Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Measurement system escape and overkill rate analysis

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In 100% inspection, measurement errors are unavoidable. Due to these errors, acceptable products are sometimes rejected (overkill) and defective products are accepted (escape). Overkill increases production costs, while escape is a source of customer dissatisfaction. This study presents a model for calculating overkill and escape rates using process and measurement system performance data. A practical example of applying the model is also presented to calculate gage reproducibility and repeatability requirements for different production settings. Industrial managers and quality engineers can utilize the results of this study to calculate escape and overkill rates of their production systems, and to assess and improve their processes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kim YJ, Cho BR, Kim N-K (2007) Economic design of inspection procedures using guard band when measurement errors are present. Appl Math Model 31:805–816

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Feng Q, Kapur KC (2009) Selection of optimal precision levels and specifications considering measurement error. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 40:960–970

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Mottonen M, Belt P, Harkonen J, Haapasalo H, Kess P (2008) Manufacturing process capability and specification limits. Open Ind Manuf Eng J 1:29–36

    Google Scholar 

  4. Belt P, Harkonen J, Mottonen M, Kess P, Haapasalo H (2008) Improving the efficiency of verification and validation. Int J Serv Stand 4:150–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Yu KT, Sheu SH, Chen KS (2007) Testing multi-characteristic product capability indices. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 34:421–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chen KS, Pearn WL, Lin PC (2003) Capability measures for processes with multiple characteristics. Qual Reliab Eng Int 19:101–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Burdick RK, Borror CM, Montgomery DC (2003) A review of methods for measurement systems capability analysis. J Qual Technol 35:342–354

    Google Scholar 

  8. Chang T (2008) Simultaneous monitoring of bias, linearity and precision of multiple measurement gauges. J Qual Technol 40(3):268–281

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cagnazzo L, Sibalija T, Majstorovic V (2010) The measurement system analysis as a performance improvement catalyst: a case study. In: Taticchi P (ed) Business performance measurement and management: new contexts themes and challenges. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 269–292

    Google Scholar 

  10. Smith R, McCrary S, Callahan R (2007) Gauge repeatability and reproducibility studies and measurement system analysis: a multimethod exploration of the state of practice. J Ind Technol 23(1):1–12

    Google Scholar 

  11. Mader D, Prins J, Lampe R (1999) The economic impact of measurement error. Qual Eng 11:563–574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Pearl WL, Liao M-Y (2007) Estimating and testing process precision with presence of gauge measurement errors. Qual Quant 41:757–777

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Juran JM (1974) Quality control handbook, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kane VE (1986) Process capability indices. J Qual Technol 18:41–52

    Google Scholar 

  15. American Society for Quality Control (2003) Measurement systems analysis reference manual. American Society for Quality Control, USA

    Google Scholar 

  16. Larsen GA (2002) Measurement system analysis: the usual metrics can be noninformative. Qual Eng 15:293–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Larsen GA (2003) Measurement system analysis in a production environment with multiple test parameters. Qual Eng 16:297–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Deleryd M (1998) On the gap between theory and practice of process capability studies. Int J Qual Reliab Manag 15:178–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Shina SG (2002) Six sigma for electronics design and manufacturing. McGraw-Hill Professional, New York

    Google Scholar 

  20. Breyfogle FW (2003) Implementing Six sigma: smarter solutions using statistical methods, 2nd edn. Wiley, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  21. Jaynes KR (1997) Reviewing Gage R&R. Manuf Eng 118:12

    Google Scholar 

  22. Williams RH, Hawkins CF (1993) The effect of guardbands on errors in production testing. Proceedings of ETC 93, Third, pp 2–7

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Apple Inc, Shenzhen, China

    Song Fu

  2. Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland

    Osmo Kauppila & Matti Mottonen

Authors
  1. Song Fu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Osmo Kauppila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Matti Mottonen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Osmo Kauppila.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fu, S., Kauppila, O. & Mottonen, M. Measurement system escape and overkill rate analysis. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 57, 1079–1086 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-011-3342-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-011-3342-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation