Vol. 27 No. 3 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division,...

Vol. 27 No. 3 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality September 2013

Heather Wade, our Chair-elect, manning our booth at this year’s

NCSL InternationalWorkshop and Symposium

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 sentenc-es. Graphics/illustrations must be sent as a separate attachment, in jpg format. Pho-tographs of MQD activities are always welcome. Publication of articles, product 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. 3, September 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]

AdvertisingSubmit 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 AuthorsThe Standard publishes papers on the quali-ty 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 CONTENTSThe Chair’s Corner ......................................................................... 3 MQD minutes from quarterly teleconference call .......................... 4 Q-Factor in determining the Dielectric Properties of Materials ..... 8 MQD Officers and Committee Chairs .......................................... 10 Measure For Measure Columns (2011) ........................................ 11

FROM THE DESK OF THE EDITOR I realize I’m starting to sound like a broken record (for those old enough to remem-ber vinyl), to continue one of the themes from the past issues of The Standard, we are again reprinting six articles that were printed in the Measure For Measure column of Quality Progress during the year 2011. They are attached at the back of this edition of The Standard, in their original format as published in the Meas-ure 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. Also, we have coverage in this issue of the recently complet-ed 2013 NCSL International Workshop and Symposium held in Nashville, TN. Chris Grachanen has also honored us with another of his timely articles. We also have press releases, and some announce-ments for future conferences, including the 2013 Measurement Sci-ence Conference Fall Tutorials in Irvine, CA. So, everything consid-ered, another fine issue of the Measurement Quality Division’s quar-terly newsletter, The Standard. On the cover, our illustrious Chair-elect, Heather Wade, manning our booth during the aforementioned NCSL International conference.

MQD

Vol. 27, No. 3 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality September 2013

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

This year is concluding fast and we will be in the fourth quarter by the time the newsletter is published. The division participated at the NCSLI Conference in Nashville, TN during July 14-18, 2013 by having an exhibit booth. As the NCSLI conference, the Joe Simmons Scholarship winner for 2013 was formally recognized and awarded the $3 000.00 scholar-ship. The Joe Simmons Scholarship is a joint sponsorship between NCSLI and ASQ MQD to honor the memory of Joe Simmons. Dr. Sim-mons was the Chief of the NIST Calibration Program, NIST Liaison to the NCSL International, recipient of the NCSL International William A. Wildhack Award and the Measurement Science Conference’s Andrew J. Woodington Award, Chair of the Measurement Quality Division. The

scholarship was awarded to Liangyu He of The University of North Carolina, UNC. Liangyu He was present at the conference and had a poster session near our exhibit area on multi-instrument surface characterization. He is a doctoral student at UNC Charlotte at the Center for Precision Metrology. Our MQD Annual Member Survey closed on June 30, 2013. We had a good response to the survey and many thanks go to Elias Monreal for initiating, collecting and compiling the sur-vey results. Congratulations to the 4 random survey participants who were awarded the $50 gift cards for participating in the survey. They were notified separately by e-mail. One of the survey input from members was that we provide educational opportunities at a reasonable cost for our members and we are working to ensure that we meet those expecta-tions. The Measurement Quality Division traces its roots back to the formation of the Metrology Technical Committee of the ASQ Inspection division, in 1972. We have many com-mon interests and that synergy transforms into joint activity between the two divisions even to this day. This year, the Inspection Division’s mini conference will be held on September 20, 2013 in West Chester, Ohio. The program for the mini conference is reproduced in The Stand-ard for those who are interested in attending. The cost is very nominal and there are some good topics related to metrology on the agenda. I shall be participating on the panel discussion on the Track SA3 for the conference. Please plan to attend if you can. Next year, we will be conducting a joint ASQ Inspection and Measurement Quality Di-vision conference on September 18 -19, 2014 at the University of Dayton in Dayton, Ohio. Please mark your calendars for a good conference with a lot of hand-on technical content. The planning for the conference is taking place and we will have a good program at a very reasona-ble cost for ASQ members. With ASQ switching its divisions and sections to the fiscal year January to December, it will time for new officers to take over on January 1, 2014. The slate of candidates for the 2014 fiscal year will be announced shortly and be published on our web site and communicated. If you or someone who is interested in working actively with a group of passionate volunteers, please let me or any of the officers know. It is always a good idea to bring new fresh ideas in an

(Continued on page 4)

MQD


organization of volunteers.

This year, we shall again participate in the Measurement Science Fall Tutorial on Octo-ber 10, 2013 in Irvine, CA. This one-day tutorial event focuses on 6-7 one day tutorials focus-ing on hand-on concepts related to metrology and quality systems. It is another opportunity to obtain affordable training. We look forward to your feedback, and to meeting you at various professional outreach events that we participate in.

Have a wonderful fall!

Sincerely,Dilip

ASQ-MQD Meeting Minutes, at NCSLI conference, July 15, 2013

4:24pm, Dilip Shah called to open the meeting. We have a quorum.

In attendance; Dilip Shah (Chair), Heather Wade (Chair-Elect, Certification Chair), Chris Gra-chanen (Treasurer), Georgia Harris (member). Heather Wade, acting-Secretary for meeting.

Next year’s (2014) Leadership quorum: Heather – Chair, Elias Monreal has offered to run for Chair-Elect, Treasurer & Secretary are open. Sherry Masarek is MQD Audit Chair.

Nomination & election process: First slate of candidates is announced. Currently, there are no regular communications to members regarding meetings, positions open, newsletter, publications. Action Item: e-mail notifications to MQD members announcing officer nominations & slate of candidates.

Slate of candidates: Open to members to nominate additional candidates. If no second per-son running in a position, then the current nominee is automatically nominated to start position on January 1, 2014.

MQD Website: There is someone who has expressed interest in maintaining MQD website and to also be the Chair-Elect of Reliability Division. Dilip to follow-up and determine if there are any conflicts of interest with this arrangement.

Chris suggests Keith Bennett & Howard Zion.

MQD Survey Preliminary Results announced by Dilip. Suggestion: have an MQD strategic planning board meeting. Include Chair, Chair-Elect, Past-Chair, Secretary, Treasurer, and Audit Chair. Georgia Harris has offered to facilitate if she can make it.

Develop a roadmap: 1 year, 3 year, 5 year plan. Priority = affordable training. Perhaps free webinars for MQD members.

More ideas: post on website the MQD membership (locations demographics), in addition to

(Continued from page 3)


MQD


putting in newsletter.

Conferences Inspection Division hosting mini-conference on September 20. Inspection Division

Strategic Meeting on September 21 – Dilip to attend. MQD/Inspection Division to co-host mini-conference at University of Dayton, Ohio

on September 18 & 19, 2014. There will be concurrent sessions. The current plan is at least 2 tracks. Action item: Call for Papers announcement to MQD members.

Georgia suggests continued participation in regional ASQ-NCSLI meetings/trainings.

Phil Stein Memorial Lecture Series After Phil’s passing, all memorial donations in Phil Stein Memorial Fund (PSMF).

PSMF called & offered to put money to Lecture Series/Scholarship to sponsor Phil Stein Memorial Lecture Series at metrology schools & programs.

Georgia mentions that NCSLI conference Educators forum on Tuesday at 2:30pm. Dilip will also attend this meeting.

While alive, Phil Stein had given a week-long metrology program at George Wash-ington University.

Idea: sponsor student(s) with fund money.MQD will provide an itemized list of costs & expenses to PSMF.

2014 Budget Planning Conferences:

Measurement Science Conference (MSC) NCSLI ASEE (booth with NCSLI) Joint MQD/Inspection Division Conference. Need Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

Other meetings: Division Strategic-Planning meeting WCQI (Dallas, TX. Chris Grachanen can attend) November ASQ Board Meeting

New Business Jay Bucher has submitted a paper to WCQI. Dilip planning on submitting a paper. Chris submitting next Measure-For-Measure article. Chris was nominated for Max J. Unis award. Dilip would like to establish objective

criteria for selection, similar to ASQ Fellow process. Heather (CCT Exam Cert Chair) – announced that there were no score-alls in the

June 2013 exam. Dilip expressed his displeasure in ASQ ending offering of CCT exam in Spanish.

Meeting closing: Chris motions to close meeting at 5:25pm. Heather seconds the motion. Dilip closes meeting.


MQD


Vernon Alt (NCSLI VP of Learning and Development) and Dilip Shah ( MQD Chair) flanking the 2013 Joe Simmons Scholarship winner Liangyu He.

Joe Simmons Scholarship Winner Liangyu He and his poster.

MQD


Heather Wade presenting Robert Glosenger of Rohde & Schwarz USA, Inc., with his copy of The Metrology Handbook, Second Edition, as one of the winners of our booth give-away during NCSL International’s conference.

Joe Simmons Shcolarship Winner Liangyu He's Poster

MQD


Q-Factor in determining the Dielectric Properties of MaterialsChristopher L. Grachanen

In the frequency domain, one of the measurements common-ly performed by vector network analyzers (VNA) used in determin-ing the dielectric properties of materials is Q-Factor. The study of dielectric properties is concerned with the storage and dissipation behavior of electromagnetic energy in materials. Materials can range from ground soil to polymers, construction supplies to petro-leum products. In fact there are very few products we come into contact on a daily basis whose materials have not been tested and evaluated in terms of their dielectric properties. In regards to printed circuit boards (PCBs), dielectric prop-erty determination focuses on the materials that isolation data trac-

es, power planes and ground planes. The composition of these materials has a profound effect on how electrons behave as they travel along data traces effecting both their speed i.e. timing and amplitude. Correctly determining the dielectric properties of supplier provided PCB materi-als is critical in evaluating whether high frequency circuit designs will perform as intended as well as whether there is a potential for marginal performance given maximum case (full load/bandwidth) operating scenarios. One of parameters used in evaluating dielectric properties of materials is known as Loss Tangent. Loss Tangent is basically a way of quantifying the dissipation of electromagnetic en-ergy in materials. Loss Tangent is equal to the inverse of Q-Factor. So what is Q-Factor and how is it measured? Q factor is basically the relationship (ratio) between electromagnetic energy stored vers-es electromagnetic energy dissipated per cycle in a material. The measurement of Q-Factor us-ing a VNA is relatively straight forward. First a resonance is identified on the VNA’s screen (resonance, in regards to electronic circuitry, is the frequency(s) at which response amplitude is at a relative maximum). Once a resonance is identified, the frequency at which this resonance occurs is measured using the VNA’s measurement cursor (let’s call this frequency Fr). From this point (Fr) one then identifies the two points on the resonance’s curve that are 3dB down in amplitude and note their frequencies (let’s call the 3dB down point that is lower in frequency as F1 and the 3dB down point that is higher in frequency as F2). We can now compute Q-Factor as:

Q-Factor = Fr /(F2-F1) And Loss Tangent as:

Loss Tangent = 1/ Q-Factor

This process is repeated over the frequency range of interest in order to create a materi-al’s dielectric behavioral verses frequency plot. This plot can then be used to evaluate expected circuit design performance at various frequencies. It must be duly noted that the topic of loss tangent in regards to determining the dielec-tric properties of materials is a much more complex subject than presented here and that the


MQD


technique for deriving Q-Factor values using the measurement cursors of a VNA is the inten-tion of this article. It should also be noted that the use of special test fixtures called resonators are often required to excitate resonance responses in the absence of resonating features/attributes inherent in the material’s composition and/or intentionally designed into the materials being tested.


MQD


Chair, Program Chair Dilip A. ShahE = mc3 Solutions 3359 Styx Hill Road, Medina, Ohio 44256-9755Voice (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. GrachanenManager, 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]

Historian Brandon Downing 3054 Cross Creek Dr Cumming, GA 30040 Voice (678) 983 9455 E-mail: [email protected]

Nominating Chair Craig A. Niemann, CMSgt, USAF

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

Community Development Administrator Jessie Kasberger ASQ600 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 CHRISTOPHER L. GRACHANEN

History LessonPop quiz illustrates how far measurement methods have come

DURING MY 30-plus years working in

the metrology field, I have been frequently

reminded of how technological advance-

ments affect the design and functional-

ity of inspection, measurement and test

equipment (IM&TE) and the methods used

for making measurements.

Outwardly, the biggest changes

to IM&TE have been to displays and

controls. With humble beginnings in

D’Arsonval-type meter movements,

IM&TE displays evolved from Nixie tubes

to discrete liquid crystal displays (LCDs)

to flat-screen LCD displays. The same

can be said of IM&TE controls, beginning

with single-pole, single-throw switches

replaced by auto-increment rocker

switches, eventually advancing to touch

controls.

Internally, the impact of technological

advances on IM&TE has been much more

profound. Hardwire logic was replaced

by complete computer systems, and large

measurement transducers were reduced

to integrated circuit chips. To make a long

story short, the digital revolution had a

major impact on IM&TE design from a

hardware perspective.

Technological advancements in IM&TE

capabilities and functionality have often

resulted in adapting a completely different

measurement method from those previ-

ously used to perform a measurement.

As a collector of antique IM&TE, I can

appreciate the time savings and improved

accuracy and reliability afforded by

today’s IM&TE.

This recently hit home when I came

across an old book that contains many

state-of-the-art methods—given the

technologies of the day—for performing

precision physical measurements. The

book, Handbook of Physics Measure-

ments, Vol. II: Vibratory Motion, Sound,

Heat, Electricity and Magnetism, second

edition, was published in 1924.

The book’s narrative is: “A self-contained

manual of the theory and manipulation

of those measurements in physics, which

experience has shown to be most available

for college and industrial laboratories.”1

Of the many procedures describing

how to measure various physical phe-

nomena, I came across one procedure

for which I could not easily determine

what phenomenon was being measured.

I shared this procedure with several

measurement colleagues, many of whom

also could not correctly identify what the

procedure was actually measuring. Let’s

see how you do:

The cathode shall take the form of a

platinum bowl not less than 10 cm. in

diameter and 5 cm. deep. The anode shall

be a plate of pure silver of 30 sq. cm. in

area and 2 to 3 mm. thick. This is to be

supported horizontally near the upper

edge of the bowl by platinum wires.

This anode must be wrapped with filter

paper to prevent silver from falling into

the bowl. The electrolyte shall consist

of 15 parts of pure nitrate silver to 85

parts of distilled water by weight. The

resistance of the metallic circuit shall not

be less than 10 ohms.

The method of taking the measure-

ment is as follows: Wash the bowl first

with nitric acid and then with distilled

water. Dry by heating. Afterward, cool in

a desiccator.

When at room temperature, weigh and

fill nearly with the electrolyte. Connect to

the circuit by placing the bowl on a clean

copper ring to which a binding post is sol-

dered. Immerse the anode in the solution,

close the circuit, noting the hour, minute

and second.

In not less than one-half hour, break

the circuit, again noting the hour, minute

and second. Empty the bowl, rinse with

distilled water, and allow the bowl to soak

in the distilled water for at least six hours.

Technological advancements have often resulted in adapting a completely different measurement method from thosepreviously used to perform a measurement.

“

,,

January 2011 • QP 53

Rinse with absolute alcohol, dry in a hot

air bath, cool in a desiccator and weigh.

The gain in mass is the amount of silver

deposited.2

That’s it. From start to finish, I

estimated this procedure would have

easily taken eight hours to make a single

measurement. What do you think is being

measured? Take a few moments to ponder

the solution before reading further.

Still don’t know? I’ll give you a hint:

The uncertainties for this measurement

were deemed low enough, given the

technologies of the day, that this measure-

ment procedure was used internationally

for measuring (realizing) a fundamental

measurement unit.

At this point, some readers may have

already surmised that the measurement

procedure was describing the measure-

ment of constant current. The formula for

determining the procedure’s current in

amperes, in which grams is expressed as

m and seconds as t, is:

I = (m * t) / 0.001118.

In 1924, the definition for the interna-

tional ampere was “the unvarying current,

which when passed through an aqueous

solution of silver nitrate in accordance

with the specifications in the following

paragraph (the aforementioned measure-

ment procedure), deposits silver at a rate

of 0.00111800 gram per second.”3

Contrast this with the current defini-

tion of the international ampere: “The

ampere is that constant current which,

if maintained in two straight parallel

conductors of infinite length, of negligible

circular cross section and placed 1 meter

apart in vacuum, would produce between

these conductors a force equal to 2 × 10−7

newtons per meter of length.”4

You may want to try this “What is being

measured?” challenge on some of your

measurement-savvy colleagues and see if

it doesn’t draw a few puzzled looks. QP

REFERENCES1. E.S. Ferry, O.W. Silvey, G.W. Sherman Jr. and D.C. Duncan,

Handbook of Physics Measurements, Vol. II: Vibratory Motion, Sound, Heat, Electricity and Magnetism, second edition, 1926.

2. Ibid.3. Ibid.4. National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Special

Publication 330, 2008 Edition, “The International System of Units,” www.nist.gov/pml/div684/fcdc/upload/sp330-2.pdf.

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 Handbook (ASQ Quality Press), a senior member of ASQ, an

ASQ-certified calibration technician and the treasurer of the Measurement Quality Division.


MEASURE FOR MEASURE BY DILIP SHAH

Keep Your ResolutionRemember accuracy, precision when estimating uncertainty

WHEN ESTIMATING measurement

uncertainty for a measurement parameter,

it is necessary to take into consideration

the error permitted by accuracy specifica-

tion, precision and resolution. ISO Guide

99 defines the terms as follows:

Accuracy: Closeness of agreement

between a measured quantity value and a

true quantity value of a measurand.

Accuracy defines the permissible

measurement error from the nominal

value. Under normal circumstance, we

take more than one measurement (five to

10 measurements are ideal) to verify an

instrument’s accuracy by comparing the

average of those repeated measurements

from the nominal value.

Precision: Closeness of agreement

between indications or measured quantity

values obtained by replicate measure-

ments on the same or similar objects

under specified condition.

Precision is defined by the repeat-

ability of the instrument and is normally

expressed as a standard deviation. This is

also known as Type A data for measure-

ment uncertainty analysis.

Resolution: Smallest change in a

quantity being measured that causes a

perceptible change in the corresponding

indication.

Resolution can depend on, for example,

noise (internal or external) or friction. It

may also depend on the value of a quantity

being measured. Resolution of a displaying

device is the smallest difference between

displayed indications that can be meaning-

fully distinguished.

The terms accuracy and precision are

sometimes interchanged incorrectly in

product specification literature and by

the end user. The relationship between

accuracy and precision is illustrated in

Figure 1.

Many times, an instrument display has

a higher display resolution (such as more

decimal places) than its accuracy and

precision specification. This higher resolu-

tion does not equate to higher accuracy or

precision.

The measurements themselves are

reported according to the full resolu-

tion of the instrument’s range function.

It is possible the last one or two decimal

places on the instrument display may be

measuring noise.

The best way to analyze this is to

conduct an experiment to verify accuracy

and precision. This can be performed via a

repeatability study.

High precisionhigh accuracy

Low precisionhigh accuracy

Low precisionlow accuracy

High precisionlow accuracy

Lowertolerance

Uppertolerance

Nominalvalue

Precision

Accuracy

Accuracy vs. precision / FIGURE 1

March 2011 • QP 57

Low and highThere are times when the measuring

instrument has a lower resolution and the

measurement generated by the standard

has a higher resolution or no displayed

resolution.

For example, a precision gage block (ac-

curacy/precision specified in μm or μin but

no resolution displayed) is measured with

a micrometer of lesser resolution. A 10-volt

standard (accuracy/precision in μvolts but

no resolution) is being measured with a

4.5-digit multimeter resolution.

In such a scenario, the accuracy and

precision generated by the standard may

not be discriminated due to limited resolu-

tion of the measuring instrument. The

repeated measurements made and the ac-

curacy and precision calculated may look

better than the actual instrument being

used to make the measurements and lead

us to wrong conclusions.

It is best to illustrate the differences

and relationship of these three terms with

another example:

If we have a nominal measurement

value of 10 and an instrument resolution

of 0.001, it would be expressed as 10.000.

If there is an accuracy specification of

0.01% associated with this instrument,

any value measured should fall within 10

+/- 0.01% or 10.001 and 9.999 with 0.001

instrument resolution.

But if this same instrument had an

accuracy specification of 0.001% associ-

ated with it, any value measured should

fall within 10 +/- 0.01% or 10.0001 and

9.9999. The instrument only has a resolu-

tion of 0.001, however, therefore you

would only read 10.000, not being able to

resolve to the last digit required for the

accuracy specification, as illustrated by

Table 1.

To calculate the accuracy and preci-

sion of the instrument, we would need to

take repeated measurements. Typically,

in the measurement uncertainty analysis,

10 or more measurements are required.

The average would verify the instrument’s

accuracy. The sample standard deviation

of these repeated measurements would

define the measurement’s precision (re-

peatability—Type A data).

Repeat yourselfTable 2 shows the repeated measure-

ments made on an instrument with 0.001%

accuracy, with instruments of varying

resolutions to illustrate the example.

When calculations of average and sample

standard deviation are made, they are nor-

mally carried to an extra decimal place,

even though the instrument may not have

the required resolution.

But calculations done with spread-

sheets and calculators can give us many

extra decimal places (resolution) that do

not exist in the measuring instrument’s

resolution. Thus, even though the calcu-

lated accuracy and precision looks good,

the more dominant contributor may be the

instrument resolution and should be taken

into consideration.

If you were to consider the data in

The lesson you should take away from thiscolumn is that in the New Year, it’s importantnot to ignore your instrument resolutions.

Nominal value

Accuracy (+/-)

Accuracy in units

Upper specification

Lower specification Resolution

10.000 0.01% 0.001 10.001 9.999 0.00110.000 0.001% 0.0001 10.0001 9.9999 0.000110.00 0.01% 0.001 10.00 10.00 0.01

Accuracy specification / TABLE 1

n Four decimal places Three decimal places Two decimal places1 9.9999 10.000 10.002 9.9999 10.000 10.003 9.9999 10.000 10.004 10.0001 10.000 10.005 10.0001 10.000 10.006 9.9999 10.000 10.007 10.0001 10.000 10.008 9.9999 10.000 10.009 10.0000 10.000 10.00

10 10.0000 10.000 10.00Average 9.99999 10.0000 10.000

Standard deviation 0.00007 0.0000 0.000

Measurement results / TABLE 2

Table 2 and use it in a measurement

uncertainty budget estimation, it becomes

apparent that the decreasing instrument

resolution becomes a bigger contribu-

tor to the measurement uncertainty, as

shown in the percent contribution column

of the measurement uncertainty budget

in Table 3.

In a measurement uncertainty analysis,

you may need to consider the resolution

of the source or standard (generate) of the

measurement, as well as the unit under

test. Both resolutions should be consid-

ered and their contributions to the total

measurement uncertainty analyzed.

If the contribution is negligible, it can

be ignored, but you won’t know until all

the analysis is done in a manner shown in

Table 3, in which the percent contribution

column can provide the analysis for deci-

sion making.

Multi-range instruments tend to have

different display resolutions at every

range or sometimes within the range itself,

depending on the quantity being mea-

sured. You may need to generate an uncer-

tainty budget for each of those ranges if

the resolution is a larger contributor.

The lesson you should take away from

this column is that in the New Year, it’s

important not to ignore your instrument

resolutions. QP

BIBLIOGRAPHYInternational Organization for Standardization, ISO/IEC Guide

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

Shah, Dilip, “Balanced Budget,” Quality Progress, May 2009, pp. 54-55.

Shah, Dilip, “In No Uncertain Terms,” Quality Progress, Janu-ary 2009, pp. 52-53.

Shah, Dilip, “Standard Definition,” Quality Progress, March 2009, pp. 52-53.

Stein, Philip, “All You Ever Wanted to Know About Resolution,” Quality Progress, July 2001, pp. 141-142.


DILIP SHAH is president of E = mc3 Solutions in Medina, OH. He is a past chair of ASQ’s Measurement Quality Division and Akron-Canton Section 0810, and is co-author of The Metrol-ogy Handbook (ASQ Quality Press, 2004). Shah is an ASQ-certified quality engineer and calibration technician,

and a senior member of ASQ.

MEASURE FOR MEASURE

Uncertainty budget (four-decimal-place resolution)

n Uncertainty description Uncertainty Type Distribution Divisor Standard uncertainty Variance Percent

contribution1 Repeatability 70.4E-6 A Normal 1.00 70.4E-6 5.0E-9 54.32%2 Resolution 100.0E-6 B Resolution 3.46 28.9E-6 833.3E-12 9.14%3 Accuracy specification 100.0E-6 B Rectangular 1.73 57.7E-6 3.3E-9 36.55%

Combined uncertainty 95.5E-6 9.1E-9 100.00%Uncertainty budget (three-decimal-place resolution)


contribution1 Repeatability 000.0E+0 A Normal 1.00 000.0E+0 000.0E+0 0.00%2 Resolution 1.0E-3 B Resolution 3.46 288.7E-6 83.3E-9 96.15%3 Accuracy specification 100.0E-6 B Rectangular 1.73 57.7E-6 3.3E-9 3.85%

Combined uncertainty 294.4E-6 86.7E-9 100.00%Uncertainty budget (two-decimal-place resolution)


contribution1 Repeatability 000.0E+0 A Normal 1.00 000.0E+0 000.0E+0 0.00%2 Resolution 10.0E-3 B Resolution 3.46 2.9E-3 8.3E-6 99.96%3 Accuracy specification 100.0E-6 B Rectangular 1.73 57.7E-6 3.3E-9 0.04%

Combined uncertainty 2.9E-3 8.3E-6 100.00%

Analysis for decision making / TABLE 3

Note: Numbers in red highlight the differences due to resolution. There should be other contributors for measurement uncertainty estimation. For more information, see the Measure for Measure columns in the January, March and May 2009 editions of QP.

SHAREYOUR QUALITYJOURNEYQP occasionally includes an

interesting, personal quality

story in its “Quality in the First

Person” column. If you are

interested in sharing your

story—how you got into the

quality field, how it has helped

your organization or your career,

or how quality has enhanced

your personal life—e-mail

[email protected].


MEASURE FOR MEASURE BY CRAIG A. NIEMANN

Military-Grade AdvicePointers for calibration labs from an Air Force perspective

IN THE SPRING of 1990, I was stationed

at Lowry Air Force Base (AFB) in Colo-

rado. It was there that I learned a career

in metrology did not mean I was going to

be a weatherman, but rather a precision

measurement equipment laboratories

(PMEL) technician.

Around the same time, the latest

edition of the Aerospace Guidance and

Metrology Center newsletter was mailed

from Newark AFB to all 175 U.S. Air Force

(USAF) calibration laboratories.

In this edition, there were tips on mak-

ing the 1295 Attenuation Measurement

Receiver more reliable by bolting it to a

sheet of plywood and mounting it to an

oscilloscope cart. Another article detailed

how cleaning the vacuum tubes on the

5205A Precision Power Amplifier could

correct excessive warm-up time.

Most of the articles in this edition are

not particularly relevant today, but one

stood out.

Chief Master Sergeant Lee Ginn, the

new chief of the laboratory certification

office at the time, offered a few words

of advice to the managers of the USAF

calibration laboratories on how to set

themselves up for success—advice still

applicable today to everyone in the me-

trology field.

Smaller but better“As we look at reductions in manpower

and money, we are tasked to maintain

metrology integrity as technical complex-

ity increases.”

Although Ginn wrote these words

more than 20 years ago, they still ring true

today.

Budget and personnel cuts in the

military and civilian sectors have become

the standard. Despite these reductions,

there are calibration technicians around

the world who continue to perform

critical measurements to ensure

traceability to international

standards. They know that a

lack of integrity anywhere in

the chain can have devastating

consequences.

During my last assignment at

Osan Air Base in Korea, I wit-

nessed innovations throughout

the aircraft maintenance com-

munity that enabled U.S. airmen

to use aging equipment to maintain aging

aircraft and meet mission requirements.

Unfortunately, there were also instances

of people taking shortcuts that put aircraft

and lives in danger.

In an operational environment, there

are production pressures from all levels,

but Air Force commanders entrust

their PMEL technicians to maintain the

integrity of the traceability chain. While

innovations maximize efficiency and forge

the future, shortcuts threaten safety and

progress.

Customers depend on sound measure-

ments to ensure products function as they

are intended, so shortcuts that break the

chain can’t be tolerated.

Keeping training on track“Training, not a paper program.”

The calibration career field and the

entire USAF has gotten significantly

smaller since Ginn authored these words,

so it is even more critical to provide solid

WISE WORDS If your calibration program is

giving you headaches, check

out The Quality Calibration

Handbook by Jay Bucher in

the Quality Press bookstore

(http://asq.org/quality-press/

index.html).

May 2011 • QP 55

training. Many calibration laboratories

and metrology departments have a book

that outlines a training program, but plans

and directives do not equate to trained

technicians.

There is no substitute for personal

interaction with a trainer who takes the

time to go over the in-depth theory of a

measurement and the idiosyncrasies nor-

mally encountered, and who then passes

on knowledge gained by years of experi-

ence. This type of training takes the most

amount of time, but it is an investment in

the future.

Normally, the first-line supervisor pro-

vides most of the training, so leaders need

to ensure they are allowed the time to

answer questions from the newest calibra-

tion technicians. In other words, take the

time to train them right the first time.

Top notch“Quality starts at the top. Emphasize

it. Do it. Instill it in your lab and make

your customers aware of their part.”

There is no substitute for good leader-

ship. People will live up to the organiza-

tion’s expectations, and that starts with

a leader who establishes the tone that

quality comes first.

That’s done by setting high standards,

expecting everyone to measure up and

establishing a culture of accountability for

those who do not.

Leaders also hold themselves account-

able by taking responsibility. They do not

project the blame for their failures on

outside organizations.

Good leadership in the laboratory

bleeds over to the customer. In the most

successful organizations, laboratory lead-

ership takes an active interest in training

customers to emphasize the importance

of calibration. As with training, setting up

your customers for success at the begin-

ning prevents problems later.

The more things change …Since 1990, the USAF calibration career

field has seen significant changes. The

number of calibration laboratories de-

creased from 175 to just 74. The quarterly

newsletter isn’t mailed anymore, but

instead is posted on the internet for ev-

eryone to download, a concept most of us

couldn’t have imagined 20 years ago.

Despite all the changes and ad-

vances in technology, the importance

of a calibration laboratory successfully

performing traceable measurements has

not changed. If anything, it is even more

important today as technology gets more

precise.

But that doesn’t mean we should forget

to look back. Regardless of how much

time has passed, the cornerstones for

running a successful calibration program

haven’t changed. QP

People will live up to the organization’s expectations. That starts with a leader who establishes that quality comes first.

CRAIG A. NIEMANN is a Chief Master Sergeant with the U.S. Air Force stationed in Ohio, and has served as a quality process evaluator and quality program manager. He received his associate’s degree from the Commu-nity College of the Air Force in 1997. Niemann is a senior member of ASQ

and a certified calibration technician.

SHAREYOUR QUALITY JOURNEY

QP occasionally

includes an

interesting, personal

quality story in its

“Quality in the First

Person” column. If

you are interested in

sharing your story—

how you got into the

quality field, how it

has helped your

organization or your

career or how

quality has enhanced

your personal life—

email [email protected].

54

MEASURE FOR MEASURE BY DILIP SHAH

What to do when dealing with two different units of measurement

IN A PREVIOUS column, I wrote about

the importance of considering instrument

resolution in addition to accuracy and

precision when estimating measurement

uncertainty.1 Let’s take that same consid-

eration further.

The United States is one country where

imperial units and the international sys-

tem of units (SI) are used widely. In most

other countries, only the use of SI—or

metric units—is permitted for commerce

and legal metrology.

Some measuring instruments allow

you to display either metric or imperial

units at the touch of a button. The digital

micrometer is one such instrument. Most

digital micrometers display the imperial

units in 0.00005-inch resolution. When

switched to SI, it displays a resolution of

0.001 mm.

This raises the question of whether

two measurement uncertainty budgets

are required for the different units of

measurement. One response I hear is, “We

do not need to have two measurement

uncertainty budgets for the two units of

measurement. We can always convert the

measurement uncertainty from one set of

units to another.”

True or false?

Let’s examine the micrometer example

with the two units and their correspond-

ing display resolution using a 0-1 inch

(0-25 mm) digital micrometer.

First, look at all the possible measure-

ment uncertainty contributors:

1. Gage block calibration uncertainty (for

measurement traceability).

2. Micrometer resolution (for inch and

millimeter scale).

3. Micrometer repeatability (measured in

inches and millimeters).

4. Coefficient of thermal expansion (in

μin/in/oF and μm/m/oC).

For now, assume these are all of the

significant contributors and proceed to

develop the measurement uncertainty

budget for both units of measurement.

Perform a repeatability study, which

involves measuring the micrometer with

a calibrated, traceable gage block for a

minimum of 10 times (30 times is ideal).

Normally, this repeatability study is

performed across the entire range of the

micrometer. For example, it would be

characterized at 25%, 50% and 75% of the

usable range to perform the micrometer

study.

Repeatability study results / TABLE 1

Repeatability study

1

2

3

4

5

8

10

Uncertainty budget in inches / TABLE 2

Uncertainty budget (inches)

n

1 A 1

2 B 2

3 B

4 B

55

For the sake of brevity, we’ll perform

the study at 50% of the range (0.5 inches

or 12.7 mm):

coefficient of thermal expansion of

steel is 13 μm/m/oC or 7.3 μin/in/oF.

-

tial while performing the repeatability

study is assumed to be 0.5oC ( 0.9oF).

the gage block calibration is (1.7 +

1.2L) μin or (66.9 + 47.2L) nm, in which

L is the length of the gage block. The

measurement uncertainty is quoted at k

= 2 for 95% confidence interval.

Uncertainty budget in millimeters / TABLE 3

Uncertainty budget (millimeters)

n

1 A 1

2 B 2

3 B

4 B

Worldwide services forthe Pharmaceutical,Medical Device, Biologics,Diagnostics and Biotechindustries

Clinical ResearchRegulatory Aff airs

Quality Assurance & ComplianceMedical Aff airs

800.507.5277 I www.meirxrs.com I [email protected] N. Brand Blvd I Suite 306 I Glendale I CA I 91203

The repeatability study is performed

using a 0.5-inch gage block with both units

of measurement (see Table 1, p. 54). Please

note that you cannot perform the study

using one unit and convert the results to

another unit. Two separate repeatability

studies need to be performed.

The gage block calibration measure-

ment uncertainty from the calibration

supplier was (1.7 + 1.2L) μin or (66.9 +

47.2L) nm. The gage block size used was

0.5 inches (12.7 mm), and the overall uncer-

tainty needs to be calculated. Because the

uncertainty was supplied at 95% confidence

interval (k = 2), it needs to be divided by

two to report everything at one standard

uncertainty (one standard deviation).

The coefficient of thermal expansion

(CTE) also needs to be multiplied by

the length (L) of the gage block and the

resultant temperature change (ΔT) while

performing the measurement in the follow-

ing way:

CTE x L x ΔT

Next, the resolution of the device at the

unit setting is considered and entered into

the measurement uncertainty budget. The

two completed measurement uncertainty

budgets are shown in Tables 2 and 3 (pp.

54-55).

A comparison of the results for the two

measurement uncertainty budgets reveals

that resolution and repeatability of two dif-

ferent units on the same instrument mea-

suring the same part but reporting results

in a different unit may have a significant

effect on the measurement uncertainty

consideration.

It is not sufficient to make good

measurements in one unit and convert

its associated measurement uncertainty

to another unit. It is always a good idea

to check by performing measurement

uncertainty estimates for all the units the

equipment is capable of measuring. QP

REFERENCE1. Dilip Shah, “Keep Your Resolution,” Quality Progress, March

2011, pp. 56-58.

BIBLIOGRAPHYInternational Organization for Standardization, ISO/IEC Guide

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

Stein, Philip, “All You Ever Wanted to Know about Resolution,” Quality Progress, July 2001.

The 2011 NQEC is your best opportunity to learn from educators around the globe. Learn more or register today!

http://nqec.asq.org

2011 National Quality Education ConferenceInspiring Quality Education Worldwide: A Systems Perspective

JAY MARINOSuperintendent, Dunlap Community Unit School District 323, Dunlap, IL

JAN POLDERMANDirector of Magistrum, Dutch Center for Educational Leadership, Netherlands

MICHAEL PERICHConsultant, Systemwide Continuous Improvement, Montgomery County Public Schools, Maryland

Keynote Speakers

DILIP SHAH is president of E = mc3 Solutions in Medina, OH. He is a past chair of ASQ’s Measurement Quality Division and Akron–Canton Section 0810, and is co–author of The Metrol-ogy Handbook (ASQ Quality Press, 2004). Shah is an ASQ–certified quality engineer and calibration technician,

and a senior member of ASQ.

MEASURE FOR MEASURE

54

MEASURE FOR MEASURE BY JAY L. BUCHER

Surviving your next calibration department audit

GENERALLY, THERE are three types

of audits for a calibration or metrology

department embedded within a biotech,

pharmaceutical or medical-device com-

pany:

1. An internal or first-party audit

is conducted by personnel from within

an organization, department or quality

function, and examines the system and

records the results for internal eyes only.

Internal audits can also be used to

show auditors the activities of periodic

or continuous monitoring. To avoid

potential conflict of interest, the audit

is usually performed by a person inde-

pendent of the department or process

they are auditing.

2. An external or second-party

audit can be conducted by a customer

or for the purpose of evaluating a sup-

plier. Most external audits are performed to

see if an organization complies with a spe-

cific standard, guideline or regulation, and

can be subjective or directive in nature.

For example, a directive audit would

be for an organization that needs to

comply with current good manufacturing

practice (cGMP) requirements from the

Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

It would be informed of any findings by

using the FDA’s Form 483, which is part

of the public record. A subjective audit

would involve an ISO standard or guide-

line, in which findings and write-ups are

given in an audit report at the end of the

inspection.

3. An external audit may also be

conducted by an auditing agency, mak-

ing it a third-party audit. In this case,

results are forwarded to the organization’s

management.

In some cases, accreditation on-site

assessments typically require a demon-

stration of proficiency in the form of an

over-the-shoulder evaluation or observa-

tion. Depending on the inspection criteria,

it could include an examination of any or

all of three areas: the test equipment, the

technician doing the calibration or the

process, which includes the calibration

procedure, records and documentation.

Write it downAfter an audit is conducted, the results

need to be documented and kept on file

for a predetermined amount of time. How

long records are maintained should be

stated in your organization’s records-re-

tention policy. Follow-up audits to ensure

observations, findings or write-ups have

been corrected also need to be filed for

future needs.

Some follow-up questions from an

audit might include:

-

tions identified?

-

prove the process in a more efficient

manner?

audit results?

-

tem aware of the findings and updated

on any system changes?

technicians, supervisors and manager

their training records updated accord-

ingly?

validated? If so, can you provide the

documentation showing it was accom-

plished?

checking if training records are main-

tained properly?

all of the above?

It is important to assign custodial

responsibility for audit discrepancies.

This person is assigned to follow through

with the corrective action plan and to set

the timetable for correcting discrepan-

cies. That person is identified as part of

the quality system, the responsible party

to which the findings are sent and the

one who determines how long the results

should be maintained.

This is a serious process. In some

instances, people’s lives, welfare, food,

transportation and more are at stake. The

world of metrology and calibration en-

compasses more areas than most people

realize. To not take the necessary steps to

ensure you’re doing your job to the best of

your abilities and not make improvements

55

in a proactive manner is a waste of time

and money.

One of the ways you can continually

improve systems and procedures is to re-

view, examine and inspect them on a regu-

lar basis. To do this properly, you should

have a second set of eyes look, review and

inspect your calibration program, policies

and records.

Bring in an outside party, or someone

from another department or from quality

assurance—if such a department exists at

your organization—who is unfamiliar with

what you do or how you do it. Even if you

need to pay an outside agency to conduct

an audit every couple of years, it is worth

the time and effort to ensure your system

is operating as it should.

A little guidance

audit for compliance to a regulation or a

standard? Is there a special set of rules

or guidelines? How should everyone act?

Is there a protocol or standard operating

procedure (SOP) that must be followed?

Believe it or not, all these questions

have been asked for decades prior to an

auditor showing up on the doorstep. The

following guidelines can be applied in

most situations and modified to work in

others.

During most audits, the auditor should

look at several samples of your quality

calibration program. Most audits need to

be accomplished during a specific time

frame, usually over the course of two or

three days, and usually with one or two

auditors. Because time is limited, they will

want to review, observe and ask about

the most important parts of your quality

system.

Some of the usual items they will want

to observe are:

program meets the standard or regula-

tion stated in your quality manual or

subscribed to by your organization.

Evidence will be in the form of your

documentation and records.

technicians—and anyone else working

under your quality system—understand

the quality system and how it affects

them, their work and their calibrations.

-

gram follows your written procedures,

plans, instructions and directions. If the

quality calibration program says you

must follow written calibration pro-

cedures, the auditor should be able to

see every calibration technician using

calibration SOPs as they perform their

daily work. The requirement for cali-

bration records should be self-evident

and easy to show the auditor, as should

out-of-tolerance procedures, forms and

customer notification documents.

-

gram is effectively providing quality

products and services to your custom-

ers. High test-equipment pass rates

and a low number of overdue calibra-

tions—or none at all—are examples

of quality that can be easily translated

into providing the type of service and

support every customer wants.

The old adage of working during peace-

time the same way you would during war

is almost too appropriate for the everyday

calibration environment. Your quality cali-

bration program should be set up to work

the same as if every day was audit day for

your organization. A quality calibration

program cannot function efficiently if it

only follows its guidelines just before and

during an audit.

Follow your procedures, document

your calibrations and perform every

function as if an auditor was looking over

your shoulder—because they are. Your

calibration records will show an auditor

how your system really works.

Common issuesThese are some of the deficiencies com-

monly found during calibration audits:

traceability (the paper trail). If the doc-

umentation was not available to show

calibration history back to a national

or international standard through the

working or reference standards used,

from a legal perspective, calibration

has not been performed.

match your database or the calibration

label. In other words, they were done

after the fact to prepare for an audit.

calibration record, calibration label or

documentation, which show that test

equipment was found out of tolerance

and notification was provided to the

user.

when a working or reference standard

was found to be out of tolerance.

test equipment. But remember that a

Auditors are there to identify problems before they affect product quality. They are not out to get you or ruin your career.

56

MEASURE FOR MEASURE

valid calibration record and software

historical data could prove that calibra-

tion was performed and that, in the

haste to turn around a lot of produc-

tion, a calibration technician forgot to

apply a new calibration label.

followed as a matter of course. For ex-

ample, the auditor asked the supervisor

why a particular calibration technician

did not have a calibration procedure

available and was told the person had

done hundreds of those calibrations

and did not need to have a calibration

procedure.

-

ments, no records were kept on tem-

perature or humidity.

-

dure differed from the written proce-

dure. There should be a change control

system in place to update all parts of

the quality calibration program, and

sticky notes are not part of that pro-

cess.

calibration records. This raises the

question of whether data was not

recorded or forgotten, or if the field is

just missing an “N/A.”

-

ment with overdue calibration labels or

that isn’t even in the quality calibration

program. If records were kept of items

that couldn’t be found when they were

due for calibration or it can be shown

the customer was ordering and receiv-

ing test equipment and circumventing

the quality calibration program, most au-

ditors will help the calibration function

by stressing to upper management this

problem needs to be addressed by man-

agement, not the calibration program.

This is only a small sampling of obser-

vations, write-ups and nonconformities

that show how easy it is to overlook the

small things while focusing on the big

picture.

Keep in mindBut quality is everyone’s business, not

just supervision or management. Quality

calibration programs start with calibra-

tion technicians and works up from there.

They are the foundation for doing the

job correctly each and every day. So it’s

important to remember a few things when

they’re being conducted.

Auditors take notes throughout the

audit. This is normal and should not cause

any anxiety. If they need to make an ob-

servation or recommendation, they need

data to support what happened, when it

happened and the circumstances behind

the event. Nobody can remember all the

details, so they take notes as a matter of

course.

Don’t be afraid to answer an auditor’s

questions. You don’t need to memorize

anything. That’s why everything is written

down. You only need to know where to

find it.

Also, the best answer is usually the

easiest. Simply be polite and honest.

Generally speaking, auditors are there

to identify problems before they affect

product quality. They are not out to get

you or ruin your career. They are usually

the same as most of the people they audit,

only more experienced with a broader

base of knowledge and training.

Of course, we’ve all seen those that

have never calibrated a piece of test equip-

ment in their lives and never intend to.

That’s OK, too. If they know how to audit

a quality system and its requirements, they

usually do a good job.

Never lie to an auditor. But it’s also

good policy to never tell them more than

they are asking. Only answer the questions

posed. Don’t volunteer additional informa-

tion that may lead an auditor to pursue

that information further.

This is how most auditors find out what

part or person is throwing a wrench in

the quality system. They let the talkative

calibration technician tell them what

they cannot readily find during the audit.

Remember, only reply to their questions

without trying to impress them with your

great knowledge or bravado. It’s an audit,

not a job interview.

Do your partIn most cases in which an auditor is

reviewing an entire company and the

calibration function is only a small part of

the whole, there is usually enough time to

hit a few areas and topics.

One of the first questions an auditor

should ask is: “May I see your overdue

list?” If you have overdue items, have they

been segregated so they can’t be used by

the customer? If they’re a standard part of

production, have they been removed from

service to prevent inadvertent use? Have

they been tagged with “do not use” labels

to show they are out of calibration?

There are times when there are too

many items to remove from service and

place in a special location. In that case,

the test equipment should have calibration

labels removed and “do not use” labels at-

tached. This should happen as a matter of

course, rather than just during audits.

Remember, audits are chances to see

where improvements can be made and

to find areas that can be improved upon.

They’re a source for making process

improvements. If you approach an audit

with the right mindset, it can be a great

opportunity for all parties involved. QP

NOTEThe article is based on subjects found in The Quality Calibra-tion Handbook by Jay L. Bucher, ASQ Quality Press, 2006.

JAY L. BUCHER is president of Bucherview Metrology Services LLC in DeForest, WI. He is editor and coauthor of The Metrology Handbook and author of several books, including Paperless Records, Ethics: The Final Frontier and Paperless Calibration Compliance for National and Interna-

tional Standards & Regulations. Bucher is a senior member of ASQ, the chair of the measurement quality division and a certified calibration technician.

50

MEASURE FOR MEASURE BY CHRISTOPHER L. GRACHANEN

Defining calibration helps avoid trouble down the road

ONE OF THE major disappointments

and frustrations associated with calibra-

tion services is receiving equipment back

from a service provider and discovering

the services rendered were not what was

expected.

Assumptions, miscommunications and

interpretive errors are the root causes

for these problems. To help avoid them,

it is essential that customers and suppli-

ers have an unambiguous understanding

of calibration terminology and customer

expectations.

The term “calibration” can mean differ-

ent things to different people, depending

on their education and experience, and

whether they are suppliers or consumers

of calibration services.

The term is frequently brought up in

nontechnical conversations when imply-

ing the changing of something that is not

in a desired state or level to a new state

or level that satisfies, to some degree, a

particular need.

In budgetary discussions, for example,

someone might say: “We need to calibrate

this budget to get it in line with next year’s

projected revenues and expenses.” As a

rule, it’s assumed the calibrated state or

level is better than the noncalibrated state

or level.

That’s also the case when a supervisor

reprimands a problematic employee by

saying, “You better calibrate that attitude

of yours,” implying that after calibration,

the employee’s attitude will be better

than it is currently.

In these two examples, the term “cali-

brate” can easily be replaced with the

term “adjust” because it is an adjustment

activity that is implicitly desired by the

speaker.

Clearly definedSo let’s settle on an exact definition of the

term. The Merriam-Webster online diction-

ary provides several definitions1:

1. To adjust precisely for a particular

function. This is the meaning most

commonly associated with the term

calibration in nontechnical dialogs.

2. To standardize (as a measuring instru-

ment) by determining the deviation

from a standard so as to ascertain the

proper correction factors. This is a

more concise, technical definition of

the term. But this is not the universally

accepted, technical definition.

To get the technical definition, you

must consult the International Vocabu-

lary of Metrology—Basic and General

Concepts and Associated Terms, com-

monly referred to as the VIM.

The VIM defines calibration as: “opera-

tion that, under specified conditions, in a

first step, establishes a relation between

the quantity values with measurement

uncertainties provided by measurement

standards and corresponding indications

with associated measurement uncer-

tainties and, in a second step, uses this

information to establish a relation for

obtaining a measurement result from an

indication.”2

This definition is technical and specific

in a metrological context. But even with

this precise definition, calibration can

have a broad range of interpretations

related to calibration services.

Giving ordersEssentially, calibration services are

activities performed under some type

of understanding—whether explicit or

assumed—between a customer and a cali-

bration service provider. In a commercial

setting, this understanding is characteristi-

cally a contractual obligation specified in

a purchase order (PO).

Unfortunately, the verbiage contained

within a calibration service PO is often

ambiguous as to what constitutes an

acceptable calibration. This creates an

environment ripe for misinterpretations.

The first question you should ask when

requesting a calibration service is: What

do I require of the calibration servicing

of my equipment for it to be acceptable?

Calibration suppliers can provide calibra-

tion services congruent with:

1. Original equipment manufacturer

(OEM) published specifications.

2. Specific regulatory requirements.

3. An OEM’s performance verification

procedure.

4. Special customer requests.

5. Industry-specific accepted practices.

6. Limitations set by the calibration pro-

vider, which may include accuracies and

functionality.

Other questions should address aspects

such as calibration documentation re-

quirements, calibration pedigree (trace-

ability) and uncertainties associated with

calibrations performed.

Reaching a consensusThe topic of contractual obligation in a

calibration service PO is addressed in an

online article from Agilent Technology’s

Metrology Forum.

The article’s author solicited input from

some of the most knowledgeable technical

buyers in the United Kingdom to construct

a calibration PO statement that avoids

ambiguous and interpretive pitfalls:

“Calibration shall be undertaken

against full manufacturers’ specifications.

Where equipment is found to be out of

specification, full performance test re-

sults, in the as-received condition, must be

obtained before any adjustment or repair

action is taken.

“On completion of the calibration work,

a certificate of calibration is required,

signed by your authorized representative,

containing a statement confirming that

the calibration can be demonstrated to be

traceable to national or international stan-

dards and stating the item’s full compli-

ance with its performance specifications.

“Full performance test results, taking

the form of measured values, are to be

supplied. Any omissions from the full cali-

bration are to be notified to us and shall

be agreed in writing before a certificate,

clearly annotated ‘Limited Calibration,’

is issued. A declaration of measurement

uncertainty values shall be included with

all test results.”3

I encourage you to read the article to

better understand this boilerplate state-

ment because ensuring that calibration PO

statements are precise and viable helps

to avoid costly mistakes and prolonged

equipment down times.

Keep in mind this rule of thumb: Avoid

verbal instructions and document expec-

tations. If verbal instructions are used,

follow up with a written request as soon

as possible. QP

REFERENCES1. Merriam-Webster Dictionary, “Calibrate,” www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/calibrate.2. Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology, International

Vocabulary of Metrology—Basic and General Concepts and Associated Terms, www.bipm.org/utils/common/documents/jcgm/JCGM_200_2008.pdf (case sensitive).

3. Agilent Technologies, “Defining Your Calibration Require-ment,” http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cal-reqts.shtml.

To avoid problems, it’s essential that customers and suppliers have an understanding of calibration terminology and customer expectations.

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 treasurer of the Measurement Quality Division.

BY THE BOOK

-

The Quality Calibration Handbook

ASQ – Measurement Quality Division (MQD) Liaison Report – July 2013

Christopher L. Grachanen

In memory of Phil Stein, one of the founders of MQD and the inspirational spark behind ASQ’s Certified Calibration Technician (CCT) program, MQD is proud to sponsor the 2014 Phil Stein Memorial Lectures Series on Metrology Education. These lecture series will focus on metrology fundamentals as well as advance metrological topics. The target audiences for these lecture series is the metrology community at large as well as students pursuing careers in technical fields such as Metrology.

The 2014 Phil Stein Memorial Lectures Series has been made possible by a grant from the late Phil Stein’s estate. It is MQD’s intention that these lecture series should, as appropriate, continue beyond 2014 as an outreach to the metrology community and as part of MQD’s annual division planning process. It is anticipated that these lecture series will help generate interest in the Metrology profession as well as helping educate the next batch of metrologists as Phil Stein would have envisioned.

For addition information on the 2014 Phil Stein Memorial Lectures Series on Metrology Education please visit the MQD website at: http://asq.org/measure/

MQD’s quarterly publication, The Standard, invites NCSLI constituents to submit metrology related articles to The Standard for publication. The Standard is a free, peer review publication that reaches out to the metrology community as well as quality professionals whose primary focus is on quality related topics and trends that often involves the acquisition and analysis of measurement data. Articles can be sent directly to Jay Bucher, The Standard’s editor and chief at: [email protected]

MQD is proud of past and present NCSLI/MQD collaboration efforts and encourages NCSLI’s board of directors when evaluating future projects and initiatives to explore opportunities for future NCSLI/MQD collaborations.

March 18-22, 2013 | Anaheim, CA FAQ CONTACT TESTIMONIALS BLOG TERMS REGISTER

For more information, please contact:Event Coordinator: 866.672.6327 | [email protected]

Measurement Science ConferenceMarch 18-22, 2013 | Anaheim, CA

TECH PROGRAMNIST SeminarsASQ Exam PrepTutorials

SPEAKERSKeynote SpeakerLuncheon Thursday Speaker

EXHIBITSExhibits PricingExhibits Rules & Show Hours

SPONSORSSupporting Organizations

REGISTRATIONPricingExhibits OnlyJustify Your Trip

TRAVELConference LocationAccomodationsArea Attractions

CONTESTSScholarshipsScholarship Application

ARCHIVEPhotos

ABOUTMSC VisionMSC Board2013 Committee

Home Agenda Tech Program Speakers Exhibits Sponsors Registration Travel Contests Archive About

Tech Fall Program

October 10, 2013

Marriott Hotel

18000 Von Karman Avenue

Irvine, CA 92612

The Measurement Science Conference is pleased to announce the return of the Fall Tutorial Workshops.

This one day Fall Tutorial will include the following subjects:

• T01 – Flow Metrology (Gas & Liquid) and Viscosity Fundamentals, Richard Fertell, Proteus Industries Inc.

• T02 – 5S, Lean Thinking and Project Management for Metrology Laboratories, Nat Russo, Raytheon, Space & Airborne Systems

• T03 – Mass Metrology, Ian Ciesniewski, Mettler-Toledo

• T04 – Measurement Uncertainty – Fundamental Applications, Dilip Shah, E = mc3 Solutions

• T05 – Elements of Measurement Techniques., Part II Intermediate Metrology, Emil Hazarian, Prof. Dipl. Engineer

• T06 – Laboratory Project Management, Chester Franklin, Franklin Training Group

• T07 – Traceability To The SI – Educating BioPharma, Medical, Device & Healthcare, Metrology Professionals On Teaching Their Auditors & Inspectors About Calibration, Traceability and Uncertainty!, Dr. Jay L. Bucher, Bucherview Metrology Services, LLC

Registration includes session materials and lunch.

Page 1 of 2Measurement Science Conference » Tech Fall Program

9/1/2013http://msc-conf.com/tech-fall-programs/

Inspection Division Mini-ConferenceFriday September 20, 2013Indiana Wesleyan University

Cincinnati Education & Conference Center9826 Schulze Dr

West Chester, OH 45069

Registration$60 Morning or Afternoon Session$90 Morning and Afternoon Sessions$150 Two peopleRegister Now

PROGRAM SCHEDULE8:00 - 8:30 Registration (check-in)

TRACK 1 TRACK 2 TRACK 3

8:30-12:30SM1

Inspection Techniques Ron Tuznik

QPRO

SM2GD&T

Greg Gay Past Chair – I.D.

SM3 Risk Assessment in Healthcare Bill Metzcar

CEO ICH

12:30-1:00 LUNCH

1:00-5:00 SA1 GR&R Eric Gasper PQSystems

SA2 Uncertainty and Measurement

Kevin Radzik- ASQ-CCT Alliance Calibration

SA3 Risk Assessment and selection of

measuring devicesJohn Vandenbemden &

Dilip Shah

WORKSHOPS

SESSION SM1: Inspection TechniquesThis four-hour workshop will enhance your basic inspection measurement skills. If you need to measure a dimension, do you need to ask someone; or can you check it by yourself? Learn how to use linear scales: inches, millimeters; micrometers: OD, ID, depth; calipers: vernier, dial, digital; and more. Also, record variable and attribute measurements; and create a Pareto chart. Focused on beginners and refreshers we will demonstrate proper use of some hand measurement devices, give the attendees hands on experience and provide exercises to increase your competence. The number of attendees is restricted to this workshop to 16, so sign-up early.

SESSION SM2: GD&TMore and more enterprises are adding GD&T requirements to their conventionally toleranced engineering drawings, necessitating training of this type. An understanding of GD&T is required in order to correctly interpret these GD&T controlled engineering drawings. Thus, the in the workshop we will be working on the concepts needed to understand position tolerancing in functional gaging. We will do some hands on measuring. Some surface plate inspections. We will work with a functional gage and build a part that will be checked by the gage.

SESSION SM3: Risk Assessment in HealthcareRisk is a concept which has become very critical for sustainability. This concept has become so important that it is integrated in the upcoming revision of ISO9001. This workshop will focus on Risk Assessment as a critical component within healthcare. Risk Assessment within Bio-Med, Sterilization and managing the environment are a necessity for patient safety. We will present how and why it is used and you will get the opportunity to conduct your own risk assessment as part of the workshop.

SESSION SA1: GR&RThis session is intended to be an introduction to Gage R&R studies. Topics being covered include a brief overview of MSA, terminology, relevance of R&R studies in the quality environment, tips for preparing and conducting a successful study, and analysis of the computed results. The session will also include hands on exercise where the participants will be broken into groups to complete a mini R&R study. GAGEpack will be used throughout the session to illustrate examples and enter results of the exercises.

SESSION SA2: Calibration & Measurement UncertaintyIn this workshop participants will receive hands on training in the calibration of several artifacts. They will then use the measurement data obtained to calculate corresponding measurement uncertainties. The application of uncertainty from the calibration standard along with the contributions from the environment and methodology will be reviewed and quantified. The contributions will be combined using the ISO GUM methodology and contributions will be reviewed and discussed to better understand how to improve the quality and reliability of measurement results.

SESSION SA3: Risk Assessment and selection of measuring devicesThis workshop will be a little unique. The workshop will begin with a presentation of scenarios in which there was an issue with the selection of the measuring device. It will follow with a presentation on risk assessment where one will get the opportunity to actually conduct a risk assessment for a new measuring device. The second half of the workshop will be a chance for all attendees to ask questions to a panel which includes at this time Jenny Persfull, Past Chair I.D., John Vandenbemden, Chair I.D. and Dilip Shah, Chair MQD.

Rob Miller Accreditation Manager / Product Certification Program Manager American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) Phone: 301.644.3248 ext. 239 Email: [email protected]: http://www.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Maryland Office of the State Fire Marshal Recognizes A2LA as an Approved Accreditation Body

June 11, 2013, Frederick, MD – A2LA is proud to announce that it has been granted approval for recognition by the Maryland State Fire Marshal’s Office as an accreditation body for testing laboratories in the State of Maryland. A2LA is prepared to support the Fire Marshal’s life safety and fire prevention efforts as well as support the laboratory industry by fulfilling the department’s requirements.

The accreditation program is based on the international standard ISO/IEC 17025:2005 – General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. Laboratories interested in becoming accredited by A2LA may find more information or request an estimate at www.A2LA.org. To verify accreditation and compliance, the Office of the Maryland State Fire Marshal, Department of Maryland State Police, looks for the “A2LA Accredited“ symbol on test reports.

ABOUT A2LA:

A2LA is the largest multi-discipline accreditation body in the United States. It has been operating as a non-governmental, non-profit, public service membership society for over 30 years. A2LA provides accreditation to and training on the following international standards: ISO/IEC 17025 (testing/calibration), ISO/IEC 17020 (inspection bodies), ISO Guide 34 (reference material producers), ISO/IEC 17065 (product certification bodies), ISO/IEC 17043 (proficiency testing providers), and ISO 15189 (medical testing).

Julie Collins Training and Membership Manager American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) Phone: 301.644.3235 Email: [email protected]: www.A2LA.org


A2LA Offering Training Courses on ISO/IEC 17025 and Measurement Uncertainty in Detroit/Livonia, MI

July 10, 2013, Frederick, MD – A2LA will offer a series of training courses related to ISO/IEC 17025 in Detroit/Livonia, MI the week of September 30, 2013 at the Marriott Detroit Livonia. The courses offered during this week will include, “ISO/IEC 17025 and Accreditation” and “Introduction to Measurement Uncertainty.”

“Introduction to Measurement Uncertainty” will be held September 30-October 1 and will cover a basic application of The Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM). October 2-4 will feature the introductory class, “ISO/IEC 17025 and Accreditation,” which provides attendees an overview of the international standard and how it applies to testing and calibration laboratories.

For more information on this course and others, contact Julie Collins, A2LA Training and Membership Manager, at [email protected] or 301.644.3235.

ABOUT A2LA:

A2LA is a non-profit, multi-discipline accreditation body with over 30 years of experience providing internationally-recognized accreditation services and quality training. A2LA’s world-class accreditation services encompass testing and calibration laboratories, medical testing laboratories, inspection bodies, proficiency testing providers, reference material producers and product certification bodies. Organizations are accredited to international standards and field-specific requirements developed with government and industry collaboration. A2LA offers both public and private on-site training programs to complement the various accreditation programs.



A2LA Offers “Assessment of Laboratory Competence” Training in Dallas, TX on October 21-25, 2013

July 10, 2013, Frederick, MD - The American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) is proud to offer the training course, “Assessment of Laboratory Competence.” A2LA will offer this course October 21-25, 2013 at the Sheraton Dallas in Dallas, TX. The cost will be $1545.00 for A2LA members and $1595.00 for non-members.

This course includes a comprehensive look at the ISO/IEC 17025 requirements, as well as the accreditation process and the assessment of a laboratory’s competence. Previously taught in separate courses, the merged subject matter enables the instructors to present an understandable explanation of the standard and how it should be applied. In this course, you will gain critical insight into the interpretation of the requirements of this laboratory standard and you will also receive a detailed review of the accreditation process.


ABOUT A2LA:




A2LA Offers “ISO/IEC 17020:2012 and Inspection Body Accreditation” Training in Chantilly, VA September 16-17, 2013

July 10, 2013, Frederick, MD - The American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) is proud to offer the training course, “ISO/IEC 17020:2012 and Inspection Body Accreditation,” a course created specifically for inspection body personnel. A2LA will offer this course September 16-17, 2013 at the Westfield Marriott Washington Dulles in Chantilly, VA. The cost will be $745.00 for A2LA members and $795.00 for non-members.

This course is a comprehensive look at ISO/IEC 17020:2012, its documentation, and its internalauditing requirements. In this course, attendees will gain critical insight into the interpretation of the requirements of this inspection body standard and will also receive a detailed review of the accreditation process. Attendees will learn what information a quality manual should contain and how to keep documents and the quality manual up-to-date.

This course also gives attendees the knowledge needed to establish an internal audit program as required by ISO/IEC 17020:2012, such as scheduling, planning, conducting, reporting on and closing out internal audits. Attendees will receive practical instructions on the development, implementation and long-term maintenance of an effective management system.


ABOUT A2LA:


Julie Collins Training and Membership Manager American Association for Accreditation (A2LA) Phone: 301.644.3235 Email: [email protected]: www.A2LA.org


A2LA Offering ISO/IEC 17025 Training Series in Charlotte, NC for Fall 2013

July 10, 2013, Frederick, MD – A2LA will offer a series of training courses related to ISO/IEC 17025 in Charlotte, NC from November 18-22, 2013 at the Renaissance Charlotte SouthPark Hotel. The courses offered during this week will include, “Introduction to Measurement Uncertainty,” “ISO/IEC 17025 and Accreditation,” and “Root Cause Analysis and Corrective Action.”

“Introduction to Measurement Uncertainty” will cover a basic application of The Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) and will be offered November 18-19. November 20-21 will feature the introductory class, “ISO/IEC 17025 and Accreditation,” which provides attendees an overview of the international standard and how it applies to testing and calibration laboratories. The final class, “Root Cause Analysis and Corrective Action,” will be held on November 22, 2013. This course provides attendees with an in-depth understanding of how to analyze a system in order to identify the root causes of problems and prevent them from recurring. These classes work together to create a firm foundation of knowledge for any laboratory professional working towards implementing ISO/IEC 17025.


ABOUT A2LA:




A2LA Offers “ISO 15189:2012 and Medical Laboratory Accreditation” Training in Atlanta, GA on November 4-5, 2013

July 10, 2013, Frederick, MD - The American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) is proud to offer the training course, “ISO 15189:2012 and Medical Laboratory Accreditation,” a course created specifically for medical testing laboratory personnel. A2LA will offer this course November 4-5, 2013 at the Courtyard Atlanta Downtown in Atlanta, GA. The cost will be $745.00 for A2LA members and $795.00 for non-members.

This course will use lecture, discussion and interactive exercises to provide a comprehensive review of the newly revised and recently published ISO 15189:2012 standard. Specific instruction will focus on the more difficult requirements of the standard such as measurement uncertainty and management review. Through the implementation of ISO 15189, attendees will be able to use a systems view of quality management to better design and implement laboratory functions, to create a total laboratory process that addresses the principles of quality medical laboratory services, and to implement pre-examination, examination and post-examination processes essential to patient care.


ABOUT A2LA:




A2LA Offering Training Courses on ISO/IEC 17025 and Internal Auditing in San Diego, CA

July 10, 2013, Frederick, MD – A2LA will offer a series of training courses related to ISO/IEC 17025 in San Diego, CA from November 6-8, 2013 at the Courtyard San Diego Downtown. The courses offered during this week will include, “ISO/IEC 17025 for Accredited Laboratories” and “Internal Auditing.”

“ISO/IEC 17025 for Accredited Laboratories” will be a one-day course held on November 6. This is an advanced course in the application of ISO/IEC 17025 requirements. Prerequisites include a basic understanding of the Standard and experience working within an accredited management system structure. “Internal Auditing” will be held over the course of two days, and will cover recognized approaches to conducting effective internal audits. The techniques learned in the course promote the involvement of laboratory personnel in the process.


ABOUT A2LA:


Roger Brauninger Program Manager, Biosafety American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) Phone: 301.644.3248 ext. 233 Email: [email protected]: www.A2LA.org


A2LA Helps Form the Food Laboratory Alliance

July 24, 2013, Frederick, MD – American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) is proud to join other leaders in the food laboratory community in forming the Food Laboratory Alliance. The Food Laboratory Alliance will work towards strengthening the nation’s food supply through quality testing.

“We are pleased to help a wide cross-section of interested parties speak with one voice,” explained Peter S. Unger, President and CEO of A2LA. “It embodies our commitment to service for the laboratory community.”

The Food Laboratory Alliance represents a coalition of organizations devoted to the safety of the nation’s food supply and the quality of food laboratory testing. The Alliance is open to food testing laboratories, providers of food testing products and services, food facilities, and organizational representatives of consumers and food testing laboratory professionals. More information about the Food Laboratory Alliance may be found at www.allfoodlab.com and they may be followed on Twitter @allfoodlab.

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.

Samantha Dizor Carter A2LA Contact for A2LA IT Accreditation Program American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) Phone: 301.644.3220 Email: [email protected]: www.A2LA.org


A2LA Approved to Accredit FedRAMP Third Party Assessment Organizations (3PAO)

The American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) is proud to announce that it is now approved to offer ISO/IEC 17020 assessment and accreditation to Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) Third Party Assessment Organizations (3PAOs). A2LA will begin accepting applications for this program in October of 2013.

Under the FedRAMP Concept of Operations (CONOPS) 3PAOs will now be required to be assessed by A2LA in order to be accredited by the FedRAMP PMO. Through the use of technical experts as assessors, the A2LA assessment process involves a rigorous evaluation of technical competence of the 3PAOs, as well as an assessment of their compliance to the general requirements of ISO/IEC 17020. 3PAOs that are already recognized under the FedRAMP program will also be required to be assessed by A2LA in order to maintain their current accreditation through FedRAMP.

“We are pleased to be able to provide services that support the mission of FedRAMP,” said Peter S. Unger, President and CEO of A2LA. “Through our application and enforcement of the relevant national and international standards, government agencies can be assured of the technical competence of the organizations assessed by A2LA.”

This recent recognition of the A2LA IT accreditation program by FedRAMP is one of many recognitions that A2LA currently holds. For a complete list, please visit www.a2la.org/recognition/dom_recog.cfm.

For additional information on the US General Services Administration FedRAMP program please visit www.fedramp.gov.

For additional information regarding the A2LA FedRAMP accreditation program, please contact Samantha Dizor Carter at 301 644 3220 or [email protected].

ABOUT A2LA:

A2LA is a nonprofit, non-governmental, public service, membership society, whose stated mission is to “provide world-class accreditation and training services for testing and calibration laboratories, inspection bodies, proficiency testing providers, reference material producers and product certifiers. These and other future services should create stakeholder confidence in the quality, competence and integrity of all A2LA-accredited organizations and in their products and services.”

Chris Gunning Program Manager, Environmental Sciences American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) Phone: 301.644.3248 ext. 481 Email: [email protected]: www.A2LA.org

August 20, 2013, Frederick, MD – A2LA is proud to announce the award of its 3,500th certificate to Eurofins DQCI. Last week, A2LA President/CEO, Peter Unger, visited Eurofins DQCI to present them with their certificate. A2LA has accredited Eurofins DQCI in accordance with ISO/IEC 17025:2005, specifically related to their competence in chemical testing. The following test types/technologies are included on their scope of accreditation: total protein kjeldahl, non-casein nitrogen (NCN), casein, non-protein nitrogen (NPN), true protein, mojonnier fat ether extraction modified, ash gravimetric and total solid gravimetric.

“Certificate number 3500.01 is symbolic of not only our ongoing leadership and substantial growth in domestic and international laboratory accreditation; but also represents our long-standing mission as a public service organization where we are playing an integral role in the consumer protection through food testing accreditation,” said Unger.

Eurofins DQCI has become one of the premier Dairy Laboratory Service companies in North America. They have established an excellent industry reputation over the past 75 years by providing accurate and timely analytical results. Their dairy manufacturer services include instrument calibration services, custom calibration sets, chemistry analyses, microbiology analyses and pathogen & spoilage organism testing.

ABOUT A2LA:

A2LA is the largest multi-discipline accreditation body in the United States. It has been operating as a non-governmental, non-profit, public service membership society for over 30 years. A2LA provides accreditation to and training on the following international standards: ISO/IEC 17025 (testing/calibration), ISO/IEC 17020 (inspection bodies), ISO Guide 34 (reference material producers), ISO/IEC 17065 (product certification bodies), ISO/IEC 17043 (proficiency testing providers), and ISO 15189 (medical testing).

2013 July/August/September NAPT Newsletter

Special Interest Articles:

• NAPT Online

Management Application

• NCSLI • Spotlight

Individual Highlights:

NAPT OMA 1

We are Back and

Pumped 2

Vacation Checklist 3

Qtrly Reduced PT 3

Announcements 4

Spotlight 5

About our

organization 5

National Association for Proficiency Testing - (952)303-6126 www.proficiency.org

If you were unable to be in attendance at the 2013 NCSLI conference to catch a demonstration of the NAPT Online Management Application, don't worry!

You can try out and NAPT online Management Application by visiting our website at www.proficiency.org. Just look under the services tab for a link to the demo site and see for yourself how the NAPT Online Management Application will not only allow you to better manage your own ILC/PTs, it will also save you hours doing it.

The NAPT Online Management Application can be accessed from virtually anywhere at any time since it is 100% web based. Some of the capabilities include,

ILC Management Account Management E-Mail Management Pending Action Administration Management

If there are additional management capabilities you desire, the application is customizable to your needs!

NAPT has general and technical support and support videos to help guide you through the application.

So, be the first in your organization to tell everyone why NAPT's Online Management Application is an asset that your organization should invest in.

Again, to access the NAPT Online Management Application demo, go to NAPT website www.proficiency.org under Services/Online Management Application.

NAPT Newsletter Page 2 of 4

But, if you were wondering if it was all business and no play, some NAPT staff did manage to get out and kick up their heels and listened to some excellent country music downtown. Needless to say, everyone had a great time!

A HUGE thank you to everyone that stopped by the NAPT booth. Without your continued support, NAPT could not do what it does.

Richard Brynteson from NAPT shows Michael Boetzkes, from Vaisala Canada Inc. NAPT's online management application.

NAPT's time spent at the NCLSI conference was a tremendous success. Now that we are back home we are so excited to continue the hard work our team started in Nashville launching the NAPT Online Management Application.

NAPT's team consisted of Charles Ellis, Richard Brynteson, Bobbie Gabler and John Gabler. Each of them had a key role in making the convention a success for NAPT.

To recap the convention, all exhibitors started the convention with an evening reception Sunday night were there was food and mingling. Monday morning, NAPT's Online Management Application was hitting people's radars throughout the Metrology community. By Tuesday, NAPT was in full swing showing interested participants exactly why NAPT's Online Management Application is an asset to their organization. On Wednesday, NAPT packed up its booth and said goodbye to everyone, but the work isn't over. NAPT now begins the process of filling those interested participant's requests to use the application.


Each quarter NAPT offers select proficiency tests at a reduced fee.

NAPT is offering nearly 50% off the following PTs this quarter only:

CAPACITANCEs1409

HUMIDITY-SS-1

FORCE-301 - 1K w/Indicator

INSP-201

PRESSURE-311

PRESSURE-411

This is a $275 savings!

*These artifacts are outside PTs purchased in a member's ILC/Package at the time of enrollment or renewal.

You need not be a member of NAPT to take advantage of these reduced prices!

Sign Up Today! If you have questions, feel free to contact Karen at [email protected] or Bobbie at [email protected]

Phone: 952-303-6126 Fax: 305-425-5728

Quarterly Reduced Priced PTs

PRESSURE-411 photo featured

While everyone needs a vacation, NAPT is witnessing a growing number of ILC/PTs that seem to be falling into the "I forget to schedule it" bucket. Please remember ILC/PTs purchased must be scheduled in their current membership year. ILC/PTs purchased in a prior year cannot be carried over nor can a refund be issued. If you are wondering if all your ILC/PT have been scheduled, please do not hesitate to contact a NAPT staff member. They are there to assist you. Contact Us

Vacation checklist � Sunglasses & Sunscreen � Destination with a Beach and/or Pool � Fun, Sun, Family & Friends � SCHEDULING the ILC/PTs


NAPT is teaming up with the Measurement Science Conference to bring a rare opportunity to the 2014 conference. For the first time, participants will not only be able to take measurements in the following proficiency tests while at the conference, but will be able to ask questions to the experts in the field. YES! Leaders in the metrology community will be available to provide guidance and support in the following areas. Optical Comparator Granite Surface Plate Rockwell Hardness Tester Analytical Balance Bench Scale CMM Torque Wrench Pipettes Hand Tools Pressure

" Our experience shows that not everything that is observable and measurable is predictable, no matter how complete our past observations may have been. — Sir William McCrea In Presidential Address (8 Feb 1963), Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society (Mar 1963), 4, 197


“….you have done a great job for us and we will continue using your company.” Member Testimonial

“NAPT has been able to provide our industry with the appropriate types of tests related to our scope of accreditation. We appreciate your organization! Thanks.” Member Testimonial

Mission

Our Mission Our mission is to provide our customers with the best information, tools and service to help them improve measurement processes and results through participation in interlaboratory comparisons, proficiency testing and round robins.

Our Quality Policy NAPT provides our clients with an unbiased analysis of measurement processes to enhance awareness of their technical competence and data integrity.

Our Objectives NAPT's main objective is to support our mission by providing professional management and program administration, coordination, data processing and reporting for interlaboratory comparisons, proficiency testing, and round robins.

SPOTLIGHT

NAPT is a non-profit membership association dedicated to the improvement of measurement quality.

About Our Organization…

901 Twelve Oaks Center Dr., Suite 920

Wayzata, MN 55391

PHONE: (952) 303-6126

FAX:

(305) 425-5728

E-MAIL: [email protected]

NAPT is incorporated as a 501 (c) (3) scientific and educational nonprofit organization.

National Association for Proficiency Testing

We’re on the Web! See us at:

www.proficiency.org

“The people are friendly and helpful. A good crew. Thank you so much.” “You guys are doing a good job, keep it up!” Member Testimonial

NAPT Website NAPT's website is a top notch one-stop shop for all your proficiency testing needs with its easy to use navigation system. It allows participants to quickly locate and sign up for ILC/PTs. It is also a great place to find the latest news and updates, to enter data or simply read a newsletter. In order to continue our top notch service, NAPT's website will soon require you to sign in with a username and password to enter data results. NAPT is hoping to have this feature in play by fourth quarter. Look for an announcement in NAPT's news/updates section on the website. If you have any questions about the NAPT website, please contact us.

WEBINARS (2 HOURS)

Contract Review (5246): Introduces the fundamentals of contract review that are necessary to meet customer expectations and successfully implement ISO/IEC 17025. Date/Time: Thursday, August 8, 2013, 2:00-4:00 p.m. EST Registration Deadline: July 25, 2013 Document Control and Record Keeping (5247): Introduces the fundamentals of Laboratory Management System Document Control and Record Keeping that are necessary to successfully implement ISO/IEC 17025. Date/Time: Thursday, August 15, 2013, 2:00-4:00 p.m. EST Registration Deadline: August 1, 2013 Calibration Certificate Evaluation (5245): Introduces concepts necessary to successfully implement ISO/IEC 17025 compliant calibration certificates within the laboratory and evaluate service provider certificates for compliance. Date/Time: Thursday, August 29, 2013, 2:00-4:00 p.m. EST Registration Deadline: August 8, 2013 State Laboratory Annual Submission Process (5249): For State Laboratory weights and measures staff to review annual submission requirements for laboratory Recognition. Date/Time: Thursday, October 17, 2013, 2:00-4:00 p.m. EST Registration Deadline: September 26, 2013 Internal Auditing Best Practices (5151): Considers internal auditing techniques and best practices that are used by metrology laboratories to comply with ISO/IEC 17025 criteria. Date/Time: Thursday, October 31, 2013, 2:00–4:00 p.m. ET Registration Deadline: October 10, 2013

SEMINARS

Fundamentals of Metrology: Introduces the participant to the concepts of measurement systems, units, measurement uncertainty, measurement assurance, traceability, basic statistics and how they fit into the laboratory Quality Management System. THESE SESSIONS ARE FULL., but will be offered again the weeks of January 13, 2014, March 31, 2014, and August 25, 2014. Dates/Location: August 12-16, 2013, Gaithersburg, MD (5270) August 19-23, 2013, Gaithersburg, MD (5248) Handbook 133 “Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods” (5261): Focuses on the requirements and basic test procedures for packages labeled by weight. Date/Location: August 12-16, 2013, Sacramento, CA Registration Deadline: Closed Handbook 130 Packaging and Labeling (5269): This is a 5-day seminar for State Weights and Measures officials on NIST Handbook 130, Section Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulations (UPLR) (http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/pubs/upload/section-IVa-13-h130-final.pdf). Date/Location: October 21-25, 2013, Glendale, Arizona Registration Deadline: August 26, 2013 Mass Metrology Seminar (5250): Two-week "hands-on" seminar in which the trainee performs measurements by applying procedures and equations discussed in the classroom. Date/Location: October 21 - November 1, 2013, Gaithersburg, MD Registration Deadline: August 26, 2013 Volume Metrology Seminar (5252): Focuses on the comprehension and application of the procedures, the equations, and calculations, and includes the operation of the laboratory equipment, review of publications, standards, specifications, and tolerances relevant to the measurements. Date/Location: November 18-22, 2013, Gaithersburg, MD Registration Deadline: September 23, 2013

To obtain further information about the training events and registration instructions, click on the event names.

NIST Office of Weights & Measures

Upcoming Training

100 Bureau Drive Stop 2600 Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Phone: 301-975-3272 Fax: 301-975-8091 E-mail: [email protected]

For registration deadlines and to request training: http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/calendar.cfm

July 2013

� �

<= Measurement Quality Division Membership Distribution

Certified Calibration Technician => Certification Distribution

�

Measurement Quality Division

TO: Measurement Quality Division(MQD)

FROM: Elías Monréal

DATE: Aug-2013

RE: Membership Chair Report for The Standard

2013 VoC Membership Survey: In May/June of 2013, Measurement Quality Division conducted its Voice of the Customer(VoC) survey of its members. Questions 1 thru 5 dealt with Demographics: questions let us find out a little about you. Questions 6 thru 16 dealt with Operations: questions let us understand your use of the Division’s offerings. Questions 17 thru 20 dealt with Viewpoint: questions let us understand your viewpoint of your Division Membership. We received 202 completed surveys and will call that a overwhelming success compared to previous years: 110 in 2011, 92 in 2010, 37 in 2009, 68 in 2008, 22 in 2006, and 40 in 2003.

Notable measures of survey: � 3,554 MQD members: 2,985 with valid emails + 569 blank/unknown emails � 202 Completed Surveys -vs- 40 Surveys started but not completed � 71.9% of surveys were completed in less than six minutes. � 68.6% of surveys were completed on either May 1 or June 27. � 60.5% have been division members for less than four years. � 46.7% do not belong to any other division. � 65.0% do not know about or have not visited the MQD website: http://asq.org/measure/� 78.9% are satisfied with receiving four newsletters per year. � 66.5% receive the right amount of communication from MQD. � 83.9% have not attended the WCQI due to: cost to attend, lack of funding/support by my company,

work obligations, and location of conference. � 88.2% have not attended MSC or NCSLI due to: cost to attend, lack of funding/support by my

company, location of conference, and work obligations. � 56.5% deem MQD membership as valuable and extremely valuable � 79 topics for consideration for upcoming WCQI, MSC or NCSLI conference. � 51 suggestions for MQD to provide its members � 48 would like to be contacted by MQD to discuss potential involvement with division

�Recipients of $50 gift card raffle for completing the VOC Survey

� Anish S. USA Associate Member � Chantal M. SAU Senior Member � Donald F. USA Full Member � Elena V. ALB Student Member

� �



�

THANK YOU for your participation and for your earnest feedback. With your feedback, MQD will make course corrections in serving you. Please review enclosed synopsis report and embedded links/screenshots. Finally, would like to THANK and acknowledge the Qualtrics expertise of Steven Schuelka(R12D).

MQD Membership Report: � Membership total: 3,099 � 9th largest division � -3.73 Growth percentage is above national average � 68.59 Retention percentage is below national average

� �



�

Questions, comments, or concerns? Feel free to contact me at [email protected] or (520) 241-0478.

Adíos,Elías Monréal ASQ-CQPA,CQIA,CMI,CQT,CSSGB,CCT,CQA,CQE,CMQ/OE

ASQ Board of Director ASQ Region 7 Director ASQ MQD Membership Chair

��2013�MQD�VoC�Survey��

Measurement�Quality�Division�–�VoC�Survey��1�

VoC�Survey�Final�Report�

3,554�MQD�members:�2,985�with�valid�emails�+�569�blank/unknown�emails�202�Completed�Surveys��vs��40�Surveys�Started�

Last�survey:�110�Completed��vs��14�Surveys�Started�

1.��How�long�have�you�been�a�member�of�the�ASQ�Measurement�Quality�Division?�

#� Answer� ��

Response� %�

2� 1�year�to�less�than�4�years�

� ��

86� 40%�

4� 7�years�to�less�than�20�years�

� ��

47� 22%�

1� Less�than�one�year�

� ��

44� 20%�

3� 4�years�to�less�than�7�years�

� ��

24� 11%�

5� 20�or�more�years�

� ��

14� 7%�

� Total� � 215� 100%��

�

2.��What�type�of�ASQ�Membership�do�you�have?�


Response� %�

3� Regular� � ��

95� 44%�

4� Senior� � ��

86� 40%�

1� Associate� � ��

21� 10%�

6�Other�(Enterprise,�Site,�etc.)�

� ��

8� 4%�

2� Student� � ��

4� 2%�

5� Fellow� ��

2� 1%�

� Total� � 216� 100%��



�



3.��Please�select�all�applicable�reasons�why�you�joined�the�ASQ�Measurement�Quality�Division�and�continue�to�be�a�member:�


Response� %�

3�

Resources�and�support�to�my�specific�industry/interests�

� ��

148� 69%�

1�

Courses�and�training�for�professional�development�

� ��

137� 64%�

4� Newsletter�and�other�publications�

� ��

101� 47%�

2� Networking�opportunities�

� ��

89� 41%�

6�Curiosity�about�the�subject�matter�

� ��

78� 36%�

5� Conferences�and�events�

� ��

57� 27%�

7�

Recommendation�from�another�Measurement�Division�member�

� ��

25� 12%�

8� Cost�to�join� � ��

12� 6%�

� Total� Recall:�Multiple�value(s)� 215� 100%�



4.��Do�you�belong�to�any�other�ASQ�Divisions?�


Response� %�

1� Yes� � ��

115� 53%�

2� No� � ��

101� 47%�

� Total� � 216� 100%��

�



5.��Please�list�the�other�divisions:�

Text�Response�

3013�–�Unknown�

0509�–�Washington,�DC�and�Maryland�Metro�Section�

0706�–�San�Fernando�Valley�Section�

0903�–�Indianapolis�Section��

1004�–�Saginaw��Valley�Section�

1113�–�Raleigh�Section�

1307�–�Wichita�Section�

1506�–�Jacksonville�Northeast�Florida�Section�

Aerospace,�Statistics�

Aerospace,�Statistics�

Aerospace,�Supplier/Customer�

Audit�

Audit�

Audit�

Audit�division�

Audit�Division(AD),�Quality�Management�Division(QMD�confusing�with�MQD)�

Audit,�Automotive,�Quality�Management,�several�

Audit,�Food/Drug/Cosmetics,�Human�Development�&�Leadership�

Audit,�Management�

Auditing,�Management�

Auditor�

Automotive�

Automotive�

Automotive�&�Quality�Management�

Automotive,�Audit,�Management,�Six�Sigma,�Supplier�Quality,�Human�Performance�

Automotive,�Quality�Management,�Audit�

Biomedical,�FD&C,�HD&L,�Audit,�Lean�

Construction�

Customer�Supplier�Div�

Customer�Supplier�

Design�and�construction,�lean�enterprise�division,�service�quality,�quality�management�

Don't�remember�



Electronics�and�communication,�aviation�space�and�defense�

Energy�

Energy�and�Environmental�

Food�&�Pharmaceutical�

Food,�Drug�and�Cosmetic�

Food,�Drug�and�Cosmetic;�Inspection;�Statistics�

Government�&�Quality�Management�

Healthcare�

Healthcare�

Healthcare�Quality�Management�

Healthcare,�audit,�lean,�quality�management�

Healthcare,�FDC�

Healthcare,�Measuring�Quality,�Human�development�and�leadership�

Human�Development�&�Leadership�

Inspection�

Inspection�

Inspection�

Inspection�

Inspection(9),�HD&L�(13),�Quality�Management�(1),�Measurement�Quality(17)�

Inspection,�audit.�

Inspection,�Statistics�

Lean�manufacturing�

Lean,�and�inspection�

Local�Division�

Management,�Lean�Six�Sigma�

Manufacturing�

Manufacturing�

Process�

Process�and�Education�

QMD�

QMD�

QMD,�Audit,�BioMed�

Quality�Audit�

Quality�Management�

Quality�Management�



Quality�Management�&�Inspection�

Quality�Management�&�Measurement�Quality�

Quality�Management,�Audit�

Quality�Management,�Six�Sigma�

Quality;�Lean;�Health�Care;�Measurement;�I�believe�a�few�others�

Reliability�

Reliability�

Reliability�

Service,�Statistics�

Six�Sigma�

Software,�Management,�Lean�

Software,�Reliability�

Software,�Service�

Software;�Quality�Management�

Statistics�

Statistics�

Statistics�

Statistics�

Statistics�Food�Drug�and�Cosmetics�Audit�Automotive�

Statistics,�Chemical�Process�Industries�

Statistics,�FD&C,�HD&L�

Statistics,�Software�Quality�

Statistics;�Automotive;�Quality�Management�

Statistics,�Audit,�Team�and�Workplace�Excellence�

Statistic� Value�

Total�Responses� 91��

�



6.��The�ASQ�Measurement�Quality�Division�has�a�website�for�your�use.��In�the�past�twelve�months,�have�you�visited�the�website:��http://asq.org/measure/�?�


Response� %�

3�

Did�not�know�we�had�a�division�website�

� ��

83� 40%�

1� Yes� � ��

73� 35%�

2� No� � ��

53� 25%�

� Total� � 209� 100%��

65%�did�not�know�about�or�have�not�visited�the�MQD�website:�http://asq.org/measure/�

�

�



7.��The�Measurement�Quality�Division�currently�publishes�and�distributes�via�email�four�newsletters�per�year.��Are�you�happy�with�that�number�of�newsletters?�


Response� %�

1� Yes,�four�is�a�good�number�

� ��

165� 79%�

2�

No,�would�like�more�newsletters,�for�example,�five�per�year�

� ��

26� 12%�

4� Do�not�read�the�newsletters�

� ��

18� 9%�

3�

No,�would�like�fewer�newsletters,�i.e.,�1�or�2�per�year�

��

0� 0%�

� Total� � 209� 100%��

Interesting�that�9%�do�not�read�the�newsletters.�One�verbatim�stated:��don't�getting�any�of�the�four�newsletters�mentioned�and�this�is�the�first�email�from�division�in�a�long�time.�� Please�review�your�email�preferences�for�receiving�ASQ�emails.�� Will�continue�to�communicate�newsletter�in�all�forums:�social�media,�newsletter,�website.��

8.��Have�you�ever�attended�the�World�Conference�on�Quality�Improvement�(WCQI)?�


Response� %�

2� No� � ��

173� 84%�

1� Yes� � ��

33� 16%�

� Total� � 206� 100%��

�



9.��If�you�have�ever�attended�the�World�Conference�on�Quality�Improvement,�please�indicate�what�you�enjoyed�about�your�attendance�(check�all�that�apply):�


Response� %�

2�The�presentations�I�attended�

� ��

27� 82%�

1�Networking�with�other�quality�professional�

� ��

23� 70%�

4�Learning�new�skills�and/or�techniques�

� ��

16� 48%�

3�Able�to�meet�with�different�vendors�

� ��

14� 42%�

5� Other�(please�describe)�

� ��

3� 9%�

� Total�Responses� � 33� 100%��

Other�(please�describe)�

Benchmarking;�Learning�Best�Industry�Practices�

Cert��Board�Meetings�

Not�much��it�was�very�early�in�my�career.��

�



10.��If�you�have�never�attended�the�World�Conference�on�Quality�Improvement,�please�select�all�applicable�reasons�as�to�why�you�have�not:�


Response� %�

1� Cost�to�attend�the�conference�

� ��

101� 60%�

2�Lack�of�funding/support�by�my�company�

� ��

86� 51%�

5�Work�obligations�prevent�me�from�attending�

� ��

73� 43%�

3� Location�of�conference�

� ��

67� 40%�

6�

Family�obligations�prevent�me�from�attending�

� ��

27� 16%�

4� Content�of�the�conference�

� ��

6� 4%�

9� Other�(please�specify)�

� ��

6� 4%�

7�No�interest�in�attending�conferences�

� ��

5� 3%�

8�

Difficult�in�getting�paper�approved�to�present�at�conference�

� ��

5� 3%�

� Total�Responses� � 168� ��



Other�(please�specify)�

Just�joined�last�year�

Never�considered�attending�

Retired�many�years�

Timing�of�the�event��

�

11.��Comment�on�the�level�of�the�presentation(s)�at�the�WCQI:�


Response� %�

4� At�the�right�level�

� ��

23� 70%�

2� Not�technical�enough�

� ��

7� 21%�

3�Do�not�know,�have�not�attended�

� ��

2� 6%�

1� Too�technical� � ��

1� 3%�

� Total� � 33� 100%��

�

12.��Have�you�ever�attended�the�Measurement�Science�Conference(MSC)�or�the�National�Conference�of�Standards�Laboratories�International(NCSLI)?�


Response� %�

2� No� � ��

180� 88%�

1� Yes� � ��

24� 12%�

� Total� � 204� 100%��

�



13.��If�you�have�ever�attended�the�MSC�or�NCSLI�Conference,�please�indicate�what�you�enjoyed�about�your�attendance�(check�all�that�apply):�


Response� %�

1�Networking�with�other�quality�professional�

� ��

22� 92%�

2�The�presentations�I�attended�

� ��

20� 83%�

3�Able�to�meet�with�different�vendors�

� ��

17� 71%�

5�The�tutorial�workshops�I�attended�

� ��

16� 67%�

4�Learning�new�skills�and/or�techniques�

� ��

14� 58%�

7� Other�(please�describe)�

� ��

3� 13%�

6�The�CCT�primer�review�I�attended�

� ��

2� 8%�

� Total� � 24� 100%��

Other�(please�describe)�

Committee�meetings�

Meeting�with�fellow�members�

the�J&J�breakout��

�



14.��If�you�have�never�attended�the�MSC�or�NCSLI�Conference,�please�select�all�applicable�reasons�as�to�why�you�have�not:�


Response� %�

1� Cost�to�attend�the�conference�

� ��

92� 52%�

2�Lack�of�funding/support�by�my�company�

� ��

86� 48%�

3� Location�of�conference�

� ��

63� 35%�

8�Work�obligations�prevent�me�from�attending�

� ��

61� 34%�

7� Other�(please�specify)�

� ��

23� 13%�

5�

Family�obligations�prevent�me�from�attending�

� ��

20� 11%�

6�No�interest�in�attending�conferences�

� ��

11� 6%�

4� Content�of�the�conference�

� ��

9� 5%�

� Total�Responses� � 178� 100%��



Other�(please�specify)�

Content�too�specific�for�my�professional�needs�

Did�not�know�about�it�



Did�not�know�of�them�

Did�not�know�about�these�events!�

Do�not�know�when�this�are�held.�

I�cannot�go�to�all�the�conferences�I�want�to�and�I�am�on�the�leadership�team�for�my�local�section�so�the�ASQ�conference�fits�best.�

I�felt�the�subject�matter�was�over�my�head.�

I�have�not�been�able�to�pin�the�section�that�deals�specifically�with�NDT�and�surface�mining.�

Limited�vacation�

Never�knew�about�it.�

No�clear�company�direction�

Not�a�priority/no�knowledge�of�them�

not�all�would�be�applicable�for�the�cost�

Not�as�familiar�

Not�aware�of�conference�

Not�Informed�

Other�info�at�conferences�more�pertinent�to�my�job�

Received�no�information�

Was�not�in�quality�field�at�the�times.�

Wasn't�aware�of�them��

�



15.��Comment�on�the�level�of�the�presentation(s)�at�the�MSC�or�NCSLI�Conference:�


Response� %�

3� At�the�right�level�

� ��

20� 83%�

1� Too�technical� � ��

2� 8%�

2� Not�technical�enough�

� ��

2� 8%�

� Total� � 24� 100%��

16.��How�valuable�has�your�membership�in�the�ASQ�Measurement�Quality�Division�been�to�your�career?�


Response� %�

2� Valuable� � ��

99� 50%�

3� Unsure� � ��

66� 33%�

4� Not�valuable� � ��

16� 8%�

1� Extremely�valuable�

� ��

14� 7%�

5� Not�valuable�at�all�

� ��

5� 3%�

� Total� � 200� 100%��

�



17.��What�one�topic�delivered�as�a�short�course�should�the�ASQ�Measurement�Quality�Division�consider�at�a�future�World�Conference�on�Quality�Improvement,�MSC�or�NCSLI�Conference?�

Text�Response�

��

.�

?�

`�

5S�for�Calibration�Lab�

Agile�Metrics;��Agile�Adoption�and�by�what�industries;�Cloud;�API's;�

Analysis�procedures��for�adjusting�calibration�intervals�

Analytical�and�Process�formulas�used�in�the�field�

Appropriate�selection�of�measurement�methods.��All�too�often,�myths�surrounding�perceived�accuracy�hinder�selection�&�corrupt�results.�

At�this�time,�I�cannot�decide�on�a�topic.�

Automated�uncertainty�calculations.�

Business�oriented�metrics�(seems�most�of�the�current�content�is�oriented�toward�manufacturing�&�statistics)�

CAD�CAM�measurement�integration�

Calibration�

Calibration�

Calibration�Lab�and�Structure�of�the�organization�conflict�of�interest�(Who�the�calibration�lab�should�report�to?)�

Calibrations�

Certification�information,�Quality's�role�in�measurement�

Certifications�

Close�image�photogrammetry,�non�contact�measurement,�or�portable�CMM�

CMM's�and�GD&T�ASME�Y14.5�

CNC�Basics�

Cost�of�Measurement�

Customer�Delight�

Do�not�know�

Don't�know�

EMP�III�approach�to�gauge�studies�



Error�involved�in�measurements�and�models�

Exactly�how�ASQ�works�and�what�is�necessary�to�continue�certifications�once�you�have�them�

Food�Safety�

Gage�design�for�repeatability�and�reproduceability�

Gage�R&Rs,�Calibration�Studies,�&�other�Measurement�System�Analyses�

Going�through�a�successful�NVLAP�audit�

GR&R�

Helping�organizations�get�started�at�the�department�level�or�stay�refreshed�in�measuring�performance;�keeping�staff�engaged�

How�will�quality�last�in�America's�corporation�world.�

I�am�still�new�

I�don't�go�to�the�World�Conference�

I�really�liked�the�WCQI�presentation�Influencing�without�Authority�which�seems�to�apply�everywhere�

IFPUG�FUNCTION�POINT,�AGILE�

I'm�in�the�social�work/child�welfare/behavioral�health�fields�and�I�would�like�more�QI�info�that�pertains�to�these�industries.�

Importance�of�Traceability�and�Measurement�Uncertainty�(target�audience�=�Calibration�Customer�or�Quality)�

Introduction�into�Calibration�Laboratories�

Lean�Six�Sigma�black�belt�

Maybe�you�should�consider�including�some�basic�course�as�an�introduction�to�the�measurement.�

Measurement�Systems�Analysis�for�destructive�testing�

Measurement�Uncertainty�




Measurement�Uncertainty�Budgeting�

Measurement�Uncertainty�Budgets�

Measuring�machine�and�process�capability�

Measuring�software�quality�

Metrology�

Metrology�Basics�

Metrology�in�the�next�decade�

Metrology,�Innovation�and�Sustainability�

N/A�

N/A�



NA�

National�Quality�Infrastructure�

NCSLI�

Net�Promoter�Score�

Never�attend�

New�Technologies�

No�Comment�

None�

Not�sure�

Not�sure�what�the�division�would�teach,�this�is�the�first�email�I�have�received�from�you�

Practical�Method�for�Z540.3�Implementation�

Quality�Improvement�

Quality�improvement�of�healthcare�

Quality�in�Research�Labs�

Quality�is�not�punctuative,�but�opportunity�to�improve�something�

Root�Cause�Analysis�

Six�Sigma��Lean�Measurement�System�Analysis�

Software�advances�

Software�quality�

Statistics�for�metrology�

The�best�use�of�data�in�healthcare�

Time�dependent�observations�

Traceability�to�the�SI�for�metrology�departments�

Uncertainty�overview�for�non�technical�people�

Uncertainty�validation�methods�

Uncertainty:�how�to�explain�to�non�technical�customer.�

Unknown�

Unsure�

Unsure�

Unsure�

Use�of�Essential�Quality�Tools�in�Metrology�

Value�of�proficiency�testing.�

Why�P/T�is�a�flawed�measurement�index�


Total�Responses� 93�



Q17�–�Groupings�� 10�x�Measurement:�Analytical/Process�formulas,�GD&T�ASME�Y14.5,�CAD�CAM,�CMM,�Noncontact,�

photogrammetry,�SI�Traceability,�P/T�index,�intro,�methods,�machine/process�capability,�time�dependent,�

� 7�x�Measurement�Uncertainty:�budgeting�� 5�x�Metrology:�Next�decade(Future�Study),�essential�tools,�basics,�statistics�� 4�x�Uncertainty:�automated,�overview,�validation,�explanation�� 4�x�Gage�R&R:�gage�design�� 4�x�Certification:�ASQ(CCT),�Lab,�info,�NVLAP,�NCSLI,�research�lab,�Z540.3�� 3�x�Software�quality:�Possible�calibration�software,�advances�� 3�x�Measurement�Systems�Analysis�(MSA):�destructive�testing�� 3�x�Calibration:�intervals,�system,�5S,�cost�� 2�x�Six�Sigma:�LSSBB,�Lean�� 2�x�Quality�Improvement�� 2�x�Organizational�Structure:�report,�staff�engagement,�philosophy�� 2�x�Metrics�� 1�x�Root�Cause�Analysis�� 1�x�Innovation�and�Sustainability:�New�Technologies�� 1�x�Agile�� 16�x�Other:�Do�not�know,�N/A,�never�attend,�no�comment,�unknown,�unsure,�new�

��



18.��What�one�offering�should�the�ASQ�Measurement�Quality�Division�provide�to�its�members�that�it�currently�does�not?�

Text�Response�

��

.�

?�

`�

A�journal�as�technometrics�or�quality�technology�

A�more�up�to�date�and�modern�website�with�more�information�and/or�links�than�the�current�one.� ��Make�the�publication�electronic�print.�

A�webinar�workshop?�

Agile�Metrics;��Agile�Adoption�and�by�what�industries;�Cloud;�API's;�

Better�cost�for�functions,�e.g.,�conference.�

Bigger�discount�on�membership�

Can't�think�of�anything�

Can't�think�of�one�now.�

CMM�training�

CNC�Training�

do�not�know�

Don't�know�

Don't�know�

Don't�know�

Free�on�line�training�to�cover�the�subjects�for�a�Certified�Calibration�Technician�

I�am�still�new�

I�am�very�new�to�the�division�and�have�not�be�able�to�see�all�that�is�offered�therefore�I�have�no�opinion�at�this�time.�

I�don't�know�

I�don't�remember�getting�any�of�the�4�newsletters�mentioned,�this�is�the�1st�email�from�Measurement�I�have�received�in�a�long�time.�

I�unknown�

I�would�have�to�think�about�that�one�

I�would�like�communications�about�where/when�the�meetings�are�held�and�dial�in�information�for�meetings�when�done�by�teleconferencing.��This�information�should�be�regularly�sent�prior�to�the�meetings�to�encourage�participation�from�people�who�have�not�historically�participated�and�to�expand�the�pool�of�engaged�volunteers.�



I'm�in�the�social�work/child�welfare/behavioral�health�fields�and�I�would�like�more�QI�info�that�pertains�to�these�industries.�

LinkedIn�connections�

Measurement�Standard�for�reference�

measurement�techniques,�such�as�close�image�photogrammetry�etc.�

Mini�Tech�Clinic�on�CCT�BoK�topic�

More�CCT�training�classes.�

More�insight�of�software�quality�

More�involvement�at�the�regional�level.�

More�online�courses�to�prepare�you�with�the�knowledge�needed�for�an�Exam�or�even�a�Prep�Exam.�Example:�Calibration�Courses��Similar�to�WPT�

N/A�

N/A�

N/A�

NA��

NA�

NA�

Networking�

Networking�for�measuring�questions,�a�central�website.�

No�comment�

No�Comment�

No�Comment�

no�opinion�

Not�sure�

Not�sure�

Not�sure�

Not�sure�

Not�sure�about�that.�

Practical�Measurement�Uncertainty��Calibration�

Quality�improvement�in�the�staffing�industry�

See�above�

Six�Sigma��Lean�Measurement�System�Analysis�

Software�quality�

Something�similar�to�stated�above�

Specific�on�Calibration�



Think�about�to�provide�class�room�courses�more�affordable�

Time�series�analyses�

Too�new�to�the�division�

Training�classes�to�prepare�for�certification�

Unknown�

Unknown��have�not�been�active�enough�

Unsure�

Unsure�

Unsure�

Unsure�

Welcome�to�Non�ASQ�members�in�understanding�how�quality�should�be�part�of�constant�improvement�effort�stay�tune�with�innovation�

What�constitutes�a�complete�MSA��Precision,�Accuracy,�Stability�&�Robustness�for�a�non�analytical�method�

What�the�division�provides�and�teaches?�

You�should�give�some�gifts�of�tools�that�are�used�in�Measurement�



Q18�–�Groupings�� 8�x�Training:�Regional�involvement,�CMM/CNC,�CCT�prep,�affordable�training�� 4�x�Webinar:�workshop,�CCT�BoK,�Tech�Clinic�on�CCT�BoK,�Prep�Exam,�Ex)�WPT�� 3�x�Networking:�Non�ASQ�members�� 3�x�Industry:�Behaviour�Health�field,�CI�in�staffing�industry,�Software�Quality�� 2�x�Tools:�gifts�of�tools�that�are�used�in�Measurement,�� 2�x�Publications:�similar�journal�as�Technometrics�� 2�x�Measurement�Techniques:�Uncertainty,�Measurement�STD�for�REF,�MSA�� 1�x�Website:�Modern�website�with�more�information/�links.�� 1�x�Telecon:�information�on�telecon�� 1�x�Social�Media:�LinkedIn�� 1�x�Communication:��more�info�� 33�x�Other:�Can't�think�of�anything,�Don't�know,�still�new,�N/A,�No�Comment,�Unknown,�Unsure��

�



19.��Do�you�receive�enough�communications�from�the�ASQ�Measurement�Quality�Division�leadership?�


Response� %�

1� Yes,�receive�the�right�amount�

� ��

131� 66%�

2� No,�I�wish�there�were�more�

� ��

61� 31%�

4�I�do�not�wish�to�receive�any�communications�

��

3� 2%�

3� No,�I�wish�there�were�less�

��

2� 1%�

� Total� � 197� 100%��



20.��If�you�would�like�someone�from�the�ASQ�Measurement�Quality�Division�leadership�to�follow�up�with�you�about�this�survey�or�increasing�your�involvement�in�the�Division,�please�provide�your�name,�email�address�and/or�phone�number�below:�

Name� Email�Address� Phone�number�

Alfonso�Estevas� [email protected]� +34609407942�

Allen�Owens� aowens@opw�fc.com� 513�870�3146�

Amy�Cuthbertson� [email protected]� 248�853�0044�

Anish�Shah� [email protected]� 7632498147�

Aridai�Silva�Zavala� [email protected]� 3141250368�

Audy�F.�Syafrizal� [email protected]� +6287870162368�

Brenda�Daniels� [email protected]� 407�444�8296�

Charles�Grant�Short� [email protected]� (214)�597��8709�

Chris�Craft� [email protected]� 386�738�8396�

Christin�Bennett� [email protected]� 616�787�7745�

Dawn�Triplett� [email protected]� 412�872�9428�

Denis�Gooding� [email protected]� 409�266�6923�

Edward�Malsh� malshe@nu�way.net� 847�305�0817�

Elena� [email protected]� 00355694010122�

Elias�Monreal� [email protected]� 520.241.0478�

Elizabeth�Robinette� [email protected]� 317.433.9298�

Georgia� [email protected]� 301�975�4014�

Graham�Errington� [email protected]� +1�2380793540�

Harvey�Smith� [email protected]� XXxx�

James�Foss� [email protected]� 309�716�2731�

James�Heisler� [email protected]� 713�960�7664�

Janet�Marqueda� [email protected]� XXxx�

Jean�Wallace� [email protected]� XXxx�

Jesus�Guarneros� [email protected]� XXxx�

Joseph�Hertl� [email protected]� 219�763�6875�

Joshua�Ferreira� [email protected]� XXxx�

Kelly�Black� XXxx� 303�358�6134�

Ken�Linczer� [email protected]� XXxx�



LaTonia�Johnson� [email protected]� 415�575�7673�

MARIA�DE�LOURDES�SILVA� [email protected]� 525542029066�

Marilou� [email protected]� 603�801�8857�

Michael�D.�Gentry� [email protected]� 303.775.1455�

Michael�Suelzer� [email protected]� 319�333�8085�

Michelle�Dudley� [email protected]� 919�909�9487�

Mohammad�Kanan� [email protected]� 316�300�8168�

Oscar�Harasic� [email protected]� 240�4237649�

Pardeep�Sharma� [email protected]� 0426215370�

Rafael�Munoz� [email protected]� 949�753�6418�

Rama�Chockalingam� [email protected]� 8146770716�

Robert�Figueroa� [email protected]� 408�499�8404�

Robert�Ingham� [email protected]� XXxx�

Sal�Scicchitani� [email protected]� 215�674�3136�

Scott�Kowalski� [email protected]� 662�890�6626�

Scott�Rand� [email protected]� 6038854233�

Shawn�Armstrong� [email protected]� 425�765�6701�

Sheida�Toussi� [email protected]� 408�789�7889�

Sunday�Lijofi� [email protected]� XXxx�

Tom�DeLafosse� [email protected]� XXxx�



MQD�senior�leadership�to�outreach�to�these�folks:�1)�write�articles�in�newsletter�on�topics�of�their�interest,�and�2)�potential�future�MQD�Servant�Leaders.�THANK�YOU�for�raising�hand�and�continuing�your�Servant�Leadership�with�MQD.�

�

Divi

sion

�Mon

thly

�Gro

wth

�and

�Ret

entio

n��J

uly�

2013

�End

�of�M

onth

Divi

sion

�Nam

eM

embe

r�Typ

eJu

ne30

th_c

ount

sCu

rren

t_Co

unts

Gro

wth

�%N

ew�C

ount

sRe

new

�Cou

nts

Rete

ntio

n�%

Mea

sure

men

t�Qua

lity�

Divi

sion

ASSO

CIAT

E14

215

16.

3478

7049

.30

Mea

sure

men

t�Qua

lity�

Divi

sion

DIST

RICT

��

��

��

Mea

sure

men

t�Qua

lity�

Divi

sion

Ente

rpris

e�

��

��

�M

easu

rem

ent�Q

ualit

y�Di

visio

nFE

LLO

W30

300

228

93.3

3M

easu

rem

ent�Q

ualit

y�Di

visio

nFU

LL1,

562

1,61

73.

5270

993

459

.80

Mea

sure

men

t�Qua

lity�

Divi

sion

HON

ORA

RY1

10

110

0.00

Mea

sure

men

t�Qua

lity�

Divi

sion

ORG

ANIZ

ATIO

N52

567.

6914

3975

.00

Mea

sure

men

t�Qua

lity�

Divi

sion

ORG

MEM

BER

107

�30

25

50.0

0M

easu

rem

ent�Q

ualit

y�Di

visio

nSC

HOO

L�

��

��

�M

easu

rem

ent�Q

ualit

y�Di

visio

nSE

NIO

R1,

345

1,14

5�1

4.87

861,

085

80.6

7M

easu

rem

ent�Q

ualit

y�Di

visio

nSI

TE42

41�2

.38

1135

83.3

3M

easu

rem

ent�Q

ualit

y�Di

visio

nST

UDE

NT

3551

45.7

143

1131

.43

Mea

sure

men

t�Qua

lity�

Divi

sion

TOTA

L3,

219

3,09

9�3

.73

945

2,20

868

.59

Divi

sion

�Nam

eM

embe

r�Typ

eJu

ne30

th_c

ount

sCu

rren

t_Co

unts

Gro

wth

�%N

ew�C

ount

sRe

new

�Cou

nts

Rete

ntio

n�%

Divi

sion�

Tota

lAS

SOCI

ATE

3,30

9��

��

��

��

��

��

�3,

176

��

��

��

��4

.02

1,49

7��

��

��1,

701

��

��

��

51.4

1Di

visio

n�To

tal

DIST

RICT

88��

��

��

��

��

��

��

68��

��

��

��

��

�22.

738

��

��

��

��64

��

��

��

��

72.7

3Di

visio

n�To

tal

Ente

rpris

e�

��

��

�Di

visio

n�To

tal

FELL

OW

1,26

7��

��

��

��

��

��

�1,

281

��

��

��

�1.

1048

��

��

��

1,21

8��

��

��

��96

.13

Divi

sion�

Tota

lFU

LL46

,341

��

��

��

��

��

�46

,376

��

��

��

0.08

18,1

65��

��

�30

,850

��

��

��66

.57

Divi

sion�

Tota

lHO

NO

RARY

13��

��

��

��

��

��

��

13��

��

��

��

��

0.00

��

��

��

�13

��

��

��

��

100.

00Di

visio

n�To

tal

ORG

ANIZ

ATIO

N1,

254

��

��

��

��

��

��

1,34

9��

��

��

��

7.58

338

��

��

��

944

��

��

��

��75

.28

Divi

sion�

Tota

lO

RGM

EMBE

R34

6��

��

��

��

��

��

��

328

��

��

��

��

�5.2

012

4��

��

��

�21

2��

��

��

��

61.2

7Di

visio

n�To

tal

SCHO

OL

32��

��

��

��

��

��

��

32��

��

��

��

��

0.00

4��

��

��

��

56��

��

��

��

�17

5.00

Divi

sion�

Tota

lSE

NIO

R53

,849

��

��

��

��

��

�46

,225

��

��

��

�14.

162,

791

��

��

45,8

15��

��

��

85.0

8Di

visio

n�To

tal

SITE

987

��

��

��

��

��

��

�91

0��

��

��

��

��7

.80

232

��

��

��

732

��

��

��

��74

.16

Divi

sion�

Tota

lST

UDE

NT

1,44

5��

��

��

��

��

��

�1,

643

��

��

��

�13

.70

1,19

6��

��

��42

7��

��

��

��

29.5

5Di

visi

on�T

otal

TOTA

L10

8,93

1��

��

��

��

��

�10

1,40

1��

��

��

�6.9

124

,403

��

��

82,0

32��

��

��

75.3

1

Divi

sion

�Mon

thly

�Gro

wth

�and

�Ret

entio

n��J

uly�

2013

�End

�of�M

onth

Divi

sion

�Nam

eM

embe

r�Typ

eJu

ne30

th_c

ount

sCu

rren

t_Co

unts

Gro

wth

�%N

ew�C

ount

sRe

new

�Cou

nts

Rete

ntio

n�%

Qua

lity�

Man

agem

ent�D

ivisi

onTO

TAL

22,7

22��

��

��

��

��

��

22,3

05��

��

��

��1

.84

5,90

6��

��

��17

,858

��

��

��78

.59

��

��

��Si

x�Si

gma�

Foru

mTO

TAL

10,4

69��

��

��

��

��

��

9,86

8��

��

��

��

�5.7

42,

736

��

��

7,70

2��

��

��

��73

.57

��

��

��Au

dit�D

ivisi

onTO

TAL

8,43

0��

��

��

��

��

��

�7,

651

��

��

��

��9

.24

1,40

1��

��

��6,

721

��

��

��

79.7

3��

��

��

Lean

�Ent

erpr

ise�D

ivisi

onTO

TAL

5,91

3��

��

��

��

��

��

�5,

588

��

��

��

��5

.50

1,48

4��

��

��4,

339

��

��

��

73.3

8��

��

��

Food

,�Dru

g,�a

nd�C

osm

etic

�Div

ision

TOTA

L4,

966

��

��

��

��

��

��

4,45

5��

��

��

��

�10.

2986

9��

��

��

�3,

888

��

��

��

78.2

9��

��

��

Biom

edic

al�D

ivisi

onTO

TAL

4,41

3��

��

��

��

��

��

�4,

060

��

��

��

��8

.00

865

��

��

��

3,45

6��

��

��

��78

.31

��

��

��St

atist

ics�D

ivisi

onTO

TAL

4,37

7��

��

��

��

��

��

�3,

980

��

��

��

��9

.07

776

��

��

��

3,38

3��

��

��

��77

.29

��

��

��He

alth

care

�Div

ision

TOTA

L3,

789

��

��

��

��

��

��

3,55

8��

��

��

��

�6.1

01,

031

��

��

2,77

4��

��

��

��73

.21

��

��

��M

easu

rem

ent�Q

ualit

y�Di

visio

nTO

TAL

3,21

9��

��

��

��

��

��

�3,

099

��

��

��

��3

.73

945

��

��

��

2,20

8��

��

��

��68

.59

��

��

��Av

iatio

n,�S

pace

�&�D

efen

se�D

ivisi

onTO

TAL

3,38

7��

��

��

��

��

��

�2,

978

��

��

��

��1

2.08

546

��

��

��

2,50

5��

��

��

��73

.96

��

��

��In

spec

tion�

Divi

sion

TOTA

L3,

050

��

��

��

��

��

��

2,93

4��

��

��

��

�3.8

090

2��

��

��

�2,

113

��

��

��

69.2

8��

��

��

Auto

mot

ive�

Divi

sion

TOTA

L3,

154

��

��

��

��

��

��

2,77

1��

��

��

��

�12.

1447

1��

��

��

�2,

401

��

��

��

76.1

3��

��

��

Serv

ice�

Qua

lity�

Divi

sion

TOTA

L2,

696

��

��

��

��

��

��

2,52

1��

��

��

��

�6.4

968

1��

��

��

�1,

947

��

��

��

72.2

2��

��

��

Hum

an�D

evel

opm

ent�&

�Lea

ders

hip�

Divi

sion

TOTA

L2,

655

��

��

��

��

��

��

2,51

5��

��

��

��

�5.2

775

6��

��

��

�1,

825

��

��

��

68.7

4��

��

��

Relia

bilit

y�Di

visio

nTO

TAL

2,55

0��

��

��

��

��

��

�2,

476

��

��

��

��2

.90

573

��

��

��

1,98

7��

��

��

��77

.92

��

��

��So

ftw

are�

Divi

sion

TOTA

L2,

590

��

��

��

��

��

��

2,31

2��

��

��

��

�10.

7353

0��

��

��

�1,

920

��

��

��

74.1

3��

��

��

Team

�and

�Wor

kpla

ce�E

xcel

lenc

e�Fo

rum

TOTA

L2,

353

��

��

��

��

��

��

2,25

6��

��

��

��

�4.1

268

8��

��

��

�1,

699

��

��

��

72.2

1��

��

��

Cust

omer

�Sup

plie

r�Div

ision

TOTA

L1,

994

��

��

��

��

��

��

1,92

5��

��

��

��

�3.4

650

2��

��

��

�1,

482

��

��

��

74.3

2��

��

��

Ener

gy�a

nd�E

nviro

nmen

tal�D

ivisi

onTO

TAL

1,78

3��

��

��

��

��

��

�1,

617

��

��

��

��9

.31

401

��

��

��

1,24

9��

��

��

��70

.05

��

��

��El

ectr

onic

s�and

�Com

mun

icat

ions

�Div

ision

TOTA

L1,

449

��

��

��

��

��

��

1,31

4��

��

��

��

�9.3

229

6��

��

��

�1,

042

��

��

��

71.9

1��

��

��

Chem

ical

�and

�Pro

cess

�Indu

strie

s�Div

ision

TOTA

L1,

316

��

��

��

��

��

��

1,21

1��

��

��

��

�7.9

824

3��

��

��

�1,

024

��

��

��

77.8

1��

��

��

Educ

atio

n�Di

visio

nTO

TAL

1,25

8��

��

��

��

��

��

�1,

151

��

��

��

��8

.51

306

��

��

��

888

��

��

��

��70

.59

��

��

��De

sign�

and�

Cons

truc

tion�

Divi

sion

TOTA

L1,

144

��

��

��

��

��

��

1,10

3��

��

��

��

�3.5

830

1��

��

��

�84

3��

��

��

��

73.6

9��

��

��

Gove

rnm

ent�D

ivisi

onTO

TAL

1,24

3��

��

��

��

��

��

�1,

068

��

��

��

��1

4.08

262

��

��

��

834

��

��

��

��67

.10

��

��

��Pr

oduc

t�Saf

ety�

and�

Prev

entio

n�TO

TAL

748

��

��

��

��

��

��

�74

1��

��

��

��

��0

.94

225

��

��

��

498

��

��

��

��66

.58

��

��

��W

aive

�For

um/D

ivisi

on�B

enef

itsTO

TAL

7,26

3��

��

��

��

��

��

�5,

944

��

��

��

��1

8.16

707

��

��

��

5,44

6��

��

��

��74

.98

��

��

��Di

visi

on�T

otal

TOTA

L10

8,93

1��

��

��

��

��

�10

1,40

1��

��

��

�6.9

124

,403

��

��

82,0

32��

��

��

75.3

1

Vol. 27 No. 3 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division,...

Documents

Transcript of Vol. 27 No. 3 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division,...