The Standard Fall 00

TheTheTheTheThe STANDARDSTANDARDSTANDARDSTANDARDSTANDARDVol. 2000-3 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality Fall 2000

IN THIS ISSUE

Editor’s Column ............... 3 Contrarian Metrologist ..... 4 The Learning Curve ......... 7 CCT Update ...................... 9 History & Current Status of Metrology Education ..... 10 Overview Profiles on Best Practices ......................... 12 Reporting Capability Numbers ......................... 20 Standards Scene ............ 25 NIST News ...................... 27 NVLAP Notes .................. 28 Standards Update .......... 29 NIST/NACLA Partnership Proposal .......................... 30 A2LA News Update ........ 31 Profile on Metrology: What is CAL LAB? ................... 32 Metrology Freeware ....... 33 Educational Institutions that Offer Metrology Programs or Classes ..... 34 Metrology Links ............. 35 Obituary .......................... 37 1999 MQD Member Survey Results ............................ 38 MQD Council Minutes .... 40 Measurement Science Conference ..................... 42 Membership Report ....... 43 Conference Calls ............ 43 Upcoming Events ........... 43 MQD Officers .................. 44 Regional Councilors ...... 45

A Message from the Chair…Duane Allen

Please permit me to introduce myself. My name is Duane Allen. I am the Measurement Quality Division Chair for 2000-2001. My pri-mary responsibilities as chair are to continue MQD’s organizational health and to support the MQD activities that support the measure-ment and quality community.

The division is in good health, not great, but good. The division did run into a problem with an insufficient number of MQD members vol-unteering to fill all the division organizational positions. Several members have stepped forward this year and joined the longer-serv-ing division volunteers. If you check out the list of officers, committee chairs, and regional councilors in the last pages of The STAN-DARD, you will see that there are still oppor-tunities for you to serve the division.

What are the benefits of your serving in a division organizational position? Service: You will be supporting the MQD mission of service to the measurement and quality community.

Skill improvement: MQD positions provide op-portunities to exercise and improve your lead-ership and communications skills. ASQ pro-vides training for officer and committee chairs. Networking: Taking a MQD position will defi-nitely extend your network of contacts. Finan-cial: There is not much financial reward, per-haps a tax deduction. This is a volunteer orga-nization. However, serving your community, improving your skills, and enlarging your net-work are usually worthwhile, long-term invest-ments in one’s self.

There are several ways to serve: as a division officer, as a committee chair or member, or as a regional councilor. If you would like to serve as a MQD division officer, the election will be early next year. All offices will be open to nominations. Mr. Mark Schoenlein, the Past Chair, has volunteered to chair the nomination committee. Please contact Mark if you would like to serve as an officer or wish to nominate a member for an office.

Continued on page 4

A Message from the Past Chair… Mark Schoenlein

As my tenure with the MQD draws to a close I am becoming increasingly fearful.

My experiences with the division over the past year closely parallel what is going on at my place of employment today as well as what is going on in the Quality/Measurement field in general. As I sit in my office writing this note to you, many of my co-workers are preparing to walk out the door for the last time. The offering of a generous retirement package has emptied the offices and cubes of many of our most experienced professionals. My twenty years of tenure with the company now puts me in the “old man” category of employees.

The same fate has befallen our division. Many of those pioneering individuals who started this division ten years ago have moved on. Many of the organizations that supplied that talent have either downsized or disappeared. The short-age of division volunteer officers has reached

a critical point. I would like to encourage those reading this newsletter to strongly consider offering their time and talent to help strengthen and grow the MQD.

I would like to thank Alex, Bryan, Chris, Chuck, Dan, DeWayne, Don, Ed, Frank, George, J.L., Jason, Joe, John, Karl, Mel, Nick, Phil, Phil, Ralph, Ray, Rolf, Ron, Sal, Steve, Tom, and Annie-Kay for all of the assistance and support that they have given over the past year. I would like to wish Duane the best of luck in chairing the divi-sion in the year to come.

Take care.

Fall 2000The STANDARD Page 2

www.metrology.org

Publication Staff Executive Editor Frank Voehl St. Lucie Press 280 Lake Drive Coconut Creek, FL 33066 Tel: 954-972-3012 Fax: 954-978-0643 E-mail: [email protected]

Associate Editor Europe and Asia John Shade Good Decision Ltd. Dunfermline, KY11 3BZ Scotland Tel: +44 1383-733553 Fax: +44 1383-733588 E-mail: [email protected]

Associate Editor U.S. and CanadaOpen

Advertising Manager Frank Voehl St. Lucie Press 280 Lake Drive Coconut Creek, FL 33066 Tel: 954-972-3012 Fax: 954-978-0643 E-mail: [email protected]

Publications Chair J.L. MadrigalOxford Worldwide Group 1045 South Orem Blvd. Orem, UT 84058 Tel/Fax: 801-235-1899 E-mail: [email protected]

The STANDARDThe Journal of the Measurement Quality Division Advertising Submit your draft copy to Frank Voehl, the Advertising Manager, with a request for a quotation. Indicate size desired. Specify whether you will provide camera-ready copy or desire that we produce final copy.

The following rates are for the space only. Copy preparation and typesetting will be extra, if provided by the The STANDARD.

Business card size ................... $1001/8 page ................................... $1501/4 page ................................... $2001/3 page ................................... $2501/2 page ................................... $300Full page .................................. $550

Advertisements will be accepted on a “per issue” basis only; no long term contracts will be available at present.

Advertising must be clearly distinguished as an ad. Ads must be related to measure-ment quality, quality of measurement, or a related quality field. Ads must not imply endorsement by the Measurement Qual-ity Division or ASQ.

Letters to the Editor The STANDARD welcomes letters from members and subscribers. We offer the following guidelines. Letters should clearly state whether the author is expressing opinion or presenting facts with support-ing information. Commendation, encour-agement, constructive critique, sugges-tions, and alternative approaches are ac-cepted. Berating is not appropriate. If the content is more than 200 words, we may delete portions to hold that limit. We re-serve the right to edit letters and papers.

Information for Authors The STANDARD publishes papers on the quality of measurements and the mea-surement of quality at all levels ranging from relatively simple tutorial material to cutting edge or state-of-the-art exposi-tion.

We particularly encourage thoughtful pa-pers from engineers, users, regulators, all levels of management, and others. The STANDARD welcomes controversy and reasoned polemic but does not permit ranting and raving.

Papers published in The STANDARD are not referred in the usual sense, except to ascertain that facts are correctly stated and to assure that opinion and fact are clearly distinguished one from another. The Editor reserves the right to edit any paper and will usually exercise that right. Enclose a short letter saying what the manuscript is, and send it to the appropri-ate Associate Editor with your manuscript. Show your complete address (both mail and e-mail) for correspondence.

Publication Information The STANDARD is published quar-terly by the Measurement Quality Divi-sion of ASQ; deadlines are March 15, June 15, September 15 and Decem-ber 1. Advertising deadlines are March 1, June 1, September 1, and Novem-ber 15. Input for text material by email or on 3 1/2" diskette in Microsoft Word saved in Rich Text Format (RTF). If it is not feasible to send text in electronic form, clean printed text can be submit-ted. Graphics or illustration material can be sent in eps, tif, pict or jpeg format. Photographs of MQD activities or people would be especially appreci-ated.

Publication of articles, product re-leases, advertisements or technical information does not imply endorse-ment by The STANDARD or the Mea-surement Quality Division of ASQ. While The STANDARD makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of ar-ticles, the publication disclaims respon-sibility for statements of fact or opinion made by the authors or other contribu-tors.

Material from The STANDARD may not be reproduced without permission. Copyrights in the United States and all other countries are reserved.

The editor may be reached at 954-972-3012 or by fax at 954-978-0643. E-mail address is: [email protected].

© 2000 ASQ, MQD. All rights reserved.

Fall 2000 The STANDARD Page 3

The Editor ’s Column

The Evolving Field of Metrology

by Frank Voehl

During the past few years, I have had the pleasure of serving as the Associate Editor of The Standard under the extremely capable leadership of DeWayne Sharp. My job was to secure articles, write about pertinent emerging topics in the field of Metrology, and help DeWayne in whatever ways I could make myself useful. Now, DeWayne has decided that it is time to call it a day and I have been given the dubious task of following in his footsteps. A tall order indeed! But I will do my best to keep our labs, our equipment, and our people up-to-date with current developments, as well as in a state of preparation for future developments. In other words, to fulfill the mission of The Standard .

For metrology is all about the science of measure-ment, and measurement is all about the science of improvement. And it is this emphasis upon improve-ment that underlies the entire systematic approach through which we quantify quality characteristics, a concept that is in actuality thousands of years old. In the beginning, units of measure, of bigness and small-ness, were in terms of parts of the human body. The ancient Egyptian unit of measure for length was ex-pressed in terms of the royal cubit–which was the length of the forearm of the reigning Pharaoh.

With the birth of international commerce, the early metrologists evolved systems of international units of measure, which evolved into the two prevalent and sometimes competing measurement systems—the metric and the English. And as every metrologist knows, the existence of two *competing* systems of measurement has become a serious handicap to inter-national commerce. For at the beginning of the 1970s, writes Dr. Joseph Juran, all industrialized nations, with the single exception of the USA, had either adopted the metric system or decided to do so.

In the United States, resistance to the metric system arose from the heavy investment in the English system, coupled with the previous low volume of international trade relative to the total size of the American economy. Due to the absence of a national plan for converting to metric, the USA is in a slow process of conversion to metric, which will likely take at least another fifty years or more to complete. This conversion, however slow it may be, is being driven by three significant interrelated breakthroughs of the past ten years: (1) the develop-

ment of the Systeme International d’Unites–known as SI, (2) the global Knowledge Management revolution and (3) explosion and popularity of the internet.

The SI system consists of: • Six fundamental units of international mea-

sure–for length, mass, time, electric current, temperature, and light intensity.

• Two supplemental units for plane and solid angles.

• A long list of units based upon 1 and 2 above. • A standardized nomenclature and terminol-

ogy for multiples and subdivisions of all units of measure.

The SI system is fully compatible with the metric system, but not with the English system, and has six fundamental units that (except for the kilogram) are defined in terms of natural phenomena: meter (m), kilogram (kg), second (s), degree Kelvin (k), ampere (A), and candela (cd). This system has made it possible for all industrialized countries to create its own National Bureau of Standards, whose function includes the creation and maintenance of primary reference stan-dards. In addition, professional societies have evolved the standardized testing methods for measuring many quality characteristics not covered under the SI Sys-tem of units and measures. For example, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). In practice, it’s not practical for a National Bureau of Standards to calibrate and verify the accuracy of the enormous hierarchy of test equipment utilized in, and by, test labs and shops. Instead, a hierarchy of secondary stan-dards and labs, along with a documentation system of certified accuracy, has become both commonplace and legal, a hierarchy upon which the practice of metrology now largely rests. These are the hard facts of the world of measurement.

Our brief look at SI makes it clear that revolutionary changes have been extensive over the past century. In the single parameter of length, several new technologi-cal principles have emerged in the past thirty years to take over the bulk of precision measurement. And in the area of non-destructive testing, as well as in the added functions associated with measurement, the growth of new technology has been nothing short of explosive. Developments such as these make it clear that much additional effort will be needed on a continu-ing basis to keep our labs, equipment, and people up-to-date with current and future developments.

Enter Knowledge Management Metrology, on the soft side of the measurement world. For Knowledge Management to live up to its promise (if it ever does), a corresponding hierarchy of measurement standards needs to evolve, in much the same way that SI has over the past twenty years. And the same holds true and


seems to be happening with the Internet, and its vast promise to internationalize the economies of the world. In a series of articles, beginning with this edition, The Standard takes a behind-the-scenes look at the emerg-ing Knowledge Management Metrology field and the companies that are leading the charge.

Future editions will cover the emergence of the measurement standards for telecommunications and the Internet. The scope of measurement diversity within telecommunications includes literally DC to light, and there are unique measurement areas within telecom

that provide for some very challenging metrology tasks. The metrologist is tasked with calibrating system test equipment that support all systems, being challenged across the spectrum of ordinary test equipment cali-bration and very specialized test equipment, some-times on a daily basis. One of the key related questions is whether the evolution and growth of SI and its lessons learned can be applied to the Internet Tele-communications and the field of Knowledge Manage-ment Measurement. Stay tuned for further details.

Continued from page 1 Chair’s Column

Please contact me if you would like to serve in one of the open committee chairs. Or contact the committee chair if you would like to serve on a particular commit-tee.

Please contact me if you would like to become the regional councilor for Region 13, which covers the central Midwest, or Region 25, the international com-munity.

There are three MQD business meetings in 2001 that you, as a member, may want to attend. There will be a meeting at the Measurement Science Conference 2001. The time and place is most likely late afternoon on a Thursday, January 18, 2001, in a meeting room in

the Disneyland Conference Center. Specific time and location will be posted at the MQD booth at MSC.

The second business meeting will be at the 55th Annual Quality Congress in Charlotte, North Carolina in early May 2001. The third meeting will be at a NIST confer-ence in Gaithersburg in September 2001.

I welcome correspondence. I’d like to, but I don’t expect to, meet all approximately 4000 MQD members during my tenure as Chair. You can help me reach my goal of having about 2000 e-mails, phone calls, and letters occur during my tenure. So, please submit articles to The STANDARD, e-mail me with ideas for MQD activi-ties, and volunteer for MQD positions.

The Contrarian Metrologist Calibration Buyers, Beware!

by Philip Stein

Editor’s Note: The following article was also selected to be published in September’s Quality Progress .

Measurements are pretty useless without calibra-tion. Of course, you can buy or build a new instrument and trust that the answers it gives you are okay, but sooner or later you should wonder how long that trust is warranted. All measuring systems are subject to

change after time, and some-times outside influences (be-ing overloaded, mishandled or dropped) can have an ef-fect as well.

Calibration, and the choice of how often to calibrate, is dependent on economic risk. Calibration costs something, often quite a bit. And not cali-brating will eventually cost a great deal when the measure-

ment is wrong and expensive rework or a catastrophe is the result. The calibration interval is therefore an economic tradeoff in which you balance the frequency of calibration against the cost of calibration and against the potential consequences and costs of not calibrat-ing.

Regulators and international standards (such as ISO 9000) play a part as well. Most of the standards that require measurements also require periodic cali-bration. This is done to increase the trust that custom-ers place in the measurements provided by an organi-zation. In addition, all standards and regulations that require calibration require traceability—the calibration must be able to be related to national standards (ex-cept in some unusual circumstances).

Buyer beware Now comes my warning to buyers. Calibration can

be achieved in many ways. You can do it yourself—

The STANDARD Fall 2000 Page 5

even managing the traceability in many cases. How-ever, this requires expertise and can be quite expen-sive. If you’re part of a large industrial or government organization, you may decide that it’s cheaper to do it all in-house, and you may be right.

For the rest of us, though, the method of choice is usually to hire a commercial calibration laboratory to perform the work. Even if you do the simpler hand tools and electronic meters yourself, you may very well need to use a commercial service to achieve traceability between your work and the top of the pyramid. If you are near the top of the pyramid, you will probably send your reference standards directly to the National Insti-tute of Standards and Technology or to the standards body of another country.

Commercial laboratories are businesses and, as such, compete on several fronts. One is price and another is quality of service, neither of which differs significantly from other retail operations. Calibration labs may also choose to register their quality systems to ISO 9002 or even ISO 9001. As a quality profes-sional, you know how to factor registration into your buying decision, but beware: ISO 900X registration does not testify to the correctness or traceability of the answers a laboratory provides. As with all other ISO 900X processes (at least the 1994 version), registra-tion only addresses the quality system and not the quality or fitness for use of the final product. You may infer that a registered company is more likely to do a good job because it has a conformant quality system, and you will probably be right, but it’s no guarantee.

Laboratory accreditation Calibration and testing laboratories do have a way

of distinguishing themselves—laboratory accredita-tion. Being accredited to perform specific work offers strong assurances that the answer, the work you’re paying for, will be correct and traceable. Laboratory accreditation is with reference to ISO/IEC Guide 25, recently replaced by ISO/IEC Standard 17025 but still in use for the next year or two. In addition, the U.S. standard ANSI/NCSL Z540-1 adds unique U.S. re-quirements to Guide 25.

While there are no absolute guarantees and nothing in this world is perfect, accreditation is the best evi-dence available that a calibration supplier is trustwor-thy, traceable and likely to get the right answer. (Test-ing labs can be accredited too, but this is a measure-ments column so we’re discussing the issues using calibration as an example).

Accreditation is accomplished through a third party process very similar to ISO 9000. Accreditation bodies send out assessors who collect data, evaluate the applicants and, eventually, issue certificates. Accredi-tation bodies acknowledge each other through mutual

recognition agreements and accreditation coopera-tives. Three such cooperatives now exist: a European cooperative, an Asian-Pacific cooperative and one that is being organized to cover North America.

Here’s another reason to beware. The accredited laboratory you use may or may not be accredited by a body that is a signatory to one or more of these cooperatives. If it is not, its work might be fine, but it probably won’t be recognized as accredited. This is especially important when something you have had calibrated needs to be traceable. Traceability deliv-ered by organizations that aren’t members of these clubs may not be good enough to pass muster by a thorough assessor. By the way, these clubs aren’t exclusive. Any organization can join, but it will be thoroughly assessed to ISO/IEC Guide 58, the stan-dard of behavior for accreditation bodies.

Confused yet? There’s more. The next item to be aware of is the scope of

accreditation. Each accredited laboratory is issued a scope indicating the measurement parameters and ranges for which it is accredited. In addition, every accredited organization is permitted to use the logo of the accrediting body on their advertising, product litera-ture, and calibration reports or certificates. Therefore, even if a laboratory advertises that it is accredited, and places a logo on their reports, it may not be able to do your job within its scope—and it’s up to you to find that out.

Some labs will accept both accredited and nonac-credited work (and maybe charge different prices). If a quotation, solicitation or certificate has a logo but some of the work is not within the scope, it must disclose that clearly. But continue to beware: the rules are clear but you need to pay attention as your supplier may not emphasize these distinctions.

Are there circumstances under which you must use accredited labs? Well, yes and no. While there are no fixed rules, your customer or regulatory agency may require that you use an accredited lab. Similarly, an accredited lab may be necessary for some projects and measurement parameters, but not for others.

Accreditation and the automotive industry The most important regulation, however, comes

from the automotive industry. Paragraph 4.11.2.b.1 of the third edition of QS-9000, states that “commercial independent calibration facilities shall be accredited to ISO/IEC Guide 25 or national equivalent, or shall have evidence, e.g. assessment by an OEM (original equip-ment manufacturer) customer or an OEM customer-approved second party that they meet the intent of ISO/ IEC Guide 25 or national equivalent.” Similar rules are stated for commercial testing laboratories.


At first glance, this seems pretty rigorous, but actu-ally, it’s as porous as Swiss cheese. The laboratory you use could be accredited, but not by a body that has signed one of the collective agreements. In fact, you could use an accredited laboratory that did not have an approved scope that included the particular services you need, but you’d still be in conformance with the standard. Your lab could be accredited to perform the required services, but it will charge you more for an accredited certificate. You could have contract for the cheaper work and save some costs, while still following the QS-9000 standard.

To make matters even worse, the auto industry has been under quite a bit of pressure to ease up on the rules. QS-9000 registrars would like to get a piece of the business but don’t have the technical knowledge or experience to pass muster with Guide 58. Some of these companies are offering “registration to the intent of Guide 25” or “registration of the laboratory quality system to Guide 25.” Sort of an ISO/IEC Guide 25-Lite!

My understanding is that, at least for now, some automakers are viewing these alternatives as accept-able responses to 4.11.2.b.1. Some registrars are actually trying to gear up to deliver ISO 17025 accredi-tation, but it will take a while for them to sign on to a cooperative agreement. What a mess!

What’s an organization to do? The first thing you need to do is decide whether you

or your customers want and need fully accredited calibration services. If your customers are demanding it, it’s a no-brainer. If not, it’s still a very good idea because of the high degree of confidence you can place in the results. You will then need to balance extra costs against what that high confidence is worth to you.

Personally, I think that confidence is priceless but that’s my bias. It’s only fair to disclose at this point that I am a Guide 25 lead assessor under contract to the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA), one of two U.S. signatories of the laboratory accreditation agreements.

You can pressure your regular calibration supplier to become accredited if it is not already. If you have the expertise, you can assess the supplier to the require-ments of 17025 yourself rather than require that it become accredited. But if the supplier goes through the trauma with you, it might as well do so for a third party accreditation body and get its ticket punched for real.

See the sidebar “Buying Calibration Services Check-list” for a summary of everything you need to look for when interested in calibration services. While the check-list is written as if you need fully conformant services, you can waive some of the requirements due to costs

or simply because you don’t think you need accredited work.

Sidebar - Buying Calibration Services Checklist

1) Is the laboratory from which you want to buy calibra-tion services accredited to ISO/IEC Guide 25, ISO/ IEC 17025 or ANSI/NCSL Z540-1?

Remember that a statement of conformance is worth nothing. The laboratory must be accredited. Use of a logo is usually the easiest way to identify its accredita-tion status.

2) Is the body that accredited this laboratory a signa-tory to one of the laboratory accreditation agree-ments?

There are now only two such bodies in the United States: A2LA and NVLAP (National Voluntary Labora-tory Accreditation Program). Another signatory, ICBO (International Conference of Building Officials), does not accredit general-purpose calibration services. Many other countries have accreditation bodies that are signatories, and they are allowed to accredit labs in any country including the United States.

3) Are the measurement parameters you wish to have calibrated listed on the laboratory’s scope of ac-creditation? Are the ranges of the parameters you have chosen within the scope?

4) Have you specified accredited service on your purchase order to the laboratory?

5) Do all the certificates you received from the labora-tory have a logo from the accreditation body, and are there no exceptions taken for specific results?

Look for a statement that when the instrument was received, it was operating within acceptable limits; otherwise, you have to see if it could have made any significant mistakes before it was sent out.

If you can answer “yes” to all five items on the checklist, you’re probably okay using the calibration service.

Philip Stein is a metrology and quality consultant in private practice in Pennington, NJ. He holds a master’s degree in measurement science from The George Washington University, in Washington DC, and is an ASQ Fellow. For more information, go to www.measurement.com.

Philip Stein, A2LA Lead Assessor, is a Past Chair of the MQD, a past member of the Board of Directors of ASQ, and is an ASQ Fellow


The Learning Curve

This is the twenty-seventh in a contiguous series of frequently rambling commentaries on the general sub-

ject of Metrology Education ver-sus Calibration Training . In the past, these have, been in the form of open letters to our former most Exalted Editor-in-Chief who has understandably resigned; (I might also, if I had his problems.) We will continue the open letter format to a new and as yet untested boss (un-til he decides to shut us down.)

Phil Painchaud

Dear New Boss:

I opened my last column with the comment that the preceding quarter had been most traumatic for the both of us (referring to my old Boss). I didn’t figure that things could get much worse; but early in May, while working alone in my backyard and while moving at high speed, I tripped on a step and landed on the concrete on my right knee. Fortunately, there were no broken bones, just severe muscle and ligament damage. This re-sulted in four hours in surgery, two weeks of hospital and rehab facility, and a month in a cast. I am now wearing an immobilizing brace and probably will be doing so for another four to six months. You might correctly say that I have been in no mood to write this column. Nevertheless, I shall try anyhow.

In the last several columns, I have been delineating the progress being made toward the development of a degreed curriculum in the measurement sciences at the California State University—Dominguez Hills. In this issue, I will direct your attention to a separate article entitled, THE HISTORY AND STATUS OF METROL-OGY EDUCATION AT THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY—DOMINGUEZ HILLS. I feel what I said in that article is quite complete and current and needs no further amplification in this column.

In the last issue of this Column, I told about a lecture I had given at a Butler County Community College sponsored seminar in 1987. I also quoted a long passage describing the individual in a well-constituted Metrology Organization who I refer to as “THE ADMIN-ISTRATIVE METROLOGIST”. I also threatened if you readers did not send letters demanding I cut it out, that I would continue quoting from that lecture. Thus, I

would be marinating you with knowledge of the proper qualifications for other individuals in a properly consti-tuted metrology organizational structure. In this col-umn we shall concentrate on the individual I refer to as “THE REFERENCE STANDARDS METROLOGIST”. That is the person responsible for the maintenance of the Reference Standards artifacts and for the dissemi-nation of the proper and true values of those standards.

However, before we go on, just what is a Reference Standard? On the other hand, what is any kind of a Standard for that matter? I was up against that problem myself many years ago. I was the Administrative Me-trologist in a rapidly expanding Metrology organization. There seemed to be no standardization of nomencla-ture among the other Metrology organizations with which we were required to interface. Even our custom-ers, all three of the military services were using differ-ent languages. To make things worse, I was supposed to be writing a Policies and Procedures Manual for my Metrology Organization.

So I turned to my Reference Standards Metrologist for help. I have mentioned this man before in this column; he was the late renowned Electro-Metrologist George D. Vincent. When he saw the vast collection of unrelated terms and definitions I had accumulated for standards, he threw his hands up. So I sent him East to Washington to the National Bureau of Standards (NIST as yet did not exist and the NBS had not as yet moved to Gaithersburg). He spent several days confer-ring with most of the authorities there. He came back to California with the following piece of startling informa-tion; as far as NBS was concerned, the only Primary Standards in this country are those at that National Laboratory. Therefore, we promptly outlawed the use of the term Primary Standard, and of Secondary and Tertiary as well.

Based on the authoritative information George brought back we devised the following set of opera-tional definitions for measuring equipment. These were later sent to Washington where they were concurred with almost unanimously:

• STANDARD – Apparatus that embodies a realization of a multiple of a physical unit in such a manner that the embodied realiza-tion is usefully available for comparison.

• NATIONAL REFERENCE STANDARDS – Standards maintained the National Bureau of Standards (NIST today) and which are by act of Congress the legal standards of the United States.

• MASTER REFERENCE STANDARD – A Stan-dard of the most accurate and reliable type and grade available. It establishes the mag-nitude of a physical unit for measurement


purposes. It may be a group or part of a group.

• REFERENCE STANDARD – A Standard of the most accurate and reliable type and grade available to the Metrology Organization of interest. It must meet all of the other requirements of the Master Reference Standard.

• WORKING STANDARD – A Standard for use in the calibration or authentication of appa-ratus and measurements where the level of accuracy does not require direct comparison with the Reference Standards.

• INTER-LABORATORY STANDARD – A Standard which travels between laboratories for the sole purpose of relating the magnitude of the physical unit represented by the standards maintained in the respective laboratories.

• TRANSFER STANDARD – A Standard which responds measurably to a characteristic com-mon to two otherwise unlike phenomena, the common characteristics being known quanti-tatively in one phenomena and not in the other, thus permitting comparative determi-nation of the unknown quantity. (Examples: Thermal Transfer Voltmeters, Bomb Calorim-eters, Bolometers. etc.)

• STANDARDIZATION EQUIPMENT – Appa-ratus or an assembly of apparatus of the highest order, reserved especially for use in the com-parison of standards with each other, or in the calibration of high-order measuring equipment against Reference Standards. (Examples: Stan-dard Cell Comparitors, Ratio Sets, Potenti-ometers, etc.)

• CALIBRATION ASSEMBLY – Apparatus or an assembly of apparatus especially reserved for specific calibrations.

• WORKING INSTRUMENT – Any device which measures, records, generates, or transforms physical quantities and is usable as inspec-tion or test criteria or media and does not fit any of the preceding definitions. These are the instruments usually available for general use.

(NOTE: The above definitions were extracted, ed-ited, and annotated from the NORTHROP/ NORTRONICS (Anaheim), METROLOGY MANUAL, Branch Directive M. B. C-9; Revision Effective Date 1 March 63)

In my organization, the Reference Standards Me-trologist was the individual who headed the sub-orga-nization that was responsible for the maintenance of the Reference Standards, the Inter-laboratory Stan-dards, and the Standardization Equipment. They were also responsible for the calibration of the Calibration

Assemblies. Now let us describe that individual (quoted from my, before referenced Butler County Community College lecture):

“–––The Reference Standards Metrologist: In many organizations, this slot is unfortunately too often filled by a Senior Technician with long experience in the organization and with the specific items of standards hardware which he is expected to maintain. But, in doing so, there is an almost certain risk of causing deterioration of the integrity of the measurement refer-ences, the very heart of any measurement (quality) assurance program.

Most internal operating systems in Metrology, par-ticularly those of an advanced technical nature require continual systemic maintenance and upgrading. There is an old adage which says, “Familiarity breeds con-tempt.” A corollary might be derived from this: “Rote repetition breeds ill advised shortcuts.” This is pre-cisely what has happened to those many organizations that have been deprived of a Professional Metrologist constantly monitoring and supervising the system. The para-professionals, usually unknowledgeable of the fundamental “whys” at the roots of the systems and procedures, frequently attempt to modify them (and usually with the best intentions). The results invariably are a slow deterioration of the measurement assur-ance system. While this is generally true for all of the systems in Metrology as a whole, it is particularly true of those in the Reference Standards area. Unfortu-nately here the effects of deterioration are more far-reaching, more subtle, making detection more difficult, and are usually more difficult and expensive to repair.

In most such cases, it probably would be necessary to locate and to engage the services of an experienced Reference Standards professional with supervisory potential and to depend upon him to establish (or to rebuild) the Reference Standards Activity under the general guidance and direction of the Administrative Metrologist.

The minimum ideal qualifications required for such a Reference Standards functional head are as follows:

1. He must be thoroughly familiar with the “classical” methods of Reference Standards practice in all disciplines. Conversely, he must be thoroughly aware of the progress being made in the state-of-the-art and will continue to stay currently informed. No one forever lives in the past or upon the accom-plishments of the giants of yesterday. He must be eager and able to evaluate, accept, and implement new developments when and if they apply to the organization’s needs.

2. He must intimately know and have close personal contact with the leaders of today’s metrology pro-


fession. This requires established and maintained communications with these leaders and enables more rapid evaluations of them and their work.

3. He must be thoroughly qualified in Physics, Chem-istry, and Mathematics—the basic sciences under-lying Metrology.

4. He must know the equipment of today’s Metrol-ogy—the advantages and disadvantages, the ca-pabilities, and the limitations of particular items. Of equal importance, he must understand the prin-ciples upon which each item operates. Only through this knowledge can the organization avoid costly mistakes and buy the most for its equipment dollar.

5. He must understand the relationship between statu-tory requirements and contract requirments on the one hand, and the implications and limitations of certificates and standards on the other.

6. Of paramount importance to a cost effective opera-tion, he must readily recognize the delicate balance, economically and technically, between the difficult and/or the costly improvisation, and the expedient but also costly specialized equipment. ––”

The above was obviously written in the masculine gender, but I refuse to apologize as it obviously also

applies to those of the distaff side among us. I was brought up in a culture that holds that the English language has four, not three nor two genders, as do most other languages of the world. These include the usual Masculine, Feminine, and Neuter genders, as well as a COMMON gender. Common gender pro-nouns are usually taken from the Masculine, but one differentiates by usage.

Unless I am showered with letters demanding that I quiet these tutorials, in the next issue we will talk about the qualifications for the METROLOGICAL ENGINEER-ING and ANALYSIS SUPPORT HEAD. That is the individual heading the sub-organization that furnishes the non-hardware and analytical support for the orga-nization. In addition, maybe we will be able to talk some more about the developments at the California State University—Dominguez Hills. Meanwhile, for your ve-hement letters of protest (I am not expecting many letters of approbation), I can be reached at the same old stand:

Phil Painchaud 1110 West Dorothy Drive Brea, California, 92821-2017 Phone: (714) 529-6604 FAX: (714) 529-1109 e-Mail: [email protected]

Certified Calibration Technician (CCT) Program UpdateOctober 21, 2000 marks completion of the first

major milestone in the development of an ASQ certifi-cation program for calibration technicians. The mile-stone occurred at ASQ headquarters, Milwaukee, Wis., where an initial proposal developed by MQD’s certifi-cation committee was presented to ASQ’s certification board for consideration.

ASQ’s certification board, comprised of program administrators and ASQ members representing each of ASQ’s existing certification programs, is responsible for determining the viability/practicality of new certifica-tion programs. The proposal, presented as a Certified Calibration Technician (CCT) program, was the cumu-lative effort of six months work by MQD’s committee whose members span commercial and private sectors, laboratory accreditation bodies (A2LA, NVLAP), academia, training providers and various government agencies (NASA, DOD, DOE).

The written CCT proposal addressed market needs, market trends, support and commitment issues, avail-able technical resources, general program content, etc. This written proposal was provided to board mem-bers prior to its formal presentation so that questions could be prepared beforehand. Shortly after the CCT

initial proposal was presented and follow up questions answered, ASQ’s Certification board voted unanimously to support the proposal.

The next step in the ASQ certification process is the creation of a CCT job analysis survey that will be sent out in mass mailings to industry/academia/govern-mental agencies to help determine the skills, training and experience necessary for a CCT. If you would like to contribute to this important initiative and help shape tomorrow’s calibration practitioners, MQD’s certifica-tion committee is looking to add new members from consulting, academic, commercial and government sectors.

If interested please E-mail MQD’s committee chair at: [email protected].

Chris Grachanen ASQ MQD Certification Committee Chair


The California State University - Dominguez Hills Story:HISTORY AND CURRENT STATUS OF

METROLOGY EDUCATIONBy: Phil Painchaud

The fact that the California State University— Dominguez Hills (CSUDH) is seriously considering the establishment of an academic degreed course involv-ing the measurement sciences has been touched upon several times in THE LEARNING CURVE column in this publication. On May 18, 2000, the Curriculum Advisory Board of the Division of Extended Education of that University met under the aegis of Dean Margaret Gordon. This prestigious body, (composed of a bal-ance assembly of university administrators, academ-ics, current faculty, graduate students, and measure-ment and quality experts from the interested public), reviewed and approved a preliminary four year curricu-lum leading to a Bachelor of Science Degree in Quality (with a Measurement Science Option). I say “prelimi-nary” because it still needs “fine tuning” for the latter years. However, it is nearly ready to go for the fresh-man year. However, we must keep in mind that final approval must be by the University hierarchy and not by this Committee, or even by Dean Gordon herself.

This may require some explanation, especially for those individuals who have not been following the story: a decided lack of opportunities for academic education in the measurement sciences (Metrology) currently existing in this country. There are a number of institutions providing vocational training . Some of those institutions are doing so quite well. However, only one, Butler County Community College, in Butler PA, is attempting to teach measurement science aca-demically; and then only as a two year program. Their graduates have no place to go to continue on from the basic metrology education they have received at But-ler. They must either go to work in industry and forego a degree in four years or matriculate into some other institution’s engineering or science curriculums for a full four-year degree.

Conventional science and engineering schools for the most part have been reluctant to even discuss Metrology as a separate academic curriculum. They generally feel that a course or two in measurements, specific to the Engineering or Science discipline in question, and taught within that curriculum, is all that is needed. This may possibly be true if all the student wants is a degree in that specific discipline. However, any true Metrologist must be omni-disciplinary, i.e., they must cover the entire spectrum of technical disci-plines.1

It is generally agreed that we must somehow re-place our present generation’s supply of Metrologists, who are dying off at an alarming rate. This journal has printed obituaries for at least three in the past few issues. Some institution has to do it; we do not have the time for the luxury of the conventional path of educating PhD’s in Physics and/or Chemistry and then convert-ing them (if they are interested) into Metrologists. Institutions approached in the past have just not been interested in establishing true Metrology curriculums when they looked at it from a pure business standpoint. Whether we like it or not, we must recognize that a university is a business—it must have a cash flow. It must examine its market to ascertain if it has sufficient potential paying students to support the costs of any new program. (When our esteemed former Editor-in-Chief saw this, he commented, “I couldn’t agree more. We have to establish the discipline and show there are jobs for them. When that happens the Universities will come panting and begging to teach such a program.”)

This is where CSUDH came into the picture. They have been very fortunate to have Dr. E. Eugene Watson heading their Graduate Program for Masters of Science in Quality. Gene Watson is a former head of Physical Metrology for a major aerospace/defense company as well as a noted Acoustical Physicist in his own right. This Master’s Program has been most successful. It has been in existence for about ten years and has recently graduated its three hundredth Mas-ters in Quality. It has pioneered in “Distance Learning” and has off-site classes at local industrial plants and several hundred on-line (via Internet) students as well as the more conventional on-campus classes.

Watson soon discovered, among his Master’s stu-dents, a gross lack of comprehension of Metrology— what it is, and its importance to the Quality Function. He also came to realize that his Master’s Program had no “feeder” program, i.e., a program turning out Bachelors of Science in Quality.2 He reasoned—in common mod-ern industrial practice Quality and Metrology are often closely related, “So why not try to ‘kill two birds with one stone’?” He realized that he would have problems selling the concept of a pure Metrology Program to the University System hierarchy. However, selling the con-cept of a “feeder program” to an existing successful (spelled “financially lucrative”) Quality program would be much simpler—and it was.


He also knew that once a basic program was approved, there would be few complaints about adding options relating to the main direction of that program. Thus came the idea of an academic course leading to the Degree of Bachelor of Science in Quality with a Measurement Science Option . The Administration applauded and assigned the task of developing this Program to Dean Gordon and her Division of Extended Education. This, at the same time, was both very unusual and very fortunate. First, it is very uncommon for a baccalaureate level undergraduate program to be administered by a school of Extended Education, which is generally intended to further the education of per-sons who have already attained their baccalaureate. And second, Dean Gordon is just the person to accom-plish such a task. She is one remarkable and impres-sive lady.

Her first move, about a year ago, was to have Dr. Watson assemble a Curriculum Advisory Board for the Program. As this developed, it became a distinguished panel of authorities in Quality and Measurements, as well as University personnel well versed in the University’s requirements and the State of California requirements for the granting of a degree. Their objec-tive was to include everything necessary for the proper education of a degreed professional in Quality or in the optional Measurement Science, but, on the other hand, to try to use as many of the existing courses in the University Catalog as feasible. The Board has met monthly for nearly a year and subcommittees as often as once a week. On May 18, 2000 they finally approved a preliminary curriculum. It still needs considerable fine-tuning and several of the required courses do not exist yet, as several course descriptions need to be written.

Since the “fine tuning” is at this time incomplete, we will not attempt to delineate a precise schedule here; we will however list some of the specific courses, upon which agreement has already been reached:

THE FIRST YEAR: • To start the freshman so that he can intelli-

gently and articulately communicate: Fresh-man Composition, Technical Communications, and Foundations of Speech.

• To start the freshman’s familiarity with his mathematical tools: College Algebra and Trigonometry, and Calculus I.

• To begin immersing the freshman scientist in the sciences: Principles of Biology.

• And, to provide the freshman scientist with current tools: Computer Applications for Sci-entists.

THE SECOND YEAR: • During the sophomore year, the technical courses

start to become more stringent: Elementary

Statistics and Probability; General Physics; Fundamentals of Quality and ISO 9000; In-troduction to Computers and Basic Programming I & II; Critical Thinking and Problem Solving; and General Chemistry.

THE THIRD AND FOURTH YEARS: • In the upper division, the third and fourth

years, we have: Science and Technology: the History of Quality and Measurement; Elec-tronics; Measurement Science: Fundamen-tals; Statistical Quality Control; Measurement Science: Advanced (Electrical and Physical Metrology); Design of Experiments; Advanced Technical Communications; Measurement Un-certainty; Dimensional Analysis; Profession-alism, Ethics, and Leadership; and two se-mesters of Major Senior Projects (Measurement Related).

(EDITORIAL NOTE: In THE LEARNING CURVE column, of this issue, the author discusses the qualifi-cation requirements for certain Metrology staff mem-bers. This curriculum as outlined above does much to support those requirements for entry level Metrolo-gists. Of course further education and training is nec-essary to bring the neophyte up to senior level, and nothing can replace years of practical experience. We strongly recommend you study the current issue of THE LEARNING CURVE. fv)

We have delineated above only those courses applicable to the Measurement Science Option; there are many others peculiar to the main track Quality preference. Most of these would be of but minor interest to a Metrology candidate, but are available if so desired.

Naturally, along with these technical courses are both the University requirements as well as the State of California required courses for a degree. Also included are electives and liberal arts courses. These are obvi-ously required to form the well rounded, cultured, articulate Professional that every Metrologist is sup-posed to be.

Constructive criticism is solicited from the knowl-edgeable Metrology Community. Critiques and/or ques-tions may be addressed to me (my address is in LEARNING CURVE column), or (in writing only) di-rectly to Dean Margaret Gordon, Division of Extended Education, at the California State University— Dominguez Hills, Compton, CA, 90747-1000. 1 I once had the head of the Mechanical Engineering Department of a very prestigious state university tell me directly that Metrology does not exist, and hence we could not even discuss it! 2 True, all of his Master’s candidates were required to have an acceptable Bachelor’s degree in some allied field before matriculating into the Master’s Program, but none of these Bachelor’s degrees were in Quality.


Knowledge Management Metrology: Overview Profiles on Best Practices

by Frank Voehl

In its initial stages, Knowledge Management Metrology (KMM) has been applied most fully in industries that are process-intensive, research-driven, information-based, logistical or subject to deregulation. From this base, knowledge practices will spread to many more sectors in the years to come.

Telecommunications: With an explosive mixture of technology and competition providing the infrastructure for the new economy, the business differentiator is knowledge.

A/E/C: The architecture, engineering and construction of large building projects requires the creation and exchange of knowledge among the parties involved.

Transportation: Moving people and freight is the end result, but increasingly transportation is all about information. Logistics systems ensure profitable operations.

Media and Entertainment: The content industries sell information as product. Increasingly, digital media are replacing traditional forms of media as core segments are redefined.

Energy: Competition in the gas and electric utilities market will drive innovations. Petroleum discovery, extraction and refining are knowledge-based processes.

Pharmaceuticals: Development of new drug therapies is a knowledge-enabled process, from the biological science to the product development to the regulatory approval.

Chemicals: Regulatory compliance and production efficiencies weighed against risk assessment yield knowl-edge-based product innovation and market advantage.

Technology: Silicon and software embody knowledge as functionality. The information industries rely heavily on management of intellectual property rights.

Financial and Legal Services: From banking to insurance to securities to law offices, new financial products and services are information-based. Managed knowledge accelerates innovation.

Consumer Products: Packaged goods are developed, marketed and delivered to the consumer via information systems. Retailers are on the front lines of customer service.

Healthcare: Changes in the health-care system are enabled by knowledge–from insurance to hospital adminis-tration to the methods of individual health workers.

KMM Strategies Technology access is such a basic strategy that virtually every company with a successful knowledge management metrology program adheres to it. The strategies of the six organizations profiled all feature the common denominator of technology. PeopleSoft employees, for instance, get a portable computer loaded with Lotus Notes and other software that allows them easy access to corporate data from wherever they happen to be working. Employees from all departments also utilize a corporate intranet.

Pillsbury uses a virtual library to warehouse key data sources and patents. At Ernst & Young, every professional is provided with a laptop and access to the vast resources of the firm's KnowledgeWeb from anywhere in the world. According to CKO John Peetz, “The only way for an extensive knowledge management process to function at optimum performance is to possess the technology that facilitates that process.” Accordingly, Avery Dennison has tapped into the $100 billion annual patent market with innovative 3-D data warehousing and expects its licensing revenues to increase to over $125 million annually by the end of the year 2000.

Long Island College Hospital has tapped into a $19 billion information sharing industry to gain competitive advantage and share vital information. Buckman Laboratories also outfits employees with mobile technology. “Knowledge workers don't turn off their brains when they leave the office,” said knowledge specialist Rumizen. “Their creativity, desire to share knowledge, and dedication to the job are not bound to regular working hours and the prescribed workplace. We give them the opportunity to work when and where they choose.”

Dave Sriberg, vice president of information technology at Brodeur Porter Novelli agreed: “When building applications to expand knowledge-sharing capabilities, you must look at how the people work, and then give them


the tools to do their work more easily.” Mike Sockol, director of interactive services at the same firm, concurred: “You need to create a utility that is intuitive, sensitive, and addictive. It needs to be easy to use, even for technophobes. It should address the needs of its users by providing an improved alternative to existing systems. And it should become so valuable that the user cannot imagine working without it.”

The following 10 Profiles/Case Studies are the first in a series of three (30 case studies overall) that will focus on the practical application of Knowledge Management Metrology best practices and tools in the world of business today.

Profiles/Case Studies 1. Cooking up Knowledge Management at

Pillsbury

Profile: Pillsbury, which has brought us such house-hold staples as the Jolly Green Giant and the Pillsbury Dough Boy and owns the Haagen Dazs ice cream brand, launched a KM pilot in its R&D division in May 1997.

History: Founded in 1869 as a flour miller, Pillsbury is now a $6.2 billion-a-year market leader in many baked and frozen food categories. In 1989, the Minneapolis-based food company merged with UK conglomerate Grand Metropolitan, which later combined with Guinness (beer) to form Diageo. Diageo's four main businesses are Burger King, Pillsbury, Guinness, and United Distillers & Vintners.

KMM Strategy: Bring new products to market more quickly by implementing knowledge management prac-tices in the company's 550-person research and devel-opment organization.

Structure: Pillsbury's knowledge metrology effort breaks down into four divisions–Information Manage-ment, Continuous Learning & Performance Support, Technology Knowledge Center, and Knowledge Man-agement Strategy, which fall under two officers of the company, the CIO and CTO. While three sections report up to the CTO, Information Management, which deploys information systems, reports on the dotted line to the CIO.

Success Story: Under the old system, it took 17 signatures and nearly 90 days to run a label design through the entire organization. Each label had to get approval from marketing, food safety, nutritionists, consumer response, and many other internal divisions that contribute to what goes on the label. With the knowledge management program in place, it takes just nine days to approve a new label.

Special Projects: Creating a virtual library, where employees can find research patents, recipe specs, and engineering processes, as well as business and technical documents.

Hurdles: Making it easier for people to use the virtual library. “People are creative, and illogical at times, in getting information,” says Brenda Stewart, Knowledge Management Strategy Project Leader. “Frustration

comes because the technology is not as creative as the people who use it.”

Outlook: The R&D program is only a pilot, but smaller knowledge management activities are underway all over Pillsbury. Parent Diagio is watching closely to assess prospects for knowledge programs in its other business units.

2. Long Island College Hospital is Off the Critical List Thanks to its Use of Data Ware -housing for Cost Management.

Profile: When Don Snell took over as CEO of the Long Island College Hospital (LICH) two years ago, the patients weren't the only ones who were sick. The New York state teaching hospital, with some 516 beds, 2,700 employees, and 200 residents and medical students, was hemorrhaging some $1.5 million a month. With only about $5 million in reserves it was nearing bankruptcy. Yet there was hardly a laptop in sight.

History: The healthcare industry has been amassing a wealth of information on patients, their treatment histories, and costs for years. But only recently have hospitals started to mine that data to restore profitabil-ity and determine how to deliver the most cost-efficient and effective care in the process. Snell recalled. “All reporting and accounting was done pretty much by hand.” To make matters worse, New York state was just about to deregulate its schedule of fixed fees for services and the hospital had no way of figuring out what to charge to make a profit. “We had a desperate need for an information system,” said Snell, “yet we couldn't afford some of the megasystems, which can cost in the millions.”

KMM Strategy: To get the hospital back on its feet, Snell presented a plan to slash $25 million from oper-ating expenses and late last year he purchased a $30,000 decision support system. The system was HealthShare One from HealthShare Technology, Inc., a small privately held software company in Acton, Mass., and it gets at least some of the credit for the resulting financial turnaround. “The chief medical of-ficer has quantified potential savings of 1.5 million in two departments alone,” Snell said. HealthShare Tech-nology is a relatively small player in a fast-growing $330 million niche of the $19 billion medical informa-tion technology industry, according to G2R Inc., a


market analysis firm based in Mountain View, Calif. A number of competitors (including the Baltimore-based HCIA Inc., with $83 million in revenues; Transition Systems, Inc., of Boston, with revenues of $44 million; and HBSI International, Inc., of Bellevue, Wash., with $18 million in revenues) offer similar databases that help hospitals make competitive decisions, said Charles Singer, vice president of First Consulting Group of Boston, one of the largest healthcare information tech-nology consulting firms in the country.

Structure: When HealthShare Technology constructs databases, which form the core of the decision support system, the company gathers discharge data reported by hospitals to agencies in the majority of states. Information on some 800,000 patients comes from Massachusetts alone. Aside from the patient's name, which is kept confidential, each record includes almost every other detail from age and gender to the name of the patient's physician and payer. There's information on illnesses and their severity, treatment, tests per-formed, length of stay, and the amounts hospitals charge for each factor. To complete the competitive picture, HealthShare marries that data with actual costs of that care from reports each hospital must prepare for the federal government to receive Medi-care reimbursement.

Success Story: The information provided by HealthShare One, which is based on ACI US Inc.'s 4th Dimension, is so detailed, Snell used it to determine his own hospital's internal costs, negotiate fees with healthcare providers, and to review the practices of the hospital's physicians. “You have your costs and rev-enue per DRG [Diagnosis Related Group, a standard healthcare diagnosis classification system], per proce-dure, per physician, and per patient if you want it,” he said. Now, a new version of the software, called Health Share Two, will “allow LICH to generate a more de-tailed level of product line cost analysis and will be used in negotiations with managed care companies,” Snell said.

Special Projects: HealthShare Technology is a small company with a big idea. Company president Richard Siegrist realized back in 1992 that the medical profes-sion was sitting on an untapped gold mine of publicly available information that ought to be the envy of data mining proponents everywhere. Imagine an industry where you can not only track your competitor's market share and the prices they charge, but also know the detailed history of each customer, the quality of the products your competitors offer and how much it costs to produce them. “Hospitals have had access to this type of information for about fifteen years,” said Siegrist. “But it is not until the last four or five years they have started to make use of it.”

Hurdles: Instead of fancy data flythroughs or statistical analyses, HealthShare Technology has added a set of features that executives can use to automatically pre-pare a printed report comparing any hospital unit to that of its competitors. The report makes recommendations on ways to reduce costs and illustrates them with charts and tables. Though small, HealthShare Tech-nology has gathered an impressive list of customers. These include New York's Beth Israel and Sisters of Charity health care systems, the Partners Healthcare System in Massachusetts, and two multi-state HMOs: Oxford Healthplan and Healthsource. For Snell, HealthShare One proved critical in contract negotia-tions with a commercially managed care organization. Snell determined the hospital would actually lose $200 a day on an offer to pay a flat per diem fee for treating patients. “Within half an hour we knew what it was costing every single one of our competitors and that we had the second lowest cost on the market, so we could walk away from the contract,” he said. Eventually the hospital was able to renegotiate the contract with a reasonable profit margin.

Outlook: The hospital has also used the software to cut down costs by figuring out what fees it should pay a group of physicians for the use of their ultrasound kidney stone crushing machine and what to charge patients for the procedure. “We negotiated a reason-able fee that gave them a profit margin and kept ours as well. In the past they were able to take advantage of our organization because we couldn't do the analysis,” he said.

Hospital Best Practices: But the most important contribution to cost cutting by HealthShare One and Two is likely to be long range, as the hospital figures out the best and most cost-effective ways of treating pa-tients. To this end, the hospital has prepared a profile of each of its physician’s practices to determine which were doing the best job at keeping costs down. Physi-cians who order unnecessary tests or prescribe longer hospital stays have been asked to change their prac-tices to conform to their colleagues, said Snell. “We had a problem with patients staying too long. Now we can compare each physician's length to the best prac-tice within their department and to those of other hospitals as well.”

Figuring out these “best practices” and getting the physicians to build them into standard protocols is one of the major benefits of this type of software, said Doug O'Boyle, the director of healthcare information strate-gies practice at the meta Group, Reston, Va. “This is where the big performance gains in healthcare will be. All hospitals will need software like this.”

Next Step: Centers of Excellence. HealthShare One and Two are giving Snell a leg up on the competition at


the moment. But the value of the system won't diminish once everyone has access to the same data. Hospitals will simply specialize in what they are best at. O'Boyle already sees hospitals creating “centers of excellence,” he said. “They will still provide other services, but they will focus on those that can establish them as market leaders.”

3. Avery Dennison Visualizes Gains in Rev -enue from Intellectual Property Licenses.

Profile: Avery Dennison is one of those invisibly every-where companies. The $3 billion school and office supplier holds the leading position in various product categories with brands (Marks-A-Lot and Hi-Liter) that are among the most recognized in the industry.

History: Even more invisible to the consumer are Avery Dennison's intellectual property assets. The company's patents form one of their main revenue channels for many consumer products (notebooks, three-ring binders, organizing systems, glues, fasten-ers, business forms, tickets, tags, imprinting equip-ment, and components), which gives them a key com-petitive advantage over their top competitors, including 3M, Esselte, and Fortune Brands.

KMM Strategy: The hidden source of wealth in intel-lectual assets has provided companies with billions of dollars in licensing revenues from under-utilized pat-ents and similar amounts from infringements on pat-ents related to key product lines. The number of patents issued in the United States has increased 150 percent since 1980, and patent-related revenues like-wise increased from $3 billion to almost $100 billion in the same period. With the explosion in activity, compa-nies have had a difficult time managing their patent assets and applications.

Structure: Avery Dennison's Pasadena, Calif.-based Research and Development Division has overcome the restrictions of the traditional hard-copy patent re-view process by applying Intellectual Property Asset Management (IPAM) software from Aurigin Systems of Mountain View, Calif. In turn, Aurigin’s product incor-porates data visualization technology from In-xight Software, a Xerox PARC spin-off in Palo Alto, Calif. The combination is already yielding big benefits.

Success Story: As manager of intellectual property at Avery Dennison, it is Lori Morrison's responsibility, as she described it, “to transform human knowledge into economic wealth.” With Aurigin’s IPAM, “I can see how to improve the quality of my patent. I can see what my competitor is doing and compare or contrast with our in-house patents.” Using a 3D presentation feature, the program not only enables Morrison to visually separate patents by type and division, but can also track the corporation’s top inventors through patent visualiza-tions, improving opportunities for inventor incentive

programs. Morrison said that her turnaround time in individual patent evaluation has been reduced from weeks to a few hours. “This is a patent attorney's dream,” she said.

Special Projects: The visualization component of the Aurigin's software is built using Inxight's 3D Hyperbolic Tree technology. It displays data in a branching design that lets users view and navigate 10 to 100 times the amount of information on screen than might be view-able in a traditional file and folder or spreadsheet interface. It enables users to visualize and understand complex relationships between their patents and com-petitors’ patents. Inxight licenses its Hyperbolic Tree technology to other software companies in other mar-kets and applications.

Hurdles: The use of 3D visualization software in busi-ness is groundbreaking. Visualized data capitalizes upon the human brain's innate visual interpretative biology and allows the instant interpretation of mean-ingful patterns and knowledge versus the more time-consuming review of textual data. Aurigin President Dan'l Lewin said, “Our software allows critical informa-tion to be distilled quickly from what would otherwise be an overwhelming amount of patent data.” The Aurigin software also allows Morrison to share analytical data via the corporate intranet to research and development sites in Ohio and Asia, enabling instant collaborative analysis. The information is secured via the IPAM system, allowing Morrison to limit access to qualified users. She said that the communication level in online discussions has improved due of the information pro-vided by the visualizations.

Outlook: Avery Dennison has not yet quantified the impact of IPAM upon company revenues. But Dow Chemical has estimated that it expects to boost licens-ing royalties from $20 million today to $125 million by 2000, an increase partially due to the assistance of the decision-support tools from Aurigin. Dow also plans to cut $40 million in tax maintenance over 10 years by identifying unused patents that it can let expire. That's a lot of impact from knowledge management technolo-gies. Avery Dennison may keep a low profile, but those kinds of dollar swings are very visible on the corporate balance sheet.

4. Spotlight on team players at Ernst and Young.

Profile: Ernst & Young is the nation’s fastest-growing professional services firm, with 29,000 employees and 87 locations. The Center for Business Knowledge (CBK) is Ernst & Young’s “secret weapon,” said John Peetz, chief knowledge officer. The CBK incorporates many programs, including EY/InfoLink and the EY/ KnowledgeWeb.

History: The Ernst & Young staff visits the EY/ KnowledgeWeb 20,000 times daily, making it resound-


ingly successful. Using features such as scalability, Lotus Notes connectivity, and advanced search capa-bility technologies from Verity, EY/KnowledgeWeb in 1997 went from a pilot program to full U.S. implemen-tation in eight weeks.

KMM Strategy and Structure: The system provided a uniform repository for the firm's collective knowledge as well as that of outside sources such as industry analysts and reports. According to Peetz, some reluc-tance by employees to adapt to such systems is to be expected. “Any organization embarking on KM initia-tives encounters resistance. It can take many forms: ‘this is client confidential’ (which is sometimes true); ‘only I know how to use this, someone else will foul it up’; or ‘if I share this, it will leak outside the firm’.”

Success Story: How did E&Y overcome these barri-ers? “We were blessed with a collaborative culture to begin with,” Peetz continued, “so changing this mindset was less difficult for us. We incorporated sharing into the compensation system, trained people to use what was shared, encouraged people to visit the KWeb, wherein they found value, and did all the usual commu-nicating to explain the vision. Peetz credits top man-agement support in Ernst & Young's implementation of its KM plan. “We have an extremely supportive man-agement group. They talk and walk the game every day. Knowledge management and the CBK are firmly embedded in the company's business strategy. But ultimately, people contribute because they get value out the back end. There's a critical mass principle operating here.”

Outlook: Another strong reason for Ernst & Young employees to share what they know is that the com-pany values their participation. “Ultimately, being rec-ognized as an expert is a critical career goal for most of our people. And the best way in today's environment to become known as an expert is to publish. If someone needs a toy manufacturer supply chain specialist, the best way to locate one is to find our best material in that area and find out who created it. If you don't contribute, you don't become known.”

5. Provide open access to collected infor -mation at Peoplesoft.

Profile: PeopleSoft builds client/server applications that redefine traditional approaches, putting power in the hands of users while adapting to the ever-changing nature of business.

History: “The PeopleSoft culture was designed around sharing information and tacit knowledge,” said Tracy Leighton, manager of the PeopleSoft Knowledge De-velopment Team. Leighton credits Lotus Notes groupware with moving the company toward a self-service knowledge management system, before the collaborative process was begun in earnest. “Once we

got the intranet knowledge solution (called Eureka!-The PeopleSoft Knowledge Base) online, we soon had requests from departments that wanted to add their knowledge for all to share.”

KMM Strategy and Structure: The company’s knowl-edge base was started with third-party content from Inference, a customer relationship management soft-ware provider. Inference enabled new PeopleSoft us-ers to customize content for their specific issues and solutions. PeopleSoft’s policy is to give all employees access to all the collected knowledge databases. “In-formation becomes knowledge only when it’s useful to someone,” said Marcia Connor, of PeopleSoft’s Cor-porate Education Services. “We can’t second-guess where and when the information becomes useful. Just because I don't see information as useful to any given individual doesn't mean that it isn’t or won't become useful to them.

Hurdles: “To limit access to information is diametri-cally opposed to the PeopleSoft core value of how we treat ourselves and our customers. We provide all the tools for every person so that they can do their job the best way they know how.”

6. Acorda Therapeutics Offers Tangible In -centives for Sharing.

Profile: Acorda Therapeutics develops recuperative and rehabilitative products for spinal cord injury and other central nervous system conditions. The company devised a “team or die” approach for its core group of research scientists that includes direct financial incen-tives.

KMM Strategy: Ron Cohen, president and CEO of Acorda Therapeutics, said that the scientists were selected based on two key criteria. Each had to be at the top of fields deemed critical to the company's mission, and each had to be prepared to contribute within a team structure. “We emphasized teamwork in conversations with every scientist and proposed to them that they might achieve worthy goals by working together and sharing information with their peers,” Cohen said.

Structure and Projects: They illustrated the concept with historically successful examples, such as the Huntington's Gene Project of the ‘80s and the Manhat-tan Project. Finally, we employed a carrot-and-stick technique, telling the scientists that teamwork was the most important operating principle of the company, and if they participated, they would benefit by being part of a team of superb scientists working on cutting-edge projects. They would also vest stock in the company over time. “Along with the incentives, Acorda's approach included a healthy dose of disincentives,” Cohen said. “Lack of teamwork would result in imme-diate dismissal from the company’s projects and forfei-


ture of all benefits. We asked every person we invited to be part of the organization to agree explicitly to these terms.”

Success Story: Cohen said aconsensus has emerged that the only way to ensure truly open cross-communi-cations within the company is to guarantee each mem-ber the security of their ideas, data, and knowledge until such time as they choose to make these more publicly available outside of the company. So far, this system seems to be working well.

Hurdles: Cohen compares the sharing culture with his experience as an oarsman in college rowing in an eight-man shell with coxswain. “I preferred this to individual sculling,” he said. “The victorious sculler receives individual glory; the eight receive glory as a varsity boat. But when you row in an eight, you feel as though you possess the strength of the whole team. That feeling cannot be replicated in a single scull. And even a mediocre eight will always beat an Olympic-quality sculler.

Outlook: “Overall, I believe that many people want to feel that they are part of a mission that is bigger than themselves, that gives meaning to their lives, and that they could not possibly accomplish outside of a team structure. As long as they trust that everyone else in the enterprise is playing by the same rules, they will share knowledge.”

7. A Young Company Demonstrates the In -dividual and Group Value of Shared Knowl -edge.

Profile: Brodeur Porter Novelli, a fairly young growing team devoted to public relations and client service, has developed a sophisticated system of ensuring that all employees have access to the collected intelligence.

KMM Strategy: This is done through a series of databases, including the company intranet, which is used for internal knowledge sharing and metrology management, and The Knowledge Network, a custom-ized internal system that shares information about employees, services, and skills.

Structure: These databases, networked with the Lo-tus Notes Domino backbone, put people in contact with each other for true collaboration, according to Jennifer Wysocki, marketing communications manager at Brodeur Porter Novelli. “If you needed an expert on HTML programming who is fluent in French and has experience developing extranets, you could execute a search, and the Knowledge Network will tell you who meets that search criteria,” she said.

Success Story: When the company rolled out its knowledge management system in December 1996, it was quickly adopted partially because upper manage-ment was involved from the start, Wysocki said. “Man-

agement, in turn, rallied the troops, getting their buy-in early on. We empowered the people to drive this initiative, having teams identify client and employee needs, along with the best systems and practices to meet both. And then we made it measurable so we could track responses and usage to refine the system.” Employees tap into the Knowledge Network system through the company intranet, Connect, so response and usage can be measured similar to hits on Web sites. By monitoring such feedback, management is able to address lower-usage areas using focus groups, small team meetings, and informal surveys.

Hurdles: “Once we identify some causes for low us-age, we can make adjustments, put it back on Connect, and let people know what’s changed. Then we're back to measuring usage again. It’s an ongoing cycle, but if KM is going to work it’s necessary,” Wysocki said. “Generally, the end users see value in the process and haven’t needed any additional incentives.”

Outlook: As Jan Lawlor, senior vice president, put it: “We want to tap into each other’s brains.”

8. Making certain that Management is Enthu -siastic and Involved at Buckman Labs.

Profile: Buckman Laboratories, headquartered in Mem-phis, with 22 offices in 19 countries and operations in more than 80 countries, is a manufacturer of specialty chemicals.

KMM Strategy and Structure: Buckman associates use K’Netix, an interconnected system of knowledge bases, to share solutions and to ensure that their customers get fast and accurate responses to ques-tions or concerns.

Company lore holds that CEO Bob Buckman con-ceived of K’Netix when he was bedridden with a bad back. Frustrated at being out of touch with his com-pany, Buckman drafted a prototype of the perfect information-sharing network. It makes a good story, said Melissie Rumizen, assistant to the chairman for knowledge sharing at Buckman Laboratories, but “our KM efforts predated that incident.”

Success Story: She said the company first began an effort to identify and disseminate best practices across the corporation. Designated employees busily gath-ered practices and trotted around the globe. However, the information took too much time to collect and distribute, and the practices were invariably out of date by the time they were disseminated. Seeking a better way to share knowledge, Buckman's engineers de-signed a network that could tap the knowledge of all employees and provide a means to share information as quickly as possible in response to customer needs. That was the real start of K’Netix.


Special Projects: Initially implemented using CompuServe (now Worldcom Advanced Networks), a new version of K’Netix running under Lotus Domino integrates standard Internet services and includes a document repository. The client side uses Microsoft Outlook Express for email and newsgroups. Internet Explorer is used to access document libraries both for contributions and search and retrieval, while Microsoft NetMeeting is used for online interactive chat func-tions.

Hurdles: Buckman employees are comfortable with the technologies for sharing, but it wasn't always that way. “In the beginning,” Rumizen said, “the first system operator for K’Netix would check usage of the system and give Bob [Buckman] the names of those not participating. Bob then would send a pleasant email: ‘Hi. I have noticed that you haven’t been active on the system. Is there something we can do to help you? Do you need some special training?’ Word quickly got around the company that Bob was personally tracking individual participation.”

Outlook: Rumizen contends that there has to be active assistance when moving from command-and-control to collaboration. “You have to teach people how to be mentors rather than bosses,” she said, citing Managing By Influence (Schatz and Schatz, 1988), which con-tends that the key to successful leadership is evoking commitment rather than imposing authority. “Also, the answer is not just to trash middle managers for not ‘getting it.’ We have to remember that these individuals are the best and brightest in the company. We pro-moted them. The key question is how do we get them committed to this new direction? We have to teach them how to influence others. “Time does wonders, Rumizen said. “As our people became more comfort-able with the very significant cultural change, collabo-ration increased and is now part of the fiber of the company. Culture change takes significant chunks of time, and it has to involve top management if it is going to be successful. You cannot delegate it.”

9. Rewriting the Unwritten Rules at Rutgers.

Profile: Rutgers University (State University of New Jersey) has 50,000 students and 5,000 researchers and faculty scattered among a dozen campuses in the state.

KMM Strategy: To facilitate communication, Rutgers is spending $100 million to lay high-speed fiber optics that will link all of its classrooms, offices, laboratories, and dormitories. Professor Wise Young, director of the Neuroscience Center at Rutgers, is currently engaged in establishing a new collaborative research facility at the university. The center is being designed for knowl-edge sharing, not only for laboratories within Rutgers but in conjunction with over 60 other research labora-

tories around the world. Every part of the laboratory is specialized for efficient communication and sharing of visual, audio, and numerical data, as well as real-time personal interactions. Even many of the laboratory instruments are designed to allow groups of users to access them remotely.

Structure: The center will use primarily two types of software for remote collaboration: Timbuktu Remote and CU-SeeMe. Timbuktu allows people to work on computers as if they were physically sitting in the central lab. CU-SeeMe allows up to eight individuals to video conference with each other. “Both programs are cheap and powerful, and are flexible enough to accom-modate a variety of Internet bandwidths,” Young said.

Success Story: Young’s future purchase plans in-clude a microscope (the Zeiss 510) with state-of-the-art video cameras that can collect and store slide images in the form of movies. “Instead of throwing a slide on the wall to show an image, a lecturer can access a server over the Internet to play a high resolu-tion video movie,” Young said. “In Osaka (Japan), for example, there is a high-voltage electron microscope that can be used over the Internet.

Hurdles: Costing millions, such microscopes and fa-cilities are beyond the means of individual scientists. It is also important to allow such a facility to be used around the clock, to make the most of the investment. This is the wave of the future he said. Such cutting-edge technological advancements require people to work together in new ways, as well. “One has to learn to collaborate. It doesn't come naturally,” Young said.

Outlook: “Because our academic and business orga-nizations are predicated on competition, there is a natural reluctance to share and to give. But it can and does happen. As a member of a team, you begin to realize that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. You realize that being part of the team allows you to do things that you would never otherwise be able to do.”

10. New Hardware-software Alliance Between Compaq and Lotus hopes accidents Will Happen.

Profile: You might say that Houston-based Compaq Computer Corporation is learning about knowledge management the hard way. The world's largest com-puter manufacturer has been trying to absorb two enormous acquisitions: After buying Tandem Comput-ers in June 1997, it merged with Digital Equipment Corporation only half a year later.

History: Retention of both customers and employees depended on getting the right information to the right people quickly and reliably. “As we’ve seen with all the mergers and acquisitions going on lately, it’s very


important to have a good information infrastructure. You need to keep the sales force up to speed, and you need to address all the needs of your customers,” according to Sharon Fortmeyer-Selan, director of en-terprise solutions marketing at Compaq. “We’ve expe-rienced these challenges firsthand.”

Strategy: This experience comes in handy for Compaq’s latest venture. In July, the company an-nounced a new alliance with Lotus Development Cor-poration to offer customers integrated knowledge man-agement solutions. The alliance is counting on Compaq’s leadership in the NT server market and Lotus’ expertise in collaboration and KM. “Knowledge management is a big market,” explained Andrea Ramon, director of strategic alliances at Lotus. “We’re looking at how to expand together.” By being one of the first to lead and support customers through the entire knowl-edge management process—from hardware to con-sulting—they expect the alliance to capture the KM market.

Structure: For Compaq, Lotus was a clear choice since the companies have a large mutual customer base. At the same time, Lotus’ applications fit well into Compaq’s KM strategy, Fortmeyer-Selan said. Compaq now offers a hardware line that stretches from the palmtop to the desktop to corporate data centers. It also has a service network capable of supporting business customers with global account management. Lotus, meanwhile, now provides a single architecture structure for Internet, messaging, knowledge manage-ment and enterprise integration. Together, the alliance aims to make high-performance Web-based collabo-ration and messaging systems easier to deploy. “With Lotus we can provide a much more robust solution to customers.”

Success Story: Fortmeyer-Selan said, “It’s a com-plete solution based on customers’ needs, not a pre-defined set of answers. “Compaq is determined to create the same kind of success partnering with Lotus as it did with Siebel Systems, a leader in sales informa-tion systems. They teamed up in March 1997 to provide integrated enterprise solutions for automating sales, telemarketing and call-center information systems. Compaq became Siebel's preferred deployment plat-form for Microsoft Windows NT and ended up with nearly 65 percent of that market.

Special Projects: Compaq and Lotus kicked off the partnership with two Notes- and Domino-driven KM applications developed by two Lotus Premium Busi-ness Partners, Cipher Systems and GlobalServe Cor-poration. The first, Cipher’s Knowledge-Works, helps companies process and analyze competitive intelli-gence. Tapping into employee sources and outside expertise, data is translated into a summary that iden-

tifies information sources and rates them according to importance and reliability. The second, GlobalServe’s Research Accelerator, helps R&D organizations iden-tify critical knowledge, reduce research redundancy and facilitate researcher collaboration. It also provides protection for valuable intellectual properties.

Hurdles: Alliance partners Lotus Services Group and Cambridge Technology Partners offer consulting ser-vices to guide and advise customers if necessary.

“Our customers want knowledge translated into action. They want to look downstream and see immediate benefits that justify their investments,” explained An-drew Mahon, senior manager for strategic marketing at Lotus.

Contact the following websites: Compaq Computer Corp., www.compaq.com, (281) 518-5970

Lotus Development Corp. , www.lotus.com/solutions/ knowledge.nsf, (617) 577-8500

Outlook: Generally, today's early adopters of KM tools enjoy quick results since they are predisposed to change, Mahon suggested. Many have experience with discussion databases such as Lotus Notes, which accelerate the sharing of information and expertise. But information sharing is not necessarily knowledge management, Mahon emphasized. Using the informa-tion is what counts. Sometimes two employees pass in the hall, “accidentally” exchange information about their current projects and elicit help from each other. “Our goal is to make sure these knowledge accidents occur all the time,” said Mahon.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

These profiles/case studies are part of an upcoming book on “Knowledge Management Metrology for Re-sults” by Frank Voehl and are offered here as a follow-up to a previous article by the author titled “Business Development, Metrology, and Knowledge Manage-ment.” Frank Voehl is the Editor of The Standard and the Chair of ASQ’s Community Quality Council Com-mittee. He can be reached at [email protected] or at his website: www.strategyassociates.cc


Reporting Capability Numbers Richard DeRoeck

QA Engineer/Alpha Industries [email protected]

(617) 824-4447

“The more you know what is wrong with a figure the more useful it becomes.”

John Tukey Statistician

Introduction So…what’s the Cpk of your process? Does this sound familiar? It should. Today, capability indices such as

Cpk, Cp and Ppk have become the latest fad in judging product/process quality. This question is often raised by your customer, usually a quality auditor possessing little knowledge about capability numbers and their meaning, looking for some “magic” number such as 1.33, 1.50, 2.00 or thereabouts. It has also been my experience that these capability numbers are always requested without consideration of process stability or distribution shape. I believe this fixation with capability numbers have actually become a detriment to continual quality improvement efforts, such as variation reduction through identifying and eliminating special cause variation. But don’t despair, all is not lost. The inevitable questions about process capability provide an opportunity to educate and perhaps impress your customer on the uncertainties and limitations of using such numbers, along with demonstrating a capability analysis that can be easily understood by those with little statistical training. This method assess the capability of your process by calculating multiple capability indices, such as Cpk, over time and to plot these numbers on a Process Behavior chart (also known as a XmR chart), along with a histogram of the individual values to provide context for interpreting these numbers. Although not an exact method, by calculating and charting capability numbers over an extended period of time, instead of providing a one-time value, a truer picture of your processes’ capability can be established.

The following methods are simple (no confidence intervals, statistical tables, complex formulas, normality assumptions or lack of fit tests). Although there has been recent criticism to these simple but proven methods by those trained in “classical” statistical studies, the aim of this paper is to help those working in the trenches in a real manufacturing environment better understand and interpret the capability of their processes. In such an environment, the quality of raw materials is often inconsistent, equipment and machines break down, preventive maintenance procedures and schedules are haphazard or nonexistent, measurement systems inadequate, work instructions fuzzy and unclear, and operator training sporadic while goals and schedules need to be met. It’s where fine statistical theory collides head-on with the realities of production. It’s a world where quality professionals work.

The following case study uses common statistical tools and formulas to evaluate and display the process capability of a die bond process in a semiconductor manufacturing operation. It does so by monitoring process stability over time and then calculating an average capability value.

Note: For readers of the STANDARD , this is same manufacturing process published in a previous article titled: The Design of a Measurement Process Plan.

Three Statistical Tools used to for the Capability Study

X, R Process Behavior chart XmR Process Behavior chart Histogram of individual values

Formulas used to Perform Study Estimated standard deviation = R/d2

Cpk = X -LSL/3(R/d2)


A Description of the Die Bond Process An ASM die bonder picks silicon die from a 4-inch wafer and places each die onto a very thin layer of conductive

epoxy that has been deposited on a ceramic substrate for bonding. After the die and epoxy have been cured for 1 hour, a sample is tested for bond strength. A die shear tester records the force required in grams to shear off the die. A 3-piece sample is sheared every 2 hours and the results recorded on an X, R (Average and Range) Process Behavior chart (Figure-1). This chart shows approximately 3 months of die shear data n = 3, k = 304 . Before any capability study is to be performed, the process must show a reasonable degree of stability. While determining process stability seems rather straightforward, it’s not quite that simple. This is because there is no definitive set of detection rules that govern whether a process is in statistical control. Walter Shewhart, the inventor of the control chart, used only one detection rule to identify what he referred to “special cause” variation. Other well-known detection rules include the 4 Western Electric (W.E.) Zone Tests and those published by statistician/ author Lloyd Nelson. While these additional rules will improve the charts’ ability to detect moderate size process changes it does so at the expense of increasing its false alarm rate (attributing special cause variation when only common cause variation exists). This is a price Hi-volume production areas are not willing to pay. In such a manufacturing environment, to stop production is a last resort; therefore the process behavior chart is generally used as a conservative analytical tool (few false alarms while allowing some missed signals). As with any manufacturing process, deciding what detection rules to use is a matter of sound judgment, economics and process knowledge. This is not a theoretical/academic question but a practical one. In other words, what detection rules make sense for a particular process? For the die bond process the decision was made to use only W.E. Zone Test 1 (points beyond the process limits) for monitoring this process. In Figure 1, the first 100 subgroups were used to calculate process limits. The resulting process behavior chart of the die shear data is predictable with no measurement values beyond the process limits on either the X or R chart. Since the chart displays a process in statistical control, as defined by our choice of detection rules, it therefore qualifies for a process capability study. The capability study compares the natural process limits to the product specification. For this particular die size area (18.5 mil*18.5 mil) the product specification is 425 grams minimum.

X and R Process Behavior chart


A Graphical Method for Displaying Process Capability (Cpk) The following steps were used to calculate and display process capability for the die bond operation.

Step 1: For the die bond process each week’s die shear data from the X and R process behavior chart were collected and the following summary statistics calculated:

The process estimated standard deviation R/d2 The process mean X

Step 2: Using the formula shown below, a Cpk value for each week’s die shear data was calculated. Approximately 50 die shear measurements were taken and these data were used to calculate the Cpk values. Vertical lines were drawn in on the X and R chart (Figure-1) to denote each week’s data used to calculate its Cpk value.

Cpk = −X LSL/d2 LSL = 425 grams

d2 = 1.693 for n = 3

Cpk calculations for weeks 1 though 17

Week 1=1133-425/3(225)=1.048 Week 10=1196-425/3(154)=1.666 Week 2=1175-425/3(241)=1.039 Week 11=1181-425/3(183)=1.279 Week 3=1172-425/3(223)=1.117 Week 12=1209-425/3(178)=1.465 Week 4=1168-425/3(134)=1.850 Week 13=1192-425/3(197)=1.299 Week 5=1088-425/3(177)=1.250 Week 14=1181-425/3(191)=1.322 Week 6=1175-425/3(151)=1.654 Week 15=1250-425/3(160)=1.721 Week 7=1147-425/3(183)=1.317 Week 16=1217-425/3(127)=2.070 Week 8=1184-425/3(196)=1.288 Week 17=1155-425/3(172)=1.414 Week 9=1119-425/3(194)=1.195

Step 3: Plot each week’s Cpk values on an individuals process behavior chart. On this chart the X-axis represents time (17 weeks) while the Y-axis denotes the weekly Cpk values. Once you have collected a dozen or so values, calculate process limits and averages lines for both the X and mR chart. While it is preferable to have at least 25 subgroups before setting process limits, useful limits can be calculated with fewer values; therefore using 16 moving ranges for setting your limits is sufficient. Of course, as more data becomes available, the process limits should be revised.

Cpk Process Behavior Chart


Step 4: Construct a histogram of the individual measurements from the process behavior chart. More than 900 individual measurements (taken from the 304 subgroups) were used to generate the histogram. (Figure-3).

Histogram of Die Shear Measurements

Step 5:Interpretation of the Cpk Process Behavior Chart and Histogram:

The XmR Process Behavior chart of the weekly Cpk values shows a more realistic picture of the processes’ true capability by the use of multiple values. A fairly large sample size used for calculating each weeks Cpk number is required to ensure a valid estimation. The mean or average of the X chart is 1.41. This is the best estimate of process capability for the die bond process. This average Cpk number is slightly higher than the one-time value (1.37) calculated from all the data (see figure-3). Of course, the real benefit of using multiple Cpk values to assess your processes’ capability is to understand the variation associated with such a value so that a proper interpretation can be made. For the die bond capability performance, the 3-sigma limits are:

UCLx = 2.23 LCLx = 0.59

UCLR = 1.00 LCLR = 0

These limits indicate that the average Cpk value of 1.41 can vary from 0.59 to 2.23 without indicating a change in the capability of this process! In other words, unless the die bond process is changed in some fundamental way and remains predictable, the capability will continue to fluctuate between these two Cpk values. In addition, consecutive week-to-week values can vary as much as 1.00. How do we interpret the shape of the histogram? First, all of the 912 individual measurements taken over a 3-month period are well beyond the lower specification limit (LSL) of 425 grams. This, along with the process being predictable, tells us quite a bit about the capability of the process. But what about shape of the histogram, does it provide any useful information that we don’t already know? As a general rule I look to see if the shape of the histogram is approximately normal (bell-shaped and symmetrical about the mean) to determine whether the average is a good statistic to use for calculating capability formulas. If the histograms drawn from your measurements show a heavily skewed distribution shape, you could substitute the medium statistic (the half-way point of the data set) for the average statistic in order to calculate your Cpk value. If for example the distribution of die shear data were positively skewed, with a lower specification limit of 425 grams minimum, the standard formula used would underestimate the capability of the process. On the other


hand, if the distribution were negatively skewed an overestimate of process capability would result. In our example the histogram seems to follow, at least approximately, a normal bell-shape curve and therefore the average is an acceptable estimate for central tendency of the die shear data. A word of caution: as Lloyd Nelson has pointed out, it is dangerous to read too much into the shape of a distribution. Also, a recent book on the Normal Distribution and its relationship to the Process Behavior Chart (1) warns us of the misleading outcomes that can result when trying to fit data to an expected probability model.

Some Issues Regarding Capability Indices (A Personal Perspective) It seems as though not a week goes by without me reading, in some technical journal, about another way of characterizing process capability (as if I’m not confused enough!). Author Don Wheeler refers to this as Capability Confusion (2). A partial list of capability indices include the following:

Cp Cpm Cpu Cpk Z-upper Cpl Ppk Z-lower Pp CR Zmin Pr Cm DNS Cmk

With so many different capability indices to choose from, it’s no wonder why many quality professionals are confused as to their meaning, their differences and applications. A recent book published on process capability runs to nearly 900 pages! (3) Then there is the issue of normality to consider. If process capability analysis fails to account for the non-normality of the data it may produce inaccurate long-term yield estimates (4).

If statistical thinking and methods are ever to be embraced by industry, they have to be presented in a way that makes them assessable and understood by the non-statistician .

While there will always be situations that require the use of advanced statistical tools (Design of Experiments, Analysis of Means, Analysis of Variance, Regression) and the help of a qualified statistician, there also is an unnecessary fixation on complexity for its own sake. There also exists a widening gap between the statistical methods/tools being published in today’s technical journals and those methods commonly used in industry as part of a continual improvement methodology. Until production workers and management discover for themselves the benefits of using statistical methods, not much will change. Fortunately, some in the statistics community, working with practitioners, have recognized this problem and have taken steps to remedy the situation. In order to help bridge this gap, many simple but proven statistical graphs/methods are being introduced by well-known statisticians/authors (i.e. Joiner, Wheeler, Balestracci and Pyzdek) in order to make these techniques available to a wider audience. Hopefully this trend will continue as the philosophy of statistical thinking becomes more widespread.

Some Lessons Learned For any single capability value to have meaning, I recommend that the following steps be taken:

1. Verify that the process under evaluation displays a reasonable degree of control/stability. How one defines stability is determined by traditional SPC methods and process knowledge. Both issues need to be carefully considered.

2. Plot capability values over time. Capability numbers (such as Cpk) vary even when the process being monitored is stable, therefore knowing the uncertainty associated with such a number is needed in order to interpret it correctly. Calculating an average Cpk value and valid statistical process limits provides a simple way of knowing whether your processes’ capability has actually changed or is just subject to common cause variation.

3. Construct a histogram of your process data. Knowing the relative shape of your distribution will help you better interpret these capability numbers.

Summary All statistics vary over time, and capability indices such as Cpk are certainly no exception. By plotting these values on a time-series chart one can easily generate meaningful capability indices.

Whether we like it or not, capability indices will continue to be used in the foreseeable future. Since that’s today’s reality, doesn’t it make sense to use them in a way that best characterizes the capability of your process and can be understood by your customer? So the next time your customer asks you to report on a process capability number, show them a better way.


Reference:

1. Wheeler, Donald J. Normality and the Process Behavior Chart (Knoxville, Tenn. 2000) 2. Wheeler, Donald J. Beyond Capability Confusion (Knoxville, Tenn.: SPC Press. 1999) 3. Bothe, Davis. Measuring Process Capability (McGraw Hill. 1997) 4. Pyzdek, Thomas. Pyzdek’s Guide to SPC Volume Two (Tucson, Arizona: Quality Publishing. 1992)

The Standards Scene Dan Harper

This year, the last of the 20th Century or the first of the 21st – depending on how you measure–has had a lot of action in the standards development arenas. The big attention getter for most folks has been the finaliz-ing of the new ISO 9000:2000 series–the three new standards replacing the 1994 versions.

For those of us in the calibration and metrology areas, there’s been the impact of the first year out for ISO 17025:1999, and its adoption as an American National Standard. Then of course, there is the devel-opment of the new ISO 10012–intended to replace ISO 10012 Part 1:1992 which addressed a confirmation system for measuring equipment, and ISO 10012 Part 2:1997, which covered control of measurement pro-cesses.

First, the new ISO 9000, 9001 and 9004 have been advanced to the Final Draft International Standard level and are currently out for vote. No more com-ments, just a vote yea or nay by the members of ISO Technical Committee 176. The last of the issues were resolved at the Kyoto Japan meeting in July.

If you haven’t been keeping tabs on the work on these three key documents, the new ISO 9000:2000 covers quality management system fundamentals and terminology. It has quality management concept dia-grams and explanations, with the old ISO 8402 defini-tions and a whole bunch of new definitions integrated into it. The terms and definitions are separated into separate sections for general areas of quality manage-ment topics and activities. There are separate sections for terms relating to quality; management; organiza-tion; process and product; characteristics; conformity; documentation; examination; audit; and last but not least, for QA for measurement processes.

Actually, there is some potential misunderstanding in a few of the terms in the new 9000. For example, the word “traceability”, which I think we have considered “ours” – has a definition different than that in the VIM. There’s a note that says that for metrology the VIM definition is the accepted version.

For the new ISO 9001:2000 - the title is “Quality management systems – Requirements.”

The first thing you may notice is that the format and organization of the document is different from the 1994 version. The most important thing is that the 2000 version emphasizes a process approach in quality management and achieving customer satisfaction.

The venerable clause 4.11 in 9001:1994 has transitioned to Clause 7.6 in the 2000 version, and lays out the requirements for monitoring and measuring device control. Let’s take a quick look at those require-ments.

First, Clause 7.6 says that you have to decide what monitoring and measuring you’re going to do and what equipment you need to demonstrate conformity of product to requirements. It then directs you to develop processes to ensure that the work is done in a manner meeting the requirements called out for the measuring and monitoring.

From the hardware standpoint, there is a short list of things to be done when necessary to achieve valid measurement results. This is a familiar list, basically from 9001:1994 Clause 4.11: calibration against trace-able standards; adjustment when needed; cal status identified; sealed or safeguarded to prevent unautho-rized tweaking; and protection from damage etc.

There are also the requirements for confirmation of software as fit for use, records, and for reviewing records, etc., if the equipment is suspect and a require-ment for corrective action on the equipment and on any product affected.

Notice something? No mention of documented pro-cedures in this clause. The key to this is found back at the beginning of the requirements, Clause 4 of 9001:2000.

In Clause 4.1 and 4.2, it is clearly stated that the organization has to identify the processes needed throughout the organization; not only identify, but also ensure, that the criteria, methods, resources and infor-mation are available to get the work done.

Another item that might shake a few of us up – no specifically stated requirement for measurement un-certainties to be estimated or documented, etc. But


then, there is a requirement for calibration, and estima-tion of uncertainties is part of that, isn’t it?

Keep in mind that required documentation includes whatever is needed to ensure the planning, operation and control of the processes is done correctly. Wide open. Not specific, but it’s clear that you have to have control of the processes, and you have to spell out in documentation and procedures what is needed to be done. An additional requirement is for a quality manual for the organization. And, the user is referred to ISO 10012 Part. 1, and 10012 Part 2 for additional guid-ance.

Maybe this will give you some idea of the new direction that ISO 9001:2000 takes. You can’t just go to Clause 7.6 and think that’s all you have to do for monitoring and measuring equipment. You have to read and digest the whole document and define how you’re going to control your processes and prove that your product meets stated requirements.

Enough on 9000. So what’s doing on ISO/IEC 17025:1999? This replacement for ISO/IEC Guide 25 has been on the market for almost a year. Since it’s intended for demonstration of laboratory technical com-petence and the accreditation of laboratories, the tran-sition to 17025 will take a while. 17025 has more requirements that Guide 25, and whether or not there is major heartburn with it will come out as the accred-iting organizations such as A2LA and NVLAP start assessing to it.

The major news about ISO/IEC 17025 is that the adoption as an American National Standard is under-way – and by three organizations working together. Yep, the American Society for Quality, American Soci-ety for Testing and Materials, and NCSLI (new name for the National Conference of Standards Laborato-ries) are all making the adoption. This is a very good thing, for all have a deep-rooted interest in 17025, and the common effort will surely open the way for other similar project in the future. It is my understanding that the names of all three organizations will appear on the cover – sort of like the VIM, which lists the seven parent organizations involved with its development.

So what’s new on 10012? Currently titled “Measurement control system”, this

new standard is in the Committee Draft 3 stage. That means that it’s been through iterations and out for comment to the international community. It is intended to provide the requirements to ensure your measure-ment process is a good one – that the measurement results are valid, whether the measurement process is in a cal lab, on the production floor, inspection, wher-ever.

In combining ISO 10012 Parts 1 and 2, most of the requirements of both those standards have been re-tained, although there is a lot of re-wording, setting basic requirements but not so prescriptive that you are directed on HOW to meet the requirement. Yes, mea-surement uncertainty is still required, as is traceability, records, and identification of measuring equipment status but not specifically labeling on the equipment, etc. It is much, much more definitive than ISO 9001:2000 in what is required to ensure a valid measurement or monitoring process.

What is it not? It is not a calibration system standard. It is not intended to be a stand-alone document for any type of calibration or testing laboratory registration or accreditation. It does not tell you how to do things at the lowest level but only that you must do them. The management and the metrological function of the orga-nization have some latitude in tailoring the measure-ment processes to meet the business needs.

There is a long bibliography in an appendix and four normative references: ISO 3534-1:1993: Statistics-vocabulary and symbols – Part 1: Probability and general statistical terms; ISO 9000:2000: Quality man-agement systems – Fundamentals and vocabulary; the VIM: 1993: International vocabulary of basic and general terms used in metrology. BIPM, IEC, IFCC, ISO, IUPAC, IUPAP, OIML; and the GUM: 1995: Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. BIPM, IEC, IFCC, ISO, IUPAC, IUPAP, OIML.

Well, that’s enough for this time on the three big things for this year. There are more things going on that may impact us in the future – the revision of the VIM is underway, as is revision of ISO 3534 series. The NCSLI will be reviewing Z540 for possible revision to come into alignment with ISO 17025; and of course there are the industry specific standards such as ISO 14000, QS9000, AS9000, TL 9000, and a bunch of others. ISO 19011, the new auditing standard replac-ing the current 10011 series, is somewhere in the CD.2 – CD.3 phase. And new work items in ISO are being proposed, such as a standard for handling complaints, and one for selecting a consultant.

More later.

Questions or comments? Call, write or e-mail me.


NIST News

NIST News for Today's Metrologistand Metrology Practioner

New Noise Measurement System Now in Service at NIST

Manufacturers of electronic components and sys-tems used in the 4-12 gigahertz range, such as tele-communications gear, satellite receivers and amplifi-ers, cellular phones and radar equipment, now have access to an improved service at NIST for the mea-surement and calibration of noise.

A new calibration system just placed in service, which includes an automated coaxial (GPC-7) radiom-eter, will provide faster, more economical measure-ments at multiple frequencies. The system uses a vector network analyzer to measure reflection coeffi-cients and asymmetries, and stores them in a lookup table. The new strategy is much faster than using six-port reflectometer measurements.

A description of the new system and its uncertainty analysis has just been published as NIST Technical Note 1518, Design and Testing of NFRad:A New Noise Measurement System. To obtain a copy of TN 1518, contact Chriss Grosvenor, MC 813.01, NIST, Boulder, Colo. 80303-3328; 303-497-5958; chriss@boulder. nist.gov.

Weights and Measures Documents Now Available on the Internet

NIST Handbook 44, Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices, and NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Laws and Regulations in the Areas of Legal Metrology and Engine Fuel Quality, are now available on the internet.

Manufacturers, as well as international weights and measures organizations, can now easily access ac-cepted specifications and tolerances for scales and other measuring devices in NIST Handbook 44. They also can view model weights and measures laws and regulations, which have been adopted by most states, in NIST Handbook 130. NIST's Office of Weights and Measures posted these documents to increase their dissemination and availability.

Both NIST Handbook 44 and NIST Handbook 130 are published by NIST and have been adopted by the National Conference on Weights and Measures, a

voluntary standards organization that works closely with NIST to ensure uniform weights and measures in the United States.The two handbooks are now avail-able at www.nist.gov/owm under "General Informa-tion."

NIST Office of Weights and Measures Selects New Chief

Henry Oppermann has been selected to replace Gil Ugiansky as Chief of the Office of Weights and Mea-sures. Oppermann was Deputy Chief of NIST's Global Standards Program. Gil Ugiansky has been promoted to the position of Deputy Director, Office of Measure-ment Services.

ACT, EDS and WorkPlace Training Partner to Provide Nationwide Calibration Training

ACT, Inc., the organization best known for its ACT assessment in college entrance and placement exams and EDS, a global information services company, have joined with WorkPlace Training in developing a nation-wide system of computerized training centers located at community colleges and technical schools.

The ACT Centers™ will provide training for busi-nesses and individuals aimed at boosting the skills of the nation's workforce. The program is currently avail-able in 40 host institutions in 22 states, and a goal of 250 locations has been set for year's end 2001. Four states, Colorado, Kentucky, Oklahoma and Hawaii, have committed to establishing the ACT Centers throughout their community college systems.

WorkPlace Training has provided training modules for the program in: introductory measurement and calibration, precision electrical, dimensional, tempera-ture, pressure, flow, mass, force/torque measurement, uncertainty and SI metric. In addition to calibration subject areas, WorkPlace has also provided courseware in adult literacy/employability skills, computers and information technology, industrial safety and technical skills.

For further information on ACT locations and WorkPlace Training courses, contact WorkPlace Train-ing at tel 800-472-2564 , [email protected].


Edmunds Gages Celebrates Golden Anniversary

Edmunds Gages celebrates their 50th Anniversary this year. Founder Robert "Bob" Edmunds began the company as a parts machining business that grew into gage manufacturing in 1950. The company today offers a wide selection of sophisticated dimensional measurement equipment backed by a world class calibration facility.

Edmunds Sr. still works at his desk for a few hours each day, but the company helm has been passed to son, Robert F. Edmunds Jr.; and grandson Robert Edmunds III works in the company as well.

The company's website at: www.edmundsgages.com offers tech tips on dimen-

sional measurements and quality assurance, as well as product information.

Common Time Scale Set for North America The official time scales of North America are coor-

dinated through regular comparisons among the Ca-nadian National Research Council, the Mexican Centro Nacional de Metrologia, and the NIST. After several years of international comparisons and negotiations, NRC, CENAM and NIST recently have declared that their respective versions of Coordinated Universal Time (known as UTC) are equivalent to within five millionths of a second for time measurements and within one part in a trillion for frequency measure-ments.

The common time scale defined by the declaration is known as UTC North America; and within the stated uncertainties, the time supplied by any of the three national laboratories - UTC(NRC), UTC (CENAM) or UTC (NIST) - can be used as UTC North America without corrections or conversions.

This declaration supports trade and technology across the region, especially for such things as time tags for financial transactions and scientific observa-tions. The three institutions hope that a common time eventually can be extended to include all members of the Interamerican Metrology System (SIM-Sistema Interamericano de Metrologia), an organization whose members include nearly all of the nations in North, Central and South America and the Caribbean.

To access the official time in any U.S. time zone, go to www.time.gov. For times outside the United States, the site offers links to a UTC display and an interna-tional time zone web site.

PTB Develops Infrared Standards Applications of infrared remote sensing (IRS) are

rapidly increasing in a variety of fields such as mete-orology, environmental monitoring, agriculture, mining and oil exploration. Therefore, it has become important for national measurement institures to develop stan-dards for infrared instrumentation.

A recent cooperative project between the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB), Ger-many, and the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology required calibrated detectors for the investigation of ocean temperature. Temperature changes of only 0.1 K in the ocean have a crucial impact on the CO2 content of the earth's atmosphere. The PTB has devel-oped heat-pipe blackbody radiators as primary infrared radiation source standards for calibrations of low tem-perature IRS instruments with large target areas. Their spectral radiation emission can be calculated from their temperatures on the basis of Planck's radiation law. The heat pipes are operational in the temperature range from -60&degC to 960&degC. Their tuneable temperatures are directly related to the SI base unit of temperature with standard uncertainties between 30 mK and 190 mK by means of standard platinum reistance thermometers.

The calibration standards will enable PTB to comply with the growing demands in the fields of radiometric thermometric calibrations for wavelengths of 1&microm to 50 &microm. For further information contact J. Fischer, fax +49-30-34-81-510, email: joachim. [email protected].

Notes David Alderman Named New NVLAP Chief

David Alderman has been selected as NVLAP's new chief, succeeding Jim Cigler, who retired. Alder-man has been with NVLAP for 12 years. He served as program manager for NVLAP's asbestos program and was responsible for the accreditation of over 600 labo-ratories. In 1994 he was named Deputy Chief of NVLAP, managing day-to-day operations, as well as serving as program manager for NVLAP's Fasteners and Metals Program.


Standards Update The US Standards Group on QEDS is pleased to

offer us news on the latest standards-related develop-ments in quality management, environmental man-agement, dependability and statistical methods.

These short bursts of information, courtesy of The Informed Outlook, are designed so that we all can quickly stay abreast of all those changes in these types of standards which will impact our businesses and way of life.

Draft International Standards Are Now Available

The Draft International Standards (DIS) of ISO 9000:2000, ISO 9001:2000 and ISO 9004:2000 are now available for purchase from the American Society for Quality (ASQ).

Jack West, Chairman of the US Technical Advisory Group (TAG) for ISO/TC 176 stated, “Certainly, some minor changes may be expected before the new inter-national standards are published, but the DISs are fairly mature and organizations may now start to plan their transition to the new revisions.”

These revisions have been long awaited and will be followed shortly by a validation survey on ISO/DIS 9001:2000 and ISO/DIS 9004:2000 to ascertain their impact on the business community (see news brief entitled “Validation Program for ISO/DIS 9001:2000…” week of Nov. 22, 1999).

West also noted that “The revisions to the ISO 9000 family of quality management system standards are being made so that they reflect a more modern under-standing of quality. With an increasing interest in these quality standards by more non-traditional organiza-tions, there is a greater need to revise ISO 9000 in terms of presentation, terminology, format and require-ments to ensure that users around the world are better served.”

If the DISs receive a positive vote, there will be one more brief vote on the Final Draft International Stan-dards (which will incorporate any changes adopted based on DIS comments) prior to the release of the final International Standards. It is anticipated that this con-sensus building process will result in the revised stan-dards being published late in the fourth quarter of 2000.

You are encouraged to get copies of the DISs, read them, make plans for adjusting your system as re-quired — and submit comments to reflect your con-cerns about the DIS language (special comment proto-col applies, and questions regarding the comment

process may be directed to Margie Wirth, Standards Coordinator, at 800-248-1946, ext. 7256). Comments are being welcomed from everyone, whether a mem-ber of the US TAG or not.

You may order copies of the DISs by contacting ASQ Quality Press customer service at (800) 248-1946 or through their web site at http:// qualitypress.asq.org. The cost is $40 US and the item number is T1600. All three DIS documents are in-cluded in one package (117 pages).

Lofgren Elected IATCA Chairman; Succeeds John Hulbert

George Lofgren, QMS President of the Registrar Accreditation Board (RAB), was elected chairman of the International Auditor and Training Certification Association (IATCA) during the organization’s plenary meeting in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Lofgren, who will serve a two-year term as chair-man, succeeds John Hulbert, formerly of the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand (JAS-ANZ). Hulbert has taken on the newly created role of executive director in which he performs the day to day operations for IATCA.

“George’s election as IATCA chairman is a tribute to the years of work and travel he has devoted in helping to create and launch IATCA’s worldwide programs,” stated Joseph Dunbeck, RAB chief executive officer.

Lofgren previously served as the vice chairman of the organization and was chairman of working group two which is responsible for auditor training course provider and training course criteria.

“IATCA was originally created because there were disparate systems for auditor certification throughout the world. The organization set about to provide con-sistency in the certification requirements and the ad-ministration of those requirements. In a relatively short time, I believe we have made great progress toward those goals,” Lofgren stated.

To date, RAB has certified 165 RAB IATCA Senior Auditors and 19 RAB IATCA Auditors. On the course provider side, the ANSI-RAB NAP has accredited seven IATCA QMS auditor training courses.

Chelsea Football Club Scores with ISO 9000

Chelsey FC, one of Britain’s top football clubs, has become the first in the world to score with ISO 9000. The club — which has achieved its best league position in 29 years and qualified for the European Champions


League — has received an ISO 9002 certification of the quality system operated by its merchandising activity.

Chelsea Village Merchandising is responsible for more than 3,000 product lines for Chelsea fans. “Our successful registration to ISO 9002 shows that we meet international quality standards,” said Chris Manson, managing director of Chelsea Village Mer-chandising.

“We needed to be able to show that our manage-ment systems met the expectations of our customers and began the registration process last year. BSI (British Standards Institution) assessed our on-site activities, examined our documented procedures and surveyed our overall operations,” said Manson.

BSI was Chelsea’s registrar. In order to gain ISO 9002 certification, Chelsea was required to identify its quality needs, established a quality program, devel-oped quality manuals, trained staff to use the quality program and monitored its use and effectiveness.

“It is very exciting that we are the first football club in the world to achieve this accolade,” said Manson. “We honestly believe that in today’s market-place, the key to success is quality.”

NIST/NACLA Partnership Proposal

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Cooperation for Laboratory Accreditation (NACLA) have proposed a partnership to achieve a broadly recognized laboratory accreditation system in the United States, thereby simplifying pro-cesses for demonstrating that products comply with domestic and foreign requirements. In a notice pub-lished in the May 19 Federal Register, the two organi-zations said they plan to sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that will reduce the redundancy and complexity in the often puzzling and duplicative realm of laboratory accreditation.

Laboratory accreditation is a form of conformity assessment to assure that products, processes or systems comply with regulations or voluntary stan-dards. Such activities include tests of components and accreditation methods for assessing the proficiency of testing laboratories. They also include procedures for evaluating the competency of laboratory accreditors, which is the focus of the proposed NIST-NACLA agree-ment.

A copy of the draft MOU will be posted on June 1, 2000, on the NIST website at www.ts.nist.gov. Written public comments can be sent to NACLA Comments, Office of the Director, Technology Services, NIST, 100

Bureau Drive, Stop 2000, Gaithersburg, Md. 20899-2000.

In the United States, there are an estimated 50,000 testing laboratories and more than 100 laboratory accreditation programs, nearly all of them in the private sector. Although it has effectively addressed safety and consumer-protection needs, this decentralized conformity assessment system is sometimes criticized as inefficient.

Many testing laboratories, for example, undergo multiple accreditation audits to satisfy various govern-ment and industrial programs, even though their re-quirements and scopes of accreditation are similar. In addition, federal agencies differ greatly in their ap-proaches to assessing whether products or services meet their procurement or regulatory requirements.

Trade agreements introduce yet another variable. Under several, including the U.S.-European Union Mutual Recognition Agreement, which went into effect in December 1998, NIST is responsible for designating U.S. testing laboratories, product certifiers and other conformity assessment bodies to carry out MRA activi-ties.

Donald N. Heirman, president of NACLA and former manager of Lucent Technologies’ Global Product Com-pliance Laboratory, says the proposed relationship with NIST will advance the goals that motivated several private and public sector organizations to create NACLA in the first place. NACLA was incorporated in 1998.

For NIST, the proposed relationship will help it promote greater government use of voluntary stan-dards and reduce the complexity of federal, state and local conformity assessment requirements. These re-sponsibilities were assigned to NIST in the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995.

It is anticipated that accrediting bodies that have been recognized by NACLA under the provisions of the MOU will be deemed competent by NIST to support trade agreement activities where NIST is a designating authority.


News Update At 2000 Assessor Conclave & Annual Meeting, A2LA Team Prepares for New Challenges

This May, more than 100 individuals from the A2LA assessor corps, Board of Directors and staff gathered in Columbia, MD, for the best part of a week, for intensive training and discussion aimed at equipping “Team A2LA” for the many challenges that lie ahead.

Doug Berg provided ample evidence of success in his Chairman’s State of the Association address at the May 22 Annual Meeting. He reported that a number of new records had been set in 1999:

• 356 new applications for accreditation received • A total of 1348 laboratories accredited • A full-time staff of 29 and 110 on-site asses-

sors • An all-time high of 486 association members

on December 31

He noted further that there had been significant growth in the number of attendees at A2LA’s training courses and, at year’s end, a substantial income sur-plus and a healthy balance sheet.

However, self-congratulation about past accom-plishments was not the spirit of the group nor the tone of the many different meetings held in Columbia. Rather, attendees focused on substantial recent and imminent changes in the accreditation world and the steps that A2LA is and will be taking to meet the challenges and continue to improve its performance.

To enable A2LA to satisfy the rapidly increasing demand for its accreditation services, a three-day assessor orientation course was held on May 17-19, under the tutelage of Daren Valentine, A2LA Training Manager. Thirty candidates took the course; at its end they took an exam that must be passed as part of the assessor qualification requirements.

Over the course of the next three days, the Accredi-tation Council and the Criteria Council held meetings, and there were a series of training and discussion sessions for veteran assessors. The highlights of these gatherings are described in accompanying articles.

A2LA ISO/IEC 17025 TRANSITION PLAN (Goal: Compliance demonstrated by all labs by July 2002.)

(as of 05/23/2000)

Assessment Options apply to all labs: Documentation Comments Date (New, Renewal, and

Surveillance Labs)

July, 2000 OPTION I: ISO/IEC 17025 Checklist ISO/IEC 17025 Checklist must be ISO/IEC 17025 (new requirements bolded) provided to the assessor(s) prior to

the on-site assessment.

OPTION II: ISO/IEC Guide 25 and ISO/IEC 17025 Gap Analysis

a) ISO/IEC Guide 25 Checklist b) document gap analysis using the new ISO/IEC 17025 checklist, but only filling out bolded (new) items; Assessors will write up "gaps" in separate form attached to deficiency report that includes the following statements. "In order to be considered for accreditation to

Bolded items of ISO/IEC 17025 Checklist must be completed and provided to the assessor(s) prior to the on-site assessment.

Response to gaps due at annual review (renewals) or surveillance (new).

ISO/IEC 17025, objective evidence that the following items have been addressed needs to be provided to A2LA w i th the annua l review/surveillance."

OPTION III: Guide 25 only

ISO/IEC Guide 25 Checklist All labs selecting this option will be required to undergo an ISO/IEC 17025 on-site surveillance the following year. (This is already a requirement for new labs.)

January 2001 OPTION I or II only

July 2001 OPTION I only


Transition to ISO/IEC 17025 A2LA’s plan for transitioning from ISO/IEC Guide 25

to ISO/IEC 17025 is outlined in the table printed in this newsletter. The plan has been approved by the A2LA Criteria Council and endorsed by the Board of Direc-tors.

A2LA’s objective is to have all related documents, including updated General Requirements for Accredi-tation of Laboratories and the Assessor Checklist, in final form by mid-July.

According to the plan, laboratories undergoing as-sessments during the period of July 1 through Decem-ber 31, 2000, have three options: full assessment to 17025, assessment to Guide 25 with gap analysis for 17025, or assessment to Guide 25 only. For renewal labs, the third option requires an on-site surveillance

visit the following year (automatic for new labs). The third option is not available to laboratories being as-sessed after January 1, 2001. After July 1, 2001, all laboratories will be assessed to 17025.

Assessors will contact laboratories scheduled for assessment during this transition period to ascertain which option they prefer. In the meantime, if you have any questions regarding the A2LA transition plan, please contact A2LA at 301-644-3248.

Status of 2000 A2LA Directory The 2000 Directory is expected to be ready for

distribution by the end of July, 2000. All directories mailed to laboratories, users, etc. will be in CD-ROM format only. A limited number of hardcopy directories will be available upon request.

Profile on Metrology: CAL LAB is a publication (and now web page) that

seeks to further the science of metrology (measure-ment) and the industry of calibration through the shar-ing of information about developments in the field. It is not a magazine empire: it is a handful of dedicated metrology enthusiasts that belong to and/or support the National Conference of Standards Laboratories (NCSL) and the Measurement Science Conference, the National Council of Weights and Measures, ISA, IEEE, International Society of Weighing and Measure-ment, and American Society of Quality (ASQ).

CAL LAB receives news information from national labs and organizations including NIST in the United States, the NPL in the United Kingdom, the STQC Directorate in India, the Metrology Society of Australia, ISA, IEEE, ASQ, ISO and contacts from many compa-nies and laboratories around the world. Sometimes engineering, sometimes physics, sometimes confused with the study of weather (which it has nothing to do with except that its instrumentation depends on it) metrology is the science of measurement in all physical areas from electrical to dimensional and mass (weight) to time, and all other properties and characteristics that we can measure in our universe.

Metrology, as a science, continues to grow and develop astonishing new levels of measurement accu-racy and exciting new devices that provide these higher levels of measurement with greater speed and convenience. Calibration, the function of providing verification that measurements are what they should be, is essential to industry and commerce. With the growing international adoption of the ISO standards for quality, safety and environmental concerns in manu-facturing and services, manufacturers and govern-

What is CAL LAB? ments are realizing the importance of measurement and calibration in commerce. We must harness that momentum and use it to establish better educational and training opportunities for people in metrology and calibration, higher funding for research and develop-ment, and increased involvement in the management and quality processes in companies.

Carol Singer, CAL LAB Editor and Publisher, has reported that they have recently added a special sec-tion to their web page called Art Cohee's World that takes us from lab bench measurements to other places in the universe where metrology has been used to bring us everything from art to photos of planets and nebulas to the building of the Great Pyramids of Egypt. Says Carol: *sometimes we need to remind ourselves of the "bigger picture" of what metrology has really given us and inspire ourselves to realize that the work we do results in some pretty fantastic things. And sometimes we just need a moment to reflect on the beauty around us–beyond our concrete and glass buildings and struggles to turn in a report by the end of the day, there is something that we, as humans, need nearly as much as food and shelter–beauty, wonder, the excitement of exploration! My favorite site for instant visual gratifica-tion and inspiration is http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ astropix.html.*The vision at CAL LAB is to provide a media for the exchange of information about, and for, the field, and in so doing, to further its development and enhance the experience of those working in it. For further information, contact Carol Singer at: [email protected]


Metrology Freeware1. Surface Roughness and Roundness Software

visit digitalmetrology.com

2. Chris Grachanen of the Corporate Metrology Department at Compaq Computer has de-veloped Windows (TM) compatible freeware to assist labs in calculations for uncertainty, tolerance, and mismatch.

His published articles on the freeware: Freeware:Uncertainty Calculator Freeware:Tolerance Calculator Freeware: Mismatch Calculator

3. Uncertainty Calculator 2.5

Uncertainty Calculator is a Windows95 pro-gram designed to compute and express mea-surement uncertainty in simple, straightfor-ward manner, for a vast majority of measurements scenarios congruent with the basic guidelines contained within national/ international publications.

For older systems only - Download Uncer-tainty Calculator 1.0 (602kb) for Windows3.1X (602KB)

4. Tolerance Calculator 3.0

Tolerance Calculator is a Windows 3.1 pro-gram designed to perform calculations asso-ciated with the interpretation of equipment tolerances and other Metrology related func-tions such as test uncertainty ratios (TUR), accumulated uncertainties, consumers and producers risk, etc. The Tolerance Calcula-tor is intended to provide users with a 'bot-tom line' method for evaluating equipment specifications using the same nomenclature equipment manufacturers use when adver-tising their equipment capabilities, i.e. % of range, parts per million (ppm) of reading, % of span, etc.

Download Tolerance Calculator 3.0 (833kb) for Windows95.

5. Mismatch Uncertainty Calculator 1.0

Mismatch Uncertainty Calculator is a new Win-dows 95 program designed to perform un-certainty analysis associated with microwave mismatch components, conversions between Reflection Coefficient, Return Loss and SWR as well as various other microwave calcula-tions. This program is especially useful for calculating uncertainties associated with calibrating 2-port symmetric devices such as attenuators, directional couplers, filters, etc.,

and for determining mismatch loss for either a perfect load or source.

Download Mismatch Uncertainty Calculator (1.5Mb) for Windows95. (Proper installation requires both Disk 1 & 2.)

6. Measurement Conversion Software

Dalby Data Measurement Conversion Program

Dalby Data of Denmark has developed a new calibration software program that includes a measurement conversion function. This download is a stand-alone version of the measurement conversion program.

Download Dalby Data Unit Conversion

DCM is an affordable system for the com-pany with focus on quality assurance and efficient management of calibration. DCM can also be used gauges which aren't calibrated, since DCM has a wide range of features for general gauge management.

Download fully functional program with a 30 day trial limit at www.dalbydata.dk

7. NAPT Measurement Conversion Program

Chuck Ellis of the National Association for Proficiency Testing (US organization) has con-tributed his favorite measurement conversion program.

Download the NAPT Unit Converter by visit-ing the National Association for Proficiency Testing.


Educational Institutionsthat Offer Metrology Programs or Classes

USA Butler County Community College College Drive, Oak Hills Butler, Pennsylvania 16001 (412) 287-8711 AAS Metrology

California State University Dominguez Hills, MSQA Program Carson, CA 90747 Contact: Dr. Gene Watson (310) 243-3880 http://www.csudh.edu/msqa [email protected] MSQA, Metrology Courses Offers MSQA through the internet

The CCA (Community College of Au-rora) Metrology Program Located in the HEAT (Higher Education and Advanced Technology) Center on the Lowry Campus Manufacturing Technology Building III 9136 East 10th Place Aurora, CO 80010

Terrelle Wilson, Program Director Voice: (303) 365-8425 Fax: (303) 340-2130 E-mail: [email protected] web site: http://cs.cca.cccoes.edu/ metrology

AAS (Associate of Applied Science) in Metrology and Advanced Precision Mea-surement with emphasis in Electrical or Physical/Dimensional Measurements Cer-tificates are provided for selected coursework

Some Metrology courses are available on-line (through the internet)

Students may enroll in the college on-line at: http://www.cca.cccoes.edu/adm/ _adm_reg.html

Students may view a description of on-line Metrology courses at http://cs.cca. cccoes.edu/infosheets/disciplines/mtr/ metrology.htm

Students may see all Metrology courses available in the current course schedule at: h t t p : / /www.cca . cccoes .edu /adm/ _schedule.html

Students may register for all available courses on-line at http://www.cca. cccoes.edu/adm/_schedule.html by ac-cessing their personal account and follow-ing subsequent instructions

Madison Area Technical College 2136 Anderson Street Madison, WI 53704 Contact: Robert L. Brown (608) 246-6861 Machine Tool Technology, Dimensional Classes

McComb County Community College 14500 Twelve Mile Road Warren, MI 48093-3899 Contact: Ben Selleck (313) 445-7472 Dimensional QA, AAS, Certificate

Monroe County Community College 1555 S. Raisinville Road Monroe, MI 48161

Michael Mohn Assistant Professor of Materials Technol-ogy Phone: 734-384-4122 Fax: 734-242-9711 [email protected] www.monroe.cc.mi.us/mmohn AAS in Metrology Technology. Empasis on dimensional metrology with training on CMMs.

Ohio State University Coordinate Metrology and Measurement Laboratory Department of Mechanical Engineering 206 West 18th Avenue Columbus, OH 43201 Tel (614) 292-8718 Fax (614) 292-3163

Piedmont Technical College Greenwood, SC 29648-1467 Contact: Ron Ingle (803) 941-8470 (800) 868-5528 Instrumentation Technology, Electronic En-gineering Technology

Ridgewater College 2 Century Avenue Hutchinson, MN 55350-3183 Contact: Herbert O'Neil Tel (800) 222-4424 Fax 320-587-9019 [email protected] Certificate, AAS Metrology

Sinclair Community College 444 West Third Street Dayton, Ohio 45402 Contact: George Sehi (513) 226-7921 QA Tech, AAS Certificate, QE Tech, Di-mensional Classes

Yuba College 2088 Beale Road Marysville, CA 95901 Contact: Don Schrader (916) 741-6934 AAS Measurement Science/Metrology Physical Mechanical Emphasis

CANADA Fleming Institute for Training in Metrol-ogy Sir Sanford Fleming College 743 Monaghan Road Peterborough, Ontario Canada, K9J 5K2 Contact: R. Munshaw (705) 876-1611 Advanced Certificate


BRAZIL Instituto de Pesquisas e Estudos Industriais E-mail:[email protected] Home-page http://www.ipei.com.br Tel 5511 419 0200 r 274 Fax 5511 419 0999. (Engineering High School - Industrial Prepa-ration Courses)

DENMARK Randers Tekniske Skole Teknikerakademiet Vester Allé 26\ DK-8900 Randers Denmark Tel (0045) 87 10 04 00 Fax (0045) 87 10 04 33 Kvalitets- og Maaleteknikeruddannelsen Metrology Courses

FINLAND Helsinki University of Technology, Me-trology Research Institute http:// www.hut.fi/HUT/Measurement/

The main research areas of the Metrology Research Institute are in physics of mea-surement and measurement elec-tronics.The responsibilities and research projects of the laboratory are concentrated on electronic and optical metrology, on the development and maintenance of the pri-mary standards of length, wavelength and various detector-based optical power scales. Metrology Research Institute is also a National Standards Laboratory for opti-cal quantities.

Courses in electronics and optical mea-surement technology both in undergradu-ate and graduate levels.

SWEDEN Swedish National Testing & Research Institute, SP http://www.sp.se/metrology/ Box 857, S-501 15 Boras, Sweden Tel +46 33 16 54 44 Fax +46 33 10 69 73 Dr L R Pendrill mailto:[email protected]

A Compilation of Some Useful Metrology Links by Frank Voehl and Carol Singer

A sincere word of appreciation to CAL LAB and Art Cohee at Accu-Trace Metrology for their thoughtful and significant contribution of listings covering the following categories:

• Accreditation Bodies • College & University Sites • Conference Organizations • International Standards Organizations • National/International Metrology Organizations • National Standards Bodies • Standardizing Organizations • U.S. Government Metrology Sites • U.S. National Laboratories • World National Laboratories

Visit the CAL LAB website at www.callabmag for more details.

Calibration Products & Services (Commercial Sites) -Includes Training

For additional useful links in other areas like physics, astronomy, science, nature and even art, check out the section of our web site known as Art Cohee's World. Visitor Count

Accreditation Bodies A2LA - American Association for Laboratory Accredita-tion APLAC - Asian Pacific Laboratory Accreditation Coop-eration ILAC - International Laboratory Accreditation Coop-eration IMEKO - International Measurement Confederation NATA - Australian National Association of Testing Authorities NVLAP - National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program DOE Laboratory Accreditation Program - US Depart-ment of Energy

Conference Organizations MSC - Measurement Science Conference NCSL - National Conference of Standards Laborato-ries

International Standards Organizations CIE - International Commission on Illumination IAEA - International Atomic Energy Agency IEC - International Electrotechnical Commision ISO - The International Organization for Standardiza-tion ITU - International Telecommunication Union


National Standards Bodies Australia - SAA - Standards Australia Canada - SCC - Standards Council of Canada Colombia - ICONTEC - Instituto Colombiano de Normas Tecnicas y Certificacion Denmark - DS - Dansk Standard Finland - SFS - Finnish Standards Association France - AFNOR - Association franÁaise de normalisation France - EDF - ElectricitÈ de France Bienvenue chez EDF Germany - DIN - Deutsches Institut fur Normung Greece - ELOT - Hellenic Organization for Standard-ization Hong Kong - Hong Kong Laboratory Accreditation Scheme Ireland - NSAI - National Standards Authority of Ireland Iceland - STRI - Icelandic Council for Standardization Italy - UNI - Ente Nazionale Italiano di Unificazione Japan - JISC - Japanese Industrial Standards Commit-tee Malaysia - DSM - Department of Standards Malaysia Morocco - SNIMA - Service de Normalisation Industrielle Marocaine Netherlands - NNI - Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut New Zealand - SNZ - Standards New Zealand Norway - NSF - Norges Standardiseringsforbund Portugal - IPQ - Instituto PortuguÍs da Qualidade Saudi Arabia - SASO - Saudi Arabian Standards Orga-nization Singapore - SISLAB - Singapore Laboratory Accredita-tion Scheme Slovenia - SMIS - Standards and Metrology Institute Spain - AENOR - Asociacion Espanola de Normalizacion y Certificacion Sweden - SIS - Standardisaeringen i Sverige United Kingdom - BSI - British Standards Institution USA - ANSI - American National Standards Institute USA NSSN - ANSI National Standards System Net-work

Standardizing Organizations ASTM - The American Society for Testing and Materi-als EIA - Electronic Industries Association ISA - Instrument Society of America OSA - Optical Society of America SMPTE - Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engi-neering UL - Underwriters Laboratories

National / International Metrology Organizations AIP - American Institute of Physics AIST - Agency of Industrial Science and Technology (JAPAN)

ASQ - American Society for Quality International Society for Weighing and Measure-ments MSA - Metrology Society of Australia NCSL - National Conference of Standards Laborato-ries

U.S. Government Metrology SitesDefense Standardization Program (MIL-SPEC reform) DOE Technical Standards GIDEP - Government Industry Data Exchange Program Navy Primary Standards Laboratory, San Diego NIST - National Institute of Standards and Technol-ogy NIST Boulder Facility NIST Time and Frequency Division NWAD - Naval Warfare Assesment Division Oak Ridge Metrology Center Sandia National Laboratories TMDE - Army Metrology Page USMC TMDE - Marine Corps Metrology Program

U.S. National LaboratoriesACL - Advanced Computing Laboratory Ames Laboratory ANL - Argonne National Laboratory Brookhaven National Laboratory EML - Environmental Measurements Laboratory Fermilab - Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory INEL - Idaho National Engineering Laboratory LLNL - Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Los Alamos National Laboratory

FETC National Biodynamics Laboratory National Energy Research Supercomputer Center National Renewable Energy Laboratory Oak Ridge National Laboratory Pacific Northwest National Lab Pantex Princeton Plasma Physics Lab Sandia National Laboratories Stanford Linear Accelerator Center U.S. Department of Energy

World National Laboratories Australia - CSIRO - Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organizations Canada - INMS - NRC Institute for National Measure-ment Standards Denmark - DFM - Danish Institute of Fundamental Metrology Germany - PTB - Physikalsch-Technische Bundesanstalt (English) Germany - PTB - Physikalsch-Technische Bundesanstalt (German)

The STANDARDFall 2000 Page 37

Ireland - Irish National Metrology Laboratory Italy - IEN - Istituto Elettrotecnico Nazional Galileo Gerraris Japan - ETL - Electrotechnical Laboratory Korea - KRISS - Korea Research Institute of Standards and Science Malaysia - SIRIM BERHAD Netherlands - Nederlands Meetinsituut Slovenia - SMIS - The Slovenian Standards and Me-trology Institute South Africa - NML - National Metrology Laboratory Sweden - SP - Swedish National Centre of Metrology United Kingdom - National Physical Laboratory

University & College Sites Astro-Metrology - University of Maryland Center for Precision Metrology - University of North Carolina Coordinate Metrology and Measurement Laboratory -Ohio State UniversityDepartment of Metrology - Penza State Technical University (RUSSIA) Metrology Research Institute - Helsinki University of Technology Measurement and Information Technology -Tampare University of Technology

Additional Metrology Resource Sites

CMM Metrology Forum - sponsored by Axis-Metrol-ogy CNMS - Canada's National Measurement System Comite Consultatif poru la Definition du Metre Working Group for Dimensional Metrology Includes listing of world contacts in dimensional metrology. Directory of Organizations and Institutes Active in Environmental Monitoring European Organization for Testing and Certification Euromet Points of Contact for Length Measurements Euromet Length Bulletin Federal Institute of Physics and Metrology Metrology Forum sponsored by Agilent Technolo-gies, U.K. Hong Kong Standards & Testing Centre IAEA--International Atomic Energy ITS-90 - Temperature resources and information sponsored by Isotech, Ltd. UK. National Center for Physical Acoustics PMEL For and about PMEL Personnal San Diego Supercomputer Standardization Organizations - European Business Directory Swedish National Testing and Research Institute Valid Measurements - Information and articles on the Anderson Loop developed at NASA and related topics.

ObituaryObituaryObituaryObituaryObituaryOn the Passing of Phil Katz

Submitted by Frank Voehl

News of Phil Katz’s death was just made public earlier this year but most of us may have missed the news. You may never have heard of Phil Katz, but chances are, if you practice metrology in any of its forms, you’ve used the product he’s known for. Back in 1986, Katz developed a file format–which he called “ZIP”–that allowed files to be compressed to a fraction of their original size and later restored, unscathed, to their previous state. He designed a simple but effective program to do this and named it PKZip, using his own initials (and ensuring for himself some degree of immortality in the process).

The program was a massive shareware hit, and ZIP quickly became the industry standard compression format. More dreamy innovator than businessman, Katz was never able to fully capitalize on his ubiq-uitous creation, and when he died on April 14, 2000, of complications from alcoholism at the age of 37, his passing was largely ignored. But his legacy lives on. Nowadays, most files downloaded from the Internet bear the suffix .zip. In fact, many of us at ASQ are involed with a showdown between the latest versions of WinZip and Netzip, the best known of today’s ZIP utilities. Phil, this byte’s for you.

The ST ANDARD Fall 2000 Page 38

Section A: 1999 MQD Member Survey Results (52 Surveys Returned) RANKING (1 through 15)

(number in cell = number of times topic was selected)

; nesohC t oN

deknaR ci

poT

1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

01 11

21 31

41 51

lato

T

1 tne

meganam

yrotarobaL.1

4 2

1 1

1

1

2 1

3 2

1 1

91

2 )

AL2A

dnaP

ALV

N(noitat idercca

yrotarobaL.2

2 4

2 1

1 1

1

1 2

1 1

61

1 snosirap

mocyrotarobalar tnI /yrotarobalretnI.3

2

3 1

2 2

1 2

2 2

2

1 1

12

4 gnit set

ycnei ciforP.4

1

2 2

4 1

1 1

1 1

3

1 4

1

22

3 4

B&

Asepyt -ytniat recnufo

noitanimrete

D.5

sisylanas

merusae

Met systne

m.6

51

6 3

1 4 6 3

5 4 3

1 1 1

1 2 3

1

1 2

2

1

1 1

62 92

5 R

&R

egagelbaira

V.7

3 3

3 3

1 4

2 2

3

1

1

52

1 noitaler roc

gnit setevit cur t se

D.8 1

1

1 3

2 1

1

1

1

11

2 noitaulave

resiarppaetubir t t

A.9

2 1

2

3 1

1

1

1 2

31

7 lor tnoc

erusaeM

ssecorptnem

.01

4 7

4 1

3 5

3 1

4

2 1

1

33

4 yt i l ibaecar t

sdradnatS.11

3

1 1

3 2

7

2 1

3 3

1 1

62

7 stne

mer iuqernoitarbi la

C.21

4 1

1 4

3 7

3 7

2 1

2

33

3 3

noitaci f ireverutx i

F.31

noitadi lavdna

noitaulaveera

wt foS.41

1

1 1 1 1

4 2 1

1 1 2

1 1 1

2 1

1 1 2 1

3 1 3

71 51

3 s

met sysfonoitadi la

V.51

1 1

3 2

1 1

2

1 1

4 1

1 2

02

5 segnahc/sei t i vit ca

sdradnat slanoitanretnIdnalanoita

N.61

1 1

3

1 1

3 1

2 4

5 3

1

52

7 stne

merusaem

otsegakni l

0009S

Q&

OSI,0009

,0009S

A.71

3 1

1 3

1

2 2

2

1 5

1 2

32

4 noitatne

mucodO

SI /snoit cur t snikro

wfosel

axE

pm

.81

1 2

2 2

1

2 1

1 2

1 3

2 1

1

22

5 sl aireta

m/secruos-lennosrepygolor te

mfogni niar

T.91

5 1

2 1

2 2

1 4

2 3

1 2

3 1

1

92

4 sei t isrevinu/segel loc

ybderef fo

sm

erusaeM

argorptnem

.02

4 1

2 1

2 1

2 2

2 2

1 3

2

22

3 scir te

mdna

stnemerusae

mssenisu

B.12

2 2

1 2

1

1 1

1 2

2

4

81

2 srot ces

rehtoni

ygolor teM.22

1

1

2 2

2 1

8

1

61

4 snoitazinagro

rehtofosecit carpt se

B.32

2 1

2 2

2 2

2 4

1 1

1 2

2 2

52

6 set isbe

wygolor te

M.42 1

2 1

1

2 3

1 3

2 4

1 4

42

4 secnerefnoc

gnimocp

U.52 1

2

1 1

4

1 3

2 3

71

1 gnit set

dnatnemerusae

mnitne

myolpm

E.62

1

2 1

1

1 2

1

3

3

41

2 )gniknar

onht i

weci

wtdet celes(

smargor

Pa

mgiS

x iS.72

0

The STANDARDFall 2000 Page 39

Section B:1. I am interested in metrology certification activity at the following levels:

Technician: (6) Engineer: (2) Manager: (8) Scientist: (4)

2. I have visited the MQD website recently. I would rate it a: (1 = worst; 10 = best)

1: (0) 2: (1) 3: (2) 4: (2) 5: (3) 6: (1) 7: (3) 8: (5) 9: (3) 10: (0)

I liked:• Discussion forum, because it was the only thing that worked• The available information (2)• Links• Articles from the Standard• The standards & layouts• Books area and link to Amazon.com• Articles on website and metrology talk• Attribute evaluation• Very little

I would like to see more/less of:• LESS political management issues• MORE published papers• MORE technical & research articles• MORE current information (2)• MORE ISO documentation• MORE of the good job being done by the division• LESS outdated information and cross linked messages• MORE about accreditation

COMMENTS:• I like to printout or file articles. My Netscape does not wrap all articles, only some. Can you look into this?• Would like to see our site updated• Page could not be displayed

3. I would rate the MQD “Standard” newsletter a: (1 = worst; 10 = best)

1: (0) 2: (0) 3: (2) 4: (1) 5: (4) 6: (2) 7: (10) 8: (8) 9: (10) 10: (6)

I liked:• News articles• The article on establishing metrology training• ALL• NIST news• The Contrarion Metrologist (5)• The Learning Curve (5)• Broad range of issues–theoretical, practical, informative• Anything Phil Stein writes (5)• The wide range of subjects• Events• Practical advice• The variety and balance• A2LA news update• Editor’s column• The Standards Scene• The idea of Doctor/PhD• The articles and links to other information and sources• Everything• The article on ASQ certification

I would like to see more/less of:• MORE practical applications• LESS 6 Sigma advertisement disguised as articles• MORE titles reflecting topic discussed since articles are long and not immediately to the point• MORE information on metrology techniques• MORE articles like the Learning Curve/Mech. Measurement specific articles/Gauge R&R articles• Some articles on the statistical software used or favored by the analysts


• MORE commentary • MORE ISO 17025 • LESS scientific analysis • MORE business measurement topics • MORE education on different fields of equality • MORE “how to” articles • MORE published papers • MORE technical articles in uncertainty • MORE Frank Voehl • MORE case studies • MORE gage R&R methods and training seminars • LESS of Management Corner • MORE articles on practical metrology techniques, best practices • LESS articles complaining about present metrology state of affairs • MORE articles and letters to Editor • A thicker newsletter • Book reviews on metrology • MORE tutorials on ISO 25/17025 • MORE uncertainty • MORE traceability • MORE job floor/lab related articles, not just concepts

COMMENTS: • It’s a great publication. Thanks! • Write it so that you don’t need a degree to understand it • Just received first copy—Appearance is dull and cheap looking

4. Have you recently (in the last year) called someone in the MQD for help? Yes: (3) No: (43) If yes, how long was it until you got a response? One answer = Days; Another answer = 8 hours

10 weeks (called F. Voehl for help)

GENERAL COMMENTS: • Just joining MQD with 2000 membership renewal! • Still waiting

Measurement Quality Division American Society for Quality

Executive Council Meeting Minutes January 20, 2000

5:30-7:30 PST

Location: Teleconference and meeting Measurement Science Conference Disneyland Hotel, Anahiem, CA

Attendance: In Person:

Duane Allen–future Chair Elect Chris Grachanen–Certification Chair Dan Harper–Standards Committee Rep. Tom Pearson–Past Chair Phil Painchaud–Std Columnist Mark Schoenlein–Chairman DeWayne Sharp–Newsletter Editor Phil Stein–Programs

By Phone: Don Ermer–Region 12 Councilor Rolf Schumacher–Reqion 7 Councilor

Sal Scicchitani–Historian Karl Speitel–Auditor and Region 2

Councilor Guests:

Annie Kay Erbie-Newell-Headquarters Div. Rep.

Paul Hanssen–Workplace Training Terrelle Wilson–Community College of Aurora Brian Slattery–Tustin Technical Institute Jim Simons–Sandia National Labs Dilip Shah–E=MC3 Solutions Donald Finney–Member


Minutes: Mark Schoenlein The minutes from the division October 28th confer-

ence call were briefly reviewed. DeWayne motioned to accept the minutes and the agenda. Tom seconded. The vote was unanimous for approval.

Chris Grachanen made his presentation first so that some of our guests could leave early. The content is covered under Certification in the minutes.

Chairman’s Report: Mark Schoenlein Mark reported that headquarters along with the

Inspection Division is fast tracking a new certification for the Quality Practitioner. It appears to be similar to what is called a “Green Belt”.

The Statistics Division is getting ready to release a new publication about business process measures. Bob Mitchell has said that he would like to work closer with the MQD.

New Business: As Mark was reviewing the various deadlines for

awards, nominations, and testimonials Phil mentioned that the MQD also has its Max Unis award. The award has not been given a couple of years. There was discussion about a process during which Sal agreed to follow up on the details.

Dan Harper asked if Mel Fechner was still the NCSL representative. The answer was no.

Treasurer’s Report: Steve Cook Mark passed out a summary of 1st half year 2000

budget requests. He asked that each functional area and/or individual review their needs and get back to him to get the budget firmed up.

He also reiterated about making sure to include a division check req. form with requests for payment.

Secretary’s Report: Lowell Nicodemus The secretary was not present. Mark recorded the

minutes in writing and on tape.

Education Chair’s Report: Open Phil Stein commented that the division should continue to do training courses like the Uncertainty pre-confer-ence tutorial he taught at the Midwest Quality Confer-ence held in, Toledo, in September of 1999. He feels that there is a demand for courses on varying topics.

Phil Painchaud suggested that someone talk to Dr. Gene Watson about the possibility of becoming the division education chair. Phil Stein volunteered to approach him about it tomorrow.

Mark proposed that a division liaison position be cre-ated to encourage closer interaction with the schools and institutions involved in metrology and measure-ment education.

Auditing Chair’s Report: Karl Speitel Karl reported that he has had no contact or involve-

ment in auditing of the division’s finances for some time. He said he is working with Paul Bowe at head-quarters to understand what he should be doing.

The division treasurer’s manual doesn’t require that auditing be done by a division auditor or committee. Phil Stein read the (unadopted by MQD) model division bylaws which say that a committee is required. Annie-Kay will send Karl a manual.

Division finance updates are being sent to the treasurer, by headquarters, monthly.

Examining Chair’s Report: Phil Stein for Mel Fechner

Our nominated fellow candidate Ragu Kacker from NIST was turned down because he did not have enough time as a senior member.

Programs Chair’s Report: Open Phil Stein reiterated the need to get a committee

organized to plan for a Measurement Quality Confer-ence in Atlanta in the Fall of 2000.

The 2001 conference would be held jointly at NIST for their 100th anniversary.

Plans are set for the AQC in May 2000. Tom Pearson will be presenting in the MQD track on Wednesday, May 8.

Membership Chair’s Report: Open Mark has asked for a list of MSC attendees. There

appears to be an increased interest by the conference’s military attendees in the commercial metrology field, especially around standards. This is a sector that the division has not done much with. Annie-Kay stated that headquarters might be able to help with a mailing to these folks.

Vice Chair for Regions Report: Mark Schoenlein Mark reported that he has received 10 phone calls in the last 3 months. He requested that Annie-Kay work with the headquarters, service call center, to get the calls referred to the Regional Councilors.

Sal reported that he is working with the GTC to study how to better serve the membership.

Newsletter Editor’s Report: DeWayne Sharp

The Winter 2000 issue was mailed late to ASQ for printing. A self stamped interest survey was included. The next deadline is 3/15/00 for the Spring issue.


Website Manager’s Report: Open Mark reported that he has approached George

MacRitchie, Region 10 Councilor, to help with the site.

Historian’s Report: Sal Scicchitani Dan asked about guidelines for what materials to

save.

Standard’s Committee Representative: Dan Harper

Dan will submit a written report.

Certification Chair’s Report: Chris Grachanen Chris reported out on the formation of the commit-

tee to work on the development of a Metrology Techni-cian (unofficial) certification. He reported that there is a need for certification first based on current industry and military trends and that there has been overwhelming support for the project. The completion and presenta-tion of a written proposal to the chair of the ASQ certification board is targeted for either the May or November Biannual meeting.

An initial investment of $20,000 in non-refunded funding from the MQD would be required up-front to get started. The first step would be to contract an outside firm to undertake a job analysis by 1st quarter of 2001. Chris mentioned that it would be a good idea to take a look at the analysis and proposal done for the CQT before starting. He is also gathering information about past DOD training programs, an job NSF study, and courses being provided by post secondary education institutions. It was also suggested that some of the other divisions may want to become involved in the committee.

Chris would like to use the MQD website to solicit comments in an endeavor to collect information for a BOK and potential questions. There was some con-cern about facilitating input on the site, due to the absence of a webmaster. Phil suggested that Bill Caste, who is currently hosting the MQD site, might be able to help.

Chris asked for approval for travel expenses to prepare for and present to the Certification Committee. Phil Stein made a motion to approve $2,500 for those expenses. Sal seconded. All approved.

Regional Councilor’s Reports : All Region 2: Karl Speitel-received 1 call recently Region 7: Rolf Schmacher-received 1 call recently Region 11: Ray Perham (by email)-no activity Region 12: Don Ermer-no activity

Past Chair and Nominating Chair Report: Tom Pearson

Mark passed out the list of GTC nominees for 2000/ 2001 National Directors. Sal mentioned that some

divisions may already have a director on the board. The names were read and votes tallied. The candidates selected were Donald Ermer, Kymm Hockman, Michael Murphy, and Bill Sherman. Phil Stein moved to accept the selections, Dan seconded, all approved. The re-sults were sent to headquarters on 1/27/00.

Division officers nominations were due the day after the meeting. Duane Allen volunteered to be Chair-Elect.

Next Meeting: The next MQD meeting and conference call will be

from the AQC on May 5th with the time to be announced. Update: this meeting was cancelled but the officers did meet informally. A follow up conference call was held on May 22.

Adjournment: Phil Stein motioned to adjourn. Dan seconded. All

approved.

Measurement Science Conference

Measurements in a Global Economy is the theme for the annual conference that will be held in Anaheim, CA on January 18 and 19, 2000.

Review details on http://www.msc-conf.com/.


Membership Report

Monthly MQD Committee Conference Calls

nd

each month.

Time: 2:00 pm Eastern Daylight Time Number: 1-877-233-7852

Code: 329178

Watch for announcements.

To improve communication and planning, a confer-ence call has been scheduled for the 2 Wednesday of

Division meetings and conference calls may also be scheduled during some of the upcoming conferences.

stnevE gnimocpU tnatropmI ecnerefnoC setaD noitacoL rebmuN tcatnoC

1002 CSM 1002/91 -81/1 AC ,miehan A 0837-748-417

1002 CQ A 1002/9-7/5 CN ,ettolrahC 6491-842-008-1

1002 LSCN 1002/2/8-92/7 CD ,notgnihsaW 9333-044-303

TSIN/DQM 1002 llaF CD ,notgnihsaW 0254-968-103


Measurement Quality Division OfficersChair Duane Allen .................. U.S. Navy, P.O. Box 5000, Code MS11, Corona, CA 92878-5000 909-273-4783 V

e-mail: [email protected] 909-273-4599 F Past Chairman Mark Schoenlein ........... Owens Illinois Plastics Group, One SeaGAte 29L-PP, Toledo, OH 43666 419-247-7285 B

e-mail: [email protected] 419-247-8770 F Chair Elect Open

Vice Chair for Regions Open

Treasurer Colleen Gadbois ........... 535 N.W. 112th Ave., Portland, OR 97229-6116 503-646-1380 V

e-mail: [email protected] 503-646-1380 F Secretary Open

Auditing Karl F. Speitel ................ 14 Kalleston Drive, Pittsford, NY 14534 716-385-838 H

Certification Christopher L. Grachanen ..... Manager, Standards Engineering

P.O. Box 692000 MS070110, Houston, TX 77269-2000 281-518-8486 B Compaq Computer Corporation, Corporate Metrology 281-518-7275 F e-mail: [email protected]

Programs Duane Allen .................. MSC 2001Norm Belecki ................. Fall Conference 2001

Membership Open

Education Thomas A. Pearson ...... Automated Technology Associates 317-271-9545 ext. 224 B

1635 Expo Lane, Indianapolis, IN 46214 317-271-7974 F e-mail: [email protected]

Publications J.L. Madrigal .................. Oxford Worldwide Group 801-374-1790 B

1045 South Orem Blvd., Orem, UT 84058 801-374-1790 F e-mail: [email protected]

Newsletter Editor Frank Voehl ................... St. Lucie Press, 280 Lake Drive, Coconut Creek, FL 33066 954-972-3012 B

e-mail: [email protected] 954-978-0643 F Historian S.D. (Sal) Scicchitani .... 203 Golf Club Drive, Langhorne, PA 19047

Standards Committee Representative Dan J. Harper ................ 535 N.W. 112th Ave., Portland, OR 97229-6116 503-646-1380 H

e-mail: [email protected] 503-646-1380 F Kathy Hoath

NCSL Representative Open Simmons Scholarship Norm Belecki ................. 7413 Mill Run Dr., Deerwood, MD 20855-1156 301-869-4520 H

[email protected] Website Manager George A. MacRitchie ... Benchmark Technologies 419-843-6691 B

e-mail: [email protected] 419-843-7218 F Please notify the editor of any errors or changes so that this list can be updated.

890-3748


REGIONAL COUNCILORS Region 1Joseph Califano , Hemagen Diagnos-tics, Inc., 40 Bear Hill Road, Waltham, MA 02154 • (417) 890-3766, FAX (617)

Region 2Karl F. Speitel , 14 Kalleston Drive,Pittsford, NY 14534 • (716) 385-1838

Region 3Eduardo M. Heidelberg , CarterWallace, 61 Kendall Dr., Parlin, NJ08859 • (609) 655-6521, FAX (609)655-6736

Region 4Alex Lau , Imperial Oil, 111 St. ClairAve W, Toronto, Ont, Canada M5W-1K3 • (416) 968-4654, FAX (416) 968-5560, E-mail: [email protected]

Region 5Open

Region 6J.L. Madrigal , Brigham Young Univ.,Dept of Statistics, BYU, 222 TMCB,Provo, UT 84602 • (801) 378-7357,FAX (801) 378-5722, E-mail: [email protected]

Region 7Rolf B.F. Schumacher , Coast QualityMetrology Systems, Inc., 35 Vista DelPonto, San Clemente, CA 92672-3122• (949) 492-6321, FAX (949) 492-6321

Region 8Frank Weingard , Actco Metrology Ser-vices, 202, Westview Dr. Meadville, PA16335 • (800) 382-0393, FAX (814)337-8288, E-mail:[email protected]

Region 9Dr. Henrik S. Nielson , HN MetrologyConsulting, Inc., 5230 Nob Lane, India-napolis, IN 46226 • (317) 377-0378voice and fax, E-mail: [email protected]

Region 10George A. MacRitchie, CQE, PE,Benchmark Technologies Corp., 3161N. Republic Blvd., Toledo, OH 43615-1507 • (419) 843-6691, FAX (419) 843-7218, E-mail: [email protected]

Region 11Raymond Perham , Michelin Tire Corp.,Rt 4 Antioch Church, P.O. Box 2846,Greenville, SC 29605 • (864) 458-1425,FAX (864) 458-1807, E-mail:[email protected], orhome E-mail: [email protected]

Region 12Donald Ermer , University of Wiscon-sin Madison, 240 Mechanical Engineer-ing Bldg., 1513 University Avenue,Madison, WI 53706-1572 • (608) 262-2557

Region 13Open

Region 14Chuck Carter , C.L. Carter, Jr. & Asso-ciates, Inc. 1211 Glen Cove Drive,Richardson, TX 75080 • (972) 234-3296, FAX (972) 234-3296

Region 15Bryan Miller , Champion International,Inc., P.O. Box 189, Courtland, AL 35816• (205) 637-6735, FAX (205) 637-5202

Region 25Open

Please notify the editor of any errors or changes so that this list can be updated.

REGIONAL MAP

The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division

American Society for Quality

The STANDARDThe STANDARDThe STANDARDThe STANDARDThe STANDARD

American Society for Quality

Measurement Quality Division

Non-Profit Organization U.S. Postage

PAID Milwaukee, WI

Permit No. 5419

Fall 2000

American Society for Quality Measurement Quality Division

611 E. Wisconsin Ave P.O. Box 3005

Milwaukee, WI 53201-3005

TIME VALUED MATERIAL