Quality and Quantity

, Volume 40, Issue 4, pp 499–518 | Cite as

Evaluating the Gauge Repeatability and Reproducibility for Different Industries

  • Jeh-Nan Pan


Measurement plays a significant role in Six sigma program. Usually, the gauge repeatability and reproducibility (GR&R) study needs to be conducted prior to the process capability analysis for verifying the accuracy of measuring equipments and helping organizations improve their product and service quality. Therefore, how to ensure the quality of measurement becomes an important task for quality practitioners. In performing the GR&R study, most industries are using the acceptance criteria of Precision to Tolerance(P/T) ratio as stipulated by QS9000. However, the adequacy of applying the same acceptance criteria to different manufacturing processes is very questionable. In this paper, a statistical method using the relationship between GR&R and process capability indices is proposed for evaluating the adequacy of the acceptance criteria of P/T ratio. Finally, a comparative analysis has also been performed for evaluating the accuracy of GR&R among three methods (ANOVA, Classical GR&R, and Long Form). Hopefully, the results of this research can provide a useful reference for quality practitioners in various industries.


Six sigma program gauge repeatability and reproducibility precision to tolerance (P/T) ratio ANOVA classical GR&R method long form method 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG). (1995). Production Part Approval Process, AIAG Reference Manual, Southfield, MI.Google Scholar
  2. Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG). (1997). Measurement Systems Analysis, AIAG Reference Manual, Southfield, MI.Google Scholar
  3. Burdick, R.K., Larsen, G.A. 1997Confidence intervals on measures of variability in R&R studiesJournal of Quality Technology29261273Google Scholar
  4. DataMyte Editing Group. (1989). DataMyte Handbook, 4th edn., DataMyte Corporation, Chapter 6, pp. 17–25.Google Scholar
  5. Hogg, R. V., Craig, A. T. 1995Introduction to Mathematical StatisticsPrentice Hall, Inc.New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  6. Juran, J.M. 1974Quality Control Handbook 3rd ednMcGraw-Hill Inc.New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Kane, V.E. 1986Process capability indicesJournal of Quality Technology184152Google Scholar
  8. Majeske, K.D., Andrews, R.W. 2002Evaluating measurement systems and manufacturing processes using three quality measuresQuality Engineering3243251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mandel, J. 1972Repeatability and reproducibilityJournal of Quality Technology47485Google Scholar
  10. Montgomery, D.C., Runger, G.C. 1993aGauge capability analysis and designed experimentsPart I: basic methods. Quality Engineering6115135Google Scholar
  11. Montgomery, D.C., Runger, G.C. 1993bGauge capability analysis and designed experiments. Part II: experimental design models and variance component estimationQuality Engineering6289305Google Scholar
  12. Pan, J.N. 2004Determination of optimal parameters for gauge repeatability and reproducibility studyInternational Journal of Quality and Reliability Management21672682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Tsai, P. 1989Variable gauge repeatability and reproducibility study using the analysis of variance methodQuality Engineering1107115Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeh-Nan Pan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of StatisticsNational Cheng-Kung UniversityTainanR.O.C

Personalised recommendations