back (reflected microwave power). To continue this analogy, the reflected ripples will collide with the incident ripples which have an impact on the incident ripples amplitudes. This scenario is similar to what happens in microwave applica-tions and is of concern when reflected microwave power exceed predetermine levels. One of the main problems with understanding directional coupler specifications are the terms associate with these specifications. The following are a few important terms associated with directional couplers; COUPLING COEFFICIENT The ratio of incident power in the directional coupler’s main port to reflected power in coupled ports as measured in dB

(Continued on page 5)

MQD Page 5


COUPLING TOLERANCE The allowable variation in reflected power as coupled from the directional coupler’s main port to its coupled ports COUPLING FLATNESS The maximum peak-to-peak variation in a directional coupler’s coupling coefficient over a specified frequency range COUPLING LOSS The reduction in power available to the directional coupler’s main port output due to power coupled to its coupled ports. DIRECTIVITY The difference of power (in db) in the directional couplers’ coupled ports when power is trans-mitted in a forward direction compared to the same power transmitted in the reverse direction It is important to note that directional coupler specifications are qualified when direc-tional coupler ports are terminated by reflection less terminations i.e. terminations which absorb all power, and/or are configured into matching loads facilitating the maximum transfer of power. It is also important to note that when installing or testing coaxial directional couplers, a calibrated torque wrench should be used to tighten connections to recommended torque levels. A working comprehension of direction coupler terms is essential to understanding how they can expect to perform in a microwave application as well as providing the basis for testing them to original manufacturer specifications.

(Continued from page 4)

MQD Page 6


MQD Page 7


Chair, Program Chair Dilip A. Shah E = mc3 Solutions 3359 Styx Hill Road, Medina, Ohio 44256-9755 Voice (330) 328-4400 E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]

Chair-Elect, Certification Chair

Heather A. Wade Calibration Officer, ASQ-CCT NSF International 789 N. Dixboro Road Ann Arbor, MI 48105 Voice (734) 913-5712 E-mail: [email protected]

Treasurer, NCSL International Representative

Christopher L. Grachanen Manager, Houston Metrology Group HP P. O. Box 692000 MS070110 Houston, TX 77269-2000 Voice (281) 518-8486 E-mail: [email protected]

Secretary, Immediate Past Chair, Publica-tions Chair, Newsletter Editor/Publisher, Website Liaison

Jay L. Bucher, Ph.D., ASQ-CCT Bucherview Metrology Services, LLC 6700 Royal View Dr. De Forest, WI 53532-2775 Voice (608) 846-6968 E-mail: [email protected]

Standards Committee Representative

Jay L. Bucher, Ph.D., ASQ-CCT Bucherview Metrology Services, LLC 6700 Royal View Dr. De Forest, WI 53532-2775 Voice (608) 846-6968 E-mail: [email protected]

Examining Chair Duane Allen U. S. Navy P.O. Box 5000, Code MS11 Corona, CA 92878-5000 Voice (909) 273-4783 E-mail: [email protected]

Membership Chair, Voice of the Customer Representative

Elias Monreal Industrial Tool Die & Engineering 4765 S. Overland Dr. Tucson, AZ 85714 Voice (520) 241-0478 E-mail: [email protected]

Audit Committee Chair

Sherry Masarek Transcat 2091 Springdale Rd Ste 3 Cherry Hill, NJ 08003 Voice (856) 489-9453 E-mail: [email protected]

Nominating Chair Craig A. Niemann, CMSgt, USAF

Joe Simmons Scholarship Dilip A. Shah E = mc3 Solutions 3359 Styx Hill Road, Medina, Ohio 44256-9755 Voice (330) 328-4400 E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]

Community Development Administrator Jessie Kasberger ASQ 600 N. Plankinton Avenue Milwaukee, WI 53201 Voice 800-248-1946 ext 7423 E-mail: [email protected]

MEASUREMENT QUALITY DIVISION OFFICERS AND COMMITTEE CHAIRS

QP • www.qualityprogress.com52

MEASURE FOR MEASURE BY DILIP SHAH

In No Uncertain TermsFind the meaning behind key words to get most out of guide

IN DECEMBER 2007, ISO/IEC Guide

99:2007—International vocabulary of

metrology—Basic and general concepts

and associated terms (VIM) was released.

It replaces what is known in the metrology

community as the second edition of the

VIM, making it the equivalent to the third

edition.

ISO/IEC Guide 99:2007 was developed

by a joint committee that was comprised

of representatives of: the International

Bureau of Weights and Measures, the In-

ternational Engineering Consortium, the

International Organization for Standard-

ization (ISO), the International Federa-

tion of Clinical Chemistry and Labora-

tory Medicine, the International Union

of Pure and Applied Chemistry, the

International Union of Pure and Applied

Physics, the International Organization

of Legal Metrology and the International

Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation

(ILAC).

It is worthwhile for those involved in

the test and calibration business to obtain

a copy of this guide.

Defi ning harmonyBecause the guide harmonizes terms for

many different industries, it is important to

take a closer look at all the terms. In this

column, I will examine measurement un-

certainty and metrological (measurement)

traceability. The notes after the defi nitions

clarify several measurement scenarios for

the user and provide guidance:1

1. Measurement uncertainty, uncer-

tainty of measurement, uncertainty:

Non-negative parameter characterizing

the dispersion of the quantity values being

attributed to a measurand, based on the

information used.

Note 1: Measurement uncertainty

includes components arising from system-

atic effects, such as components associated

with corrections and the assigned quantity

values of measurement standards, as well

as the defi nitional uncertainty. Sometimes,

estimated systematic effects are not cor-

rected for. Instead, associated measurement

uncertainty components are incorporated.

Note 2: The parameter may be, for

example, a standard deviation called

standard measurement

uncertainty (or a speci-

fi ed multiple of it), or the

half-width of an interval,

having a stated coverage

probability.

Note 3: Measurement

uncertainty comprises,

in general, many com-

ponents. Some of these

may be evaluated by

type-A evaluation of

measurement uncer-

tainty from the statistical

distribution of the quan-

tity values from a series

of measurements and can be characterized

by standard deviations. The other compo-

nents, which may be evaluated by type-B

evaluation of measurement uncertainty,

can also be characterized by standard

deviations and evaluated from probability

density functions based on experience or

other information.

Note 4: In general, for a given set of

information, it is understood the measure-

ment uncertainty is associated with a stated

quantity value attributed to the measurand.

A modifi cation of this value results in a

modifi cation of the associated uncertainty.

2. Metrological traceability: Prop-

erty of a measurement result whereby

the result can be related to a reference

through a documented, unbroken chain

of calibrations, each contributing to the

measurement uncertainty.

Note 1: For this defi nition, a “refer-

ence” can be a defi nition of a measure-

ment unit through its practical realization,

or a measurement procedure that includes

the measurement unit for a nonordinal

quantity or a measurement standard.

Note 2: Metrological traceability re-

quires an established calibration hierarchy.

Note 3: Specifi cation of the refer-

ence must include the time at which the

reference was used in establishing the

calibration hierarchy, along with any other

relevant metrological information about the

reference, such as when the fi rst calibration

in the calibration hierarchy was performed.

Note 4: For measurements with more

than one input quantity in the measurement

model, each of the input quantity values

should be metrologically traceable, and the

calibration hierarchy involved may form a

branched structure or a network. The effort

involved in establishing metrological trace-

Traceability hierarchy and uncertainty / TABLE 1

Metrological traceability hierarchy

Combined uncertainty

Expanded uncertainty

U (k = 2)

International Bureau of Weights and Measures

0.0025 0.005

National Measurement Laboratory

0.01 0.014

Reference metrology laboratory

0.05 0.06

Working metrology laboratory 0.2 0.23

General calibration 0.5 0.68

Process measurement 1 1.69

January 2009 • QP 53

ability for each input quantity value should

be commensurate with its relative contribu-

tion to the measurement result.

Note 5: Metrological traceability of a

measurement result does not ensure the

measurement uncertainty is adequate for a

given purpose or that there is an absence

of mistakes.

Note 6: A comparison between two

measurement standards may be viewed as

a calibration if the comparison is used to

check and, if necessary, correct the quan-

tity value and measurement uncertainty

attributed to one of the measurement

standards.

Note 7: ILAC considers the elements

for confi rming metrological traceability to

be an unbroken metrological traceability

chain to an international measurement

standard or a national measurement

standard, a documented measurement

uncertainty, a documented measurement

procedure, an accredited technical com-

petence, metrological traceability to the

International System of Units and calibra-

tion intervals.2

Note 8: The abbreviated term “trace-

ability” is sometimes used to mean

metrological traceability, as well as other

concepts, such as sample traceability, doc-

ument traceability, instrument traceability

or material traceability, where the history

(trace) of an item is meant. Therefore,

the full term, metrological traceability, is

preferred if there is any risk of confusion.

Perfect pairThese two defi nitions are important

because of how intertwined they are.

Without documented measurement uncer-

tainty for a measurement parameter, we

do not have metrological traceability. To

estimate measurement uncertainty, docu-

mented calibration and measurement

uncertainty data is required from the

laboratories that calibrated the equipment

to fulfi ll the “unbroken chain of calibra-

tions” requirement.

Laboratories claiming metrological

traceability must have documented, unbro-

ken chains of calibrations, each contribut-

ing to the measurement uncertainty. If

calibration or test laboratories have doubts

about having documented measurement

uncertainty budgets, these defi nitions re-

move those doubts. For verifying metrolog-

ical (measurement) traceability, you must

have measurement uncertainty budgets.

We can illustrate these two defi nitions

graphically in Figure 1 and Table 1. In Fig-

ure 1, each successive level of metrological

hierarchy’s combined measurement uncer-

tainty includes the previous level measure-

ment uncertainty. In Table 1, the measure-

ment uncertainties are combined using the

root sum square method, as outlined in the

guide to uncertainty of measurement.3

Laboratories accredited to ISO 170254

must have documented measurement un-

certainty budgets for each parameter un-

der their scope of accreditation. Because

ISO 17025-accredited laboratories are

assessed by third-party accrediting bodies,

their claims of metrological traceability

are thoroughly verifi ed and validated.

Unaccredited laboratories need to have

measurement uncertainty budgets, along

with documentation available to prove

claims of metrological traceability, along

with measurement uncertainty budgets.

Traditionally, estimating and calculating

measurement uncertainty is one of the

more diffi cult tasks for laboratories prepar-

ing for ISO 17025 accreditation.

Many tools and techniques exist for

estimating measurement uncertainty. A

future column will outline a generic pro-

cess to estimate, calculate and develop a

measurement uncertainty budget. QP

REFERENCES1. ISO/IEC Guide 99:2007—International vocabulary of

metrology—Basic and general concepts and associated terms, International Organization for Standardization, 2007.

2. ILAC P10:2002 ILAC Policy on Traceability of Measure-ment Results, International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation, www.ilac.org/documents/ILAC_P10_2002_ILAC_Policy_on_Traceability_of_Measurement_Result.pdf (case sensitive).

3. ANSI/NCSL Z540.2-1997 U.S. Guide to Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement, American National Stan-dards Institute and National Conference of Standards Laboratories, 2002.

4. ISO/IEC 17025:2005—General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories, Inter-national Organization for Standardization, 2005.

Pyramid of uncertainty hierarchy / FIGURE 1

International Bureau ofWeights and Measures

(0.0025) U = 0.005

National MeasurementLaboratory

(0.01) U = 0.014

Reference metrologylaboratory

(0.05) U = 0.06

Working metrologylaboratory

(0.2) U = 0.23

Generalcalibration

(0.5) U = 0.68

Process measurement(1.0) U = 1.69

U = Uncertainty

DILIP SHAH is president of E = mc3 Solu-tions in Wadsworth, OH. He has more than 30 years of experience in metrol-ogy and applications of quality and statistics in metrology. He is a past chair of ASQ’s Measurement Quality Division and Akron-Canton Section 0810, and is co-author of The Metrology Handbook

(ASQ Quality Press). Shah is an ASQ-certifi ed quality engineer and calibration technician, and a senior member of ASQ.


Measure For Measure BY Dilip Shah

Standard DefinitionGetting to the bottom of measurement uncertainty

In the last edition of this column

(January 2009, p. 52), I emphasized the

importance of documenting measurement

uncertainty to establish metrological

traceability as it is defined in ISO/IEC

Guide 99:2007. In this column, other ISO/

IEC Guide 99:2007 definitions pertain-

ing to measurement uncertainty are

discussed.

Measurement uncertainty is docu-

mented in an uncertainty budget, which

is defined as a statement of measurement

uncertainty, of the components of that

measurement uncertainty, and of their

calculation and combination.

Note: An uncertainty budget should in-

clude the measurement model, estimates

and measurement uncertainties associated

with the quantities in the measurement

model, co-variances, type of applied prob-

ability density functions, degrees of free-

dom, type of evaluation of measurement

uncertainty and any coverage factor.

On Sept. 30, 2008, the International

Organization for Standardization (ISO)

published ISO/IEC Guide 98-3:2008—

Guide to expression of uncertainty in

measurement, which replaced ISO/IEC

Guide 98:1995 (the U.S. equivalent guide

is ANSI/NCSL Z540-2-1997).

To develop a measurement uncertainty

budget, all known error sources contribut-

ing to the measurement process should

be evaluated and estimated as either Type

A or Type B evaluations of measurement

uncertainty.

Type A evaluation is defined as the

evaluation of a component of measure-

ment uncertainty by a statistical analysis

of measured quantity values obtained

under defined measurement conditions.

Note 1: For various types of mea-

surement conditions, see repeatability

condition of measurement, intermediate

precision condition of measurement and

reproducibility condition of measure-

ment.

Note 2: For information about statisti-

cal analysis, see ISO/IEC Guide 98-3.

Note 3: See also ISO/IEC Guide 98-

3:2008, 2.3.2, ISO 5725, ISO 13528, ISO/TS

21748, ISO 21749.

Type B evaluation is defined as the

evaluation of a component of measure-

ment uncertainty determined by means

other than a Type A evaluation of mea-

surement uncertainty.

This includes evaluation based on

information associated with authoritative

published quantity values, associated with

the quantity value of a certified reference

material, obtained from a calibration

certificate, about drift, obtained from the

accuracy class of a verified measuring in-

strument or obtained from limits deduced

through personal experience.

Note: See also ISO/IEC Guide 98-

3:2008, 2.3.3.

The Type A uncertainty that is obtained

by statistical analysis is expressed as a

standard deviation and is called stan-

dard measurement uncertainty, standard

uncertainty of measurement, standard

uncertainty or measurement uncertainty

expressed as a standard deviation.

Type B uncertainty estimates are also

converted to standard uncertainty esti-

mates by correction factors based on their

estimated probability distributions.

Combined standard measurement

uncertainty (or combined standard un-

certainty) is defined as standard measure-

ment uncertainty that is obtained using

the individual standard measurement

uncertainties associated with the input

quantities in a measurement model.

Note: In case of correlations of input

quantities in a measurement model, co-

variances also must be taken into account

when calculating the combined standard

measurement uncertainty; see also ISO/

IEC Guide 98-3:2008, 2.3.4.

When Type A and B uncertainty

estimates are quantified and expressed as

standard uncertainty, they are normally

combined via the root sum square (RSS)

The uncertainty budget needs to be evaluated whenever a change in the process occurs.

Coverage factors for reporting expanded measurement uncertainty / Table 1

Confidence interval k coverage factor68.26% 1.000

90% 1.64595% 1.960

95.45% 2.00099% 2.576

99.73% 3.000

March 2009 • QP 53

method to derive the combined uncertainty.

The combined uncertainty is denoted by uc.

Expanded measurement uncertainty

(or expanded uncertainty) is defined as

the product of a combined standard mea-

surement uncertainty and a factor larger

than one.

Note 1: The factor depends on the type

of probability distribution of the output

quantity in a measurement model and on

the selected coverage probability.

Note 2: The term factor in this defini-

tion refers to a coverage factor.

Note 3: Expanded measurement uncer-

tainty is referred to as “overall uncer-

tainty” in paragraph 5 of Recommendation

INC-1 (1980) and as “uncertainty” in IEC

documents.

The combined uncertainty is normally

multiplied by a coverage factor (k) to

report the expanded measurement uncer-

tainty at approximately 95% confidence

interval level (k = 2). The expanded uncer-

tainty is denoted by:

Table 1 shows the values for the

coverage factors for reporting expanded

measurement uncertainty at different

confidence interval levels.

Therefore, when a traceable mea-

surement x is made, it is reported with

its associated expanded measurement

uncertainty as:

x ± Uk=2

This means that the measurement x

can be anywhere within the interval of:

x + Uk=2

and x – Uk=2

at 95.45% confidence interval.

The error associated with this measure-

ment is the uncertainty, Uk=2

, stated at

95.45% confidence interval. This is shown

graphically in Figure 1.

The documented uncertainty budget

is maintained for future reference when

making measurements using the same

measurement process (equipment, envi-

ronment, operator and any other associ-

ated components). The uncertainty budget

is a live document and needs to be evalu-

ated whenever a change in the process

occurs. Typical triggers for evaluation are:

• Whenequipmentiscalibrated.

• Whenequipmentisreplacedbyanother

instrument.

• Whentheoperatingenvironmentis

changed.

• Whenoperatorinteractionischanged.

• Whenanysignificantchangeinthe

process is made.

The general process of documenting

measurement uncertainty with its as-

sociated definitions was outlined in this

column. In a future column, the process

of quantifying Type A and B uncertainties

and developing an uncertainty budget will

be discussed in detail using a measure-

ment example. QP

BIBlIographyamerican National Standards institute, ANSI/NCSL Z540.2-

1997 U.S. Guide to Expression of Uncertainty in Measure-ment.

international Bureau of Weights and Measures, Recom-mendation INC-1 (1980)—Expression of experimental uncertainties.

international Organization for Standardization, ISO/IEC Guide 99: 2007—International vocabulary of metrology—Basic and general concepts and associated terms.

international Organization for Standardization, ISO/IEC Guide 98-3: 2008—Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement.

stIll unCertaIn?If you have questions to ask or answers to offer regarding measurement or metrology, log on to www.qualityprogress.com and post a comment on this article’s page, or e-mail [email protected].

DILIp ShAh is president of E = mc3 Solu-tions in Wadsworth, Oh. he has more than 30 years of experience in metrology and applications of quality and statistics in metrology. he is a past chair of ASQ’s Measurement Quality Division and Akron-Canton Section 0810, and is co-author of The Metrology handbook (ASQ

Quality press, 2004). Shah is an ASQ-certified quality engineer and calibration technician, and a senior member of ASQ.

expanded measurement uncertaintyof measurement x / Figure 1

Mea

sure

men

t x

0.13%2.14%

13.6%

34.13% 34.13%

13.6%

2.14%0.13%

Expanded measurement uncertainty:U at k = 1, 2 and 3

68.26%95.46%99.73%

-3S -2S -1S 0 +1S +2S +3S

2

bu

c=√u

c +u

c

2

ucb=√u

cb1

2 +ucb2

2+ .....

uca=√u

ca1

2 +uca2

2+ .....

a

U = k∙uc


Measure For Measure BY Dilip Shah

Balanced BudgetA well-rounded approach to documenting measurement uncertainty

In the last edition of this column

(March 2009, p. 52), I discussed Type-A

and Type-B contributors of measurement

uncertainty and what goes into a measure-

ment budget. In this installment, I will

outline a process for building that budget.

The process follows seven steps:

1. Identify the uncertainty contributors in

the measurement process and classify

the uncertainty as Type A or Type B.1

2. Assign one of the four distribution

types to uncertainty contributors

(normal, rectangular, triangular or U-

shaped).

3. Convert the magnitude of the uncer-

tainty contributor to standard uncer-

tainty (see Table 1).

Typical uncertainty contributors that

should be considered for any measure-

ment process (calibration or test) are:

Resolution of the unit under test

(UUT).2 Resolution is classified as Type B

with a rectangular distribution. To convert

resolution to standard uncertainty, the

smallest division or digit of the instrument

is divided by the square root of 12 if the

information about the way the instrument

resolves itself (how the digit increments

or decrements) is known. If no other

information is available, the resolution is

divided by the square root of three.

The uncertainty stated for the cali-

bration of the standard used to cali-

brate the UUT. This standard is normally

calibrated by an ISO 17025-accredited

laboratory (for traceable calibration) and

is stated as an expanded uncertainty at k

= 2 with a confidence interval of approxi-

mately 95%.

Because you normally would not know

the combined uncertainty of the standard,

it is considered to be Type B. To convert

the expanded uncertainty to standard

uncertainty, it is divided by the k-value

on the uncertainty report. If the k-value is

not provided, the uncertainty reported is

treated as standard uncertainty.

The manufacturer’s specification

for the accuracy of the instrument.

Equipment manufacturers state specifi-

cations in different formats, so the user

has to interpret them correctly to apply

the specifications to their measurement

uncertainty analysis.

The specification or tolerance is treated

as Type-B uncertainty and is normally

assigned a rectangular distribution. To

convert the specification value to standard

uncertainty, divide it by the square root of

three.

Personnel. Many test and calibration

processes involve human interaction that

can influence the test and calibration

results. If the repeatability analysis is per-

formed using statistical analysis, it is con-

sidered Type-A uncertainty and is normally

treated as Gaussian (normal) distribution.

If the repeatability or reproducibility

data is reported from published literature

with no supporting data, it should be

considered as Type-B uncertainty with a

rectangular distribution.3 The variation in

method is normally captured in the repeat-

ability data. In some cases, however, a

separate analysis is required.

The environmental factors that

have an impact on the measurement.

Normally, one thinks of temperature

(dimensional measurement) and relative

humidity. But there can be other factors,

including vibration (mass measurement),

cleanliness (particle count), altitude and

acceleration due to gravity (mass mea-

surement).

The temperature measurements are

normally cyclical in nature, and the dis-

tribution attribute of the cyclical pattern

is U-shaped. The U-shaped distribution

is converted to standard uncertainty by

dividing the magnitude of the contributor

by the square root of 2.

Distribution Divide by Divisor 1/divisor Normal 1 1.0000 1.0000 Rectangular Square root of 3 1.7321 0.5774 Triangular Square root of 6 2.4495 0.4082 U-shaped Square root of 2 1.4142 0.7071 Resolution Square root of 12 3.4641 0.2887

Converting to standard uncertainty / Table 1

Measured responseHow does this process of building a budget stack up to your experiences? Is there more to add, or could it be simplified? Let us know by e-mailing your comments to [email protected].

May 2009 • QP 55

If there isn’t sufficient information to

assign a distribution to an uncertainty con-

tributor, ISO Guide 98:2008 recommends

that you assign the most conservative

distribution (rectangular distribution).4

Continuing the seven steps of the

process:

4. Document your findings in an uncer-

tainty budget.

5. Combine uncertainty using the root

sum square method.

6. Assign the appropriate k-factor multi-

plier to combined uncertainty to report

expanded uncertainty.

7. Document in an uncertainty report with

the appropriate information.

It is good practice to document the

uncertainty budgets using a spreadsheet

template, which should be validated for

calculations. One such example is shown

in Figure 1. All spreadsheet cells with

formulas should be protected from ac-

cidental alteration.

Measurement uncertainty budgets

are estimates of the measurement error

in a process and vary for the same piece

of equipment or a process, depending

on the laboratory’s operating environ-

ment. Thus, it is not a good idea to adopt

someone else’s budget, as it may not be a

true estimate of the user’s measurement

error. QP

referenCes1. international Organization for Standardization, ISO/IEC

Guide 99: 2007—International vocabulary of metrology—Basic and general concepts and associated terms.

2. philip Stein, “all You Ever Wanted to Know about Resolu-tion,” Quality Progress, July 2001.

3. philip Stein, “how to Write an Uncertainty Budget,” Quality Progress, July 2003.

4. international Organization for Standardization, ISO/IEC Guide 98-3: 2008—Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement.

DIlIP Shah is president of E = mc3 Solutions in Wadsworth, Oh. he has more than 30 years of experience in metrology and applications of quality and statistics in metrology. he is a past chair of aSQ’s Measurement Quality Division and akron-Canton Section 0810, and is co-author of The Metrology handbook (aSQ Quality

Press, 2004). Shah is an aSQ-certified quality engineer and calibration technician, and a senior member of aSQ.

Measurement uncertainty budget / FIgURe 1

Company Just Mike It!Parameter Dimensional—length

Nominal or range 0–1 inchPrimary equipment 0–1" micrometer

Personnel I.M.A. MetrologistDate 10-Mar-09

Standards used gage blockType-A uncertainty

Uncertainty description Uncertainty DistributionDegrees of freedom

DivisorStandard

uncertaintyVariance

Micrometer repeatability (0.9000” gage block)

28.2e-6 normal 9 1 28.2e-6 7.96e-10

Combined Type-A uncertainty 28.2e-6 796.0e-12Type-B uncertainty

Uncertainty description Uncertainty DistributionDegrees of freedom

DivisorStandard

uncertaintyVariance

gage block specification: +/- 0.000003 in. Coefficient of thermal expansion of gage block: 0.000006 in/in/C

3.0e-6 Rectangular Infinite 1.7321 1.73e-06 3.00e-12

10.8e-6 U-shaped Infinite 1.4142 7.64e-06 5.83e-11

Micrometer resolution 10.0e-6 Resolution Infinite 3.4641 2.89e-06 8.33e-12gage block uncertainty 1.00e-06 u (k = 2) Infinite 2 5.00e-07 2.50e-13

Combined Type-B uncertainty 8.4e-6 69.9e-12Combined uncertainty results Distribution Divide by Divisor 1/divisor

Type-A standard uncertainty 28.2e-6 Rectangular Square root of 3 1.7321 0.5774Type-A variance 796.0e-12 Triangular Square root of 6 2.4495 0.4082

U-shaped Square root of 2 1.4142 0.7071Type-B standard uncertainty 8.4e-6 Resolution Square root of 12 3.4641 0.2887

Type-B variance 69.9e-12Coverage factor (k)

Confidence level

1.00 68.27Type-AB (combined)

standard uncertainty29.4e-6 1.65 90.00

Type-AB (combined) variance 865.9e-12 1.65 90.002.00 95.45

effective degrees of freedom 10.65 2.58 99.00Coverage factor (k) 2 3.00 99.73

expanded uncertainty 5.853e-05Comments (It is important to document all supporting information here)

Note: The laboratory temperature environment is 20 degrees Celsius +/- 2 degrees Celsius Micrometer repeatability study

1 0.900072 0.900063 0.900054 0.900015 0.900036 0.900027 0.900028 0.900099 0.90001

10 0.90006Sum 9.000419

Mean 0.900042Standard deviation 0.000028

Degrees of freedom 9


Measure For Measure BY JaY L. Bucher

Be HonestAn ethical approach is the only way to go

In my youth (and at this point in my life,

youth is any age up to and including 30), my

father used to ask me, “Did you make any

money today?” I heard him ask my older

brother and sister the same question many

times, but I didn’t truly understand what he

meant. What I did know was that he wasn’t

talking about my hourly wage.

I eventually came to understand his

meaning, and during my many years as

a supervisor and manager of calibration

laboratories and departments, I’ve asked

that question many times. I usually get the

proverbial “deer in the headlights” stare

and then need to explain what I mean.

Basically, it comes down to this: Did

you make nothing but honest measure-

ments, perform continuous process

improvements, make no false statements,

train somebody how to do a new job or

correct mistakes from old jobs, or provide

quality customer service to those who

asked for it or needed it?

That’s quite a mouthful, and I even left

out many areas that could conceivably

make money for a calibration department

or an organization in general. But here’s

the gist of what my father meant: Did you

do the very best you could with the time

you had?

Ethics in actionI realized early in my career in metrics and

metrology that doing the best I could meant

bringing a sense of honesty and integrity to

my work. In truth, they are the foundations

for making a quality measurement.

In today’s “I want it now” environment,

ethics come in many shades of gray instead

of just black and white. But, unlike many

aspects of our lives—work, play, family

and community—much of what is done in

the metrology and calibration community

is black and white. The test instrument is

either in tolerance or it is not. You recorded

the data accurately, or you falsified it so

you wouldn’t need to do extra work.

The bottom line in making a quality

measurement and in ethics in general is

this: Everyone should be responsible and

held accountable for his or her actions. It

should not matter whether you’re a judge,

doctor, lawyer, accountant, firefighter, po-

lice officer or garbage collector. Either you

do the very best you can each and every

day, or you don’t. And if you don’t, then

you should be held accountable for your

actions—or inactions, as the case may be.

In the past year that I have been conduct-

ing quality calibration program and paper-

less records workshops, I’ve asked scores

of attendees the same question: Did you

learn anything new that you can apply to

your calibration program where you work?

So far, I haven’t received a negative answer.

The attendees have ranged in knowl-

edge from a young lady with 60 days in the

field to a gentleman with 60 years experi-

ence. I believe that at each of those work-

shops, I helped the calibration community

make money. That has been my primary

goal: improving the calibration programs of

biotech and pharmaceutical companies.

July 2009 • QP 53

The other side of the coin is that the

quality field is not comprised solely of

responsible and accountable people. Be-

cause of liars, cheats and thieves, compli-

ance requirements and federal regulations

are in place to keep the dishonest people

in check and to make sure the honest

people stay that way.

Honor systemIn the tight fiscal environment most orga-

nizations foster—squeezed all the more

by the current state of the economy—they

cannot afford to have an extra set of eyes

watching everyone do everything. Relying

on the honesty and integrity of person-

nel has been a benchmark of successful

organizations and will continue to be in

the future.

This isn’t a revolutionary stance. Every

person I’ve talked to about the impor-

tance of telling the truth and getting back

to the basics when it comes to ethical

conduct has been in agreement. In August

2008, while I was attending the National

Conference of Standards Laboratories In-

ternational Workshop and Symposium in

Orlando, FL, I was honored to have a dis-

cussion with a few individuals who were

of the same mind as me on this subject.

While discussing ethics, a colleague

of mine, Deborah Watling, wrote down a

quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson and gave

it to me: “The greatest homage we can pay

truth is to use it.”1 We had been discussing

“The Last Lecture,” which the late Profes-

sor Randy Pausch delivered at Carnegie

Mellon University on Sept. 18, 2007.

Both of us had watched this remark-

able presentation and also were aware of

the book Pausch wrote before he died. In

one part of the book, Pausch instructs us

to “live your life by three words: Tell the

truth.” And then, “Add three more if you

dare: all the time.”2 No matter what I write, I

could never best his summation. If only we

could all live our lives by those six words.

What to do?Honesty is the best policy. What goes

around comes around. Everyone has heard

these sayings. Why is that? It’s because

they are true. Honesty has always been

the best policy in business dealings, in

our work environment and in everything

we do as human beings. But not everyone

subscribes to that mantra.

What can you and I do to change

the situation? The old saying that every

journey starts with the first step is very ap-

plicable to this state of affairs. Each of us

must step up to the plate and tell the truth

all the time. If we do, others will see the

results and start doing the same thing.

Call it a grass-roots effort, the right

thing to do, an epiphany or anything you

desire. But just do it. Start with your fam-

ily, community and work environment.

The only way we can get this world back

on the right course is to take responsibil-

ity for our actions by telling the truth,

accepting the consequences and spreading

the word. I’ve done my part, now it’s your

turn to do yours.

Ethics, honesty and integrity—are they

just words on the printed page, or can

they be the foundation on which we build

our lives, relationships and businesses? If

each of us does his or her small part, the

results could be amazing.

We are pioneers making our way across

this final frontier, and we must be vigilant

to ensure the bad element doesn’t get the

upper hand. Stand up to the liars, cheats

and thieves. The truth is not always easy

to say, believe or accept, but no matter

how you cut it, it is still the truth.

When I was younger, I was told that

when you tell the truth, you never need to

remember what you said. It made sense

then, and it makes sense now. If we don’t

start to tell the truth, we will never find

the time to start. If we do, the horizon on

that final frontier will not appear to be

quite so far away.

What does this have to do with a quality

measurement or making money for your

company? In the big picture, the lack of

ethics that leads to shoddy measurement

practices could be the difference between

good product and bad product. It could be

the difference between a great reputation

and going out of business because your

company fails audits and inspections. And,

in the worst case scenario, it could result

in the loss of life.

It’s up to each of us, then, to come up

with an answer to the question, “Did you

make any money today?” Or, even better,

“Did you make a difference today?” QP

RefeRences1. QuotationsBook, http://quotationsbook.com/quote/39822.2. randy Pausch, The Last Lecture, hyperion, 2008.

honesty and integrity are the foundations for making a quality measurement.

JAY L. BUCHER is president of Bucher-view Metrology Services in De Forest, WI. He is editor and coauthor of The Metrology handbook and author of The Quality calibration handbook, Paperless records and ethics—The Final Frontier. He is a senior member of ASQ, the chair of the Measurement

Quality Division and a certified calibration technician.

tell the tRuthHave you faced a difficult ethical dilemma while on the job? Tell us your story by e-mailing [email protected]. And for more Measure for Measure columns, visit www.qualityprogress.com.


Measure For Measure BY Christopher L. GraChanen and terrY L. MCGee

Conscientious CalibrationsMonitoring your measurements is good for the environment

Since the 1990s, thousands of com-

panies and organizations throughout the

world have been certified to standards

published by the International Organiza-

tion for Standardization (ISO). Some of

the compelling reasons why companies

get certified include increasing quality,

reducing costs, increasing efficiencies and

complying with customer mandates.

By and large, the type of certifica-

tion an organization pursues reflects the

activities and services it provides. An

organization’s certification may be generic

in nature, covering a broad range of busi-

ness activities, or it may be very specific,

focusing on a particular activity, such as

providing a testing service that requires

regulatory compliance.

In search of ISOThe ISO 9000 series are the standards

of choice for organizations looking for

accreditation. The ISO 9000 family covers

quality management systems and includes

ISO 9001:2008 Quality management sys-

tems—Requirements and ISO 9004:2000

Quality management systems—Guide-

lines for performance improvements.

A company or organization can publicly

state it is ISO 9001 certified if it has been

audited and certified by an independent

accredited assessing body recognized

by industry as having authority to grant

certification.

It must be noted that certification

to an ISO standard does not guarantee

non-defective products or elimination of

substandard service. Instead, it ensures

industry-accepted processes and practices

are being applied and evidence of compli-

ance is deemed applicable and sufficient.

Section 7.6 of ISO 9001, “Control of Mea-

suring and Monitoring Devices,” addresses

inspection, measurement and test equip-

ment (IM&TE) calibration requirements to

help ensure an organization’s measurement

capability is consistent with monitoring and

measurement requirements. It also provides

evidence of product conformity.

Section 7.6 goes on to state that to

ensure valid results, it is necessary to:

• Calibrateorverifythedevicesatspeci-

fied intervals or prior to use.

• Calibratedevicestonationalorinterna-

tional standards.

• Adjustorreadjustdevicesasnecessary.

• Identifydevicestodeterminecalibra-

tion status.

• Safeguarddevicesfromimproper

adjustments.

• Protectdevicesfromdamageanddete-

rioration.

The standard also says “the validity

of prior results must be assessed and

recorded if the device is found to not

conform to requirements. Records of the

calibration and verification results must

be maintained.”1

Greening calibrationIt is no wonder that when the question aris-

es as to why an organization needs to have

its IM&TE calibrated, the most common

response involves ISO 9001 compliance.

But, recently, we became aware of

an ISO published standard our company

was certified to that contains calibration

requirements for monitoring and measure-

ment equipment and that shares many char-

acteristics with ISO 9001—ISO 14001:2004

Environmental Management Systems—

Requirements with guidance for use.

ISO 14001 helps an organization identify

the environmental impact of activities,

products or services; continually improve

its environmental performance; and

implement a systematic approach to set

andachieveenvironmentalobjectives.2

As it turns out, ISO 14001 certification is

an important part of our company’s green

strategies and initiatives.

But what is required of a company or or-

ganization to be ISO 14001 certified? Essen-

tially, it requires an environmentally friendly

policy to be in place with assurance that this

policy is fully supported by senior manage-

ment and abided by the rank and file.

What is requiredIn our efforts to learn more about ISO

14001, we quickly became aware that a le-

gal copy of an ISO published standard can

set you back $100 or more. Not wanting to

pony up that kind of dough, we continued

our search until we came across a detailed

preview of ISO 14001, in which we learned

that Section 4.5, “Checking Require-

ments,” addresses IM&TE requirements as

follows:3

4.5.1 Establish monitoring and mea-

surement capabilities.

• Establishprocedurestomonitorand

measure the operational characteristics

that could have a significant impact on

the environment.

• Implementyourorganization’senvi-

ronmental monitoring and measuring

procedures.

• Maintainyourorganization’senvi-


procedures.

• Usecalibratedorverifiedenvironmental

monitoring and measuring equipment.

• Maintainyourorganization’senvi-


equipment.

September 2009 • QP 49

• Keeparecordofyourenvironmental

monitoring and measuring activities.

The fourth bullet of Section 4.5.1 clear-

ly specifies that environmental monitoring

and measurement equipment shall be cali-

brated or verified. Similar to the reasoning

behind the calibration requirements of

Section 7.6 of ISO 9001, Section 4.5.1 of

ISO 14001 helps to ensure the validity and

acceptance of measurement results.

We made it a point to share this infor-

mation with other calibration practitioners

within our group who quickly surmised

another logical discussion point to better

answer an age-old customer question:

Why do I need to get my IM&TE calibrat-

ed? Because it’s good for the planet. QP

RefeRenceS1. international organization for standardization, ISO

9001:2008 Quality management systems—Requirements.2. international organization for standardization, “iso 14000

essentials,” www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/management_standards/iso_9000_iso_14000/iso_14000_essentials.htm.

3. praxiom research Group, “iso 14001:2004 environmental Management standard in plain english,” http://praxiom.com/iso-14001-2004.htm.

Why do i need to get my equipment calibrated? Because it’s good for the planet.

ChRIStOpheR L. GRaChanen is a master engineer and operations manager at hewlett-packard Co. in houston. he earned a master’s degree in business administration from Regis University in Denver. Grachanen is a co-author of the Metrology handbook (aSQ Quality

press), a senior member of aSQ, an aSQ-certified calibration technician and the Measurement Quality Division Certified Calibration technician chairman.

teRRy L. MCGee is a metrology engineer at hewlett-packard Co. he earned an associate’s degree in electronics engineering technology from the Denver Institute of technol-ogy. McGee is a senior member of aSQ and an aSQ-certified calibration technician.

GReen LiGhtGo ahead and let the QP community know what your organization is doing to be environmentally responsible by e-mailing [email protected].


Measure For Measure BY Christopher L. GraChanen

High Risk, No RewardReducing calibration costs could be an expensive mistake

The Troubled economic environment

has caused many companies to reexamine

their calibration policies and to question

the need for calibration and frequency

of calibration for much of their inspec-

tion, measurement and test equipment

(IM&TE). This is often the direct result

of mandates from senior management to

reduce operating expenses.

Nondiscretionary expenses—in terms

of required head count, occupancy and

raw materials—are quickly reduced to

levels of absolute necessity to achieve

the biggest cost savings. These reduc-

tions are frequently laid out as marching

orders delivered by senior management,

which leaves little room for exceptions or

alterations.

For frontline managers further pres-

sured to reduce operating expenses, this

generally leaves only a few possible areas

available for additional cost reductions:

employee incentives, capital acquisitions

or upgrades, and services (internal and

external).

The first two areas are typically frozen

by a company’s finance group after essen-

tial, product-driven expenses have been

optimized. This leaves services as the only

area frontline managers have to make any

real cost-reduction decisions.

Against all oddsFor many technical groups, IM&TE cali-

bration costs account for the lion’s share

of service expenses. As a result, frontline

managers often have no choice but to re-

duce their active IM&TE inventory to the

bare essentials to trim calibration costs.

This is to be expected and makes good

business sense.

Unfortunately, the pressure to further

reduce operating expenses (calibration

costs) may put IM&TE users at odds with

a company’s ISO 9001 requirements, as

well as good laboratory shop practices

based on fundamental metrological

concepts.

Essentially, the ISO 9000 series of

quality standards requires IM&TE to be

calibrated if it is used to help decide a

product’s acceptability (conformance to

applicable specification criteria). IM&TE

users may want to deactivate or change

the active calibration status of an IM&TE

piece to no calibration required (NCR) to

avoid calibration costs if they still want to

use it for what they consider to be nones-

sential, non-critical measurements.

November 2009 • QP 45

Essential argumentsDetermining product-essential measure-

ments is subject to wide interpretation

for measurements that are not obviously

used to evaluate a product’s functionality,

quality and performance. To illustrate,

we’ll look at a case involving a product

prototype powered by a DC power supply

whose output is monitored by a cali-

brated, handheld DC digital multimeter

(DMM).

On the surface, you could argue the

power supply is only a source and does

not need to be calibrated, because its out-

put is set up and monitored by the DMM.

Upon closer examination, how-

ever, power supply attributes (specifica-

tions)—such as periodic and random

deviation (PARD) and transient re-

sponse—can have an adverse effect on

product performance if they are out of

tolerance. The monitoring DMM cannot

readily detect these DC power supply

attributes and, if found to be out of toler-

ance, their adverse influences on product

performance are unknown.

Another potential sticky situation in-

volves a DC shunt whose initial resistive

value is assumed by users not to change

because it is constructed of solid metal

and may not be subject to excessive wear

or abuse.

This notion may be the case for users

who employ shunts only to determine the

presence of current (go/no go) and may

not be applicable for other users trying

to make accurate current measurements

(all current shunt resistive values change

to some degree over time). Normally,

IM&TE is used by different users for

different applications, and it is a safe bet

that an application’s accuracy require-

ments are not the same as those of other

applications.

Irregular intervalsAnother calibration cost-cutting posture

IM&TE users often propose is increasing

calibration intervals.

At a recent metrology conference, I

learned that many of my calibration col-

leagues have been requested by IM&TE

users to arbitrarily increase calibration in-

tervals to reduce calibration costs during

these tough economic times.

I will not belabor the merits of statisti-

cal vigor used to predict the likelihood of

acceptable IM&TE performance within

a calibration interval period. I will note,

however, that calibration interval changes

that do not reflect analysis of past

performance or other reliability-based

information impose an unnecessary risk

for consumers and producers.

Business decisions based on flawed

measurements that stem from out-of-

tolerance IM&TE can lead to increased

field failures and longer product

development cycles. The costs to the

organization would be substantial, and

in the worst-case scenario, customers

would be put in life-threatening situa-

tions. A company’s calibration-related

measurement risk exposure can be

greatly reduced by adhering to a sound

calibration program based on industry-

accepted best practices.

An ailing economic environment often

requires drastic cost-cutting actions if an

organization is going to remain viable.

Cost savings realized from circumventing

industry-accepted calibration practices

are rarely significant when compared to

the costs of a product recall or inability to

sell product because of the suspension of

ISO accreditation.

Without rigorous root cause analysis,

the contributions of calibration-related

measurement risk to faulty business de-

cisions often go unrecognized. Because

of a lack of information and inadequate

understanding or appreciation of the

ramifications, companies seldom take

into consideration calibration-related

measurement risk exposure when mak-

ing calibration cost-cutting decisions—a

short-sighted approach that costs every-

one in the end. QP

Cost savings from circumventing calibration are rarely significant when compared to the costs of a product recall or suspension of iso accreditation.

Christopher L. GraChanen is a master engineer and operations manager at hewlett-packard Co. in houston. he earned an MBa from regis University in Denver. Grachanen is a co-author of the Metrology hand-book (asQ Quality press), a senior member of asQ, an asQ-certified

calibration technician and the Measurement Quality Division Certified Calibration technician chairman.

CalibraTion CommenTaryIn the midst of the current economic climate, some organizations have reinforced their quality activities, while others have chosen a different direction. What have you experienced? Share your thoughts by e-mailing [email protected].

Mike Buzard Accreditation Officer II American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) Phone: 301.644.3248 ext. 484 Email: [email protected] Web: www.A2LA.org

For Immediate Release: A2LA Becomes Recognized Accreditation Body for U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) LED Lighting Facts and Design Lights Consortium (DLC) Programs January 2, 2013, Frederick, MD - A2LA has been granted recognition by the U.S. Department of Energy, and the Design Lights Consortium, to accredit testing laboratories for the DoE Lighting Facts and Design Lights programs. The LED Lighting Facts program requires testing laboratories to gain accreditation to ISO/IEC 17025 through a recognized Accreditation Body, with a Scope of Accreditation which includes at least IES LM-79 (2008) sections 9, 10, and 12. After the laboratory’s accreditation is granted, they are responsible for applying to the DoE directly for recognition to become a Lighting Facts Testing Laboratory. From the Lighting Facts website:

“LED Lighting Facts is a voluntary pledge program to assure that LED lighting products are represented accurately in the market. Participants pledge to use the LED Lighting Facts label to document the performance of products they manufacture, sell, distribute, or promote. Similar to a nutrition label, the LED Lighting Facts label provides a quick summary of product performance data. By introducing transparency to the lighting supply chain, the label guards against exaggerated claims and helps ensure a satisfactory experience for lighting buyers. Luminaire manufacturers who take the pledge agree to use the label to disclose performance results in five areas—lumens, efficacy, watts, correlated color temperature (CCT), and color rendering index (CRI)—as measured by the industry standard for testing photometric performance, IES LM-79-2008.”

The Design Lights Consortium is a collective of utility providers and energy efficiency experts with the goal of providing incentives to promote and improve LED lighting performance and quality. Typically, products which fall under the Design Lights Consortium’s scope are NOT eligible for certification under the EPA’s ENERGY STAR program – however, there are a number of areas where a product may be eligible for ENERGY STAR certification as well as inclusion on the Design Lights Consortium Qualified Products List (QPL). The DLC, similar to the U.S. EPA ENERGY STAR and DoE Lighting Facts programs, requires laboratories to gain accreditation to ISO/IEC 17025 through a recognized Accreditation Body, and requires the same sections of IES LM-79 to be on the laboratory’s Scope of Accreditation. Lighting manufacturers that wish to have products included on the QPL must have their products tested by an approved laboratory before the product can be considered for use in energy efficiency promotions.

More information about these two programs may be found at their respective websites: http://www.lightingfacts.com/ http://www.designlights.org/index.php “In addition to our recognition as an EPA ENERGY STAR Accreditation Body, these new recognitions allow A2LA to offer additional services to our customers as a ‘one-stop-shop’ for their accreditation needs,” said A2LA President, Pete Unger. “A2LA accredited laboratories may now benefit from our ability to offer accreditations recognized by these three major lighting programs.” All lighting test laboratories are required on a continuing basis to participate and receive “passing” results, in NIST’s MAP (Measurement Assurance Program) Proficiency Testing program in accordance with A2LA General Requirements document R103 in order to gain and maintain accreditation. Applicants may find more information on this Proficiency Testing program by contacting:

Dr. Cameron Miller NIST – Photometry Phone: 301 975 4617 Email: [email protected]

About A2LA The American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) is a nonprofit, non-governmental, public service, membership society. A2LA provides world-class accreditation and training services for testing and calibration laboratories, inspection bodies, proficiency testing providers, reference material producers and product certifiers. Services are available to any type of organization, be it in the private or government sector. A2LA’s principles and values include uncompromising integrity, impartiality, independence and objectivity, credibility, continuous improvement, teamwork, trust and respect for individual dignity. A2LA has been accepting applications for accreditation of solid state lighting testing laboratories since early 2011.

Mike Buzard

Accreditation Officer II

American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA)

Phone: 240.575.7484

Email: [email protected]

Web: www.A2LA.org

For Immediate Release:

A2LA Will Begin Accepting Applications for Accreditation to ISO/IEC 17065 Beginning

March 31st

February 26, 2013, Frederick, MD – A2LA will begin accepting applications for the newly

published standard, ISO/IEC 17065:2012, on March 31, 2013. A2LA is implementing this

aggressive schedule to allow organizations to become accredited to the new standard as quickly

as possible in order to meet any customer or regulatory requirements that may arise.

The International Accreditation Forum (IAF) has required that all Multi-lateral Recognition

Arrangement (MLA) signatories accredit their Product Certification Bodies (currently accredited

to ISO/IEC Guide 65) to ISO/IEC 17065:2012 no later than September 15, 2015. As an IAF

MLA signatory, A2LA will adhere to this deadline.

A2LA also understands that some organizations may be required to maintain their current

accreditations to ISO/IEC Guide 65 to meet similar customer and regulatory requirements until

the mandated transition deadline. As such, A2LA had published an official transition

memorandum (R307 – Transition Memorandum to ISO/IEC 17065) outlining their plans for

transitioning from ISO/IEC Guide 65 to ISO/IEC 17065:2012. This transition was intended to

provide a level of flexibility for all certification bodies interested in accreditation to the new

standard.

Additional documents generated in response to the release of this standard are intended to be

made publicly available by A2LA no later than February 28, 2013. This information can be

found on the A2LA website at www.A2LA.org.

About A2LA

The American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) is a non-profit,

nongovernmental, public service, membership organization dedicated to operating a nationwide,

broad spectrum accreditation system. Accreditation is defined as a formal recognition of

competence that an organization can perform specific functions, tests or calibrations. A2LA

offers training on and accreditation to ISO/IEC 17025, ISO/IEC 17020, ISO Guide 34, ISO/IEC

Guide 65, ISO/IEC 17065, ISO/IEC 17043 and ISO 15189.

5301 Buckeystown Pike, Suite 350 | Frederick, Maryland 21704 | Phone: 301 644 3248 | Fax:

240 454 9449 | www.A2LA.org

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.a2la.org/

http://www.a2la.org/requirements/R307_transition_memo.pdf

http://www.a2la.org/

<= Measurement Quality Division Membership Distribution

Certified Calibration Technician => Certification Distribution

Measurement Quality Division

TO: Measurement Quality Division(MQD) FROM: Elías Monréal DATE: Feb-2013 RE: Membership Chair Report for The Standard Membership: • Membership total: 3,164 • 11th largest division • -1.74 Growth percentage is slightly above national average • Positive Growth potential with Associate members • 33.51 Retention percentage is slightly below national average • Positive Retention potential with Senior members

<= Measurement Quality Division Membership Distribution

Certified Calibration Technician => Certification Distribution

Website: Do not forget to checkout our website: http://asq.org/measure/. It is a great resource for metrology links, viewing past issues of newsletter, how to get involved, and division leadership contact information.

Questions, comments, or concerns? Feel free to contact me at [email protected] or (520) 241-0478. Adíos, Elías Monréal MQD Membership Chair

ITDE 2013 Key to Employment Trip Report

James Blevins and Elías Monreal represented ITDE at the 2013 Key to Employment Symposium. They were on hand promoting STEM(Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) careers to the next generation scientist and engineers. The event served over 500 students and educators and our efforts changed lives!!!

Purpose of the Symposium: To provide students with an opportunity to meet industry professionals; explore technologies; learn about courses of study, skills and educational requirements that will prepare them for college; and connect with colleges, trade schools, and community organizations that provide opportunities for internships and training.

This email is being sent on behalf of NCSL International. To opt out of future emails such as this, please send a

request to [email protected] or call 303-440-3339. NCSL International | 2995 Wilderness Place, Suite 107 | Boulder Colorado 80301

Mid-Western US Region 1130

Regional Training Event, 9 May 2013

Regional Meeting 10 May 2013

Please Join Us! On 9 and 10 May 2013 the NCSLI volunteers from the Mid-Western Region are hosting a Regional Training Event and Regional Meeting. Four one-day tutorials are being offered. The tutorial topics were selected by the Region’s Section Coordinators based on meeting feedback and local desire for the training.

RTE and Meeting Location: Courtyard by Marriott – Fort Wayne Downtown 1150 South Harrison Street Fort Wayne, IN 46802 All individual hotel reservations should be made via telephone by calling 866-704-6163 The hotel will honor a nightly rate of $99 for individuals attending the RTE (9 May) and/or Regional Meeting (10 May).

Regional Training Event information (Register Here)

The cost to attend any one of the tutorials on 9 May is $200 per person.

Tutorials are scheduled from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm (or until end) with lunch and break administered at the instructor’s discretion.

The following classes are being offered:

Course: Root Cause Analysis Speakers’ Name: Mr. Duke Okes - APLOMET/Applied Logical Methods Abstract: A 1-day course consisting of lecture, discussion, examples and practice that will provide attendees with an understanding of how to analyze a system in order to identify the root causes of problems. The course provides a five-step model for problem diagnosis, and how to use many common quality tools for understanding the problem, process and causes.



Learning Objectives: Clarify the differences between physical and system/root causes; Understand how a model improves diagnostic rigor; Communicate minimum tools for decision making Course: ISO/IEC 17025 Overview and 17025 Observation Exercises Speakers’ Name: Mr. Ryan Fischer – Laboratory Accreditation Bureau (L.A.B.) Inc. Abstract: This 1 day tutorial will cover an overview of the requirements of ISO/IEC 17025 as well as reviewing observations from an audit/assessment in a group setting. This tutorial is meant for laboratories familiar with the requirements of ISO/IEC 17025 and those looking for objective evidence needed to meet those requirements of the standard. The group exercises will cover observations from an audit/assessment setting and discussed within a group setting to determine which area(s) of the standard those observations are applicable. Learning Objectives: This 1 day tutorial is targeted for anyone interested in an overview of ISO/IEC 17025 standard and discussion of observation from an audit/assessment. Course: Practical Measurement Uncertainty Workshop Speakers’ Name: Dilip Shah, E=MC3 Solutions Abstract: Please join us for a hands-on measurement uncertainty tutorial. Your workshop leader Dilip Shah shall facilitate this workshop. It will provide an understanding and application of measurement uncertainty for both consumers and suppliers of calibration services. After participating in this workshop, you will be able to understand, calculate and report the measurement uncertainty for a customer. In addition, accredited laboratories shall learn useful techniques to comply with ILAC P14 requirements. Participants will be provided with worksheets to perform the exercise as Dilip facilitates the workshop. Please bring laptop loaded Microsoft Excel or a calculator if possible. Learning Objectives:

1. Understanding the requirement for measurement uncertainty and its relationship to measurement traceability

2. Identifying and selecting the measurement uncertainty contributors for an electrical and dimensional parameter.

3. Assigning the appropriate statistical distributions to uncertainty contributors and convert to standard uncertainty.

4. Identify methods for calculating Type A and B uncertainty data. 5. Developing the measurement uncertainty budget. 6. Identifying the major contributors of measurement uncertainty. 7. Develop some "real thinking" for scrutinizing measurement uncertainty budgets.

Course: Training for NCSLI RP-20 “Laboratory Workforce Planning” Speakers’ Name: Mr. Vernon Alt, VP NCLSI 160 Learning and Development and Matthew Denslow, NCLSI 161 Training Resources Chair Abstract: This class provides an overview of key workforce development concepts from both human resources (HR) and laboratory top management perspectives as described in RP-20. It illustrates workforce planning methods for practical application within the metrology laboratory and for the larger organization of which the laboratory might be a part. Learning Objectives: Describe and list the content and purpose of RP-20; Communicate the value of RP-20; Explain RP-20 to coworkers, or teammates, in sufficient detail to be able to apply it in their organization.



Regional Meeting Information (Register Here) The cost to attend the meeting on 10 May is $25 per person. Meeting program is under development Anyone interested in giving a presentation (practice for a conference presentation) should contact Charles Andrew at the following email: [email protected] Current confirmed presentations include: 1. Ryan Fischer, L.A.B Inc. - Commonly Cited Issues during ISO 17025 Audits 2. Lloyd Baker, DTI - Structured On-the-Job Training template 3. Kevin Kaufman, TEGAM Inc. - Micro Ohm Measurement w/hands on. 4. Mike Gwynn, Measurement Instruments 5. Steven Stahley, Cummings, Inc. 6. Dr. Jay Bucher, Bucherview Metrology - Traceability to the SI: The Proof of The Pudding Is Not In The Eating - It's In The Paperwork! Meeting Schedule (subject to change): Two tracks running concurrently throughout the day during the times shown below concentrating on managerial and technical topics. 7:00 – 8:00 Sign-in, get acquainted. Breakfast sponsored by Laboratory Accreditation Bureau 8:00 – 8:30 Introductions and NCSLI Board of Directors’ Update 8:30 – 9:30 9:30 – 10:00 Break 10:00 – 11:30 11:30 am – 1:00 pm Lunch 1:00 pm – 2:00 pm 2:00 pm – 2:30 Break 2:30 pm – 3:30 pm 3:30 pm – 4:30 pm 4:30 pm – 5:00 pm Door prizes Notice to Exhibitors: Anyone interested in exhibiting (sponsoring) this meeting should contact Lloyd Baker at the following email: [email protected] Sponsorship/exhibitor fee during the regional meeting (10 May 2013) is $400. Funds collected through sponsorship will be used to cover cost of venue and food.

mailto:[email protected]

Date post:	10-Mar-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Vol. 27 No. 1 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society...

Documents