Cindy George Tom

1 0.08 0.03 0

MSA 3.1 follows AIAG 3rd Edition MSA Guidelines ANOVA method Page 1 2 0.03 0.08 0.05

3 0 0.08 0.03

For Unilateral & Bilateral Tolerances

Rev. 3.1 4 0 0.06 0.03
4/10/2003 units 5 0.03 0.1 0
Parameter Wafer CD um Part/Assembly Name ZXX Date 1/5/200x 6 0.03 0.16 0.03
Target/Nominal 1.00 um Instrument Name XYZ Gage Engineer T. Little 7 0 0.13 0.03
Upper Specification Limit 2.00 um Instrument Number(s) 2 Location Brentwood, CA 8 0 0.1 0.03
Lower Specification Limit 0.00 um Part No. n/a Process s 0.35 9 0 0.1 0.03
10 0.03 0.13 0.03
Reference Comparison Comparison 1: Cindy Comparison 2: George Comparison 3: Tom 1 0.07
Value Sample no. Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Variance Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Variance Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Variance 2 0.05
0.55 1 0.50 0.55 0.40 0.006 0.65 0.60 0.60 0.001 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.000 3 0.06
1.00 2 1.05 1.00 1.00 0.001 1.00 1.10 0.95 0.006 1.05 0.95 1.00 0.003 4 0.08
0.80 3 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.000 0.85 0.80 0.95 0.006 0.80 0.75 0.75 0.001 5 0.08
0.80 4 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.000 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.003 0.80 0.75 0.75 0.001 6 0.14
0.50 5 0.45 0.50 0.45 0.001 0.55 0.45 0.65 0.010 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.000 7 0.08
1.05 6 1.00 1.05 1.05 0.001 1.00 0.70 0.75 0.026 1.00 1.05 1.05 0.001 8 0.09
0.95 7 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.000 0.95 0.70 0.90 0.018 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.001 9 0.09
0.80 8 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.000 0.85 0.80 1.00 0.011 0.75 0.70 0.70 0.001 10 0.14
1.05 9 1.05 1.05 1.05 0.000 1.00 0.85 0.80 0.011 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.001
0.80 10 0.85 0.80 0.80 0.001 0.60 0.70 0.85 0.016 0.55 0.50 0.55 0.001
Sums 8.250 8.300 8.100 0.009 8.300 7.650 8.400 0.107 7.850 7.500 7.600 0.008
count 30 Ave. Var. 0.0009 count 30 Ave. Var. 0.0107 count 30 Ave. Var. 0.0008

Sum: Cindy 24.650 Sum: George 24.350 Sum: Tom 22.950 Bias Evaluation Cindy Bias Evaluation George
Average: Cindy 0.822 Average: George 0.812 Average: Tom 0.765 1 -0.05 0.00 -0.15 1 0.10 0.05 0.05
2 0.05 0.00 0.00 2 0.00 0.10 -0.05
Test For Control 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 0.05 0.00 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 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
repeated, corrected or discarded as appropriate, and compute new averages and variances. Out of Control 6 -0.05 0.00 0.00 6 -0.05 -0.35 -0.30
7 0.00 0.00 0.00 7 0.00 -0.25 -0.05
Measurement System Capability Analysis Repeatability Within: XYZ Gage Reproducibility Between: Operator 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 8 0.05 0.00 0.20
Repeatability Standard Deviation Standard Deviation 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 9 -0.05 -0.20 -0.25
Enter the name of the tester or measurement instrument: 0.0643 0.0148 10 0.05 0.00 0.00 10 -0.20 -0.10 0.05
XYZ Gage Variance Variance Mean -0.008333 Mean -0.018333
Reproducibility 0.0041 0.0002 Std Dev. 0.03 Std Dev. 0.14
Enter the name of the parameter for comparison (Tester, Fixture, Operator, etc.): Between Part x Comparison Interaction Total Gauge Error
Operator Standard Deviation 0.0747 Standard Deviation 0.0997 Total -0.0306
Linearity Evaluation Variance 0.006 Total Gauge Error @ 99% Stdev 0.1
Range of the Standards Based on Tolerance or enter new range 0.5133
2.00
Performance Summary Process Gauge Capability Bilateral Gauge Capability Bias Analysis Linerity
Performance Summary units =s2gauge error/s2process =(5.15*s gauge)/Tolerance Comparison: Bias % Bias Comparison: Linearity % Linearity
Target 1.00 um % of Process Variation Total Gage Capability Cindy -0.00833 0.42% Cindy 0.07 3.33%
USL 2.00 um George -0.0183 0.92% George 0.23 11.67%
LSL 0.00 um 8.11% 25.67% Tom -0.0650 3.25% Tom 0.27 13.33%
Tolerance 2.00 um Total -0.03 1.53% Total 0.11 5.56%
Process s 0.35 um Fit for Use Needs Development Fit for Use Needs Development
Requirement: 17% or less Requirement: 20% or less Requirement: 5% or less Requirement: 5% or less

ANOVA Analysis
Source of Variation SS DF MS F Ratio p
Between Variation
Between Parts 2.63358 9 0.29262 14.02085 0.00000
Between Operator 0.05489 2 0.02744 1.31500 0.29306
Between Part x Operator 0.37567 18 0.02087 5.04251 0.00063
Within Variation 0.24833 60 0.00414
Total 3.31247 89

Variables Gage Study Summary (ANOVA Method)

Source of Variation Variance Std. Dev. 99% CI* % of Study Variation % of Tolerance Variation % of Process Variation
Repeatability (Within Gage, Comparison, Part, Interaction) 0.00414 0.06433 0.33132 10.3% 16.57% 3.4%
Reproducibility (Between Comparison + Between Interaction) 0.00580 0.07613 0.39209 14.4% 19.60% 4.7%
Between Operator 0.00022 0.01480 0.07624 0.5% 3.81% 0.2%
Between Comparison x Part Interaction 0.00558 0.07468 0.38460 13.9% 19.23% 4.6%
Total Gage Repeatability and Reproducibility (GR&R) 0.00994 0.09968 0.51333 24.8% 25.67% 8.1%
Between Part 0.03019 0.17377 0.89489 75.2% 44.74% 24.6%
Total Study Variation 0.04013 0.20032 1.03167 100.0% 51.58% 32.8%
Summary Conclusions: Tolerance Gage Capability (GR&R @ 99%CI / Tolerance) = 25.7% Needs Improvement Goal is <20%
Process Gage Capability (GR&R s2 / Process s 2) = 8.1% Fit for Use Goal is < 17%
Discrimintation Ratio (Process s2 / GR&R s 2) = 12 Fit for Use Goal is > 6
* 99% Confidence Interval Bilateral Specification (Smaller is Better)

Secondary Breakdown of Repeatability

Source of Variation Variance Std. Dev. 99% CI* % of Study Variation % of Tolerance Variation % of Process Variation
Repeatability byOperator
Cindy 0.00092 0.03028 0.15592 2.3% 7.8% 0.7%

George 0.01067 0.10328 0.53189 26.6% 26.6% 8.7%

Tom 0.00083 0.02887 0.14867 2.1% 7.4% 0.7%

Total Repeatability (Average of Repeatability Var. by Comparison) 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 Examination of Means by: Part Examination of Between Part xOperator Interaction

0.900 1.10 1.10

Secondary Breakdown of Reproducibility 0.800 1.00 1.00

0.90
0.90
0.700
0.80
Source of Variation Variance Std. Dev. 99% CI* % of Study Variation % of Tolerance Variation % of Process Variation 0.80
0.600 0.70
0.70
Reproducibility byOperator 0.500 0.60
0.60 Cindy
0.50
Cindy 0.00018 0.01332 0.06860 0.4% 3.4% 0.1% 0.400 0.50 George
0.40
0.40 Tom
0.300 0.30
George 0.00005 0.00733 0.03773 0.1% 1.9% 0.0% 0.30
0.200 0.20
0.20
Tom 0.00043 0.02065 0.10633 1.1% 5.3% 0.3% 0.10
0.100
Between Operator (Ave.of Comparison Variances) 0.00022 0.01480 0.07624 0.5% 3.8% 0.2% 0.10 0.00
0.000 0.00 Row 23 Row 24 Row 25 Row 26 Row 27 Row 28 Row 29 Row 30 Row 31 Row 32
Between Comparison x Part Interaction 0.00558 0.07468 0.38 13.9% 19.2% 4.6% Standard Cindy George Tom Row 23 Row 24 Row 25 Row 26 Row 27 Row 28 Row 29 Row 30 Row 31 Row 32 Part

Total Reproducibility (Between Comparison + Between Interaction) 0.00580 0.07613 0.39 14.4% 19.6% 4.7%
Examination of Std. Dev. by: Operator Examination of Std. Dev. by: Part Examination of Within Part x Operator Interaction
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 0.15 0.17
within variation or repeatability. 0.110
0.14 0.16
0.100
Partition of Variation Analysis 0.090
0.13
0.12
0.15
0.14
0.13
0.11
0.12
Source of Variation Pop. Variance Pop. Std. Dev. 99% CI* % of Study Variation % of Tolerance Variation % of Process Variation 0.080 0.1
0.11
0.070 0.09
0.1
St. Dev.

Between Operator 0.0006 0.0247 0.1272 1.7% 6.4% 0.5%

St. Dev.

0.08 0.09
0.060 Cindy
0.07 0.08
0.050 George
Between Parts* 0.0293 0.1711 0.8810 79.5% 44.0% 23.9% 0.06 0.07
Tom
0.05 0.06
0.040 0.05
0.04
Between Part x Comparison Interaction 0.0042 0.0646 0.3327 11.3% 16.6% 3.4% 0.030 0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
WithinOperator 0.0015 0.0388 0.1997 4.1% 10.0% 1.2% 0.020 0.02
0.01 0.01
0.010 0 0
Within Parts* 0.0003 0.0185 0.0953 0.9% 4.8% 0.3% 0.000 Row 12 Row 13 Row 14 Row 15 Row 16 Row 17 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 Row 11

Cindy George Tom Part Part

Within Parts x Comparison Interaction 0.0009 0.0302 0.1556 2.5% 7.8% 0.7%

Within Gage 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Look for crossing of the lines to detect interactions in the data

Total 0.03681 0.19185 100.0%

* Not Related to Gage Error

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

Bias Evaluation
Comparison Bias UCI @ 95% LCI @ 95% t p % Bias

Cindy -0.00833 0.0047 -0.0214 -1.306 0.2 0.42%

George -0.0183 0.0353 -0.0719 -0.700 0.49 0.92%

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% Correlation Plots to Examine Linearity and Bias

Conculsion: Bias = 1.53% Fit for Use Comparison 1: Cindy Comparison 2: George Comparison 3: Tom
1.05 1.05 1.05
1.00 1.00 1.00
Linearity Evaluation 0.95 0.95 0.95
0.90
0.90 0.90
Comparison Linearity % Linearity (Linearity / Tolerance) 0.85
0.85
0.85
0.80
0.80 0.80
Cindy 0.067 3.33% 0.75
0.75 0.75
0.70
George 0.233 11.67% 0.70 0.70 0.65
0.65 0.60
0.65
Tom 0.267 13.33% 0.60 0.55
0.60
0.55 0.50
Total 0.111 5.56% Goal <5% of Tolerance 0.55
0.45
0.50
0.50
0.45 0.40
Conculsion: Linearity = 5.56% Needs Improvement 0.45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
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 .45 .50 .55 .60 .65 .70 .75 .80 .85 .90 .95 .00 .05 .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 © TLC, 2003

382 Stanwick Street
Brentwood, CA 94513
1-925-285-1847
drlittle@dr-tom.com
 George 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 0.80 0.80 0.92 0.80 0.80 0.77

5 0.50 0.50 0.55 0.50 0.50 0.40
6 1.05 1.05 0.82 1.05 1.05 1.03
7 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.92
8 0.80 0.80 0.88 0.80 0.80 0.72
9 1.05 1.05 0.88 1.05 1.05 0.97
10 0.80 0.80 0.72 0.80 0.80 0.53

Linearity Evaluation
Standard Values: Cindy C1-std Delta George C2-std Delta Tom C3-std Delta Part Ave Delta to Standard Between Part x Gauge Interaction
0.55 0.55 0.48 0.07 0.62 0.07 0.55 0.00 0.55 0.00 Average Grand Ave.
1.00 1.00 1.02 0.02 1.02 0.02 1.00 0.00 1.01 0.01 Standard 0.830 0.799
0.80 0.80 0.80 0.00 0.87 0.07 0.77 0.03 0.81 0.01 Cindy 0.822
0.80 0.80 0.80 0.00 0.92 0.12 0.77 0.03 0.83 0.03 George 0.812
0.50 0.50 0.47 0.03 0.55 0.05 0.40 0.10 0.47 0.03 Tom 0.765
1.05 1.05 1.03 0.02 0.82 0.23 1.03 0.02 0.96 0.09
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.00 0.85 0.10 0.92 0.03 0.91 0.04 POV Between Interaction Matrix
0.80 0.80 0.80 0.00 0.88 0.08 0.72 0.08 0.80 0.00 Cindy George Tom Average Interim Computation
1.05 1.05 1.05 0.00 0.88 0.17 0.97 0.08 0.97 0.08 1 0.48 0.62 0.55 0.55 0.01 0 0
0.80 0.80 0.82 0.02 0.72 0.08 0.53 0.27 0.69 0.11 2 1.02 1.02 1.00 1.01 0 0 0
Linearity 0.07 0.23 0.27 3 0.80 0.87 0.77 0.81 0 0 0
Combined Linearity 4 0.80 0.92 0.77 0.83 0 0.01 0
Bias Evaluation Tom Linearity: 20.2% Based on Range of the Standards 0.11 5 0.47 0.55 0.40 0.47 0 0 0
1 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.6% Based on Tolerance 6 1.03 0.82 1.03 0.96 0 0.02 0.01
2 0.05 -0.05 0.00 5.6% Based on Reference Value 7 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.91 0 0 0
3 0.00 -0.05 -0.05 8 0.80 0.88 0.72 0.80 0 0.01 0
4 0.00 -0.05 -0.05 POV Section 9 1.05 0.88 0.97 0.97 0 0.01 0
5 -0.10 -0.10 -0.10 10 0.82 0.72 0.53 0.69 0.01 0 0.01
6 -0.05 0.00 0.00 Cindy George Tom Ave. Variance Ave. Varp Comparison 1 0.001 Average 0.822 0.812 0.765
7 0.00 -0.05 -0.05 1 0.004 0.001 0.000 0.00148 Ave. Varp Comparison 2 0.007
8 -0.05 -0.10 -0.10 2 0.001 0.004 0.002 0.00204 Ave. Varp Comparison 3 0.001 Between Interaction: 0
9 -0.05 -0.10 -0.10 3 0.000 0.004 0.001 0.00148
10 -0.25 -0.30 -0.25 4 0.000 0.002 0.001 0.00093 Cindy #REF!
Mean -0.065000 5 0.001 0.007 0.000 0.00241 George #REF!
Std Dev. 0.08 6 0.001 0.017 0.001 0.00611 Tom #REF!
7 0.000 0.012 0.001 0.00407
8 0.000 0.007 0.001 0.00259
9 0.000 0.007 0.001 0.00259
10 0.001 0.011 0.001 0.00389

Within POV Summary Table Within Interaction

Total Within Variance 0.0028 Average Variance Grand Average Variance
Unknown variation 0.0000 Cindy 0.001 0.003
Adjusted Total Within 0.0028 George 0.007
Total Variance of Variances 0.0000 Tom 0.001
Source Varp of Varp % Effect Variance
Within XYZ Gage 0.000009 54.5% 0.0015 POV Within Interaction Matrix
Within Parts 0.000002 12.4% 0.0003 Cindy George Tom Ave. Varp Interim Computation
Within Interaction 0.000006 33.1% 0.0009 1 0.0039 0.0006 0.0000 0.00148 0 0 0
2 0.0006 0.0039 0.0017 0.00204 0 0 0
3 0.0000 0.0039 0.0006 0.00148 0 0 0

4 0.0000 0.0022 0.0006 0.00093 0 0 0

Descriptive POV Summary Table 5 0.0006 0.0067 0.0000 0.00241 0 0 0
Average 0.80 Sample Size 90 6 0.0006 0.0172 0.0006 0.00611 0 0 0
Population Standard Deviation 0.1918 7 0.0000 0.0117 0.0006 0.00407 0 0 0
Source Pop.Variance % Effect 8 0.0000 0.0072 0.0006 0.00259 0 0 0
Between (Reproducibility) 0.0340 92.50% 9 0.0000 0.0072 0.0006 0.00259 0 0 0
Between Parts 0.0293 79.51% 10 0.0006 0.0106 0.0006 0.00389 0 0 0
Between Operator 0.0006 1.66% Average Varp 0.001 0.007 0.001
Between Interaction 0.0042 11.34%

Within (Repeatability) 0.0028 7.50% Between Interaction: 0.000006

Within Parts 0.0003 0.93%
Within Operator 0.0015 4.09%
Within Interaction 0.0009 2.48%
Within XYZ Gage 0.0000 0.00%
Total 0.0368 100.00%
Population Standard Deviation 0.1918
 Rev. 3.1 For Attrib
4/10/2003
Location Sunnyvale
Product Red-225
Subassembly Part Number 1256-A
Customer XYZ

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

Standard Inspector Appraiser 1: Juan
(truth)* Part no. Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3
1 C 1 1 1 1
0 N 2 0 0 0
1 C 3 1 1 1
1 C 4 1 1 1
1 C 5 0 0 0
1 C 6 1 1 1
1 C 7 1 1 1
0 N 8 0 1 0
0 N 9 0 0 0
1 C 10 1 1 1
1 C 11 1 1 1
0 N 12 0 0 0
1 C 13 1 1 1
1 C 14 1 1 1
1 C 15 1 1 1
0 N 16 1 1 1
1 C 17 1 1 1
0 N 18 0 0 0
0 N 19 1 1 1
0 N 20 1 1 1
1 C 21 1 1 0
1 C 22 0 0 0
1 C 23 1 1 1
0 N 24 1 1 1
1 C 25 1 1 1
1 C 26 0 0 0
0 N 27 1 1 1
0 N 28 1 1 1
0 N 29 1 1 1
0 N 30 1 1 1
Sums 22 23 21
# False Alarms 10 # Misses 14
count 90 Total Errors 24
* N=nonconforming, C=conforming
 Number Conforming 17
Number Nonconforming 13

Total Evaluation of Inspector Errors and Bias

Summary of Performance C N Total
Counts Correct Correct Correct
Inspector 1: Juan 41 25 66
Inspector 2: Maria 50 38 88
Inspector 3: Fred 42 34 76

Computed Summary Effectiveness Error P(FA)

TC/GT Rate FA/CP
Inspector 1: Juan 73.33% 26.67% 19.61%
Inspector 2: Maria 97.78% 2.22% 1.96%
Inspector 3: Fred 84.44% 15.56% 17.65%

Secondary Breakdown Effectiveness Effectiveness Effectiveness

of Errors N C Weighted Mean
Inspector 1: Juan 64.10% 80.39% 73.33%
Inspector 2: Maria 97.44% 98.04% 97.78%
Inspector 3: Fred 87.18% 82.35% 84.44%

Thomas A. Little Consulting

382 Stanwick Street
Brentwood, CA 94513
1-925-285-1847
drlittle@dr-tom.com
 For Attributes Data - Defective
unnyvale Inspection Operation 103
Red-225 Reference Inspection Doc. ABC-1234.R2
1256-A Characteristic Inspected Visual Inspection
XYZ Date 20-Oct

correct compared to the standard

Juan Appraiser 2: Maria Appraiser 3:
Difference Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Difference Trial 1
1 1 1 1 1 0
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 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
0 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 0
1 1 1 1 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 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
0 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 0 1 1 0 1
1 0 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 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
28 28 30 30 28 26
# False Alarms 1 # Misses 1 # False Alarms
count 90 Total Errors 2 count
Difference = 1 if inspector is consistant in determination of conformance/nonconformance, 0 if inspector is inconsistant

False Grand C N
Alarms Misses Total Possible Possible
10 14 90 51 39
1 1 90
9 5 90

P(M) Bias
M/NP P(FA)/P(M)
35.90% 0.55 Bias values greater than 1 indicates the inspector errors favor the customer, values less
2.56% 0.76 the inspectors favor the company. The ideal is no bias or a value of 1, where there is an
12.82% 1.38 probability of making a false alarm or a miss.

Errror Rate Error Rate Error Rate

False Alarms Misses Weighted Mean Total
19.61% 35.90% 26.67% 100%
1.96% 2.56% 2.22% 100%
17.65% 12.82% 15.56% 100%
 Page 1

Engineer T. Little
Notes

Appraiser 3: Fred
Trial 2 Trial 3 Difference
0 0 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
0 0 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
0 0 0
1 1 1
0 0 1
1 1 1
0 0 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 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1 Effectiveness
1 1 1
25 25 29 100.00%
9 # Misses 5 95.00%
90 Total Errors 14 90.00%
85.00%
80.00%
75.00%
70.00%
65.00%
60.00%
ss
 Effectiveness
100.00%
95.00%
90.00%
85.00%
nspector is inconsistant
80.00%
75.00%
70.00%
65.00%
Grand 60.00%

Effectiveness
Total 55.00%
90 50.00%
45.00%
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
avor the customer, values less than 1 indicate 25.00%
a value of 1, where there is an equal 20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Juan Maria
Comparison Gr
© TLC, 2003
 MI1:T1 MI1:T2 MI1:T3 FA:I1:T1 FA:I1:T2 FA:I1:T3
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 1 0 0 0
1 1 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 1 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 1 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
Effectiveness (defective) 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
Effectiveness (defective)

Effectiveness

Maria Fred
Comparison Group
MI2:T1 MI2:T2 MI2:T3 FA:I2:T1 FA:I2:T2 FA:I2:T3 MI3LT1 MI3LT2
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 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
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 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 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 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
MI3LT3 FA:I3:T1 FA:I3:T2 FA:I3:T3
0 1 1 1
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 1 1 1
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 1 1 1
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 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
Rev. 3.1 For Attrib
4/10/2003
Location Milpitas-B2
Product PCB
Subassembly Part Number 1256-A
Customer Sun

Enter the number of defects per part observed by each inspector, for
Reference Inspector Appraiser 1: William
Defects Trial 1 Trial 2
per Unit Part no. False Alarms Misses N-Correct False Alarms
30 1 7 5 25 7
25 2 6 2 23 7
10 3 5 2 8 3
2 4 4 0 2 0
16 5 3 4 12 7
3 6 2 1 2 1
0 7 1 0 0 3
0 8 2 0 0 3
5 9 3 3 2 2
25 10 4 6 19 9
Sums 37 23 93 42
Reference Inspector Appraiser 2: Martha
Defects Trial 1 Trial 2
per Unit Part no. False Alarms Misses N-Correct False Alarms
30 1 1 0 30 2
25 2 2 2 23 1
10 3 1 0 10 2
2 4 2 0 2 1
16 5 1 4 12 2
3 6 2 0 3 1
0 7 2 0 0 2
0 8 1 0 0 1
5 9 2 3 2 2
25 10 2 5 20 1
Sums 16 14 102 15

Reference Inspector Appraiser 3: Ted

Defects Trial 1 Trial 2
per Unit Part no. False Alarms Misses N-Correct False Alarms
30 1 8 10 20 8
25 2 9 5 20 8
10 3 8 5 5 8
2 4 7 0 2 6
 16 5 6 14 2 4
3 6 5 3 0 5
0 7 2 0 0 2
0 8 3 0 0 2
5 9 2 5 0 1
25 10 3 20 5 3
Sums 53 62 54 47

Total Evaluation of Inspector Errors and Bias

Summary of Performance C* N* Total False
Counts Correct Correct Correct (TC) Alarms (FA)
Inspector 1: William 24,034 285 24,319 118
Inspector 2: Martha 24,115 297 24,412 38
Inspector 3: Ted 24,011 197 24,208 141

Computed Summary Effectiveness Expected P(FA) P(M)

TC/GT Error Rate FA/CP M/NP
Inspector 1: William 99.26% 0.74% 0.49% 18.10%
Inspector 2: Martha 99.64% 0.36% 0.16% 14.37%
Inspector 3: Ted 98.81% 1.19% 0.58% 43.39%

Secondary Breakdown Effectiveness Effectiveness Effectiveness Errror Rate

of Errors N C Weighted Total False Alarms
Inspector 1: William 81.90% 99.51% 99.26% 0.49%
Inspector 2: Martha 85.34% 99.85% 99.64% 0.16%
Inspector 3: Ted 56.61% 99.42% 98.81% 0.58%

C=Conforming, N=Nonconforming

Thomas A. Little Consulting

382 Stanwick Street
Brentwood, CA 94513
1-925-285-1847
drlittle@dr-tom.com
 For Attributes Data - Defects per Unit
Inspection Operation 7 Engineer T. Little
Reference Inspection Doc. ABC-1234.R2 Notes
Characteristic Inspected Solder Joint
# Opportunities per unit 2450 Date 20-Oct

d by each inspector, for each trial

Trial 2 Trial 3
Misses N-Correct False Alarms Misses N-Correct
8 22 9 2 28
2 23 8 1 24
1 9 4 3 7
2 0 0 1 1
1 15 6 0 16
1 2 1 0 1
1 0 1 0 0
1 0 1 0 0
1 4 1 0 5
7 18 8 8 17
25 93 39 15 99

Trial 2 Trial 3
Misses N-Correct False Alarms Misses N-Correct
8 22 0 2 28
2 23 0 1 24
1 9 0 3 7
2 0 2 1 1
1 15 1 0 16
1 2 2 0 1
1 0 1 0 0
1 0 1 0 0
1 4 0 0 5
7 18 0 4 20
25 93 7 11 102

Trial 2 Trial 3
Misses N-Correct False Alarms Misses N-Correct
12 18 8 9 21
2 23 7 10 15
5 5 6 7 3
1 1 5 2 0
 10 6 4 12 4
1 2 3 0 1
1 0 2 0 0
1 0 1 0 0
1 4 2 0 5
7 18 3 8 17
41 77 41 48 66

Grand C N Grand
Misses (M) Total (GT) Possible (CP) Possible Total
63 24,500 24,152 348 24,500
50 24,500
151 24,500

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

Error Rate Error Rate

Misses Weighted Total Total
18.10% 0.739% 100%
14.37% 0.359% 100%
43.39% 1.192% 100%

© T.A. Little 2003

 Page 1

T. Little

20-Oct
 Effectiveness (defect)
100.00%

90.00%

80.00%

70.00%

60.00%
Effectiveness

50.00%

40.00%
values less than 1 indicate
e there is an equal
30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%
William Martha
© T.A. Little 2003 Comparison Group
 veness (defect)

Effectiveness

Martha Ted
ison Group