{domain:"www.qualitydigest.com",server:"169.47.211.87"} Skip to main content

        
User account menu
Main navigation
  • Topics
    • Customer Care
    • FDA Compliance
    • Healthcare
    • Innovation
    • Lean
    • Management
    • Metrology
    • Operations
    • Risk Management
    • Roadshow
    • Six Sigma
    • Standards
    • Statistics
    • Supply Chain
    • Sustainability
    • Training
  • Videos/Webinars
    • All videos
    • Product Demos
    • Webinars
  • Advertise
    • Advertise
    • Submit B2B Press Release
    • Write for us
  • Metrology Hub
  • Training
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
Mobile Menu
  • Home
  • Topics
    • 3D Metrology-CMSC
    • Customer Care
    • FDA Compliance
    • Healthcare
    • Innovation
    • Lean
    • Management
    • Metrology
    • Operations
    • Risk Management
    • Six Sigma
    • Standards
    • Statistics
    • Supply Chain
    • Sustainability
    • Training
  • Login / Subscribe
  • More...
    • All Features
    • All News
    • All Videos
    • Contact
    • Training

The Recalibration Secret

Unneeded adjustments always make things worse

Birmingham Museums Trust / Unsplash

Donald J. Wheeler
Wed, 09/17/2025 - 12:03
  • Comment
  • RSS

Social Sharing block

  • Print
Body

Everybody wants to have good measurements. To this end, many recommend a regular schedule of recalibration. While this sounds reasonable, it can actually degrade the quality of the measurements.

ADVERTISEMENT

The key to getting the most out of a measurement process is to know when to recalibrate and when to refrain from recalibrating. This was beautifully illustrated by two of my clients.

Plant A

Like all process industries, Plant A lived and died by the values delivered by the in-house lab. The lab director wanted to provide good values, so he followed the manufacturer’s recommendation and had the calibration of his key analytical instrument checked every day using a known industrial standard. When the value he obtained didn’t match the accepted value for the standard, he would adjust the instrument by an amount equal to the difference between the accepted value and the observed value. Because they ended up recalibrating more than 80% of the time, the lab director was convinced that these adjustments were both necessary and correct. Figure 1 shows the observed values for 100 consecutive tests of the known standard for Plant A.

 …

Want to continue?
Log in or create a FREE account.
Enter your username or email address
Enter the password that accompanies your username.
By logging in you agree to receive communication from Quality Digest. Privacy Policy.
Create a FREE account
Forgot My Password

Comments

Submitted by Rip Stauffer on Wed, 09/17/2025 - 09:40

Great reminder about tampering!

Another excllent article, and it brings up something that I don't see often these days: the dangers of tampering with a stable system. Everyone is so enamored of automation. I had a discussion a while ago with a guy who said he doesn't bother with SPC...he just uses a raspberry pi to check every part in a high-speed production operation and re-set the machine after every one that drifts from the nominal. He claimed to have read Wheeler and Deming, but ridiculed me when I talked about the Taguchi Loss function and the success of the team at Tokai Rika. He thought that getting a process that tight would be a waste. 

It's hard to find any organization any more that cares about Quality any more. I hope this (and other articles from you) don't fall on deaf ears. Maybe I'm too pessimistic, but I fear that we will end up in another quality crisis as we did in the '70s. I just hope someone keeps the torch going so that the knowledge will be there when it's needed. 

  • Reply

Add new comment

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
Please login to comment.

© 2025 Quality Digest. Copyright on content held by Quality Digest or by individual authors. Contact Quality Digest for reprint information.
“Quality Digest" is a trademark owned by Quality Circle Institute Inc.

footer
  • Home
  • Print QD: 1995-2008
  • Print QD: 2008-2009
  • Videos
  • Privacy Policy
  • Write for us
footer second menu
  • Subscribe to Quality Digest
  • About Us
  • Contact Us