The introduction of reproducibility and repeatability as the means to remove the threats of machine errors as well as human ones is crucial to the performance of a company. Herein lies the importance of carrying out the corresponding analyses typically known as gage studies (Pyzdek & Keller, 2014). Considering the case study in question, one has to point out the fact that the two inspectors display different reproducibility and repeatability rates compared to the company standard (see Table 1 and Table 2).
specifically for you
for only $16.05 $11/page
Table 1. Repeatability (Inspector A).
|Sample||Inspector A_1||Inspector A_2||Inspector A_1||Inspector A_2||Comparison|
Table 2. Repeatability (Inspector B).
|Sample||Inspector B_1||Inspector B_2||Inspector B_1||Inspector B_2||Comparison|
The tables above (Table 1 and Table 2) show quite clearly that the repeatability rates of Inspector A are significantly lower than those of Inspector B.
Table 3. Reproducibility (Inspector A).
|Sample||Inspector A_1||Inspector A_2||Standard||Comparison|
Table 4. Reproducibility (Inspector B).
|Sample||Inspector B_1||Inspector B_2||Standard||Comparison|
As the table above shows, the individual reproducibility rates of Inspector B also leave much to be desired. Although the identified percentage of coincidences with the standards set is not as low as it might have been, the 90% mark that the inspector leaves could still use improvement. Given the comparatively small number of samples analyzed, the existence of several mistakes points to the fact that the issue of reproducibility needs to be addressed as well (Webster & Eren, 2014).
100% original paper
on any topic
done in as little as
It should be noted, though, that Inspector A has been displaying comparatively better results than Inspector B when it came to identifying their repeatability rates. Reaching the mark of 100% as far as the assessment of their reproducibility is concerned, the inspector has shown that they are aware of the foundational principles of the quality assurance process and that they are capable of carrying out the procedure of identifying the quality of the end product without making crucial errors in the process (Agustiady, 2013).
The above analysis provides a range of peculiar implications for the further improvement of the quality assurance process. Particularly, the analysis outcomes point to the fact that the adoption of a more sophisticated and less flawed technology should be considered in the case of Inspector A as the latter has displayed quite deplorable results, reaching the mark of 60% only. The final test, however, has pointed to the fact that there is a strong need for the enhancement of Inspector B’s skills in terms of reproducibility need to be enhanced. Indeed, compared to the standards set by the requirements, the 90% delivered by the inspector, though admittedly high, are still not sufficient enough to maintain the quality rates consistent in the organization.
Agustiady, T. (2013). Communication for continuous improvement projects. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Pyzdek, T., & Keller, P. (2014).Measurement systems evaluation. The Six Sigma handbook (4th ed.) (pp. 393-426). New York City, NY: McGraw Hill Professional.
Webster, J. G., & Eren, H. (2014). Measurement, instrumentation, and sensors handbook: Spatial, mechanical, thermal, and radiation measurement (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.