{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
    • 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

We Do Need Good Measurement Systems

Knowing a measurement system’s variability and stability over time is valuable

Stefan H. Steiner
R. Jock MacKay
Wed, 05/24/2017 - 12:03
  • Comment
  • RSS

Social Sharing block

  • Print
  • Add new comment
Body

In his February 2017 Quality Digest column, “Don’t We Need Good Measurements?” Donald J. Wheeler recommends that a measurement system contributing up to 80 percent of the overall variation (on the variance scale) is good enough to detect persistent mean shifts when using a process behavior (control) chart. As a result, he concludes that assessing the quality of the measurement system before implementing the chart is likely a waste of resources and time.

ADVERTISEMENT

We disagree with both his argument and conclusion. We suggest that you first look at Wheeler’s December 2010 column, “The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient,” a reference he kindly provided us. This column describes the intra-class correlation and provides additional details about the example discussed in the 2017 article. 

Wheeler uses the model

 …

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 Dr Burns on Wed, 05/24/2017 - 15:07

Boldness

Right or wrong, congratulations on your boldness in attacking the world's leading expert on quality.  Too often people are afraid to speak up.  Only by stepping forward into open discussion, can quality progress.  Very much looking forward to Dr Wheeler's enlightening reply.  No matter who proves correct, we will all learn.

  • Reply

Submitted by Bill Sproat on Thu, 05/25/2017 - 10:29

Different interpretation

Interesting article.  I enjoy reading alternative viewpoints on this subject.

My interpretation of Wheeler's discussion of intraclass correlation and measurement systems differs.  I understood his argument as prioritizing process behavior charts over measurement system analyses.  He demonstrated that a poor - but stable - measurement system is still capable of detecting "signals of exceptional variation" provided the charts are constructed and interpreted properly.  Wheeler goes on to imply that the absence of process signals should prompt the investigation of the measurement system.

To me, the implicit point of Wheeler's discussion was that in the reality of limited time and money, one is better off charting the process measurement data to identify the "signals of exceptional variation" so they can be dealt with.  The process behavior charts are robust enough to overcome measurement error in the presence of exceptional variation.  Once the process is stable (homogeneous), a deeper investigation of the measurement system may be in order.

  • Reply

Submitted by Donald J. Wheeler on Tue, 05/30/2017 - 19:20

In reply to Different interpretation by Bill Sproat

Good Summary

BILLS, I could not have said it better or more consicely.

Thank you!

  • 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