Introducing myself

I am a first time visitor, helped aboard by Beth and Eric Gasper. I am digging my way backwards through time to the sale of the first gauge set to Cadillac around 1908 and then forward to the AIAG and their method. This is where Don Wheeler says that he first learned it around 1980 or so.  I'm wondering what happened in the 70 years between those two points?  Also, I recently came across an interesting article by Jody Muelander that says that we should unify Gauge R&R, SPC and the GUM  to support future world wide manufacturing measurement demands.  Check it out.  Glad to be here!


  • Eric GEric G PQ Systems Employee
    Hi @Stephen Puryear and welcome to the Community!

    Do you happen to have a link to the article by Jody Muelander? I would be very interested in reading it.

    Also, I found a PDF version of the "The Gauge Block Handbook" that you mentioned to me yesterday. HERE is a link. So far it has been very enlightening!

  • A Unified Approach to Uncertainty for Quality Improvement  Hi Eric. The authors have some really interesting things to say about random error that I found enlightening.
  • Eric, I would be interested in your thoughts on Jodys point of view on where we stand at the moment.  I am a Pharma calibrator and as a result, I have picked up a lot of the GUM rationale on my own.  I understand Gauge methods from an ASQ Certified Quality Engineer point of view.  But I don't see much value in the Gauge MSA capabilities, compared to just following the GUM to get a system uncertainty estimate.  I would appreciate any help you could provide. I come in peace!
  • Eric GEric G PQ Systems Employee
    edited October 2018
    I carved out some time last Friday afternoon and read Dr. Muelander's paper. My initial impression was he is completely right in that there is a significant divide between practitioners of GUM, MSA, and SPC techniques when there really shouldn't be. A world where those are seamlessly interwoven sounds like a utopia!

    I think there are some large hurdles to overcome before that can happen. His suggestion to start with a unified vocabulary makes sense. Get everyone on the same playing field. I believe the biggest catalyst to change will be if industry standards begin requiring GUM results and not just at the calibration vendor level. 

    I'm sure I'll have more thoughts as the paper continues to peculate in my head. For now though, thank you for the link to that site. I have it bookmarked as I would like to circle back to other posts they have.
  • Eric, thank you for taking the time!  BTW, Jody is a guy. Since reading his article, I have discovered another sub-culture, Laboratory Managers who may use an approach called Total Acceptable Error to try to describe the uncertainty that surrounds the results that they return to clinicians and ultimately patients. An ISO standard requires that they state their uncertainties (without pointing directly at the GUM) and there is as much resulting confusion as you would expect. Take a gander at AWEsome Numbers Inc. in Toronto for more of a glimpse of that market.
  • Eric GEric G PQ Systems Employee
    @Stephen Puryear
    Thanks for the heads up on that! I just edited my last post correct that mistake!

    And thanks again for another great resource!
Sign In or Register to comment.