Starrett is offering a comprehensive white paper that discusses why traditional approaches to measurement data collection are inefficient and error-prone without the ability to support IoT/ Industry 4.0. 

I’m a Type-A personality with a sense of urgency to explain everything. Give me a little data, and I will use every statistical tool I can wrap around these rationalizations to help explain an observation. But here is something that I cannot explain: why do we tolerate such poor gages?

The precision length calibration process is very much like any length measurement process, but taken to a significantly higher level. Both processes are composed of the same elements.

In a classic Dilbert cartoon, the “client” proudly claims to Dogbert the consultant that “every three months, an existing customer acquires another product.” Dogbert replies, “what if you don’t count warranty replacements?”

Selecting gages and other types of measuring tools can be challenging. It does not matter if you are an experienced or novice gage user, tool crib manager, lab manager or buyer. 

As a supplier of all types of measuring instruments, we are regularly asked to quote the cost of repairing some of them. In days gone by, it was a common service offered by many in the industry but modern technology has changed all that while increasing the amount of garbage to the local landfill. Marketing and manufacturing are both to blame.

Our industry is fraught with tales of quality audits from hell and other less than desirable places, usually the result of standards written by folks who know a little but expand it to encompass a lot.

In my last column I noted that I would give some hints to help you avoid problems with assigning and applying acceptance limits, so let’s go back to square one.

More companies than ever are downloading decisions to calibration laboratories causing perfectly acceptable gages and instruments to be ‘failed’ by them. How could such a thing happen?

Some of the data I’ve noted from the AMTMA studies make it very clear that measurement disputes will continue. When the range of readings is close to or exceeds the tolerances of the gages being calibrated, it is a certainty. Further problems will occur due to unrealistic expectations by all the parties involved in a dispute.