Msa 3

Cindy

MSA 3.1 follows AIAG 3rd Edition MSA Guidelines ANOVA method

Page 1

For Unilateral & Bilateral Tolerances

Rev. 3.1

units um um um um

4/10/2003

Parameter Target/Nominal Upper Specification Limit Lower Specification Limit Reference Value 0.55 1.00 0.80 0.80 0.50 1.05 0.95 0.80 1.05 0.80

Comparison Sample no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Sums count

Wafer CD 1.00 2.00 0.00

Comparison 1: Trial 1

Part/Assembly Name Instrument Name Instrument Number(s) Part No.

0.55 1.00 0.80 0.80 0.50 1.05 0.95 0.80 1.05 0.80 8.300

Cindy 0.40 1.00 0.80 0.80 0.45 1.05 0.95 0.80 1.05 0.80 8.100 Ave. Var.

Variance 0.006 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.009 0.0009

Comparison 2: Trial 1 Trial 2 0.65 0.60 1.00 1.10 0.85 0.80 0.85 0.95 0.55 0.45 1.00 0.70 0.95 0.70 0.85 0.80 1.00 0.85 0.60 0.70 8.300 7.650 count 30

Sum: Average:

Cindy Cindy

24.650 0.822

Sum: Average:

Trial 2 0.50 1.05 0.80 0.80 0.45 1.00 0.95 0.80 1.05 0.85 8.250

Trial 3

30

Trial 3

ZXX XYZ Gage 2 n/a

Date Engineer Location Process s

George Variance 0.001 0.006 0.006 0.003 0.010 0.026 0.018 0.011 0.011 0.016 0.107 0.0107

Comparison 3: Trial 1 Trial 2 0.55 0.55 1.05 0.95 0.80 0.75 0.80 0.75 0.40 0.40 1.00 1.05 0.95 0.90 0.75 0.70 1.00 0.95 0.55 0.50 7.850 7.500 count 30

0.60 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.65 0.75 0.90 1.00 0.80 0.85 8.400 Ave. Var. George George

24.350 0.812

1/5/200x T. Little Brentwood, CA 0.35 Tom Trial 3 0.55 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.40 1.05 0.90 0.70 0.95 0.55 7.600 Ave. Var.

Variance 0.000 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.008 0.0008

Tom Tom

22.950 0.765

Sum: Average:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 2 3

Test For Control

Bias Evaluation -0.05 0.05 0.00

George 0.08

0.03

0

2

0.03

0.08

0.05

3

0

0.08

0.03

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.14 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.14

0 0.03 0.03 0 0 0 0.03

0.06 0.1 0.16 0.13 0.1 0.1 0.13

0.03 0 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03

1 2 3

Bias Evaluation 0.10 0.00 0.05

Cindy 0.00 0.00 0.00

Tom

1

-0.15 0.00 0.00

George 0.05 0.10 0.00

0.05 -0.05 0.15

Upper Control Limit for the Variance @ 99.73% probability

UCL-Variance (99.73% CI)

0.0232

4

0.00

0.00

0.00

4

0.05

0.15

If any individual variance exceeds this limit Out of Control will be indicated and the measurement or reading should be reviewed,

Average Variance

0.0041

5

-0.05

0.00

-0.05

5

0.05

-0.05

0.15

Out of Control

6 7 8 9 10

-0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.008333 0.03

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

6 7 8 9 10

-0.05 0.00 0.05 -0.05 -0.20

-0.35 -0.25 0.00 -0.20 -0.10 -0.018333 0.14

-0.30 -0.05 0.20 -0.25 0.05

repeated, corrected or discarded as appropriate, and compute new averages and variances. Measurement System Capability Analysis Repeatability Enter the name of the tester or measurement instrument:

Repeatability Within:

XYZ Gage Reproducibility Between: Operator Standard Deviation Standard Deviation 0.0643 0.0148 Variance Variance 0.0041 0.0002 Between Part x Comparison Interaction Total Gauge Error Standard Deviation 0.0747 Standard Deviation 0.0997 Variance 0.006 Total Gauge Error @ 99% 0.5133

XYZ Gage Reproducibility Enter the name of the parameter for comparison (Tester, Fixture, Operator, etc.): Operator Linearity Evaluation Range of the Standards

Performance Summary Performance Summary Target USL LSL Tolerance Process s

1.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.35

Based on Tolerance or enter new range

2.00 Process Gauge Capability =s2gauge error/s2process % of Process Variation

units um um um um um

Bilateral Gauge Capability =(5.15*s gauge)/Tolerance Total Gage Capability

8.11%

Bias Analysis Bias -0.00833 -0.0183 -0.0650 -0.03 Fit for Use Requirement: 5% or less Comparison: Cindy George Tom Total

25.67%

Fit for Use Requirement: 17% or less

Needs Development Requirement: 20% or less

Mean Std Dev. Total Stdev

Mean Std Dev.

-0.0306 0.1

Linerity Comparison: Linearity % Linearity Cindy 0.07 3.33% George 0.23 11.67% Tom 0.27 13.33% Total 0.11 5.56% Needs Development Requirement: 5% or less

% Bias 0.42% 0.92% 3.25% 1.53%

ANOVA Analysis Source of Variation Between Variation Between Parts Between Operator Between Part x Operator Within Variation Total

SS

DF

MS

F Ratio

p

2.63358 0.05489 0.37567 0.24833 3.31247

9 2 18 60 89

0.29262 0.02744 0.02087 0.00414

14.02085 1.31500 5.04251

0.00000 0.29306 0.00063

Variables Gage Study Summary

(ANOVA Method) Source of Variation Variance Std. Dev. Repeatability (Within Gage, Comparison, Part, Interaction) 0.00414 0.06433 Reproducibility (Between Comparison + Between Interaction) 0.00580 0.07613 Between Operator 0.00022 0.01480 Between Comparison x Part Interaction 0.00558 0.07468 Total Gage Repeatability and Reproducibility (GR&R) 0.00994 0.09968 Between Part 0.03019 0.17377 Total Study Variation 0.04013 0.20032 Summary Conclusions: Tolerance Gage Capability (GR&R @ 99%CI / Tolerance) = Process Gage Capability (GR&R s2 / Process s 2) = Discrimintation Ratio (Process s2 / GR&R s 2) = * 99% Confidence Interval

99% CI* 0.33132 0.39209 0.07624 0.38460 0.51333 0.89489 1.03167 25.7% 8.1% 12

% of Study Variation % of Tolerance Variation 10.3% 16.57% 14.4% 19.60% 0.5% 3.81% 13.9% 19.23% 24.8% 25.67% 75.2% 44.74% 100.0% 51.58% Needs Improvement Goal is <20% Fit for Use Goal is < 17% Fit for Use Goal is > 6 Bilateral Specification (Smaller is Better)

% of Process Variation 3.4% 4.7% 0.2% 4.6% 8.1% 24.6% 32.8%

Secondary Breakdown of Repeatability Source of Variation Repeatability byOperator Cindy George Tom Total Repeatability (Average of Repeatability Var. by Comparison)

Variance

Std. Dev.

99% CI*

0.00092

0.03028

0.15592

2.3%

7.8%

0.7%

0.01067

0.10328

0.53189

26.6%

26.6%

8.7%

0.00083

0.02887

0.14867

% of Study Variation

2.1%

% of Tolerance Variation

7.4%

% of Process Variation

0.7%

0.00414

0.06433

0.33132

10.3%

16.6%

3.4%

Look for crossing of the lines to detect interactions in the data

If repeatability is a large percentage of Tolerance or Process Gage Capability examine the POV analysis for further information on within variation

Examination of Means by: Operator

Secondary Breakdown of Reproducibility Source of Variation

Variance

Std. Dev.

99% CI*

Cindy

0.00018

0.01332

0.06860

0.4%

3.4%

0.1%

George

0.00005

0.00733

0.03773

% of Study Variation

0.1%

% of Tolerance Variation

1.9%

0.0%

Examination of Means by: Part 1.10

1.10

0.800

1.00

1.00

0.700

% of Process Variation

0.600

Reproducibility byOperator

0.02065 0.01480

0.10633 0.07624

1.1% 0.5%

5.3% 3.8%

0.3% 0.2%

Between Comparison x Part Interaction

0.00558

0.07468

0.38

13.9%

19.2%

4.6%

Total Reproducibility (Between Comparison + Between Interaction)

0.00580

0.07613

0.39

14.4%

19.6%

4.7%

0.90 0.80

0.50 0.40

0.000 Standard

0.60 0.40 0.30

Cindy

George

0.20

0.20

0.10

0.10

0.00 Row 23

0.00 Row 23

Tom

Row 24

Row 25

Row 26

Examination of Std. Dev. by: Operator 0.110 0.100

Partition of Variation Analysis Pop. Std. Dev.

99% CI*

0.0006

0.0247

0.1272

1.7%

6.4%

0.5%

Between Parts*

0.0293

0.1711

0.8810

79.5%

44.0%

23.9%

0.0042

0.0646

0.3327

11.3%

16.6%

3.4%

0.0015

0.0388

0.1997

4.1%

10.0%

1.2%

0.0003

0.0185

0.0953

0.9%

4.8%

0.3%

2.5%

7.8%

0.7%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Between Part x Comparison Interaction WithinOperator Within Parts* Within Parts x Comparison Interaction Within Gage Total

0.0302

0.1556

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.03681

0.0009

0.19185

% of Study Variation

% of Tolerance Variation

% of Process Variation

0.050 0.040

LCI @ 95%

t

0.0047

-0.0214

-1.306

0.2

-0.0183

Bias

UCI @ 95%

0.0353

-0.0719

-0.700

0.49

Tom

-0.0650

-0.0351

-0.0949

-4.45

0

3.25%

Total

-0.0306

-0.0098

-0.0513

-2.9261

0.0044

-1.53%

Conculsion:

Bias = 1.53%

p

0.14 0.13 0.12 0.1

Conculsion:

Linearity

0.08

Cindy

0.07

George Tom

0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02

0.01

0.01

0

0

Row 12

Row 13

Row 14

Row 15

Tom

Comparison 1: Cindy

Comparison 2: George

0.95 0.90

0.85

0.85

0.80 0.75

0.80 0.75

0.70

0.70

Cindy

0.067

3.33%

0.233

11.67%

Tom

0.267

13.33%

Total

0.111

5.56%

Goal <5% of Tolerance

0.55

Linearity =

5.56%

Needs Improvement

0.45

0.65 0.60 0.55 0.50 0.45 0.40

0.65

0.65

0.60

0.60

0.55 0.50

0.50

0.45 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05

Comparison 3: Tom 1.05 1.00 0.95 0.90 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.70

1.05 1.00

0.90

George

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 .45 .50 .55 .60 .65 .70 .75 .80 .85 .90 .95 .00 .05

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 .45 .50 .55 .60 .65 .70 .75 .80 .85 .90 .95 .00 .05

r2=

0.992

r2=

0.615

r2=

0.871

Linear slope =

0.913

Linear slope =

1.053

Linear slope =

0.822

Intercept =

0.079

Intercept =

-0.03

Intercept =

0.201

All points should ideally fall on the straight line with an r equal to 1, slope equal to 1 and intercept of 0 2

Thomas A. Little Consulting 382 Stanwick Street Brentwood, CA 94513 1-925-285-1847 [email protected]

Row 16

Row 17 Part

Correlation Plots to Examine Linearity and Bias

0.95

% Linearity (Linearity / Tolerance)

0.09

0.06

0.03

0.92%

1.00

Row 32

Interaction

0.11

0.42%

Linearity Evaluation

Row 31

Row 18

Row 19

Row 20

Row 21

Row 2

Row 3

Row 4

Row 5

Row 6

Row 7

Row 8

Row 9

Row 10

Part

Look for crossing of the lines to detect interactions in the data

1.05

Comparison

Row 30

0.05

% Bias

Fit for Use

Row 29

0.17

0.07

0.02

George

Row 27 Row 28

0.06

0.020

0.000

Row 26

Part

0.16

0.04

0.010

Row 25

Examination of Within Part x Operator

0.08

0.030

Cindy

Row 24

Row 32

0.15

0.1 0.09

Bias Evaluation -0.00833

Row 31

0.12

Linearity & Bias Evaluation only available if reference standards are used during the MSA study

Cindy

Row 30

0.11

100.0%

George

Row 29

0.14

0.070 0.060

* Not Related to Gage Error

Comparison

Row 28

0.13

0.080 St. Dev.

Source of Variation

0.090

Pop. Variance

Between Operator

Row 27

Examination of Std. Dev. by: Part 0.15

St. Dev.

Note: Partition of Variation Analysis is a descriptive analytical technique and uses the population variance in all computations and as such will result in slightly different variance estimates from the ANOVA method. It has the advantage of partitioning the within variation or repeatability.

Cindy George Tom

0.50

0.30

0.100

Interaction

0.70

0.60

0.400 0.300 0.200

0.00043 0.00022

0.90 0.80 0.70

0.500

Tom Between Operator (Ave.of Comparison Variances)

Examination of Between Part xOperator

0.900

© TLC, 2003

Row 11

0.15

George

0.55 1.00 0.80 0.80 0.50 1.05 0.95 0.80 1.05 0.80

Bias Evaluation 1 0.00 2 0.05 3 0.00

Tom 0.00 -0.05 -0.05

Linearity: 0.00 0.00 -0.05

4

0.00

-0.05

-0.05

5

-0.10

-0.10

-0.10

6 7 8 9 10

-0.05 0.00 -0.05 -0.05 -0.25

0.00 -0.05 -0.10 -0.10 -0.30 -0.065000 0.08

0.00 -0.05 -0.10 -0.10 -0.25

Mean Std Dev.

Linearity Evaluation Standard Values: 0.55 1.00 0.80 0.80 0.50 1.05 0.95 0.80 1.05 0.80

Cindy 0.48 1.02 0.80 0.80 0.47 1.03 0.95 0.80 1.05 0.82 Linearity

Tom

1

0.55

0.55

0.62

0.55

0.55

0.55

2

1.00

1.00

1.02

1.00

1.00

1.00

3

0.80

0.80

0.87

0.80

0.80

0.77

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0.80 0.50 1.05 0.95 0.80 1.05 0.80

0.80 0.50 1.05 0.95 0.80 1.05 0.80

0.92 0.55 0.82 0.85 0.88 0.88 0.72

0.80 0.50 1.05 0.95 0.80 1.05 0.80

0.80 0.50 1.05 0.95 0.80 1.05 0.80

0.77 0.40 1.03 0.92 0.72 0.97 0.53

C1-std Delta 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.07

George 0.62 1.02 0.87 0.92 0.55 0.82 0.85 0.88 0.88 0.72

C2-std Delta 0.07 0.02 0.07 0.12 0.05 0.23 0.10 0.08 0.17 0.08 0.23

Tom C3-std Delta 0.55 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.77 0.03 0.77 0.03 0.40 0.10 1.03 0.02 0.92 0.03 0.72 0.08 0.97 0.08 0.53 0.27 0.27

Part Ave Delta to Standard 0.55 0.00 1.01 0.01 0.81 0.01 0.83 0.03 0.47 0.03 0.96 0.09 0.91 0.04 0.80 0.00 0.97 0.08 0.69 0.11 Combined Linearity 0.11

20.2% Based on Range of the Standards 5.6% Based on Tolerance 5.6% Based on Reference Value

POV Section

XYZ Gage Parts Interaction

Cindy 0.004 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001

George 0.001 0.004 0.004 0.002 0.007 0.017 0.012 0.007 0.007 0.011

Tom Ave. Variance 0.000 0.00148 0.002 0.00204 0.001 0.00148 0.001 0.00093 0.000 0.00241 0.001 0.00611 0.001 0.00407 0.001 0.00259 0.001 0.00259 0.001 0.00389

0.0028 0.0000 0.0028 0.0000 Varp of Varp % Effect Variance 0.000009 54.5% 0.0015 0.000002 12.4% 0.0003 0.000006 33.1% 0.0009

Descriptive POV Summary Table Average 0.80 Sample Size Population Standard Deviation Source Pop.Variance Between (Reproducibility) 0.0340 Between Parts 0.0293 Between Operator 0.0006 Between Interaction 0.0042 Within (Repeatability) Within Parts Within Operator Within Interaction Within XYZ Gage Total Population Standard Deviation

0.0028 0.0003 0.0015 0.0009 0.0000 0.0368

90 0.1918 % Effect 92.50% 79.51% 1.66% 11.34% 7.50% 0.93% 4.09% 2.48% 0.00% 100.00% 0.1918

Ave. Varp Comparison 1 Ave. Varp Comparison 2 Ave. Varp Comparison 3 Cindy George Tom

0.001 0.007 0.001

Grand Ave. 0.799

POV Between Interaction Matrix Cindy George Tom 1 0.48 0.62 2 1.02 1.02 3 0.80 0.87 4 0.80 0.92 5 0.47 0.55 6 1.03 0.82 7 0.95 0.85 8 0.80 0.88 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Within POV Summary Table Total Within Variance Unknown variation Adjusted Total Within Total Variance of Variances Source Within Within Within

Between Part x Gauge Interaction Average Standard 0.830 Cindy 0.822 George 0.812 Tom 0.765

1.05

0.88

0.55 1.00 0.77 0.77 0.40 1.03 0.92 0.72 0.97

10

0.82

0.72

0.53

Average

0.822

0.812

0.765

Average 0.55 1.01 0.81 0.83 0.47 0.96 0.91 0.80

Interim Computation 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0.01 0 0.02 0 0.01

0.97

0

0.01

0

0.69

0.01

0

0.01

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between Interaction:

0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0

0

#REF! #REF! #REF!

Within Interaction Average Variance Cindy 0.001 George 0.007 Tom 0.001

Grand Average Variance 0.003

POV Within Interaction Matrix Cindy George Tom Ave. Varp 1 0.0039 0.0006 0.0000 0.00148 2 0.0006 0.0039 0.0017 0.00204 3 0.0000 0.0039 0.0006 0.00148 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Average Varp

0.0000 0.0006 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0006 0.001

0.0022 0.0067 0.0172 0.0117 0.0072 0.0072 0.0106 0.007

0.0006 0.0000 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.001

0.00093 0.00241 0.00611 0.00407 0.00259 0.00259 0.00389

Between Interaction:

Interim Computation

0.000006

For Attrib

Rev. 3.1 4/10/2003 Location Product Subassembly Part Number Customer

Sunnyvale Red-225 1256-A XYZ

Rate each trial 1 = correct, 0 = incorrect compared to the standard 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

Standard (truth)* C N C C C C C N N C C N C C C N C N N N C C C N C C N N N N

Inspector Part no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Sums # False Alarms count * N=nonconforming, C=conforming

Appraiser 1: Trial 1 Trial 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22 23 10 # Misses 90 Total Errors

Juan Trial 3 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 21 14 24

Number Conforming 17 Number Nonconforming 13

Total Evaluation of Inspector Errors and Bias Summary of Performance Counts Inspector 1: Juan Inspector 2: Maria Inspector 3: Fred

C Correct 41 50 42

N Correct 25 38 34

Total Correct 66 88 76

Juan Maria Fred

Effectiveness TC/GT 73.33% 97.78% 84.44%

Error Rate 26.67% 2.22% 15.56%

P(FA) FA/CP 19.61% 1.96% 17.65%

Secondary Breakdown of Errors Inspector 1: Juan Inspector 2: Maria Inspector 3: Fred

Effectiveness N 64.10% 97.44% 87.18%

Effectiveness C 80.39% 98.04% 82.35%

Effectiveness Weighted Mean 73.33% 97.78% 84.44%

Computed Summary Inspector 1: Inspector 2: Inspector 3:

Thomas A. Little Consulting 382 Stanwick Street Brentwood, CA 94513 1-925-285-1847 [email protected]

For Attributes Data - Defective

unnyvale Red-225 1256-A XYZ

Inspection Operation Reference Inspection Doc. Characteristic Inspected Date

103 ABC-1234.R2 Visual Inspection 20-Oct

correct compared to the standard Juan

Appraiser 2: Difference 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 28

Maria

Trial 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

Trial 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

28 # False Alarms count

1 90

Trial 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 30

30 # Misses Total Errors

Difference 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 28 1 2

Appraiser 3: Trial 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 26 # False Alarms count

Difference = 1 if inspector is consistant in determination of conformance/nonconformance, 0 if inspector is inconsistant

False Alarms 10 1 9

Misses 14 1 5

Grand Total 90 90 90

C Possible 51

P(M) M/NP 35.90% 2.56% 12.82%

Bias P(FA)/P(M) 0.55 0.76 1.38

Bias values greater than 1 indicates the inspector errors favor the customer, values less the inspectors favor the company. The ideal is no bias or a value of 1, where there is an probability of making a false alarm or a miss.

Errror Rate False Alarms 19.61% 1.96% 17.65%

Error Rate Misses 35.90% 2.56% 12.82%

Error Rate Weighted Mean 26.67% 2.22% 15.56%

Total 100% 100% 100%

N Possible 39

Page 1

Engineer Notes

T. Little

Fred Trial 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Trial 3 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 25

9 90

25 # Misses Total Errors

Difference 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 29 5 14

Effectiveness

ss

Appraiser 3:

100.00% 95.00% 90.00% 85.00% 80.00% 75.00% 70.00% 65.00% 60.00%

Effectiveness

nspector is inconsistant

Effectiveness

Grand Total 90

avor the customer, values less than 1 indicate a value of 1, where there is an equal

100.00% 95.00% 90.00% 85.00% 80.00% 75.00% 70.00% 65.00% 60.00% 55.00% 50.00% 45.00% 40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% Juan

Maria

Comparison Gr © TLC, 2003

Effectiveness (defective)

MI1:T1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MI1:T2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MI1:T3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FA:I1:T1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

FA:I1:T2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

FA:I1:T3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

Effectiveness (defective)

Effectiveness

Maria Comparison Group

Fred

MI2:T1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

MI2:T2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MI2:T3 FA:I2:T1 FA:I2:T2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FA:I2:T3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MI3LT1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MI3LT2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MI3LT3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FA:I3:T1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FA:I3:T2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FA:I3:T3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

For Attrib

Rev. 3.1 4/10/2003 Location Product Subassembly Part Number Customer

Milpitas-B2 PCB 1256-A Sun

Enter the number of defects per part observed by each inspector, for Reference Defects per Unit 30 25 10 2 16 3 0 0 5 25

Inspector

Reference Defects per Unit 30 25 10 2 16 3 0 0 5 25

Inspector

Reference Defects per Unit 30 25 10 2

Inspector

Part no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Sums

Part no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Sums

Part no. 1 2 3 4

Appraiser 1: Trial 1 False Alarms Misses 7 5 6 2 5 2 4 0 3 4 2 1 1 0 2 0 3 3 4 6 37 23 Appraiser 2: Trial 1 False Alarms Misses 1 0 2 2 1 0 2 0 1 4 2 0 2 0 1 0 2 3 2 5 16 14 Appraiser 3: Trial 1 False Alarms Misses 8 10 9 5 8 5 7 0

William Trial 2 N-Correct 25 23 8 2 12 2 0 0 2 19 93

False Alarms 7 7 3 0 7 1 3 3 2 9 42

Martha Trial 2 N-Correct 30 23 10 2 12 3 0 0 2 20 102

False Alarms 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 15 Ted Trial 2

N-Correct 20 20 5 2

False Alarms 8 8 8 6

16 3 0 0 5 25

5 6 7 8 9 10 Sums

6 5 2 3 2 3 53

14 3 0 0 5 20 62

2 0 0 0 0 5 54

4 5 2 2 1 3 47

Total Evaluation of Inspector Errors and Bias Summary of Performance Counts Inspector 1: William Inspector 2: Martha Inspector 3: Ted

C* Correct 24,034 24,115 24,011

N* Correct 285 297 197

Total Correct (TC) 24,319 24,412 24,208

False Alarms (FA) 118 38 141

William Martha Ted

Effectiveness TC/GT 99.26% 99.64% 98.81%

Expected Error Rate 0.74% 0.36% 1.19%

P(FA) FA/CP 0.49% 0.16% 0.58%

P(M) M/NP 18.10% 14.37% 43.39%

Secondary Breakdown of Errors Inspector 1: William Inspector 2: Martha Inspector 3: Ted

Effectiveness N 81.90% 85.34% 56.61%

Effectiveness C 99.51% 99.85% 99.42%

Effectiveness Weighted Total 99.26% 99.64% 98.81%

Errror Rate False Alarms 0.49% 0.16% 0.58%

Computed Summary Inspector 1: Inspector 2: Inspector 3:

C=Conforming, N=Nonconforming

Thomas A. Little Consulting 382 Stanwick Street Brentwood, CA 94513 1-925-285-1847 [email protected]

For Attributes Data - Defects per Unit Inspection Operation Reference Inspection Doc. Characteristic Inspected # Opportunities per unit

7 ABC-1234.R2 Solder Joint 2450

d by each inspector, for each trial Trial 2 Misses 8 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 7 25

False Alarms 9 8 4 0 6 1 1 1 1 8 39

Trial 3 Misses 2 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 15

N-Correct 22 23 9 0 15 2 0 0 4 18 93

N-Correct 28 24 7 1 16 1 0 0 5 17 99

Trial 2 Misses 8 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 7 25

N-Correct 22 23 9 0 15 2 0 0 4 18 93

False Alarms 0 0 0 2 1 2 1 1 0 0 7

Trial 3 Misses 2 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 11

N-Correct 28 24 7 1 16 1 0 0 5 20 102

Trial 2 Misses 12 2 5 1

N-Correct 18 23 5 1

False Alarms 8 7 6 5

Trial 3 Misses 9 10 7 2

N-Correct 21 15 3 0

Engineer Notes

T. Little

Date

20-Oct

10 1 1 1 1 7 41

6 2 0 0 4 18 77

Misses (M) 63 50 151

Grand Total (GT) 24,500 24,500 24,500

4 3 2 1 2 3 41

12 0 0 0 0 8 48

4 1 0 0 5 17 66

C Possible (CP) 24,152

N Possible 348

Grand Total 24,500

Bias P(FA)/P(M) 0.03 0.01 0.01

Bias values greater than 1 indicates the inspector errors favor the customer, values less than 1 indicate the inspectors favor the company. The ideal is no bias or a value of 1, where there is an equal probability of making a false alarm or a miss.

Error Rate Misses 18.10% 14.37% 43.39%

Error Rate Weighted Total 0.739% 0.359% 1.192%

Total 100% 100% 100% © T.A. Little 2003

Page 1

T. Little

20-Oct

© T.A. Little 2003

100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% Effectiveness

values less than 1 indicate e there is an equal

Effectiveness (defect)

60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% William

Martha Comparison Group

veness (defect)

Martha

ison Group

Effectiveness

Ted