How to Design, Analyze and Interpret the

Results of an Expanded Gage R&R Study

This article by Lou Johnson, technical training specialist at Minitab Inc., explains why a
standard Gage R&R cannot adequately assess the capability of many measurement
systems. The article also demonstrates that when a standard study is not enough, an
Expanded Gage R&R is an ideal tool to comprehensively characterize your measurement
system.

The Limitations of Traditional Gage R&R Studies

If you cant trust your measurement system, you cant trust the data it produces. Thats
why Measurement Systems Analysis (MSA) is a key component of establishing,
improving and maintaining quality systems. Whether youre engaged in a Six Sigma
project or an ISO-9000 certification, an MSA helps you identify problems with your
measurement system and determine if you can trust your data.

The most common type of MSA is the Gage repeatability and reproducibility (R&R)
study. Most Gage R&R studies assess the effects of two factors on variation in your
measurement systemtypically Operator and Part.

However, the effects of Operator and Part frequently are not enough to provide a
complete understanding of the measurement system. Adding a third variable (typically
Gage) to the standard study is often required.

When three or more factors are included in the analysis, we call the study an Expanded
Gage R&R. In the following situations, a third factor is crucial to understanding the
system:

An electronics manufacturer makes voltage regulators on 3 production lines,

each with its own gaging system. Faced with an unacceptably high reject
rate, the quality manager suspects the measurement system is at fault, but
each gage has been calibrated to its own standard and passed its Gage R&R
with flying colors. The manager conducts an Expanded Gage R&R that
includes the three gages as well as Operator and Part. The calculated
%Tolerancethe proportion of the tolerance that is taken up by the
measurement system variabilityis 79%. A %Tolerance greater than 30% is
considered unacceptable. After the manufacturer calibrates the gages to one
standard, rejects are virtually eliminated.
 A California machine shop produces stainless steel parts to extremely tight
tolerances for use in robotic surgical instruments. Customers require
verification of the capability of their dimensional measurement systems.
Since any measurement technician could use any of dozens of gages, a
standard Gage R&R could not demonstrate capability. They did an
Expanded Gage R&R, including Operator, Part, and Gage. The Total Gage
R&R %Tolerance of 3% was so low that the shop was able to reduce QA
sample size while maintaining the same level of quality.

Whats the Difference Between Standard and

Expanded Gage R&R?
The four main differences between a standard and an expanded study are:

The expanded study allows additional factors such as Gage, Laboratory, Location, etc.,
to be evaluated, in addition to Operator and Part.
Unlike the standard study, missing data points are allowed in the analysis for an
expanded study.
The interactions of the additional factors with Operator and Part can also be
evaluated.
The sampling plan for the expanded study will quickly grow beyond a reasonable size
and will require reducing the sample size of at least one variable. For example, reducing
the number of parts from 10 to 5 is a common approach.

Experiences with Expanded Gage R&R in the Field

Since developing the Expanded Gage R&R tool for Minitab, Minitab has helped dozens
of companies implement Expanded Gage studies to correctly assess their measurement
system and improve quality.

In using Expanded Gage R&R to evaluate systems for a wide range of measurement
typesfrom surface roughness at Corning, Inc., to coating thickness at AzkoNobelwe
have learned that simply running a separate standard gage R&R at each of the levels of
the extra variable is rarely an efficient design for answering the questions of interest.

To help more quality practitioners reap the benefits of this powerful tool, lets take a
step-by-step look at how to design, analyze and interpret the results of an Expanded
Gage R&R Study. We will use a system for measuring film thickness from the
microelectronics industry for illustration.
Process and Data Collection for Expanded Gage R&R
Studies
Photoresist coating is used in the microelectronics industry to etch integrated circuits
for microprocessors, RAM, etc., onto silicon wafers.1 We need to assess the
measurement system for the thickness of this photoresist coating. The thickness affects
how coated silicon wafers perform in microelectronics, so obtaining accurate
measurements is critical.

The data collection plan is outlined below:

5 wafers are randomly selected to represent the typical process performance.

3 operators are randomly selected.
3 gages are randomly selected.
Each operator will measure each wafer with each gage twice.

In a standard Gage R&R plan2, we would select 10 wafers at random to represent

process performance. If a standard study was followed for each of the three gages, the
total sample size would be:

(10 Parts) x (3 Operators) x (2 Repeats) x (3 Gages) = 180

measurements

That is an unacceptably large sample size. By decreasing the number of parts (wafers)
from 10 to 5, the total study can be completed in 90 measurements.

Changing the sampling plan is commonly required to reduce the size of the Expanded
Gage R&R study to a manageable level. This is an important difference between a
standard and an expanded study. Later, we will demonstrate that reducing the number
of parts from 10 to 5 did not compromise the quality of our calculations.

Entering the Data for Expanded Gage R&R Studies

As can be seen in the worksheet for this studys 90-row dataset, each operator measures
each wafer on each of the three gages, twice. Each row has a column that identifies the
Operator, Gage, Wafer and Thickness reading. Even though missing data is not allowed
in a Standard Gage R&R, an expanded study accommodates missing data, as seen in
Row 10 below.

To carry out the analysis in Minitab, choose Stat > Quality Tools > Gage Study > Gage
R&R Study (Expanded). Complete the dialog box as shown below. The analysis treats
Operator, Part, and Gage as random factors because each of these factor levels (e.g.,
each operator) was randomly sampled from a larger population. (If our measurement
system had only two gages and our main goal was to compare them to each other, then
our analysis should consider Gage as a fixed factor3, and we would identify it as a fixed
factor in the dialog box.)
Next we select the terms we wish to evaluate by clicking the Terms button and
adding all main effects (Wafer, Operator, and Gage) as well as all second-order terms
Wafer*Operator, Wafer*Gage, and Operator*Gage. By including Gage in the study, not
only do we determine the variability due to the gage main effect, but also its interaction
with the other two variables, Operator and Part. Finally, we select the graphs we would
like to evaluate by clicking the Graphs button and completing the dialog box as
shown.
Then click OK to close the dialog boxes, and Minitab will perform the
analysis.

Interpreting the Results of the Expanded Gage R&R

Study
Minitab provides a great deal of numeric and graphical output. Lets evaluate the two
most important data tables first. The ANOVA table shows which sources of variation
were statistically significant. Factors with p-values less than .05 in the ANOVA table
below are statistically significant.

The ANOVA output indicates that gage-to-gage variation, the Wafer*Operator

interaction, and the Wafer*Gage interaction are statistically significant. The high p-
values for Operator and the Operator*Gage interaction indicate that these two sources
of variation are not statistically significant, and therefore will not be of concern when
trying to reduce the variability of the measurement system. (Wafer-to-Wafer variability
also is statistically significant, but since we are focusing on the measurement system,
part-to-part variation is not a key concern in this study.)

It is also important to evaluate the ANOVA table for the number of degrees of freedom
(an indicator of the number of repeat measurements) available to estimate the
repeatability of the gage. Here we see 57 degrees of freedom, well above the 30 to 45
recommended by simulation studies.4 Therefore, the reduced number of Parts in the
study has not hindered our ability to estimate the contribution of the gage repeatability
to the overall variation of the measurement system.

Next well examine the Gage Evaluation table. The Automotive Industry Action Group2
has set guidelines for %Study Variation and Number of Distinct Categories at a
maximum of 30% and a minimum of 5 categories, respectively. Here we see that both
measures of capability indicate that this measurement system just narrowly achieves
both of these guidelines.

The Gage Evaluation table also shows the relative importance of each of the sources of
variation. The variation due to Gage and Wafer*Gage are the two strongest contributors
to the overall variation, each accounting for about 16% of Study Variation. We can see
the contribution of Gage to the variation in the main effects plot below. The average
reading by gage varies from 111 to 123 microns.
However, this is not the full story, because the Wafer*Gage interaction was also a strong
contributor to the measurement system variation, as shown in the figure below.
The general agreement seen in the three gages on parts 3 and 5 indicates that there is
not a consistent bias between the three gages. However, Gage 2 has a strong positive
bias for wafers 1 and 4. Even though the measurement system is acceptable,
determining why the gage exhibited bias when measuring wafers 1 and 4and fixing
this problemwill reduce overall variation in the measurement system.

Finally, we return to the question of the effect of reducing the number of parts from 10
to 5. Our capability estimators % Study Variation and Number of Distinct Categories are
a function of the part-to-part variability which can be calculated from the parts in the
study or from historical data. With only 5 parts, one would expected more reliable
results from using the historical standard deviation. The ratio of the measurement
system variation to the process variation calculated from historical data is called the %
Process shown in the Gage Evaluation table. The general specification on % Process (less
than 30%) is the same as that for % Study Variation. When reducing the number of
parts below 10, entering a historical standard deviation and focusing on % Process
instead of % Study Variation is strongly recommended. In this way, the size of the study
can be reduced without concern that the quality of the results have been
compromised. In this case, we see that the % Process and % Study Var are nearly equal.
Therefore, our conclusions remain the same.

Actionable Conclusions from the Expanded Gage R&R

Study
The Expanded Gage R&R study has provided a comprehensive assessment of the
measurement system for the photoresist thickness measurement. With the Number of
Distinct Categories = 5, the system meets the minimum acceptance criteria for a
measurement used to study the process.
Since Gage and the Wafer*Gage interaction were the strongest contributors to the
measurement variation, determining the cause of the differences between Gages,
particularly for certain parts, will reduce overall measurement system variation. The
within gage repeatability was also a reasonably large source of variation. Identifying
ways to make the gage more repeatable will also reduce variation in the system.

Summary
As we have seen, a standard Gage R&R cannot adequately assess the capability of many
measurement systems. When a standard study is not enough, an Expanded Gage R&R is
an ideal tool to comprehensively characterize your measurement system.
 About Lou Johnson

Lou Johnson brings 24 years of process engineering and Six Sigma experience to his
role as a Minitab Trainer. He has trained engineers, project leaders and technicians to
use data effectively when analyzing processes. He has also consulted and trained with
dozens of companies, from Arrow to Xerox. Lou is a senior member of the American
Society for Quality and enjoys sharing techniques for improving Quality with ASQ
members. He has published articles in Industry Week, Quality Progress and ASQ Six
Sigma Forum. He is also a frequent presenter at ASQ conferences including the World
Conference, Lean Six Sigma Conference, Fall Technical Conference and Service Quality
Conference. Lou earned B.S. degrees in Chemistry, Education, and Chemical Engineering
from the University of Illinois. After ten years of manufacturing experience, he returned
to school to complete his M.S. in Statistics from Penn State. He also has ASQ Black Belt
and Oriel Master Black Belt certifications.

References

1. Johnson, L., and S. P. Bailey (2012), Implementing an Expanded Gage R&R Study.
ASQ World Conference on Quality and Improvement, Anaheim, Ca.

2. AIAG Measurement Systems Analysis, Reference Manual, 3rd ed. (2003). Automotive
Industry Action Group, Southfield, Mich.

3. Dolezal, K. K., R. K. Burdick, and N. J. Birch (1998). Analysis of a Two-Factor R&R

Study with Fixed Operators. Journal of Quality Technology, Vol 30, p163.

4. Zuo, Y., (2009) Effect of Sample Size on Variance Component Estimates in Gage R &
R Studies. Minitab Technical White Paper.

Minitab News
More Articles