Analysis of Measurement Systems with Q-DAS or MINITAB ?
Measurement systems analysis (MSA) is meant to show us whether the data we use to analyze processes are reliable or not. MSA is a first step that should precede any decision, including the use of Statistical Process Control (stability and capability).
There are several software used for statistical data processing. Often used today are MINITAB, Q-DAS but also Excel.
Regardless of which software is used to achieve the MSA, all must comply with the standard required by the client, as the case may be the AIAG version or the VDA version. In both situations, at the base are statistical principles, whose application and interpretation should be the same, regardless of standards or software used.
For the MSA applied to continuous data, the capacity of the measurement system is given by two indicators: Gr & R (in the worst case not exceeding 30%) and NDC (number of distinct categories - sometimes unused), which must be at least 5 .
For MSA applied to attributional data (eg visual inspections), the condition in the AIAG standard is: k (level of decision similarity) greater than (at least) 0.45. Here are some issues to discuss, however, regarding the type of risk.
From the perspective of the software used, companies choose them according to: client's requirement, group requirements or, of course, cost.
Certainly a software dedicated to advanced data processing (MINITAB, QDAS) is more expensive, but it offers greater precision in calculation and more importantly, valuable indications for faster identification of the causes of a non-compliant measurement system.
MINITAB is more popular due to the interface closer to MsOffice and the lower price, on the other hand, QDAS (Solar section) is used by some German Tier 1 car suppliers, due to the demands of their customers but also to the unequivocal response report. the measuring system is reliable or not.
Excel is preferred because it is already available, so it is not a cost, but it is less useful in identifying the causes of an ineffective measurement system.
After all, regardless of the tool / software used, the most important in the application of MSA, is the correct use of the methodology (ie not superficial) and taking effective actions for its recovery, when appropriate.
There are several software used for statistical data processing. Often used today are MINITAB, Q-DAS but also Excel.
Regardless of which software is used to achieve the MSA, all must comply with the standard required by the client, as the case may be the AIAG version or the VDA version. In both situations, at the base are statistical principles, whose application and interpretation should be the same, regardless of standards or software used.
For the MSA applied to continuous data, the capacity of the measurement system is given by two indicators: Gr & R (in the worst case not exceeding 30%) and NDC (number of distinct categories - sometimes unused), which must be at least 5 .
For MSA applied to attributional data (eg visual inspections), the condition in the AIAG standard is: k (level of decision similarity) greater than (at least) 0.45. Here are some issues to discuss, however, regarding the type of risk.
From the perspective of the software used, companies choose them according to: client's requirement, group requirements or, of course, cost.
Certainly a software dedicated to advanced data processing (MINITAB, QDAS) is more expensive, but it offers greater precision in calculation and more importantly, valuable indications for faster identification of the causes of a non-compliant measurement system.
MINITAB is more popular due to the interface closer to MsOffice and the lower price, on the other hand, QDAS (Solar section) is used by some German Tier 1 car suppliers, due to the demands of their customers but also to the unequivocal response report. the measuring system is reliable or not.
Excel is preferred because it is already available, so it is not a cost, but it is less useful in identifying the causes of an ineffective measurement system.
After all, regardless of the tool / software used, the most important in the application of MSA, is the correct use of the methodology (ie not superficial) and taking effective actions for its recovery, when appropriate.
