The Standard
Vol. 15, Issue 2 The Journal of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality
IN THIS ISSUE
Editor’s Column ............... 1
Contrarian Metrologist ..... 3
The Learning Curve ......... 5
Combining the
“Information” &
“Measurement” Worlds ... 9
Here Be the Dragons of
Metrology ........................ 14
Standards Scene ............ 17
CCT Update .................... 19
Special Feature About
CMMs .............................. 20
Book Review ................... 29
Past Chair’s Column ...... 29
A2LA News Update ........ 30
International Search for
Metrology: Using the EEVL
Engine ............................. 32
Membership Report ....... 33
2001 Measurement Quality
Conference ..................... 34
MQD Officers .................. 38
Regional Councilors ...... 39
The Editor’s Column
Here Be Dragons
by Frank Voehl
As I write this column in May, the economic
outlook is increasingly gloomy. In recent months
at several Quality and Metrology-oriented con-
ferences, attendance has been light and the
talk has been of slowing corporate investment
in measurement and IT. Probably, most of you
are finding it increasingly more difficult to get
special projects funded than it was a year ago.
At the same time, the myths and mistaken
beliefs surrounding the practice of measure-
ment are on the upswing. While these factors
may stall some large-scale projects, metrology
professionals suggest that there are some
strategies that can keep your measurement
initiatives moving forward.
Dispel the Dragons. In ancient times, the
early topographers capped off their maps with
the ominous warning statement: Here Be Drag-
ons, or, more correctly, the equivalent Latin
phrase Hic Sunt Dracones. There is much
power and food for thought in this chilling
warning written by early mapmakers at the
edges of their known world. Venturing into
these regions could have been a terrifying
prospect for early explorers as tales of mon-
sters and evil magic fired their imaginations.
The dragon represented all of this and more,
as it was a mythological monster traditionally
represented as a gigantic reptile having a lion’s
claws, the tail of a serpent, wings, and a scaly
skin. It was the epitome of something very
formidable and dangerous. It seems that the
metrology world also abounds with myths and
legends which are also very formidable and
dangerous, and in this issue of The Standard
we shall banish this folklore from the land and
try to dispel these misconceptions. The metrol-
ogy myths are grouped into 3 broad topic
areas: Standards, Uncertainty, and Calibra-
tion, representing the three-headed dragon of
measurement. In my related article in this
issue titled, ‘Here Be the Dragons of Metrol-
ogy,’ we shall explore the 20 most-prevalent
myths associated with our profession. The
Summer 2001
lion’s claws represent the myths of the Stan-
dards, the serpents tail represents the myths of
Uncertainty, and the Wings and Scaly Skin
represent the myths of Calibration.
Pick your Battles. While soup-to-nuts me-
trology solutions are expensive, time-consum-
ing, and hard to justify in tough economic times,
limited best-of-breed solutions to specific mea-
surement problems often offer relatively short
implementation times and much more quantifi-
able returns. The article covering the top 50
best-of-breed solutions found in this issue can
be helpful to the metrologist seeking some
quick-return solutions and get a lot of bang for
the buck.
Get the Most out of What You’ve Got.
Most companies still aren’t getting as much as
they should out of their “information” and “mea-
surement” worlds, and more can be done to
improve system performance and operational
readiness. As the authors of the article in this
edition outline, standardization of software and
hardware interfaces can lead to breakthroughs
in measurement product architectures, for it is
now possible to embed the measurement sci-
ence of high-performance automatic test equip-
ment (ATE) in a PC. Doing so, the authors
contend, can provide connectivity with other
PC-based applications, making it possible to
connect the operational worlds of manufactur-
ing and design.
So sit back and enjoy reading this latest
edition of The Standard and visit our website,
metrology.org, for up-to-date information on
how the metrology profession is responding to
measurement issues and fluctuations. And be
sure to drop me a line at ‘Letters To The Editor’
and share your thoughts and war stories with
fellow metrologists. And don’t forget to heed
the warning ‘Here Be Dragons.’
Frank Voehl, Executive Editor
FVoehl@aol.com)
 Page 2 The Standard Summer 2001

The Standard
The Journal of the Measurement Quality Division
Advertising
www.metrology.org
Submit your draft copy to Frank Voehl, the
Publication Information
Advertising Manager, with a request for a The STANDARD is published quar-
quotation. Indicate size desired. Specify terly by the Measurement Quality Divi-
whether you will provide camera-ready sion of ASQ; deadlines are March 15,
copy or desire that we produce final copy. June 15, September 15 and January
Publication 15.
The following rates are for the space only.
Staff Copy preparation and typesetting will be Input for text material by email or on 3
1/2" diskette in Microsoft Word saved
Executive Editor extra, if provided by the The STANDARD.
in Rich Text Format (RTF). If it is not
Frank Voehl Business card size ................... $100 feasible to send text in electronic form,
St. Lucie Press 1/8 page ................................... $150 clean printed text can be submitted.
280 Lake Drive
1/4 page ................................... $200 Graphics or illustration material can be
Coconut Creek, FL 33066
Tel: 954-972-3012 1/3 page ................................... $250 sent in eps, tif, pict or jpeg format.
Fax: 954-978-0643 1/2 page ................................... $300
Photographs of MQD activities or
E-mail: FVoehl@aol.com Full page .................................. $550 people would be especially appreci-
Associate Editor Advertisements will be accepted on a “per ated.
Europe and Asia issue” basis only; no long term contracts Publication of articles, product re-
John Shade will be available at present. leases, advertisements or technical
Good Decision Ltd. Advertising must be clearly distinguished information does not imply endorse-
Dunfermline, KY11 3BZ as an ad. Ads must be related to measure- ment by The STANDARD or the Mea-
Scotland ment quality, quality of measurement, or a surement Quality Division of ASQ.
Tel: +44 1383-733553 related quality field. Ads must not imply While The STANDARD makes every
Fax: +44 1383-733588 endorsement by the Measurement Qual- effort to ensure the accuracy of ar-
E-mail: js@gdl.co.uk ity Division or ASQ. ticles, the publication disclaims respon-
Associate Editor sibility for statements of fact or opinion
U.S. and Canada
Letters to the Editor made by the authors or other contribu-
Mark Schoenlein The STANDARD welcomes letters from tors.
P.O. Box 206 members and subscribers. We offer the
following guidelines. Letters should clearly Material from The STANDARD may
Perrysburg, OH 43552 not be reproduced without permission.
Tel: 419-247-7285 state whether the author is expressing
opinion or presenting facts with support- Copyrights in the United States and all
Fax: 419-247-8770 other countries are reserved.
E-mail: mark.schoenlein@ ing information. Commendation, encour-
owens-ill.com agement, constructive critique, sugges- © 2001 ASQ, MQD. All rights reserved.
tions, and alternative approaches are ac-
Advertising Manager cepted. Berating is not appropriate. If the
Frank Voehl content is more than 200 words, we may
St. Lucie Press delete portions to hold that limit. We re-
280 Lake Drive serve the right to edit letters and papers.
Coconut Creek, FL 33066
Tel: 954-972-3012 Information for Authors
Fax: 954-978-0643 The STANDARD publishes papers on the
E-mail: FVoehl@aol.com quality of measurements and the mea-
Publications Chair surement of quality at all levels ranging
J.L. Madrigal from relatively simple tutorial material to
Oxford Worldwide Group state-of-the-art.
1045 South Orem Blvd. Papers published in The STANDARD are
Orem, UT 84058 not referred in the usual sense, except to
Tel/Fax: 801-235-1899 ascertain that facts are correctly stated
E-mail: jim_oxford@msn.com and to assure that opinion and fact are
clearly distinguished one from another.
The Editor reserves the right to edit any
paper.
 Summer 2001 The Standard
The Contrarian Metrologist
Making Your Assessor Happy – Part 2
by Philip Stein
Beginning with my previous column, I described
how to keep your assessor happy – some details that
I might look for when assessing a calibration laboratory
for accreditation to ISO/IEC 17025. In that discussion,
I described some of the little tricks that make all the
difference in the world when making precise, low-
uncertainty electrical measurements at DC and low-
frequency AC. Today, I’ll do the same for RF and some
other electrical issues. Look for the same treatment of
physical and dimensional measurements in future is-
sues.
Measurements at radio frequencies require a great
deal of care to keep the electrical geometry of the circuit
well-understood and controlled. Any discontinuity in
circuit impedance will cause reflections, which will in
turn disturb the measurement and reduce accuracy.
When measuring frequency, reflections probably
won’t have much effect. If they are severe, the mea-
surement will usually be obviously faulty; if they are not
severe, they probably won’t affect the threshold of a
digital counter and therefore not affect the measure-
ment. When making various measurements of ampli-
tude, though, reflections can make a big difference.
At frequencies up to a few MHz, measurements are
made using bolometers. These devices absorb the
electromagnetic energy into a resistive element housed
in a thermally insulated chamber. If the impedance of
the energy absorbing device matches the source and
connections, virtually all of the incoming power will be
transformed into heat. That heat will raise the tempera-
ture in the chamber, and a thermistor or thermocouple
is used to measure the increased temperature and
thus the incoming RF power. There are many sources
of nonlinearity and other kinds of error in this process.
Rather than figuring out and quantifying them all, we
just calibrate the detector at several frequencies and
amplitudes.
Bolometers are relatively
insensitive to reflections in
cables and connections.
When reflections exist (almost
always due to discontinuities
in impedance in the circuit),
the voltage and current get
out of phase and standing
waves are produced. Al-
though in this situation the
voltage and current can each
be larger or smaller than their
Page 3
resistive (impedance-matched) value, the total power
is only reduced by the energy reflected back towards
the source. Since this is a thermal equivalent measure,
it measures this (incident) power. Still, for the most
accurate measurements, control of impedance and of
reflections is crucial. See the advice later in this article
for details.
When using bolometers, be sure to have the cali-
bration certificate available so that the corrections for
each measuring situation can be properly applied.
Some instruments store these calibration factors inter-
nally or in a setting knob and correct for them automati-
cally. If this is true, ISO/IEC 17025 requires a docu-
mented procedure by which those internal constants
are correctly updated every time they change, as with
a recalibration.
At higher frequencies and/or lower amplitudes, elec-
tronic detectors are used. These are usually amplified
electronically, and are often tuned as well, at which
point they can be called measuring receivers. The
detectors are usually wideband diodes or diode bridges
and also require calibration at different frequencies
and amplitudes. When using measuring receivers,
make sure the frequency stability of the source is high
enough to allow the phase-sensitive detector to lock-
on.
Using a diode detector, though, makes the mea-
surement more sensitive to the effects of standing
waves. Electronic detectors usually detect the signal
voltage; and, if there are standing waves due to reflec-
tions, the voltage at the measuring point can be either
higher or lower than what it would be in a perfect
connection.
Here are some precautions that I will look for when
evaluating the technician and the equipment when
observing an RF calibration. Not all of these precau-
tions are needed at frequencies near 1GHz (wave-
length of 10 cm), but all of them become necessary
near 26GHz, the typical upper frequency for this kind of
measurement.
• Minimize the number of connections, espe-
cially the number of adapters between dif-
ferent types of connectors. These are the
most common sources of reflections.
• Use metrology-grade connectors. These are
made to precise tolerances and don’t have a
rubber washer inside (which will compress
and therefore change the geometry of the
connection).
 Page 4 The Standard Summer 2001

• Use high-precision cable. Ordinary RG-58 and Bridge circuits can extend the range of a standard
RG-8 are only so-so in uniformity of imped- using ratiometry. If the value of the standard is known,
ance. Measurement-grade complete cable/ and if the absolute ratio of the bridge can be estab-
connector assemblies are best. lished (for example by comparing results with inverted
• Keep the connections clean. Use Quality-tips connections), then values beyond the standards you
and a solvent to make sure that no dirt will have can be established and be traceable. Any techni-
interfere with correct connection seating. cian who is attempting to perform such a calibration
should be able to explain in some detail how it works
• Torque the connections with a torque wrench and how to verify the ratio of the bridge.
– varying torque will affect connector geom-
etry. Recently, a collection of instruments has become
available that measure R, L, and C using an AC circuit
• Keep stress off the wires and connectors. in which an electronic quadrature detector measures
One laboratory I visited hung the entire the phase angles and amplitudes within an excited
measurement setup on the output connector circuit containing the UUT and calculates the reported
of the generator – about 5 pounds. The con- value from that. As long as this device can be calibrated
nector on the generator had been abused using standard components that are traceable to na-
this way so many times that it had bent the tional standards through direct calibration or verified
front panel of the instrument. ratios, there is no problem. When used for large values
The best lab I’ve ever seen in this context of L and C for which standard traceable components
had a board with clamps. The circuit was are not available, traceability must be inferred. In my
set up, then placed in the clamps loosely to opinion, the jury is still out as to whether these systems
set the overall geometry of the circuit with- can be considered for use in standards labs.
out stress, then the connectors were torqued
and the clamps tightened. The board and clamps
prevented the circuit from experiencing any
geometric distortion.
Philip Stein is a metrology and quality consultant in
Finally, when measuring attenuation, establish a private practice in Pennington, NJ. He holds a master’s
measuring plane by setting up two ‘stick’ attenuators in degree in measurement science from The George
series (following all of the precautions above). Mea- Washington University, in Washington DC, and is an
sure the attenuation of that setup, then separate the ASQ Fellow. For more information, go to
circuit only at the measuring plane, and insert the www.measurement.com.
attenuator to be measured at that point. Subtract the
Philip Stein, A2LA Lead Assessor, is a Past
attenuation of the setup from the total attenuation
Chair of the MQD, a past member of the Board
measured in order to find the correct value for the unit
of Directors of ASQ, and is an ASQ Fellow
under test.
Every lab I assess should understand these prin-
ciples, should know about the effects of reflections and
how to eliminate them, and should have procedures
that include establishing a measurement plane for
attenuation measurements.
Capacitance and Inductance
When calibrating standard capacitors, be sure to
include the effects of the connections in the calcula-
tions of uncertainty. Each connection (BNC, banana,
GR) has a different stray capacitance and a different
way of setting up the measurement.
L and C are usually measured by an AC bridge,
usually at 1 kHz. Some standard capacitors are de-
signed for use at higher frequency. Be sure to use the
component at the frequency at which it was calibrated
or for which it is characterized, otherwise it will likely not
maintain its marked or calibrated value.
 Summer 2001 The Standard
The Learning Curve
This is the twenty-ninth in a contiguous series of
somewhat meandering, often prolix, discourses, occa-
sionally irreverent, but mostly
adhering to the chartered theme,
Metrology Education—well al-
most. And it will be, as it has
been for the past eight years,
more of less, in the format of an
open letter to our Boss the Most
Illustrious Executive Editor of
this periodic publication.
Phil Painchaud
Dear New Boss:
It has been about two months since we wrote to you
last, that previous column having been written late in
January last and now it is the middle of April. So far you
have not seen fit to cut me off; and, besides, it has not
been a period of inactivity, as our readers have kept me
reasonably busy. As usual I have received many
technical questions, which generally I refuse to answer
myself (it is outside of my charter); however, generally
I am able to refer the interrogators on to genuine
experts in the field of interest. I really get an ego trip out
of readers asking me questions irrespective of whether
I can answer them or not. Oftentimes knowing some-
one who can answer, and being able to refer my “fans”
on to them, is even more satisfying. The response to
my offer to send copies of the “handout” I mentioned in
my last column has been, if not totally overwhelming,
brisk enough to totally deplete my stock of copies and
cause me to have a few more run off. The offer still
holds. I’ll print more if necessary.
I still receive some requests to do technical articles
on all sorts of subjects, and I have to refuse. First,
topics outside Metrology Education are definitely out-
side of the scope of the charter of this column. Second,
I am generally not THE expert in the topics requested.
I do not believe in the policy some writers have of
“writing for writing’s sake,” i.e., writing about topics of
which they are not the expert, just because they feel
that an article on that particular topic is needed or is
timely. My current area of chartered expertise is Metrol-
ogy Education. I have had in the past a considerable
track record in Administrative Metrology. Thirty years
or so ago I had some prominence in Time Domain
Metrology. Even further back (before most of our
Page 5
readers were born) I had a fair amount of experience in
Geodesy (the precise celestial determination of abso-
lute coordinates on the surface of the earth). However,
no longer do I claim current expertness in that little
known field, as the technology has changed quite a lot
in the past fifty or more years.
That brings us to another subject. When I happen to
find an article by a colleague I feel is noteworthy, I take
great pleasure in promoting it to anyone who will listen.
My fellow columnist, Phil Stein, the author of The
Contrarian Metrologist column in this journal, is also
the author of the Measure for Measure column in
QUALITY PROGRESS, the monthly journal of our
parent organization, the ASQ. In the March 2001 issue
on page 102, in an article entitled “Gravity of the
Situation,” Phil eloquently discusses a metrological
topic that most neophytes in Metrology are mostly
unaware of and many of the older hands who may be
aware of it, completely ignore. I suggest you all read it.
Ignorance of, and the failure to compensate for, the
ever-present effects of the magnitude of the vector, as
well as the angle of that vector, of the forces of gravity
can ruin the integrity of many measurements.
By coincidence, I have recently discovered a book
entitled the same as Phil’s column, i.e., Measure for
Measure. I have seen and own many books and tables
of measurement conversion factors, but never one like
this one. In a small, pocket sized, soft cover book,
measuring only 15.2 x 10.1 x 2.5 cm, a total of only 846
pages, the authors have managed to cram in approxi-
mately 35,000 cross-referenced conversion factors, all
measurement oriented. True, they had to use a very
tiny type font to get it all in such a small package. We
older folks definitely need our glasses to read the fine
print, but it is well worth it. There are a few hundred
conversions of units not in current use, some very
ancient. For example, did you ever hear of a unit of
length called the “gi”? According to this reference, it is
an ancient Sumarian unit equal to 3.000 000 0E+00
meters. I don’t know what I might use that for except to
confound certain know-it-all students, but it is in there
along with the conversions for many thousands of far
more current units from many parts of the world. I
strongly recommend that each of you acquire one of
your own. For those of you in the military or others with
the possibility of other foreign service in those “far away
places with the strange sounding names,” this book
could become invaluable, particularly should you ever
have need to deal with a native population. The local
and popular units of measure and their conversion
factors for just about every conceivable locale are
represented. Measure for Measure, Authors: Richard
A. Young and Thomas J. Glover, ISBN: 1-889796-00-
X, Library of Congress Catalog Number: 96-79884,
Sequoia Publishing Inc., Littleton, CO. Your local book-
 Page 6 The Standard Summer 2001

seller should be able to get it for you; I bought mine mail
order from a catalog listing.
In the last iteration of this column I promised, if
possible, to bring you up to date on the status of
development of the new proposed curriculum for a
degree in Metrology at California State University-
Dominguez Hills (CSUDH). The approval process is
moving in a positive direction, albeit not as rapidly as
many of us hoped. I have before me at this moment a
copy of the voluminous application/justification docu-
mentation (120 pages) that has been submitted to the
cognizant authorities of the California State University
system for approval of a program hopefully to start
during the 2001-2002 academic year. As of the date of
this column (mid-April 2001) nothing has been heard
from those august personages.
As I explained in previous columns, we had no hope
of getting a pure metrology course approved, so we
took a more obtuse route. It was obvious that a “feeder
course” for the existing and very successful Master’s
Program in Quality Assurance was sorely needed—we
knew there would be few objections to adding a new
Bachelor’s curriculum in Quality Assurance as that
“feeder.” We all know that in the real world Metrology is
more often than not associated, at least administra-
tively, with the Quality function. We had been advised
that usually there were few objections to relevant
“Options” being added to established degree pro-
grams. However, we had also been advised that many
in the hierarchy considered Metrology to be an Engi-
neering discipline rather than an independent science;
and Dominguez Hills has no School of Engineering, but
it does have a strong School of Arts and Sciences. So
we simply created a Metrology option but changed the
Option title to Measurement Science. And, as we all
know, Metrology is a fundamental science in its own
right—not an Engineering discipline.
Frankly, I have lost track of the number of revisions
our proposed curriculum has undergone during the
past two years. But, I am asking our Editor to print as
an illustrative figure adjacent to this column the matrix
outline of courses, and I shall try to explain in my text
the significance of each item.

BSQ, and BSQ with Measurement Science option (4-13-2001 revision)

Semester 1 Units Semester 2 Units

Year 1 ENG 110 Freshman Composition I 3* ENG 111 Freshman Composition II 3*

MAT 153 College Algebra and Trigonometry 4 MAT 191 Calculus 1 4
Elective from E (LD GE The Whole Person) 3* CHE 110 General Chemistry I (sub for CHE 102) 5
Elective from C2 (LD GE Humanities) 3* Elective from D1, 2, or 3 (LD GE Soc Sci) 3*
HIS 100 Perspective of the Present 3* THE 120 Foundations of Speech 2
or HIS 121 World Civilizations II

33 16 17
Year 2 QAS 200 Fundamentals of Quality 3 Hum 200 Introduction to the Humanities 3*
PHY 120 Elements of Physics (sub for PHY 100) 4* PSY 110 Critical Thinking and Problem Solving 3*
or PHY 130 General Physics I (sub for PHY 100) 5* PHY 122 Elements of Physics II 4*
MAT 193 Calculus II 4 or PHY 132 General Physics II 5*
HIS 101 History of the United States 3* BIO 120 Principles of Biology (sub for BIO 102) 4*
MAT 131 Elementary Statistics and Probability+ 3 QAS 220 Fundamentals of Measurement 3

30-35 13-17 17-18

Year 3 QAS 312 Interpretation of Technical Documentation 3 Elective from C2 (LD GE Humanities) 3*
QAS 325 Technical Communications 4 QAS 330 Statistical Quality Control and Inspection 3
PHY 333 Analog Electronics 3 QAS 331 Manufacturing Processes 3
QAS 365 Safety and Reliability 3 or QAS 332 Electrical Metrology 3
or QAS 347 Dimensional Metrology 3 QAS 335 Quality Auditing 3
QAS 360 Lean Manufacturing 3 or QAS 350 Physical Metrology 3
or QAS 340 Measurement Uncertainty 3 POL 101 American Institutions 3*

31 16 15

Year 4 QMS 428 Purchasing and Procurement 3 QAS 450 Value Based Quality 3
or CHE 112 General Chemistry II 5 QAS 499 Senior Project 3
QAS 427 Quality Improvement 3 SMT 310, 312, or 314 (UD GE Natural Sciences) 3*
QAS 445 System Failure Analysis 3 SBS 318 Cultural Pluralism 3*
QAS 496 Internship or QAS 498 Directed Research+ 3 Elective from F1 (UD GE Humanities) 3*
Elective from D1, 2, or 3 (LD GE Soc Sci) 3*

30-32 15-17 15

124-131 Total units for BSQ degree

Note: *course satisfies general education or statutory Note + QAS 498 to be selected only upon advisor's
requirements recommendation
 Summer 2001 The Standard
Before I start this description, bear in mind this is a
true academic program leading to an accredited uni-
versity degree of Bachelor of Science—not a certificate
of proficiency in the calibration of some measurement
implement as might be issued by a vocational school.
As such, certain California State University System
requirements for an academic degree, as well as some
statutory requirements of the California State Depart-
ment of Education, must be met. These, for the most
part, are concerned with making the student “well
rounded,” literate, and knowledgeable of the world
around him. Naturally a student transferring in from
another institution, with transferable and acceptable
credits, would not necessarily have to repeat those
subjects previously credited.
The curriculum for the first year, first semester is
typical of the same period schedule for most science
programs. The English Composition 101 will be spe-
cially designed to stress technical report development
in the quality and measurement areas. The Mathemat-
ics 153 is an intensive and accelerated indoctrination
of College Algebra and Trigonometry that normally in
a more leisurely program might be spread over two or
three semesters. The student may choose the liberal
arts and history requirements from over a wide range
of available options in the university catalog.
The second semester of the first year is fundamen-
tally a continuation of the first semester with the math-
ematics courses accelerated and with the first expo-
sure to a scientific subject, Chemistry 110. (This is a
more advanced course than the typical science stu-
dent is exposed to at this level and will stress measure-
ment and quality control in chemical measurements.)
Because of the advanced nature and the acceleration
of both the Chemistry and the Mathematics in this
program, it will behoove the student to have had
intensive prior preparation in both of these subjects;
e.g., high school and/or community college.
The Foundations of Speech 120 listed is a program
designed to make the typical reticent neo-scientist
more verbally literate. (Although this course is a Uni-
versity requirement for all science degree students, I
personally campaigned to keep it in the program, as,
like many of my peers, I am sick and tired of trying to
understand inarticulate would-be metrologists attempt-
ing to explain what they are doing, or think they have
done.) Any scientist who cannot clearly articulate his/
her ideas before an audience is not much use to
anyone— themselves included.
During the second year, first semester is where we
start to separate the Measurement Science Option
students from the pure Quality Assurance students.
Both options take QAS 200, Fundamentals of Quality,
logically as Quality is fundamental to Metrology, as well
Page 7
as in a lot of other endeavors. This is a new course,
designed especially for application in this program. It is
at the Physics courses where we start the separation of
the Measurement Science and Quality Assurance stu-
dents. Physics 120, while still a more advanced course
than what a science student would normally take, is
Algebra based, while Physics 130 for the Measure-
ment Science Option students is Calculus based. This
explains the necessity for the advanced and acceler-
ated Mathematics courses and for the advanced Cal-
culus 193 to be taken concurrently with the Physics
130.
During this semester both options will be required to
take History of the United States, 101, a California
State statutory requirement. Statistics, obviously vital
to both options, will be introduced also in this semester
as Mathematics 131, Elementary Statistics and Prob-
ability.
The final semester of the second year starts with a
University requirement, an Introduction to the Humani-
ties, 200. Next we have for options, Critical Thinking
and Problem Solving; a course taught by the Psychol-
ogy Department as PSY 110. The University catalog
offers an enticing course description:—“designed to
improve critical thinking and problem solving skills
such as deductive and inductive reasoning, probabilis-
tic reasoning, and decision making.” I believe that
passage states, rather eloquently, some concomitant
attributes that should be a requisite of every practitio-
ner, Metrology as well as in Quality.
During this semester, we will continue with the
second parts of the Physics courses started during the
previous semester, with the Algebra based PHY 122
for the Quality Assurance option and the more stringent
calculus based PHY 132 for the Measurement Science
option students. Both options will take a second
science course during this semester, BIO 120, Prin-
ciples of Biology. Speaking from experience, a little
Biology not only forms an excellent basis for more
advanced study of many of the other sciences, but also
can become invaluable when one encounters the Bio-
Medical fields, e.g., the rapidly growing speciality of
Bio-Medical Metrology. We finish out the semester with
a new specially designed course in the Fundamentals
of Measurement, QAS 220. Of course, all Quality
Assurance and Measurement Science option students
alike require grounding in fundamental measurement
theory and application.
With the beginning of the third year, as it is true in
most curricula anywhere, we have completed the gen-
eral education aspects and start concentrating on the
subjects constituting the major. During the first semes-
ter of this third year, both options will take a newly
designed course in Interpretation of Technical Docu-
 Page 8 The Standard
mentation, QAS 312. This will encompass the under-
standing of documentation ranging from blue-print
reading through international treaty documents such
as I.E.C. and I.S.O. recommendations, Military and
Federal Standards and Specifications, and all ger-
mane documents types in between.
Both options will also take another especially de-
signed course in Technical Communications, QAS
325. This will be essentially an advanced extension of
the freshman courses in composition and in speech,
with specific applications to the technologies involved
in this Program. Both the PHY 333, Analog Electronics
course options are required to take, which is an el-
ementary introduction to the subject especially for
those students who have never been exposed to the
subject and require some familiarization. For the many
that have had extensive training in electronics and can
present evidence of such, it may be waived in favor of
a more advance course in digital electronics or some-
thing else applicable to the major.
As I mentioned above, it is in this third year that we
start getting into substance of our major. The Quality
Assurance Option students will take a newly designed
course in Safety and Reliability, QAS 355. The Mea-
surement Science Option students will take Dimen-
sional Metrology, QAS 347, a thorough grounding in
the subject. As a wrap-up of the semester the Quality
Assurance Option students will take a newly designed
course in Lean Manufacturing, QAS 360. At the same
time the Measurement Science Option students will be
studying QAS 340, Measurement Uncertainty. This
will be a newly developed course which will include
among other topics, Error Analysis, Design of Experi-
ments, Probable Error, Most Probable Value, etc.
using the most advanced statistical tools.
During the second semester of the third year, natu-
rally we must observe the University and State statu-
tory requirements and allow the student to select from
a wide range of Humanities courses as listed in the
University Catalog along with the State requirement,
American Institutions, POL 101. Both Options will take
QAS 330, Statistical Quality Control and Inspection.
While this is fundamentally a Quality-type topic, knowl-
edge of this subject cannot help but enhance the
background and the tools of a Metrology professional.
The Quality Assurance Option students will take
QAS 331, Manufacturing Processes, while the Mea-
surement Science Options students will be studying
Electrical Metrology, QAS 322. This course is de-
signed to be a comprehensive introduction to all as-
pects of electrical measurements, ranging from DC
and AC Power Distribution measurements up to the
more exotic measurements at the microwave frequen-
cies. It will stress measurement fundaments through-
out.
Summer 2001
Also during this semester the Quality Assurance
Option students will take QAS 335, Quality Auditing,
and a topic that becomes more important daily in the
practice of Quality Assurance and Control. Meanwhile,
the Measurement Science Option students will be
subjected to a comprehensive introduction to Physical
Metrology, QAS 350. All of the normal Physical Me-
trology parameters such as Mass, Pressure/Vacuum,
Temperature, Force, Humidity, Viscosity, etc., will be
covered in commensurate depth.
This brings us to the final academic year, where
during the first semester the Quality Option students
will be studying QAS 428, Purchasing and Procure-
ment, while the Measurement Science Option aspir-
ants will be taking CHE 112, a special variation of
General Chemistry II. That course is normally Quali-
tative Analytical Chemistry; however, this variation will
place special emphasis on the measurements in Chem-
istry, thus constituting an exposure to Stoichiometry,
i.e., that branch of Metrology encompassing all of the
measurements in Chemistry.
Both Options will take QAS 427, Quality Improve-
ment and QAS 445, Systems Failure Analysis—logi-
cally both of these topics affect both Options. Both
Options will also be required to take QAS 496 or QAS
498. QAS 496 Internship will require the student to
actually work off campus, as an Intern, in an instructor-
approved germane assignment, in a related industry or
service. In deference to the ‘Americans with Disabili-
ties Act,’ students who are unable to hold industrial-
type outside employment may at and under the direc-
tion of the instructor take QAS 498, Directed Research
on campus. And the University requires all students to
take a Social Science Elective at this time. If you have
already had one with acceptable credits, you may be
able to skip it.
The final semester of that four-year indoctrination
starts with QAS 450, Value Based Quality, for both
Options. QAS 499, Senior Project, is actually a second
semester continuation of QAS 496 or QAS 498 as
applicable (University rules would not allow us to name
a second semester continuation course the same as
the title of the first semester.) This course should
occupy most of the students’ efforts during this semes-
ter, but they cannot ride on that alone; they must also
take certain electives the University requires for gradu-
ation. They must also take another Natural Science
course selected from the vast number listed in the
University Catalog (third year level or higher). They
must take another elective in the Humanities. I have
explained in early columns of THE STANDARD that
Dominguez Hills, because of its geographical location,
is quite multi-ethnic. Because of the resultant student
mix, the University has a special required course, SBS
 Summer 2001 The Standard
318, Cultural Pluralism, required for all students gradu-
ating from that institution.
Well that is it, what I promised in an earlier column,
the complete agenda for the proposed curriculum for a
Bachelor of Science Degree in Quality Assurance (with
a Measurement Science Option). Keep in mind, as of
the date of the writing of this column, it has not as yet
been approved by top administration of the University
or by the Office of the Chancellor of the California State
University System. But we trust that they will approve
it in time to start during Fall Semester in September
2001.
I have received a number of inquiries as a result of
my periodic mentioning of the development of this
program in this column. The questions most often
asked concern: Credit for prior work and former educa-
tion; Transferability from other institutions; Distant learn-
ing; and the like. I think that I covered the first question
earlier in this article. If you have further questions on
that subject, contact Dr. E.E. Watson at the University.
COMBINING THE “INFORMATION” AND “MEASUREMENT”
WORLDS TO IMPROVE SYSTEM PERFORMANCE AND
OPERATIONAL READINESS
Fred Cruger/Ben Zarlingo
Agilent Technologies
8600 Soper Hill Road
Everett, WA 98205
Fred_Cruger@agilent.com
Abstract - Standardization of software and hard-
ware interfaces has led to a breakthrough in
measurement product architectures. It is now
possible to embed the “measurement science” of
high-performance automatic test equipment
(ATE) in a PC. Doing so provides connectivity with
other PC-based applications, making it possible to
connect the operational and maintenance world
with the worlds of manufacturing and design. “Real-
world” results can now impact next-generation
improvements, while next-generation design and
simulation data can be used to enhance “real-
world” performance.
INTRODUCTION
This paper asks the question, “Have we reached
critical mass; do we have enough software technology
to make nirvana real?”
“critical” - a. being in or approaching a state of crisis
especially through economic disorders or by virtue of a
Page 9
On transferability questions, contact the Office of the
Dean of the School of Extended Education at the
University. As for Distant Learning, let’s not “get the
cart before the horse.” Because of the University’s very
favorable experiences with the Internet as a vehicle for
Distant Learning, there is every intention that this
program also be eventually offered in that format.
However, it would be foolish to move in such a direction
without first “debugging” any new program in the class-
room.
Well I have run well over my usual space allotment
and must stop for now. If you have further questions,
please contact me.
Phil Painchaud
1110 West Dorothy Drive
Brea, CA 92821-2017
Phone: (714) 529-6604
Fax: (714) 529-1109
e-Mail: 72320.134@compuserve.com or:
olepappy@JUNO,com
John Regazzi
Agilent Technologies
1400 Fountain Grove Pkwy
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
John Regazzi@agilent.com
disaster; b. indispensable for the weathering, solution,
or overcoming of a crisis; c. of sufficient size to sustain
a chain reaction.
“nirvana” - a goal hoped for, but apparently unattain-
able or impossible.
In every sense, our automated test opportunities and
challenges are reaching “critical” mass in the
contributions that can (and must) be made by the
combination of “information/computing” technology and
“measurement” technology. This short paper will present
the threshold upon which we are standing and the
future into which we are moving, by examining the
connectivity between state-of-the-art engineering tools
in design, manufacturing, and operational deployment
and the impact they can have on continual
improvements in system performance and operational
readiness. Our goal is, of course, to avert any disasters,
to be able to weather whatever crises may arise, and in
the long run, to sustain a “chain reaction” of test system
evolution that will result in the use of real-world results
to improve next-generation designs.
 Page 10 The Standard
The relatively recent explosive growth in commercial
communications has driven technology forward at
almost unbelievable rates and has created new design
methodologies that are embedded in communication,
radar, EW, and countermeasure system components.
Complex modulation (often digital), agile frequency
control, and wide bandwidth utilization are being
combined to increase the amount of information that
can be imposed upon, and/or gleaned from, today’s
signals. New techniques are being used to increase
the “value” delivered by systems while simultaneously
improving their “robustness” in ever-more-complex
environments.
The people charged with the responsibility to test these
new systems, for design verification, for manufacturing
quality, and for operational readiness/maintenance
are facing new challenges in the complexity of the
required tests and the desirability of using real-world
test data for continual product improvement. The
principle of connecting design data with manufacturing,
and manufacturing data with operational deployment,
and finally operational data back to the design data set,
has long been an “engineering nirvana.” But it is only
recently that test and measurement technologies have
synched up with computing technology to make such
connectivity possible.
For years, there has been a continual shift toward the
personal computer (PC) as the tool of choice in R&D
and Manufacturing for design, automation, analysis,
reporting, and general office work. The rapid growth in
processing power, coupled with the widespread de-
velopment of user-friendly software tools for gathering,
analyzing, and reporting data, has permitted significant
productivity improvements in all areas. Advances in
digital signal processing (DSP) have enabled
simulations to become more accurate representa-
tions of the “real-world.” Complex circuit and signal
simulation has eliminated a significant amount of
“prototyping” time and expense in R&D. Statistical data
collection and analysis have been bolstered by the
power and flexibility of spreadsheets and reporting
tools such as Excel and Word. Engineering analysis
has been strengthened by the proliferation of software
suites such as MatLab. All such software applications
show continual growth in power, speed, and availability,
because they take advantage of PC improvements.
But their connection with the “real-world” has been
somewhat limited, because that connection has often
been the “bottleneck” known as “test” or “measurement.”
Most measurement tools were based on non-PC
standards and often required one or more translations,
in both hardware and software, to take place before
measurement data could be transformed into useful
information in the PC environment.
Summer 2001
However, the ubiquitousness of the PC has finally
overcome the historical barriers between the
measurement world and the information/computing
world. The power of the PC mandates its use in the
actual measurement process. The PC’s price/
performance continues to improve, thereby creating
the opportunity for leverage between the consumer-
driven PC technology and the performance-driven (but
increasingly cost-sensitive) test and measurement
requirements. Finally, the PC’s user-friendly
characteristics have been in large part the result of
software standardization practices that have enhanced
the PC’s connectivity far beyond the levels achieved
through other methods of standardization. That software
standardization is the key that has enabled
“measurement science” to be fully integrated into the
PC environment, rather than simply connected through
some limited interface. The user interface, the data
management, the inter-process communication can
now be intuitive (and often invisible), and the power of
PC-based tools can be multiplicative, achieving the
critical mass needed for new and sustained growth in
usability and interoperability.
LEVEL OF TEST
In its simplest case, “test” can often be reduced to the
act of stimulating a “device under test” (DUT), and
comparing its response to an expected set. Relatively
simple DUTs might require a signal of appropriate
magnitude and frequency as a stimulus and a
measurement device capable of capturing the response
and displaying/reporting the results. Stimulus signals
may be specified in the time domain or frequency
domain (or both). Likewise, measurement devices may
process and report data in either or both domains. At
the lowest levels of functionality, tests tend to be
represented by “parametric” measurements, most often
expressed in engineering terms: “power,” “flatness,”
“rise time,” “phase noise,” etc. As the simpler DUTs are
assembled into higher levels of functionality, however,
the necessary stimuli become more complex and the
measurements are often expressed in more applica-
tion-focused terminology: “error vector magnitude,”
“adjacent channel power,” “bit error rate,” etc. At the
highest levels of functionality, those that are often
measured during the deployment and maintenance of
operational systems, the stimuli often have to emulate
(i.e. look exactly like) the real-world conditions likely to
be encountered. The measurements made often have
to be expressed in true user terminology: “probability of
intercept,” “range gate slew limiting,” “multi-path fading,”
etc. for decisions to be made regarding operational
readiness and robustness.
 Summer 2001 The Standard
To claim that the industry has reached “critical mass”
in appropriate measurement technology would be to
claim that we could stimulate and measure the res-
ponse of a DUT: 1) at a level of complexity sufficient to
test the highest levels of functionality, 2) with a level of
flexibility sufficient to address the inevitable evolution
of the environment in which the DUT is expected to
perform. The following paragraphs suggest what you
should expect from your test technology suppliers as
they establish a “chain reaction” sustainable through
maximum leverage of commercial technologies into
high-performances non-commercial applications.
Implied in these comments is the expectation that you,
the ultimate user, will provide continual guidance rela-
tive to your highest priority measurement challenges.
EXPECTATIONS FOR STIMULUS
What should you suggest/expect from a modern
stimulus? First, it needs to be capable of delivering the
required frequency coverage, carrier agility, and
modulation diversity. Second, it should provide the
user with a flexible signal-description environment for
creating everything from simple signals for “analog”
parametric analyses to describing long, unique wave-
form sequences for “functional” system verification.
Third, the modern stimulus should be able to accept the
signal descriptions from the software simulation tools
used in creating the original design to facilitate verifying
the actual hardware under appropriate conditions. And
finally, the signal management environment should
interface smoothly with a variety of RF and baseband
assets to permit covering the widest range of
performance and to allow substitution of individual
assets should the need arise due to obsolescence
issues or new test requirements.
Obviously, a source must be capable of producing the
correct signals for the intended purpose if it is to be
useful at all; however, the architectural approach taken
can have an enormous impact on a designer’s
productivity. The ability of the user to manage a range
of complexity in the signals generated is directly relat-
ed to the human interface design, and the modern PC
environment is proving ideal for this purpose. Creating
simple signals can be made straightforward and intui-
tive by masking the advanced functions behind an
“expert mode.” Complex signal scenarios can be dealt
with by exposing the advanced features using the
familiar Windows desktop interface of context-sensitive,
drop-down menus, dialog boxes, and the tab key
metaphor. This approach takes advantage of the
developments in graphical user interface design that
have occurred over the last several years within the
computer industry. The tremendous familiarity and
flexibility of the desktop environment helps our modern
Page 11
stimulus deliver ease of use while retaining the ability
to handle the most complex waveforms imaginable.
The integration of the signal generation and manage-
ment environment within the PC leads naturally to the
interchange of stimulus information with other
applications that also reside on the PC. Software
standards developed for sharing data between office
applications can be directly applied to the stimulus so
that a user can describe a stimulus pattern once and
use it within a software simulation of the initial design
or for driving the actual hardware during the design
verification phase. The ability to display the “described”
waveform for visual analysis becomes a simple task of
passing the signal description parameter files to a
signal measurement software package (discussed
below). An additional advantage of interconnecting
separate software packages rather than incorporating
a separate “viewer” feature in the signal generation
software is the level of engineering re-use achieved.
Each software package, developed by the appropriate
experts, can follow an independent evolution of features
assuring the latest technology is incorporated. It should
be noted that much of today’s software standards refer
to the mechanisms of sharing data, but not to the
semantics of the interface. Standardizing the approach
for describing signals generally could produce even
greater productivity gains, and it seems quite approp-
riate for industry to work together in this effort. In this
way, customers can move forward at the pace of
industry rather than at the pace of any one vendor.
Finally, the seamless connection between a signal
simulation environment and hardware that can pro-
duce real signals requires that the algorithms to
coordinating hardware behavior be abstracted and
separated from the specific methods of signal
generation. For example, many signal generators
produce their output by tuning an oscillator, while
others generate waveforms using digital-to-analog
conversion and then up-converting the result to the
frequency of interest. In order to accommodate both
methods of signal generation the hardware-specific
“code” must be isolated from the generic algorithms
that define the waveforms. Changing signal-generation
hardware components can then be accomplished in a
manner transparent to the application level TPS allow-
ing much greater flexibility to maintain test system
operation over long periods of time. In addition, the
interchangeability of hardware assets allows users a
wide choice between price and performance, selec-
tion of critical assets from different vendors and an
easy upgrade path when facing new stimulus
requirement. For more information regarding asset
interchangeability see “Achieving Robust Inter-
changeability of Test Assets in ATE Systems” Roger P.
Oblad, AUTOTESTCON-1999 Proceedings.
 Page 12 The Standard
EXPECTATIONS FOR MEASUREMENT
What should you suggest/expect from a modern
measurement device? As with a stimulus, it needs to
accommodate the required frequencies, bandwidths,
and agility. Likewise, it needs to be able to handle a
broad range of signal complexity, everything from
measuring analog parameters to measuring complex
modulated signals for “functional” testing and providing
complex displays for visual analysis (eye diagrams,
spectrograms, constellations, etc.). Most such
requirements and capabilities are well-understood and
well-documented in specification sheets. But many
emerging needs, particularly those of flexibility, must
be addressed through fundamental architectural
choices if we are to move engineers closer to their
“nirvana.”
In the designers’/test engineers’ ideal world, they would
be able to move easily between the lands of simulation
and measurement of real hardware/signals. They would
be able to move between the lands of stimulus and
response. They would be able to move between
measuring individual blocks or entire systems, even if
some parts were available in hardware while others
were filled in from simulation data. Free movement in
this mixed, multi-element world would make
engineering/troubleshooting/optimizing more efficient
and effective.
Time and frequency domain representations of a sig-
nal are common and well-understood by all designers.
However, it is worth noting that, while many RF test
instruments (e.g. traditional signal analyzers) are
designed for frequency domain measurements, digital
communications, radar, and EW are largely time domain
problems. Electronic design automation (EDA) tools
typically work on time domain (time vs. instantaneous
voltage) samples. Signals will undoubtedly be realized
in the time domain by baseband DSP, and their key
measures of quality will often be waveform-based.
With modern source and analysis solutions, the time
domain (which contains the entire information content
of the signals) will be the bridge that links them. The
overall complexity of the problem requires that
measurement tools be equipped with user interfaces
that can deal with such multi-domain complexity yet
remain user-friendly.
Operationally deployed systems highlight the diff-
erences between the worlds of the math/simulator
folks and the engineers/technicians that actually have
to deal with real hardware and signals to make a
system work. There are “heroic” engineers who per-
form complicated tasks using simple software tools
because they already have the tools, they are
comfortable with the tools, and they can’t freely spend
more money. Instead of discounting this approach, we
Summer 2001
need to support them, with enhanced ability to move
between tools and domains. We need to enhance their
ability to collect data and feed it “upstream” into the
manufacturing and design processes. We need to
bolster their effectiveness in analysis and decision-
making.
Proliferation of the PC has resulted in immense
standardization of data formats and inter-process
communications. It has also resulted in the develop-
ment of common, intuitive user interfaces that can
accommodate an extreme breadth of problem
complexity. A PC-based measurement tool can make
measurements on a simulation just as easily as it can
make measurements on actual signals from a proto-
type or an operational system. Data collected from any
of those can be easily archived and compared, knowing
that the measurement algorithms, definitions, and
terminology are consistent. “Simulations” and “models”
can be compared directly to real-world implementations
and refined over time to be ever more effective. Data
collected from maintenance activities can be aggregated
and supplied to designers for improvements in the next
generation.
Most importantly, measurement data in the PC can be
moved to the user’s existing tools of choice, whether
that be Excel, MatLab, MS Word, PowerPoint, or other
common software tools. Analysis and reporting can be
done in the environment best suited to the user and
problem at hand. Therefore, measurement tools
designed according to commercial PC software
standards enjoy the synergistic benefits of the
ubiquitousness of the PC. Their inevitable evolution
can rely upon the widespread support of commercial
evolution, thereby minimizing undesirable reinvest-
ment that would be required for more proprietary
solutions.
“REAL-WORLD” EMULATION
Where should you ask the stimulus/response capabil-
ity to go in the future? Clearly, you are charged with
maximizing the operational readiness of complex sys-
tems while minimizing the cost (time and resources)
required for maintenance. Systems are becoming
continually more complex as they are required to
provide more flexibility and capability. The interactions
between system components are becoming more
subtle, hard-to-identify and isolate, often resulting in
no-trouble-found (NTF) during troubleshooting in-
dividual components. Parametric measurements and
verifications at the component and sub-assembly level
are gradually becoming inadequate for guaranteeing
success when the system is assembled. Test
methodologies and technologies must be developed to
provide more “realistic” stimuli (i.e. signals that are
 Summer 2001 The Standard
representative of the “real-world” likely to be
encountered) and the ability to measure “real-time”
responses (i.e. the functional adaptation that is expect-
ed as part of the system operation).
This has always been a problem in the R&D
environment, wherein it is often impossible to fully test
a transmitter until a matching receiver exists, and vice-
versa. Great expense is incurred during the
development of “emulators,” and even then, the
functionality of an emulator is limited to the specific
system at hand. Functionality of that specific
communications link, or radar, or EW system is the
primary concern, and flexibility in the emulator must
take a back seat.
The lifetime of such systems, however, mandates that
a more flexible test approach be possible, because the
“real-world” changes over time. The test system must
have enough flexibility to address such changes,
whether it be new capabilities, new sets of interfering
signals, or simply new insights into “real-world”
phenomena that must be accommodated.
Having a PC-based collection of measurement sci-
ence tools (signal source, signal analyzer, coordinated
stimulus/response, etc.) is a major step forward in
achieving such flexibility. The complexity of signal
specifications and the necessary flexibility in user
interface can be addressed efficiently with a PC
paradigm. The parallel development of powerful DSP
hardware and software is the completing step in making
true “real-world” emulation possible. Programmable
digital filters can provide realistic link effects such as
fading, Doppler, and flexible equalization that were
virtually impossible to create in an analog imple-
mentation (at least impossible at reasonable cost). The
speed of commercially available DSP processors and
ASICs have made it possible to create complex signals
of ever-wider bandwidths, with a level of flexibility in
modulation, protocol, and control that exceeds many
specific system implementations and that promises to
provide enough flexibility to address long-term system
evolution.
To achieve true emulation, much of the DSP still needs
to be relegated to “hardware.” But since much of that
hardware is now programmable, it is possible to en-
hance capabilities without reinvesting in new hard-
ware. Operating at real-world speeds necessitates fast
hardware, while addressing real-world phenomena
necessitates flexibility. DSP technology has achieved
a combination of speed and flexibility that is useful for
complex electronic signal generation and analysis at
bandwidths of 50 MHz and beyond, in forms that are
flexible enough for use as general test and mainte-
nance solutions. It is no longer necessary to rely on
“golden units” to ascertain functionality. The most
Page 13
computationally intensive tasks may be done at the
hardware level in ASICs and FPGAs, while more
general tasks may be done in generic DSP and micro-
processors. Managing/supervising the signal
processing requirements at higher levels capitalizes
on the ease with which the PC can address complex
problems with user-friendly interfaces. As technology
progresses, larger portions of the signal processing
tasks can be done at the higher levels. Many tasks,
though “impossible” only a few years ago, can now be
handled by conventional PCs.
SUMMARY
Has our industry reached critical mass? If not, we’re
very, very close! We are in an excellent position to
capitalize on the extensive commercial investments in
PC technology by integrating “test and measurement”
with that technology. You’ve seen the speed and ease
with which measurement data can be connected with
design, analysis, and reporting tools. You recognize
the power to be gained through connecting all stages
of a product life-cycle (design through deployment)
with common databases so that information is utilized
rather that lost. You face the challenge of creating,
operating, and maintaining complex systems that must
remain operationally ready at all times. The technology
required to establish the appropriate information links
is at hand. The standardization (both hardware and
software) to ensure long-term viability is available and
manageable. With specific guidance from you to your
measurement technology providers, we should be
able to sustain continual improvement with far less
input of energy than ever before. After all, that’s what
achieving “critical mass” is really all about.
 Page 14 The Standard
Here Be the Dragons of Metrology
(Based upon information provided by Agilent Technologies)
Summarized by Frank Voehl
As I mentioned in my editorial column, the dragon
was a mythological monster traditionally represented
as a gigantic reptile having a lion’s claws, the tail of a
serpent, wings, and a scaly skin. It was the epitome of
something very formidable and dangerous. It seems
that the metrology world also abounds with myths and
legends which are also very formidable and danger-
ous, and in this column we shall banish this folklore
from the land and try to dispel these misconceptions.
The metrology myths are grouped into 3 broad topic
areas: Standards, Uncertainty, and Calibration, repre-
senting the three-headed dragon of measurement.
The following are the 20 most-prevalent myths associ-
ated with our profession. The lion’s claws represent the
myths of the Standards, the serpents tail represents
the myths of Uncertainty, and the Wings and Scaly Skin
represent the myths of Calibration.
Standards Myths: The Claws of the Dragon
Myth #1: ISO17025 states that it’s equivalent
to ISO9000 so ISO9000 must be equivalent
to ISO17025.
In fact ISO17025 does indeed state, in its Introduction
and in paragraph 1-6, that compliance with the stan-
dard means that the laboratory’s quality system for
their calibration or testing activities also meets the
criteria of ISO9001/2. Two additional points need to be
emphasized:
1. The activities of many service providers extend
beyond just calibration or testing (e.g. repair, supply
of parts, training, etc.) where 17025 does not apply.
2. The equivalence is to the 1994 version of the
ISO9000 standards which was superseded in late
2000 by the new version of the standards.
Myth #2: A factory’s quality system complies
with ISO9000 so all my equipment must be
calibrated “Before & After”adjustment.
A calibration service that provides assessment of the
product’s performance on-receipt and, if necessary,
after adjustment or repair has been completed has two
purposes.
1. It enables analysis of the equipment’s stability over
time.
2. More significantly, if the on-receipt performance did
not meet the user’s accuracy requirements, an
investigation of its impact can be triggered that may
result in product or work recall.
These possibilities need only apply to equipment af-
fecting the quality of the factory’s product or service, for
Summer 2001
example that which is used for alignment or end-of-line
inspection. Understanding the distinction can save a
lot of money!
Myth #3: Accreditation agencies define the
extent of testing for various products so that
users can have confidence in their equipment’s
overall performance.
In some countries there are national and regulatory
standards that are applicable to some measuring equip-
ment. These usually relate to legal metrology (i.e.
measurements made in the course of consumer trade)
or statutory codes (e.g. safety) or certain sectors of
industry. However, accreditation bodies do not stipu-
late that these must be used, although labs would
generally do so where applicable. Also, there are no
standards concerning the typical general purpose in-
struments that may be used in the electronics industry,
for example. Although accreditation criteria includes a
need for calibration certificates to draw attention to
limitations in the scope of testing performed versus the
product’s capability, it is left to the client and supplier to
agree upon the content of the service. Whether the
calibration utilizes any recommendations of the
equipment’s manufacturer is part of this negotiation.
Myth #4: My calibration supplier is ISO17025
accredited, so all the calibrations they undertake
meet that standard.
The results of a calibration performed under the scope
of the accreditation are reported on a certificate bear-
ing the authorized brand-mark of the accreditation
program.
For commercial reasons, most accredited laboratories
offer at least two calibration service levels — a certifi-
cate with the accreditation logo or a company-propri-
etary certificate. The processes used to undertake the
calibration and the extent of testing may be the same
in both cases or may differ. Some accreditation pro-
grams allow the inclusion of (a minority of) measure-
ments which are not within the lab’s accredited capa-
bility, providing they are clearly identified as non-
accredited.
Myth #5: Results which are simply reported
as “Pass” or “Fail” are not acceptable.
Recording of numerical measurement data is not rel-
evant for some tests. This may be because it’s of the
“go, no go” type (e.g. checking a bore using a plug
gauge) or because the test procedure establishes
known test conditions and looks for satisfactory re-
sponse in the unit-under-test (e.g. checking input sen-
 Summer 2001 The Standard
sitivity of a frequency counter by applying a signal
whose amplitude equals the specified sensitivity and
noting whether stable triggering is observed).
To summarize, pass/fail is valid where the decision
criteria is defined (i.e. specification limits).
Myth #6: A supplier that has an ISO9000
certificate is good enough.
This may be reasonable, but questions concerning the
scope of the certification should be asked. If the quality
system that was assessed related to a company’s
pressure sensor manufacturing operation in Chicago,
how much assurance does that endow on micrometer
service at their Dallas repair office? Possibly none! The
scope of registration is explicit in coverage.
Myth #7: Only accredited calibrations are
traceable to national standards.
Traceable measurements are those supported by
records that can demonstrate an unbroken series of
calibrations or comparisons against successive stan-
dards of increasing accuracy (reducing uncertainty)
culminating in a recognized national metrology insti-
tute. Measurement traceability is, of course, also
reviewed as part of an ISO9000 quality system certifi-
cation. Many testing laboratories are accredited against
ISO17025 so their instruments must be calibrated at an
accredited lab. This may depend upon the interpreta-
tion of the standard by the particular accreditation
body. Clause 5-6-2-1-1 of ISO17025 does not actually
stipulate that traceability must only be obtained from an
accredited facility, only that the supplier “can demon-
strate competence, measurement capability and trace-
ability.” The British accreditation agency has confirmed
that it will not add supplementary requirements to the
17025 criteria. It also accepts the possibility of trace-
ability to a non-accredited source provided that suffi-
cient evidence is available to UKAS to confirm that the
supplier complies with the standard and that the lab
being audited by UKAS has the critical technical com-
petence to make such an assessment.
Uncertainty Myths: The Dragon’s Tail
Myth #8: ISO17025 requires that measured
values and measurement uncertainty is reported
on a certificate.
This is true if the certificate does not include a state-
ment concerning the equipment’s compliance to a
stated specification. In this case, section 5-10-4 says
that the results and uncertainty must be maintained by
the lab.
Myth #9: We need to determine our own
measurement uncertainty so need to know
the calibration lab’s uncertainty.
If the calibration confirmed that the instrument met the
manufacturer’s specification, the effect of uncertainty
on that status decision has already been taken into
Page 15
account (as required by ISO17025, para.5-10-4-2). In
this case, the user’s own uncertainty budget starts with
the product specification, and the calibration uncer-
tainty is not included again. If the calibrated item does
not have a specification (i.e. the certificate provides
only measured values) then the cal lab’s uncertainty
will need to be included in the user’s own uncertainty
analysis.
Myth #10: The need to know “uncertainty”
is new. We’ve been certified against
ISO9001:1994 for years and have never been
asked before.
The experts say that you’ve just been lucky or were
satisfactorily meeting the requirement without realizing
it! Look again at clause 4-11-1; it clearly states that
“...equipment shall be used in a manner which ensures
that the measurement uncertainty is known and is
consistent with the required measurement capability.”
For the majority of instrument users, the requirement is
readily satisfied by referring to the equipment specifi-
cations. In general terms, the specification is the user’s
uncertainty.
Myth #11: The uncertainties that an accredited
lab will report on a certificate are published
in their Scope/Schedule.
The published capability represents the best (smallest
possible) measurement uncertainties, perhaps appli-
cable to particular characteristics and types of tested
equipment. It’s very unlikely that those figures would be
assigned to all calibrations made assuming a wide
variety of models are seen. Until measurements are
made, it may not be possible for the cal lab to estimate
the uncertainty that will be assigned because the unit-
under-test contributes to the uncertainty.
Myth #12: Published “best measurement
uncertainty” can never be achieved because
it assumes an ideal unit-under-test.
In the past there have been different practices allowed
by the various conformity assessment schemes. How-
ever, the European co-operation for Accreditation pub-
lication EA-4/02 (refer to Uncertainty Resources in this
Basics section) recognizes that harmonization was
required and, in Appendix A, establishes definitions.
This means that, certainly within Europe, best mea-
surement uncertainty (BMC) must include contribu-
tions associated with the normal characteristics of
equipment they expect to calibrate. For example, it’s
not acceptable to base the uncertainty of an attenua-
tion measurement on a device having an assumed
perfect match. Some BMC’s are qualified with the
phrase “nearly ideal” regarding the test item, but this
means that the capability does not depend upon the
item’s characteristics and that such perfect items are
available and routinely seen by the lab.
 Page 16 The Standard
Myth #13: Calibrations without uncertainty
are not traceable.
It is true that the internationally agreed definition of
traceability includes a need for the uncertainty of the
comparisons to be stated. However, it doesn’t mean
that a calibration certificate must include uncertainty
(or measured values), as is allowed by ISO17025 and
other standards if a specification compliance state-
ment is used, although this information must be main-
tained by the lab.
Calibration Myths: The Scales and Wings of
the Dragon
Myth #14: By using a correction based on
the instrument’s error as determined by
calibration, the working specification can be
tightened.
This effectively minimizes the user’s own measure-
ment uncertainty to that of the calibrating lab. The
equipment manufacturer specifications cannot be ig-
nored. For instance, they include allowances for drift
over time and environmental conditions. In contrast,
the calibration represents a performance assessment
at that time and in particular conditions. Yet the myth
dangerously assumes that the “error” is constant de-
spite these variables.
Myth #15: A Certificate of Calibration means
that the instrument met its specification, at
least when it was tested. Also, calibration
means that the equipment was adjusted back
to nominal.
Whether this is correct or not depends on the calibra-
tion laboratory’s service definitions or what was agreed
between the supplier and customer. The international
meaning of “calibration” does not require that errors
detected by the measurement comparison process are
corrected. It means that adjustment to return an item to
specification compliance may, or may not, be per-
formed. Unless the Certificate contains a statement
affirming that the item met the published specification
it is merely a report of the measurements made. In this
case it is left to the equipment user to review the data
against requirements. The equipment may have been
found and returned to the user out-of-tolerance!
Myth #16: It is more expensive to have some
equipment calibrated than it is to purchase new
equipment each year. Just scrap the old item which
was probably worn anyway.
The first part of this assertion is TRUE, but it could be
that a calibration certificate is not provided with the new
purchase. Some users are not concerned, perhaps
relying upon the manufacturer’s reputation to deliver
new products that are specification-compliant, which
may be a justifiable risk. Less justifiable is the sug-
gested practice to dispose of the old item without first
Summer 2001
getting it calibrated. How would you know if it had been
used in an out-of-tolerance condition? If it had been
out-of-spec, would it affect the integrity or quality of the
process or end-product? If so, the proposal is a false
economy!
Myth #17: Only measuring equipment with
the possibility of adjustment needs periodic
calibration. As an example, liquid-in-glass
thermometers only need certification when
first put into service; they either work or are
broken.
Just because an item is not adjustable doesn’t mean
that it’s perfectly stable. Some standards may be
subject to wear which changes their value (e.g. a
gauge block) or they may be invisibly damaged leading
to non-linear or odd behavior (e.g. a cracked glass
thermometer).
Or the material from which they are constructed may
also not be stable. For example, a quartz crystal
oscillator changes its resonant frequency because
mechanical stress in the crystalline structure is re-
leased over time.
Myth #18: If an item needs routine calibration,
the manufacturer states what is necessary
in the equipment’s handbook; otherwise
calibration isn’t required.
It is true that some manufacturers provide such advice.
But many, typically smaller, companies do not make
this investment. It’s unsafe to make the assumption
that no advice means no calibration. Also be aware that
industry practices change over time, and a
manufacturer’s recommendations as published thirty
years ago may not be as metrologically rigorous as
those produced to match today’s market expectations.
Myth #19: The original manufacturer or the
calibration lab defines the appropriate calibration
interval for the product or item. The user is
bound by that periodicity.
It’s often unrecognized that a product’s specification is
generally linked to a time period. Simplistically, the
manufacturer may establish the specification having
assessed the accuracy and drift of prototype units. It
may well be statistically justified for a particular confi-
dence level that a certain percentage of the product
population (all those produced) are likely to still comply
with the spec after the stated period. Whatever the
mechanism used, the calibration interval is only a
recommendation. Some cal labs offer a service to
manage the periodicity of customers’ equipment based
on the accumulated cal history. Otherwise, this risk
management responsibility remains with the user.
Myth #20: Safety regulations stipulate the
legal maximum period allowed between cals
to be one year.
 Summer 2001 The Standard
The problem with such a policy is that it may be
implemented differently to what is intended. Maybe all
items will be assigned a one-year interval without any
regard for its justification or applicability to the use of a
particular piece of equipment? The assignment of a
suitable interval should be recognized as part of an
equipment user’s risk management strategy. One must
consider the knock-on effects if the item is later found
to have been used in an out-of-tolerance condition
(e.g. product recall costs). So, there’s a balance to be
achieved between the inconvenience and cost of ex-
cessive calibration and impact of unreliable kit. In
safety-critical applications any degree of risk may be
unacceptable, but this would probably be implemented
by parallel and back-up systems. Total reliance upon a
single piece of equipment, even if tested every day,
would be unusual.
Source: The material in this article was provided by
the Agilent Technologies organization, and we are
indebted to them for their research and interest in
fostering knowledge and communications within the
metrology profession. A brief profile on Agilent Tech-
nologies follows this article.
A Profile of Agilent Technologies
Introduction
Agilent Technologies’ Corp. is a outgrowth of the
separation from Hewlett-Packard Company resulting
from a corporate realignment. On November 18, 1999,
Agilent listed as a public company on the New York
Stock Exchange. At the time, Agilent’s U.S.$2.1 billion
initial public offering of stock was the largest in Silicon
Valley history.
Overview
Agilent operates four businesses: test and measure-
ment, semiconductor products, healthcare solutions*
and chemical analysis, supported by a central labora-
tory. Its businesses excel in applying measurement
technologies to develop products that sense, analyze,
display and communicate data. Agilent’s customers
include many of the world’s leading high-technology
firms, which rely on Agilent’s products and services to
make them more profitable and competitive, from
research and development through manufacturing,
installation and maintenance. Agilent enables its cus-
tomers to speed their time to market and to achieve
volume production and high-quality, precision manu-
facturing.
A key driver of demand for Agilent’s products and
services is the pervasive transformation from analog to
digital technology. Because digital technologies re-
quire greater degrees of precision, and rely more on
miniature circuitry than analog, the role of test and
Page 17
measurement is “mission critical” for the rapid com-
mercialization of reliable Internet-age products.
Agilent’s Organization
Agilent’s 48,000 employees and facilities in more than
40 countries serve market leading customers in over
120 countries. Major product development and manu-
facturing sites are located in the United States, China,
Germany, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, Australia and
the United Kingdom. More than half of the company’s
net revenue is derived from outside the United States.
The company’s worldwide headquarters are in Palo
Alto, California, in the heart of Silicon Valley.
Agilent has facilities in more than 40 countries and
major product development at manufacturing sites in
the United States, China, Germany, Japan, Malaysia,
Singapore, Australia and the United Kingdom. Agilent
Technologies dates back to 1939, when Bill Hewlett
and Dave Packard started their company and began a
legacy that has shaped Silicon Valley and the technol-
ogy industry. Agilent’s headquarters is erected on the
site of HP’s first laboratory and headquarters, 395
Page Mill Road, in Palo Alto, California. Agilent em-
braces the values that have made HP a success,
including a dedication to innovation and contribution;
trust, respect and teamwork; and uncompromising
integrity. Agilent is emphasizing speed, focus and
accountability to achieve a level of high performance
that draws on the full range of people’s skills and
aspirations.
* On November 17, 2000, Agilent announced
an agreement under which Philips will acquire
the healthcare solutions business, subject to
customary regulatory approvals and other closing
conditions.
The Standards Scene
Dan Harper
ISO/DIS 10012 Status
The vote by Subcommittee 3 of TC176 on ISO/CD3
10012 was a strong consensus that CD3 was ready to
advance to Draft International Standard – approxi-
mately 90% of the countries voted approval for the
advancement to DIS and they also submitted a bunch
of comments–mostly editorial.
More than two hundred comments were submitted
and of these 43 were from the US. Most of the US
comments caused changes, but as usual, there were
some issues that were not resolved completely. Work-
ing Group 1 met in February 2001 to address the issues
raised by the comments, and made very good progress.
 Page 18 The Standard Summer 2001

When work on the revision of 10012 began a couple Standards – Where to Get Them
of years ago, one intent was that the finished standard
I am frequently asked where various standards are
would be aligned with the revised ISO 9001:, although
available, so here’s some info:
at that time we did not know what the final structure of
the new ISO 9001 would be. Aligning 10012 with 9001 If you are looking for a hard copy of ANSI/ISO/ASQ
was made a little complicated since the two standards Q9000 series, or many other standards, contact ASQ
were being developed simultaneously – but out of at 800-248-1946
phase. As a result, DIS 10012 is not completely aligned ANSI has gone out of the paper standards busi-
with ISO 9001:2000. The changes that need to be ness, but can provide ISO and IEC standards for
made for better alignment with the published ISO download through their Electronic Standards Store.
9001:2000 are to the structure and organization of the Check their website at: www.ansi.org.
elements of 10012. This will be addressed by the
Working Group 1 at the October 2001 meeting in
Birmingham UK.
Also, when DIS 10012 has been compared to ISO
9001:2000, the prescriptive language in 10012 has
brought some comments, particularly regarding re-
quirements for documented procedures. The final ver-
sion of ISO 9001:2000 has only 6 specific require-
ments for documented procedures; although manage-
ment has the responsibility to determine, develop and
implement whatever is needed.
There are some other items that have come to light
since the WG met in February, and I’m sure there will
be plenty to do at the October meeting.
The DIS 10012 is currently being circulated to the
TC176 members for comment and ballot for advance-
ment to Final Draft International Standard.
ANSI/ISO/ASQ Q9000 Series
As planned, ISO 9000:2000, ISO 9001:2000 and
ISO 9004:2000 have all been adopted as American
National Standards, and the designations are ANSI/
ISO/ASQ Q9000:2000, Q9001:2000, and Q9004:2000.
They are now available from ASQ.
The 9001:2000 Clause 7.6 “Control of monitoring
and measuring devices,” has triggered some interest-
ing conversations about “monitoring” or “monitoring
devices.” Monitor, monitoring, monitoring equipment,
monitoring device – none of these are defined in the
vocabulary section of ISO 9000:2000, or in the VIM,
and you get some interesting definitions when you
refer to a dictionary. Since the “official” dictionary for
the ISO 9000 series is the Oxford dictionary, when you
look up “device” you will find that it could be a piece of
equipment, or a plan or scheme. A “monitor” is for
surveillance, checking and/or warning, and could be a
person or device. Think about it–Clause 7.6 of ISO
9001:2000 goes beyond hardware by requiring that
processes be established to ensure monitoring can be
carried out. That’s a real departure from the ISO
9001:1994 Clause 4.11.
 Summer 2001 The Standard
Certified Calibration Technician (CCT) Program Update
ASQ Measurement Quality Division’s (MQD) Certi-
fied Calibration Technician (CCT) program is pro-
gressing right on schedule per its carefully laid out
‘Roadmap to Success’. As of this writing, mid-May 01,
the CCT committee has assembled twelve subject
matter experts (SMEs) for participation in a phone
survey and another twelve SMEs for participation in a
workshop slated for August 2 and 3 in Washington D.C.
immediately following NCSL International’s Confer-
ence. The assembled SMEs include representatives
from all four departments of defense (DOD) agencies,
academia, consulting firms and public/private provid-
ers of calibration services. It is important that the
participants represent a cross section of calibration
practitioners so that recommendations and decisions
made from their inputs do not reflect biases associated
with a specific industry or interest.
To refresh our readers, MQD has contracted Pro-
fessional Examination Servers (PES) to conduct a
CCT job analysis. A comprehensive job analysis is
considered critical in the development of any ASQ
certification program. Most important to the CCT job
analysis is acquiring detailed, job-specific information
from experienced calibration practitioners in order to
develop survey questions. The developed survey will
be sent out in mass mailings to better define industry’s
CCT expectations. The results of the survey will be
instrumental in helping establish the scope and depth
of the body of knowledge (BOK) needed to meet
industry expectations and helping to avoid off-target
perceptions of what should be considered in determin-
ing and evaluating CCT requirements.
The phone interviews currently being conducted
(May – June) have been carefully scripted in order to
obtain as much pertinent information as possible within
a 20-30 minute span. Script questions have been
formulated to address topics relative to:
• Education
• Training
• Experience
• Roles and Responsibilities
• Proficiency testing
• Generalist versus discipline specific issues
• Certification
Of particular interest is the level participants feel is
needed for qualifications in terms of education, training
and experience. It has been the CCT committee’s
consensus that the certification program should focus
on mid-level to senior-level calibration technicians.
Another issue, which has been a focus of much heated
debate, is how to structure a CCT program so as to
adequately address the evaluation of fundamental,
Page 19
generalist knowledge verses discipline specific knowl-
edge. Since the Metrology field spans many disciplines
i.e. dimensional, physical, electrical (low and high
frequency), chemical, analytical, etc., few individuals
have expertise spanning beyond one or two core
disciplines they have been tasked with throughout their
working career, while many individuals have experi-
ence only within a very narrow niche of a discipline’s
broad scope. These questions and others need to be
answered in order to realize a viable CCT program,
thus the critical need to solicit information from indi-
viduals versed in the many guises of Metrology through-
out different industries.
The results of the phone surveys will be summa-
rized and used in the August workshop to establish a
baseline or common reference point from which work-
shop participants may start. Not only will this assure
that participants are ‘working off the same page, but it
will allow topics/issues not covered in the phone survey
to be given more time to be addressed. Both the phone
surveys and the workshop are conducted under the
auspices of a PES psychometrician.
To help inform the MQD membership and the gen-
eral public about the CCT program, a certification
information session is scheduled for the 2001 Mea-
surement Quality Conference (September 13 - 14,
2001 at the National Institute of Standards and Tech-
nology, Gaithersburg, MD). The presentations will in-
clude an overview of ASQ existing certification pro-
grams, the ASQ procedure for creating a new certifica-
tion program and an update of the CCT certification
efforts and activities. There will also be a panel forum
after the presentations to answer questions, address
concerns and solicit recommendations. To learn more
about the MQD’s CCT program visit the MQD website
or E-mail the CCT committee chairman at:
Chris.Grachanen@Compaq.Com.
ASQ’s Measurement Quality Division is proud to be
the divisional sponsor for the ASQ’s CCT program.
If interested please E-mail MQD’s committee chair
at: chris.grachanen@compaq.com.
Chris Grachanen
ASQ MQD Certification Committee Chair
 Page 20 The Standard Summer 2001

Special Feature about CMMs

Mark J. Schoenlein
One of the duties of being the division chair was to
field inquiries about a great many metrology related
topics. Based upon those general areas of interest the
Standard will now offer information in a specific area in
future publications. The Spring/Winter edition con-
tained listings of Measurement Uncertainty documen-
tation and resources. This issue features information
relating to Coordinate Metrology and CMMs in particu-
lar.
AGE OF ALL CMM OPERATORS
The International CMM Applications Group con-
ducts and publishes a yearly member survey on sys-
tems, software, salaries, and training. They were kind
enough to allow us to reprint their most recent sum-
mary. Our organization has used the data for salary
and training comparisons and system selection. The
Group also distributes a nice membership directory
complete with resource information. A membership
form follows the survey.
The Association for Coordinate Metrology Canada
has a working group developing a CMM Operator
Certification Program. We have reprinted the draft
program outline and Body of Knowledge from their
web-site. If you would like more information you can
contact Kostadin Doytchinov at the NRC Canada at
613-991-0265. The ACMC sponsors an annual sum-
mer conference to discuss CMM topics.
AREA WHERE THE CMM IS USED
For all of the Coordinate Measuring systems in use,
it appears that there is no single US based group which
can act as a clearing house for the industry. We have
compiled a list of 17 related web-sites that can serve as
a starting point in your search for answers. It is orga-
nized in the following order: user groups, governmental
organizations, standards groups, education, and com-
mercial organizations that offer technical support, in-
formation and training.

TYPES OF ITEMS CHECKED

Summer 2001 The Standard Page 21

PERCENTAGE OF GD &T USED BRAND OF CMM SOFTWARE USED

PERCENTAGE OF SPC USED CMM CONSTRUCTION “STYLE”

BRAND OF CMM USED CMM CONSTRUCTION “BEARING TYPE”

Page 22 The Standard Summer 2001

CMM CONSTRUCTION “MOVEMENT” AREAS CMM ARE INTERFACED WITH OR USING

HOURLY RATE FOR ALL CMM OPERATORS HOW IS YOUR FACILITY CERTIFIED

ENVIRONMENT WHERE THE CMM IS USED YEARS OF EXPERIENCE RUNNING A CMM

Summer 2001 The Standard Page 23

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE PROGRAMMING A CMM HARDWARE SUPPORT OF CMM OPERATORS

HOW OFTEN CMM’S ARE CHECKED INTERNALLY SOFTWARE SUPPORT SATISFACTION OF CMM OPERATORS

HOW OFTEN CMM’S ARE CALIBRATED AGE OF CMM IN OPERATION

 Page 24 The Standard
CMM Operator Certification Update
Members of the ACMC Certification Steering Commit-
tee, under the leadership of Prof. Stelian George-Cosh
of Conestoga College, are continuing to plan, re-
search, compile and write the documentation required
for the Canadian implementation of the “Certification of
Cmm Operators.”
The Body of Knowledge will guide the design of training
and education for CMM Operators, and provide the
base criteria for examination questions.
1. Technical mathematics
2. Technical drawings
3. Applied statistics for manufacturing
CANADIAN CERTIFICATION OF COORDINATE
MEASURING MACHINES (CMMs) PROFESSIONALS
(Draft 5)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The competence of personnel is a fundamental ele-
ment of all quality systems. The ISO9000 series of
standards recognizes training as an essential recom-
mendation for an effective approach to quality man-
agement. A specialized activity, such as coordinate
metrology on CMMs, requires proper qualification and
certification of CMMs operators and personnel.
Qualification represents the demonstration of ability in
applying the best practices for the use of CMMs in
dimensional measurements. Formalized education and
training, as well as work experience under competent
guidance acquire it.
Certification means recognition by an independent
organization (third party) of conformance to specified
requirements. It is obtained by passing an examination
and fulfilling certain certification requirements.
1.1 PURPOSE
These specifications are a Canadian national initiative
for defining the qualifications and certification require-
ments of personnel involved in dimensional measure-
ments and inspections on CMMs.
The specifications will establish and maintain national
standards of qualifications for CMM operators, help
upgrading the skills of those operators and integrate
their qualifications in the quality system according with
the ISO 9000 standard requirements.
The certification requirements will recognize the knowl-
edge, training and the experience necessary to per-
form accurately CMM operations at levels compatible
with the best practice in the field.
1.2 SCOPE
Summer 2001
4. Measurement instruments (other than CMMs)
5. CMM hardware
6. CMM software
7. Measuring errors and uncertainty
8. Machine capability
9. CMM operations
10. Standards and specifications
The estimation of measuring uncertainties and their
application during part acceptance will become a very
important part of the CMM operator’s work. This infor-
mation was obtained from the ACMC website.
These specifications provide the requirements and
qualifications, and the certification levels for CMMs
professionals in Canada. The goal of these specifica-
tions is to set up a general scheme for training, quali-
fication and certification of personnel operating CMMs.
1.3 ORGANIZATION
The required qualifications, certification levels and
requirements shall be administered, monitored and
endorsed by The Association for Coordinate Metrology
Canada/Association Canadienne de Metrology de
Coordonees (ACMC) – an independent professional
association of CMMs users in Canada.
The ACMC shall administer the examinations at differ-
ent locations across Canada, as well as issue the CMM
certificates to those individuals who passed success-
fully the certification examinations.
The ACMC will provide the curricula details and other
requirements to educational institutions, training agen-
cies or any such organization involved in the training of
CMMs personnel. Upon submittal of their training pro-
grams or courses in this field, the ACMC reserves the
right to endorse those courses. The endorsement
means that those training programs conform to the
requirements outlined in Appendix 1 - Body of Knowl-
edge.
2.0 CERTIFICATION LEVELS AND REQUIRED
QUALIFICATIONS
2.1 CERTIFICATION LEVELS
There are two levels of CMM Professional certification:
(a) CMM Inspector
(b) CMM Senior
Individuals certified at each of the two levels may be
involved in any of the following activities:
 Summer 2001 The Standard
2.1.1 CMM Inspector: Understand the symbols and
tolerances on technical drawings and documentation,
set up the measurement and inspection on CMMs,
program and run the CMMs and gather results.
2.1.2 CMM Senior: Evaluate technical drawings and
documentation, take overall responsibility for CMMs
operations, including programming, running and evalu-
ation of results, design procedures for any measure-
ment requirement, evaluate the uncertainty of mea-
surements.
2.2 QUALIFICATIONS
2.2.1 CMM Inspector: The requirements for certifica-
tion as a CMM Inspector shall be successfully passing
of the CMM Inspector examination.
2.2.2 CMM Senior: The requirements for certification
as a CMM Senior shall be the following:
(a) Three years of documented experience in
the field of Coordinate Metrology, and
(b) Successfully passing the CMM Senior ex-
amination. There is no requirement to be a
certified CMM Inspector to qualify for tak-
ing the CMM Senior examination.
3.0 EXAMINATION REQUIREMENTS
3.1 CMM Inspector examination
The exam conditions, such as duration, type and
number of questions or passing grade for this examina-
tion shall be established by the ACMC - Certification
Committee.
The topics and distribution of questions should follow
closely those defined in the Body of Knowledge -
Appendix 1.
3.2 The CMM Senior examination
The exam conditions, such as duration, type and
number of questions or passing grade for this examina-
tion shall be established by the ACMC - Certification
Committee. The topics and distribution of questions
should follow closely those defined in the Body of
Knowledge - Appendix 1.
4.0 CERTIFICATION PROCESS
4.1 APPLICATION PROCESS
Each applicant shall complete a written application
with all required information for processing.
Application forms can be obtained from ACMC mailing
address or web site.
Upon payment of necessary fees and processing, the
ACMC - Certification Committee will notify the appli-
cant of the details of dates, locations of the next
scheduled examination. Examinations shall be sched-
uled periodically at geographic locations as convenient
as possible to the applicant.
Page 25
4.2 FEES
The fees shall be recommended by the ACMC - Certi-
fication Committee, and approved by the ACMC Ex-
ecutive Committee.
4.3 CERTIFICATION CARD AND CERTIFICATE
A successful applicant will receive a card and a certifi-
cate issued by the ACMC - Certification Committee.
Both, the card and certificate will have an expiration
date of three years from the date of issuance.
4.4 RECERTIFICATION
Certification to the same level may be renewed without
examination upon verification of involvement with CMMs
operation for at least 24 months of the previous three
years. Attendance of seminars, conferences or other
training programs in the field should also be accept-
able. A verifiable record shall be provided to ACMC -
Certification committee as evidence of such involve-
ment.
4.5 APPEAL
An applicant who failed the examination is entitled to an
appeal, in writing, to the ACMC - Certification Commit-
tee. A special panel of judges will analyze the appeal
and make a decision. The decision of the Appeal panel
is final.
5.0 PROMOTION
ACMC shall promote actively the Certification initiative
at all federal and provincial bodies and agencies.
When necessary, ACMC will advertise in the media
details of certification process as well as dates and
location of the certification examinations.
6.0 INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION
ACMC shall analyze similar certification schemes in
other countries and recognize the equivalent certifica-
tion level of foreign CMM personnel working in Canada.
In turn, ACMC will obtain equivalent recognition Cana-
dian Certified CMM personnel working outside Canada.
7.0 MISCELLANEOUS
The examination questions and all related materials
shall be available in both English or French languages.
APPENDIX 1 BODY OF KNOWLEDGE
APPENDIX 2 List of Educational organizations de-
livering training programs endorsed by ACMC
APPENDIX 3 List of members of the ACMC - Certi-
fication Committee
APPENDIX 4 List of reference publications
 Page 26 The Standard Summer 2001

CANADIAN CERTIFICATION OF COORDINATE

MEASURING MACHINES (CMMs) PROFESSIONALS
(Draft 3 / May 2000)
BODY OF KNOWLEDGE
A. TECHNICAL MATHEMATICS First and third angle projection
1. Basic operations Drawing conventions
Addition, subtraction, multiplication, division Dashed lines, solid lines, centerlines
Exponent, powers, roots Partial and enlarged views
Fractions Sections
2. Trigonometry Scales
Trigonometric functions Auxiliary views
Use of calculator for trigonometric functions of 2. Dimensional tolerances
any angle 3. Limits and fits
Trigonometric conversions International tolerance grades
3. Algebra Fundamental deviations
Polynomials 4. Geometric dimensioning and tolerancing
Inequalities C. APPLIED STATISTICS FOR MANUFACTURING
Linear algebra for coordinate manipulation 1. Basic theory of probabilities
4. Matrices 2. General terms
Addition, subtraction and multiplication Histogram
Matrix inversion Normal distribution
5. Vectors Binomial distribution
Dot and cross vector product Mean and standard deviation
Construction of a rotation matrix using Normal probability curve
orthonormal vectors Central limit theorem
Reference frame transformation 3. Process capability
Normalization of a vector Cp and Cpk ratios
6. Geometry in plane and space 4. Process control charts
Angles Charts for variables
Triangles and relations of their main features Estimated process standard deviation
Circles Control limits
Solid bodies Charts for attributes
7. Analytical geometry 5. Statistical sampling
Coordinate systems Non-conforming product and non-conformities
Straight lines, segments Acceptable quality level
Circles Sampling plans
Planes and surfaces
Solid bodies D. DIMENSIONAL METROLOGY, MEASURING
8. Calculus (partial derivatives for uncertainty INSTRUMENTS
evaluation) 1. Language of measurement
Derivative Abbe s principle
Basic differentials Accuracy, precision and reliability
9. Optimization 2. Measurement with graduated scales
Least square minimization 3. Vernier instruments
10. Measuring units 4. Micrometer instruments
Length (inch and metric, conversion) 5. Gage blocks
Temperature (°C. °F. °K. conversion) 6. Dial indicators and high amplification comparators
Humidity 7. Pneumatic measurement
Vibrations 8. Optical metrology
9. Reference planes
B. TECHNICAL DRAWINGS 10. Angle measurement
1. General principles 11. Surface metrology
Orthographic projections 12. Measurement of roundness
Drawing conventions
 Summer 2001 The Standard
E. COORDINATE MEASURING MACHINE–
HARDWARE
1. CMMs types, advantages and limitations
2. Measuring scales
3. Probes types, advantages and limitations
4. Measuring environment and its influence on
CMMs accuracy
F. COORDINATE MEASURING MACHINE–
SOFTWARE
1. Measured geometric elements
2. Basic programming
3. Programming routines
4. Operator interface
5. Best-of-Fit mathematics
6. Software architecture
7. DMIS
8. CAD and CMMs software interface
G. CMMs PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
1. Errors and uncertainty
Error types
Machine structure dependent
Sources Of CMM Information on the Internet
CMM Forum
www.cmmworld.com
The international CMM Applications Group
www.iserv.net/~cmmapps/index.html
CMM Users Group (Italy)
www.cmmclub.it
Association for Coordinate Metrology Canada
www.acmc-canada.ca/admin.html
Metrology Society of Australia
www.metrology.asn.au/cmmgroup.htm
PTB-The National Metrology Institute
(Germany)
www.ptb.de/english/org/5/53/532/vcmm.htm
National Physical Laboratory (UK)
www.npl.co.uk/npl/clubs/dmac/sigs.html
IMEKO-International Measurement
Confederation TC 14
www.qfm.uni-erlangen.de/imeko-tc14/aims.htm
ISO/TC 213/WG 10 CMM Standards
Committee
www.ds.dk/isotc213/working.htm
Page 27
Geometrical errors
Dynamic errors
Probe dependent error
Ambient conditions dependent
Temperature dependent
2. Probe effective type radius
3. Errors combination and propagation
4. Methods and artifacts used to discover errors
1D artifact (gage blocks and length bars)
2D artifact (ball bars and ball plates)
3D artifact (spatial structure)
5. CMMs acceptance and re-verification tests
Interim testing and suitable artifacts
Software error compensation
Software temperature compensation
6. International standards for CMM acceptance
and verification
Machine uncertainty in 1D, 2D, and 3D
7. International standards for assessment of
measurement uncertainty
8. Uncertainty rules for accepting and rejecting
parts
ASME Division 4/B89.4 Coordinate Measuring
Technology Committee
www.asme.org/cns/departments/Standardization/
Public/B89/structure.html
University of Missouri-Rolla
www.isc.umr.edu/information/equip/cmm/outlinec.htm
Metrology Automation Association
www.metrologyautomation.org/updates
Avail-NP & PC-DMIS Users Group
www.pc-dmis.com
Brown & Sharp MFG Magazine
www.e-metrology.com/mfg-online/subscribe
Canadian Measurement-Metrology, Inc
www.cmmxyz.com/main.shhtml
Metrology Methods Support Technology
www.thenettrainer.net/mmst/aboutus.html
Multi Metrics, Inc
www.multimetrics.com/multimetrics/catalog.html
 Page 28 The Standard Summer 2001

CMM-APPS THE CMM-APPS

INTERNATIONAL
CMM
APPLICATIONS GROUP
151 Fountain NE, Grand Rapids, MI 49503-3263 PH: (616) 234-3600 FAX: (616) 234-3605
http://www.iserv.net/~cmmapps/index.html

APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP

NAME:

COMPANY:

TITLE:

ADDRESS:

CITY:

STATE: ZIP:

PHONE: FAX:

E-MAIL:

CMM BRAND:

CMM SOFTWARE:

TOPICS YOU WOULD LIKE DISCUSSED:

WHERE YOU WOULD LIKE YOUR NEWSLETTER MAILED IF DIFFERENT FROM ABOVE:

ADDRESS:

CITY: ZIP:

Dues are $20.00 per person per year and $50.00 for companies per year.

Please mail this form and/or check to the above address.

TAX IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: 38-2996759
MICHIGAN CHARTER NUMBER: 728-405
 Summer 2001 The Standard
Book Review
The Sum of Our Discontent: Why Numbers Make
Us Irrational
by David Boyle
List Price: $24.95
Categories: Business & Investing, Nonfiction,
Science
ISBN: 1587990601 Hardcover 256 pages 6/4/2001 Pub. Date
(Book Review provided by Frank Voehl)
Numbers and measures. Are they taking over our
lives? Do they mean anything? Can they really be
fathomed, and probed, and audited? In our scientific
and technological numbers-obsessed age, are we
losing touch with our basic instincts? To what extent
can statistics and measurements really represent real-
ity or translate that reality into meaning? This book is a
great antidote to cynicism and a sharp and witty re-
minder of what is important in life, written in a rather
soft, descriptive and often funny style. Boyle, who is a
writer and journalist specializing in economics, feels
that much of our difficulty in understanding economic
and sociological problems can be traced to our at-
tempts to describe complex systems by simple statis-
tical numbers and measures.
The author points out that, since most things in real
life are complex and multifaceted, practitioners must
almost automatically fail when trying to reduce such
things to a single number. He also makes some other
very good points: that what we choose to count tells us
more than the result of the count; that many of our
measurements are inaccurate; and, most importantly,
that the measuring and auditing process affects the
A Message from the Past Chair…
Mark Schoenlein
Where does one go for answers to questions of appli-
cation which require the insight of experience? One
source could be Users Groups. I was reminded of their
importance while gathering information about CMMs
for this issue. They exist in a variety of forms such as
web-based forums, local meetings of interested indi-
viduals, and groups internal to an organization.
During our initial efforts to become A2LA accredited,
our organization utilized the various web ISO forums
and newsgroups. We were also fortunate to have
access to a Guide 25 users group that GM Powertrain
was sponsoring in the Detroit area. This invaluable
interaction with other local organizations going through
the same process made the 11/2 hour one way drive
worth it. We were able to develop our systems with a
more focused approach more quickly.
Over the last few years our parent organization has
reduced or eliminated most technical support silos.
This absence of technical expertise has forced many
Page 29
very things that we are trying to understand. However,
whether our failures result from statistical oversimplifi-
cation that may be correctable or from the inherent
impossibility of the task is open to much debate.
Boyle’s book also features short biographies, which
are interesting in their own right: people like Robert
Malthus and John Maynard Keynes, who have helped
move us in the direction of greater quantification. This
thought-provoking, interdisciplinary book reveals how
numbers and measurement affect the very tenets of
civilization: philosophy, science, art, music, and busi-
ness. For centuries, the world has used numbers to
divine meaning from life. The more materialistic we
become, the more we need to quantify everything.
Jeremy Bentham once defined the aim of politics as
“the greatest happiness of the greatest number.”
The Sum of Our Discontent shows us how our
means of quantification over the last two hundred
years have become increasingly disturbing and mean-
ingless. Surveys on “measuring” emotional intelligence
find that Mexicans are the happiest people on earth.
The Japanese are the most miserable. Crime rates can
be made to correspond to random speeches or sun
spots. The Sum of Our Discontent weaves together
sociology, metrology, and economics with history, myth
and philosophy and reveals how numbers merely
provide the illusion of control and mastery. Interesting
food for thought for all who are involved with measure-
ment, metrology, auditing, and the science and art of
numbers.
individuals to become self-sufficient. We have been
using interest groups to support the development,
deployment, maintenance, and improvement of tech-
nical processes or quality methods like DOE. Likewise,
our CAD/E users meet quarterly to discuss system and
process issues. They also have access to external
application user groups.
The Woods Quality Center in Cedar Rapids, Iowa has
an especially noteworthy approach to the facilitation of
local interest groups. The Center routinely hosts sub-
ject forums on the same night each month. For in-
stance the 1st Tuesday might be ISO night, the 2nd
Thursday Covey night, 3rd Friday Baldrige night and so
on. Participants get to share experiences, ask ques-
tions, and review a featured area,
element, or category. This is an
excellent way to network and learn
from the experiences of others at
almost no cost.
So the next time you need some
information try your friendly “neigh-
borhood” (web or local) users
group.
 Page 30 The Standard
News Update
A2LA Addressing Concerns About
Measurement Uncertainty
As has become clear from the many phone calls
received at A2LA headquarters, the measurement
uncertainty requirements of ISO/IEC Standard 17025
are presenting testing laboratories with a daunting
challenge. A2LA is taking a number of steps to help
these laboratories to comply with the requirements. It
is hoped that the following initiatives will generate
desired guidance for our laboratory constituents:
• On the international front, the European
cooperation for Accreditation (EA) has formed
an expert group to draft guidance on mea-
surement uncertainty for testing labs. The
Asia-Pacific Laboratory Accreditation Coop-
eration (APLAC) is planning for a “measure-
ment uncertainty in testing workshop” to be
held in Hong Kong in June. A2LA staff will
be active in both these groups and will share
with A2LA testing laboratories the relevant
information that emanates from them.
• An A2LA document giving the program re-
quirements for dimensional inspection labs
has been drafted. It explains how to calcu-
late uncertainty in dimensional measurements
and provides numerous examples covering
everything from calipers to the interoferometric
calibration of a gage block.
The document is now being reviewed by technical
experts. Once their comments are received
and processed, it will be submitted to the
A2LA Criterion Council for final approval. Once
approved, it will be available to our accred-
ited and applicant laboratories.
• The A2LA web site has a growing bibliogra-
phy of currently available guidance documents,
both domestic and foreign.
• Measurement uncertainty within the testing
laboratory will be a primary agendum topic
at the 2001 A2LA Assessor Conclave being
held in early April in Columbia, MD. Asses-
sors will discuss uncertainty issues in each
of the various fields of testing for which A2LA
offers accreditation. The proceedings of the
Conclave discussion will be published and
made available to testing laboratories.
• Finally, A2LA staff is always receptive to requests
for help and/or information from representa-
tives of laboratories and others concerned
Summer 2001
about the uncertainty issue. Thomas Adams,
A2LA Metrology Manager, is the primary point
of contact for these requests. His phone number
is 301-644-3219; email address, tmadams@
a2la.org.
A2LA Interim Policy on Measurement
Uncertainty for Testing Laboratories
The following A2LA policy was issued in Au-
gust, 2000, and will be updated periodically by
A2LA until the transition from ISO/IEC Guide 25 to
ISO/IEC 17025 is completed.
It is acknowledged that the concept of measure-
ment uncertainty is relatively new for the testing labo-
ratory community. A2LA is taking a practical approach
to implementing the ISO/IEC 17025 measurement
uncertainty requirements for testing labs (see next
page). The following interim policy should allow labo-
ratories sufficient time to train staff members and then
develop and apply procedures for measurement un-
certainty:
A2LA applicant and accredited testing laboratories
can temporarily satisfy a deficiency cited against
Clause 5.4.6.2 and/or 5.4.6.3 of ISO/IEC 17025 by
submitting a documented implementation plan with
their 30-day corrective action response. The
implementation plan must contain the steps the
laboratory will take to write and implement their
procedures for estimating measurement uncer-
tainty prior to the lab’s next on-site surveillance
(for new labs) or annual review (for renewal labs).
PROCEDURE
A. The assessor(s) must identify and document
in the method review matrix the applicable
measurement uncertainty category (I-V be-
low) for the tests identified on the lab’s pro-
posed scope of accreditation:
I. Qualitative or semi-quantitative tests for which
measurement uncertainty budgets will not be
required.
II. Well-recognized test methods that specify limits
to the values of the major sources of uncertainty
of measurement and specify the form of
presentation of calculated results. In such cases,
the laboratory is considered to have satisfied this
clause by following the test methods and reporting
instructions.
III. Chemical, environmental, or biological test
methods based on published regulatory or
consensus methods (examples: FDA, EPA,
AOAC, ASTM, APAH/AWWA) for which the
 Summer 2001 The Standard
measurement uncertainty is not defined in the
method. For these types of tests, uncertainty can
be estimated using the standard deviation of
laboratory control samples (lcs) of more than 50
points. (This does not include laboratory-
developed methods which require validation and
fall under IV or V.)
IV. Test methods that need identification of the
major components of uncertainty and a
reasonable estimate of measurement
uncertainty.
V. Test methods that need identification of all
components of uncertainty and detailed
measurement uncertainty budgets calculated in
accordance with published methods that are
consistent with those described in the ISO “Guide
to the Expression of Uncertainty in
Measurement.”
Note that in order to determine if the uncertainty affects
compliance to a specification limit (ISO/IEC 17025,
5.10.3.1 c - see below), uncertainty must be estimated.
Categories III, IV or V applies to these types of meth-
ods.
B. Within 30 days after the assessment, the
laboratory must submit the implementation
plan with their normal corrective action re-
sponse. The plan must include at least the
following:
• Identification of staff who are currently trained in
or for which training on measurement uncertainty
is planned.
• Timeline for obtaining training (within one year).
• Timeline for writing the procedure for estimating
measurement uncertainty in accordance with
ISO/IEC 17025 Clause 5.4.6.2 (within one year).
• Timeline for estimating measurement uncertainty
in accordance with the lab’s written procedures
(must be completed within one year, prior to a
new lab’s surveillance or a renewal lab’s annual
review.)
C. Objective evidence of compliance, including
the procedure for estimating measurement
uncertainty, and the resulting documented
uncertainty budgets and uncertainty values,
where relevant, will be reviewed in accor-
dance with the following schedule:
• For new laboratories, compliance will be verified
by the assessor during the laboratory’s on-site
surveillance.
• For renewal labs, compliance will be verified by
the assessor during the annual review process
(or sooner at the laboratory’s request).
Page 31
The laboratory will be billed by A2LA for the actual
cost of the assessor’s time to review the objective
evidence.
Notes: Applicable ISO/IEC 17025 Clauses on
measurement uncertainty for testing labs:
ISO/IEC 17025, section 5.4.6.2 states the following:
Testing laboratories shall have and shall apply
procedures for estimating uncertainty of measure-
ment. In certain cases the nature of the test method
may preclude rigorous, metrologically and statistically
valid, calculation of uncertainty of measurement. In
these cases, the laboratory shall at least attempt to
identify all the components of uncertainty and make a
reasonable estimation and shall ensure that the form of
reporting of the result does not give a wrong impression
of the uncertainty. Reasonable estimation shall be
based on knowledge of the performance of the method
and on the measurement scope and shall make use of,
for example, previous experience and validation data.
Note 1: The degree of rigor needed in an estimation of
uncertainty of measurement depends on factors such
as the requirements of the test method, the require-
ments of the client, and the existence of narrow limits
on which decisions on conformance to a specification
are based.
Note 2: In those cases where a well-recognized test
method specifies limits to the values of the major
sources of uncertainty of measurement and specifies
the form of presentation of calculated results, the
laboratory is considered to have satisfied this clause by
following the test method and reporting instructions
(see 5.10).
ISO/IEC 17025, section 5.4.6.3 states:
When estimating the uncertainty of measurement,
all uncertainty components which are of importance in
the given situation shall be taken into account using
appropriate methods of analysis.
Note 1: Sources of uncertainty include, but are not
necessarily limited to, the reference standards and
reference materials used, methods and equipment
used, environmental conditions, properties and condi-
tion of the item being tested or calibrated, and the
operator.
Note 2: The predicted long-term behavior of the tested
and/or calibrated item is not normally taken into ac-
count when estimating measurement uncertainty.
Note 3: For further information, see ISO 5725 and the
Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measure-
ment.
(Please contact A2LA to obtain reference docu-
ments that describe acceptable methods of estimating
measurement uncertainty.)
 Page 32 The Standard
ISO/IEC 17025 section 5.10.3.1 c states the follow-
ing:
(Test reports shall, where necessary for the inter-
pretation of the test results, include the following:)
Where applicable, a statement on the estimated
uncertainty of measurement. Information on uncer-
tainty is needed in test reports when it is relevant to the
INTERNATIONAL SEARCH FOR METROLOGY
RESOURCES: USING THE EEVL CATALOGUE
by Frank Voehl
Introduction
In order to provide a wider range of metrology
information services, each issue will focus on a
different aspect of our international information
search. This issue will focus on the EEVL Cata-
logue. EEVL (the Edinburgh Engineering Virtual Li-
brary) is a UK-based guide to engineering information
on the Internet. It is a free service, created and run by
a team of information specialists from Heriot-Watt
University, with input from a number of other universi-
ties in the UK. The site features a catalogue of quality
engineering resources (selected by subject consult-
ants), targeted engineering search engines, biblio-
graphic and events databases, including the Recent
Advances in Manufacturing bibliographic database, a
directory of science and technology librarians, an En-
gineering on the Internet bibliography, and Hot Links to
useful sites.
EEVL’s catalogue incorporates resources from
AERADE, the gateway to quality aerospace and de-
fence resources. EEVL is now the World Wide Web
Virtual Library for Engineering and has received sev-
eral awards. EEVL is updated daily.
EEVL is funded by JISC through the Resource
Discovery Network (RDN).
For more information, contact Roddy MacLeod,
EEVL Manager <R.A.Macleod@hw.ac.uk>.
Description
EEVL provides a central access point to networked
Engineering information. Resources being added to
the catalogue are selected, catalogued, classified and
subject-indexed by experts to ensure that only current,
high-quality or useful resources are included.
EEVL also provides targeted engineering search
engines - to UK engineering sites, to engineering e-
journals and to engineering newsgroups, and to spe-
cialized information services, such as the Recent Ad-
vances in Manufacturing (RAM) bibliographic data-
Summer 2001
validity or application of the test results, when a client’s
instructions so require, or when the uncertainty affects
compliance to a specification limit.
base, and the Offshore Engineering Information Ser-
vice.
Key dates and deliverables
* The Project commenced at the beginning of
August, 1995.
* By February, 1996, a database of core re-
sources was in place.
* By August, 1996, a pilot system tested the
service to a cross-section of potential users.
* Since September, 1996, the service has been
operational, with the EEVL database “live”.
Documentation (user guides, flyers, public-
ity material) are being widely distributed through-
out the higher education community. Promo-
tional/training sessions are held at selected
sites.
* Various Additional Services, such as the UK
Engineering Search Engine, the Engineering
E-journal Search Engine and the Recent
Advances in Manufacturing (RAM) database,
have been added.
* The project has received funding until July,
1999. During this year, the Main EEVL Ser-
vice (the Catalogue of Engineering Resources)
was developed and expanded, and a cross-
database search service, EEVL’s All-in-one
Search on the Internet for Engineering Re-
sources (EASIER), was implemented.
* From August, 1999, EEVL was funded for
three years by JISC as part of the Resource
Discovery Network. It is one of three gate-
ways in the Engineering, Mathematics and
Computing (EMC) Hub, based at Heriot-Watt
University. EEVL now incorporates resources
from AERADE, the gateway to quality aero-
space and defence resources, based at Cranfield
University.
Service Structure
The lead site for the EEVL Service is Heriot-Watt
 Summer 2001 The Standard Page 33

University Library. Technical input for the Service is
provided by the Institute for Computer Based Learning
(ICBL). Partners are the University of Edinburgh, Cam-
bridge University, Imperial College of Science, Tech-
nology and Medicine, The Nottingham Trent Univer-
sity, the University of Sheffield, the Institution of Elec-
trical Engineers and the University of Cranfield.
Project Logo
Why the EEVL Eye?
Why is there an Egyptian-looking eye on the EEVL
Web pages. Well, EEVL is, of course, all about engi-
neering information. The ancient Egyptians were re-
nowned engineers - their pyramids were included in the
Seven Wonders of the World. The EEVL eye logo
represents the eye of Horus, which features in hiero-
glyphic writing and which was a symbol of victory over
evil.
EEVL’s eye is always on the lookout for quality
engineering resources to be added to our catalogue. If
you would like to submit a site to EEVL, please use our
online form.
If you would like a copy of an EEVL leaflet, which
explains more about the service, and an EEVL eye
black and gold sticker, please contact: R.A.MacLeod
@hw.ac.uk

Top 10 UK Engineering Search Engine Results

1. Chemsoc - the chemistry societies’ electronic network contains bus...
http://www.chemsoc.org/chembytes/goldbook/index.htm
2. Surface Finish, calibration equipment, surtronic, talysurf.
http://www.taylor-hobson.com/surface_finish.htm
3. Derek Ford of the Precision Engineering Centre
http://www.hud.ac.uk/schools/engineering/staff/lmorrish/lmorrish.htm
4. NPL. The National Physical Laboratory - the UK’s national standards
http://www.npl.co.uk/npl/science/ionising.html
5. Ankylosing Spondylitis Jigs
http://www.bath.ac.uk/Centres/BIME/projects/mh/aks.htm
6. Software that converts from one unit of measurement to another.
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/download4.shtml
7. News of interest to those involved in calibration.
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/news20000310.shtml
8. Faculty of Engineering - University of Newcastle upon Tyne
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/engineering/faccons.htm
9. BMVA
http://www.bmva.ac.uk/meetings/meetings/00/1Nov00/index.html
10. Trade Association for the British Machine Tool Industry Importers
http://www.mtta-importers.org.uk/
 Page 34 The Standard Summer 2001

2001 Measurement Quality Conference

National Institute of Standards & Technology,
Gaithersburg, MD
September 13 – 14, 2001
The 2001 Measurement Quality Conference, co-sponsored by the Measurement Quality Division (MQD) of the
American Society for Quality and the Electricity Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST), will be held Thursday and Friday, September 13 and 14, in the NIST Green Auditorium. Registration details
will be posted on the MQD web site http://www.metrology.org beginning June 15. Conference site is in the NIST
Green Auditorium. The Conference hotel is: Holiday Inn, 2 Montgomery Village Ave. (Intersection of Rt. 355 &
Montgomery), Gaithersburg, MD 20879, Tel: 301-948-8900, Fax: 301-258-1940.

Thursday Setember 13
8:30 - 10:00 Session One
The History of Our National Measurement Laboratory
N. Belecki, Chair
NBS - The First Sixty Years, P.L.M. Heydemann, NBS and NIST (ret.)
The Emergence of Modern Metrology – 1962 to the Present, J.F. Schooley, NBS and NIST
(ret.)
10:00 - 10:15 Break
10:15 - 12:15 Session Two

Into Our Second Century (Presentations and Workshop)

J. Mayo-Wells, Chair
Chemical Metrology: Future Developments, H.G. Semerjian, Chemical Science and
Technology
Electrometrology and NIST – New Directions, W. E. Anderson, Electronics and Electrical Engineering
Laboratory, NIST

NIST Length and Dimensional Metrology in 2015, D.A. Swyt, Manufacturing Engineering
Laboratory, NIST
Optical and Ionizing Radiation Metrology in 2015, W.R. Ott, Physics Laboratory, NIST
Discussion of Future Metrology Needs, Speakers and Audience

12:15 – 1:15 Lunch, NIST Cafeteria

1:15 – 2:45 Session Three
ASQ Certification (Presentations and Panel)
C.L. Grachanen, Compaq Computer, Chair

ASQ Certification - Obtaining Performance Excellence, S. Harthun, ASQ Headquarters

Creating a New ASQ Certification: A Roadmap to Success, C.L. Grachanen, Compaq Computer
Certified Calibration Technician Program (CCT) Update: Milestones to Success, J. Smith,
General Electric Co.

Panel Discussion (Speakers plus P.G. Stein, Philip G. Stein Consultants)

2:45 - 3:00 Break
3:00 - 4:30 Session Four
 Summer 2001 The Standard Page 35

Laboratory Accreditation: Transition to ISO 17025

N.B. Belecki, Consultant, Chair

ISO 17025, International Agreements, and News, P. Unger, A2LA

The Importance of Traceability and Uncertainty Analyses to the Effectiveness of ISO
17025 Accreditation, C.D. Faison, NVLAP
ISO 17025 Accreditation from the Perspective of Small, Independent Laboratories,
M. Smith, WESCAN Calibrations Services

ISO 17025 Accreditation in a Large Company Environment, D. Deaver, Fluke Co.

Panel Discussion (Speakers and Audience)
7:00 Conference Dinner; Recognition of NIST Centennial (Holiday Inn)

K. Brown, Acting Director, NIST (tentative)

D. Allen, Chair, ASQ Measurement Quality Division
P. Stein, Director, ASQ
N. Belecki, Conference Chair
Friday, September 14
08:30 - 10:00 Session Five

Calculation of Measurement Uncertainty Consistent with the U. S. Guide ANSI/NCSL

Z540-2-1997
R. Kacker, NIST, Chair
A Spreadsheet Approach to Evaluate Measurement Uncertainty, D.A. Shah, E = MC3 Solutions
Quantifying Measurement Uncertainty: An Approach Using The Kragten Spreadsheet,
T.W. Vetter, NIST

Uncertainty Calculator 3.0 - New Revision, C.L. Grachanen, Compaq Computer Corporation
Panel Discussion (Speakers and Audience)
10:00 - 10:15 Break

10:15 - 12:15 Session Six

Measure for Six Sigma... Six Sigma for Measurements
T.A. Pearson, Tom Pearson Consulting, Chair
Six-Sigma Background – The DEFINE Step, T.A. Pearson, Tom Pearson Consulting

Six-Sigma Background – The MEASURE and ANALYZE Steps, S. Windsor, Filltronic Comtek
Six-Sigma Background – The IMPROVE and CONTROL Steps, P.G. Stein, Philip G. Stein
Consultants
12:15 - 1:15 Lunch Break (NIST Cafeteria)

1:15 - 3:00 Session Seven

Metrology and Quality Education and Training Prospects
D. Nebel, Electronic Distributers, Inc., Chair
Panelists:

C. Bautista
N. Belecki, Consultant
 Page 36 The Standard Summer 2001

D. Schiebel, Butler County Community College

E.E. Watson, California State University – Dominguez Hills

3:00 Conference Close

3:15 - 4:15 Advanced Measurement Laboratory Overview
4:15 Return to Hotel

Meeting Announcement
The Council of the Measurement Quality Division of the American Society for Quality will meet at 6:30 in the
conference hotel. This is an open meeting; all Division members are especially encouraged to attend. Exact venue
will be posted in the hotel.
Tutorial
As is customary, a one-day tutorial will be held the day prior to the Measurement Quality Conference, Wednesday,
September 12, 2001, in NIST North. Transportation will be provided.
Uncertainty and Measurement Assurance for Accredited Labs
A one-day tutorial
For the ASQ Measurement Quality Division
Philip Stein, Instructor
The requirements of Guide 25, and now standard 17025, specify two important concepts: calculation
of measurement uncertainty (and best measurement capability), and assuring the quality of measurement
results.
Together, the realization of these two principles cause more problems for labs seeking accreditation
than all other requirements combined. They require some smart metrology, some simple statistics,
and a lot of new ways of thinking and new learning for nearly everyone.
During this one-day course, you will learn the basic principles of measurement assurance and
how they support both calculation of uncertainty and in-service (intermediate) checking of the
measurement process. Through lectures, discussion, and exercises, the details of how to perform
these tests, experiments, and calculations will be explained and practiced.
Topics:
• The basic concepts of measurement uncertainty
• Statistical background
• Influence quantities and how they add up
• Calculating influences: Types A and B
• Computing standard uncertainty
Determining the repeatability of a measurement
Separating and quantifying measurement influences
Measurement process capability and studies
Control of the measurement process
Control charts, in-service checks, and uncertainty calculations
Who should attend?
• Metrologists and measurement engineers
• Technical and quality managers
• Senior calibration technicians
• Measurement system designers and specifiers
• Anyone who needs to manage measurement and calibration processes
• Potential candidates for the ASQ Calibration Technician Certification
Prerequisites:
Basic algebra
Experience with measurements and calibration
Price: $225 per student, includes all materials
Summer 2001 The Standard Page 37
 Page 38 The Standard Summer 2001

Measurement Quality Division Officers

Chair
Duane Allen .................. U.S. Navy, P.O. Box 5000, Code MS11, Corona, CA 92878-5000 909-273-4783 V
e-mail: allendk@corona.navy.mil 909-273-4599 F
Past Chairman
Mark Schoenlein ........... Owens Illinois Plastics Group, One SeaGate 29L-PP, Toledo, OH 43666 419-247-7285 V
e-mail: mark.schoenlein@owens-ill.com 419-247-8770 F
Chair Elect
Open
Vice Chair for Regions
Samuel Windsor ............ Filltronic Comtek 410-341-7751 V
31901 Comtek Lane, Salisbury, MD 21804 410-341-0330 F
e-mail: swindsor@fc-us.com
Treasurer
Colleen Gadbois ........... 535 N.W. 112th Ave., Portland, OR 97229-6116 503-646-1380 V
e-mail: cdblflat@home.com 503-646-1380 F
Secretary
Joseph Filipowicz .......... Alliance Compressors
715 Oakland Dr., Natchitoches, LA 71457 318-356-4570 V
e-mail: joeflip@earthlink.net 318-356-4570 F
Auditing
Karl F. Speitel ................ 14 Kalleston Drive, Pittsford, NY 14534 716-385-1838 H
Certification
Christopher L. Grachanen ..... Manager, Standards Engineering
P.O. Box 692000 MS070110, Houston, TX 77269-2000 281-518-8486 V
Compaq Computer Corporation, Corporate Metrology 281-518-7275 F
e-mail: chris.grachanen@compaq.com
Programs
Keith Conerly ................ Dow Chemical Co. 517-638-7058 V
e-mail: Kconerly@dow.com 517-638-6928 F
Membership
Kathy Hoath .................. Superior Technical Training 616-957-7750 V
2419 Brook Dr. S.E., Grand Rapids, MI 49512 616-318-9001 C
e-mail: Khoathk@aol.com 616-957-7751 F
Education
Thomas A. Pearson ...... Automated Technology Associates 317-271-9545 ext. 224 V
1635 Expo Lane, Indianapolis, IN 46214 317-271-7974 F
e-mail: tap@ataindy.com
Publications
J.L. Madrigal .................. Oxford Worldwide Group 801-374-1790 V
1045 South Orem Blvd., Orem, UT 84058 801-374-1790 F
e-mail: jim_oxford@msn.com
Newsletter Editor
Frank Voehl ................... St. Lucie Press, 280 Lake Drive, Coconut Creek, FL 33066 954-972-3012 V
e-mail: FVoehl@aol.com 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: dharper.hqa@home.com 503-646-1380 F
NCSL Representative
Christopher L. Grachanen ..... See Certification
Simmons Scholarship
Norm Belecki ................. 7413 Mill Run Dr., Deerwood, MD 20855-1156 301-869-4520 H
e-mail: n.belecki@ieee.org

Please notify the editor of any errors or changes so that this list can be updated.
 Summer 2001
REGIONAL COUNCILORS
Region 1
Joseph Califano, Hemagen Diagnos-
tics, Inc., 40 Bear Hill Road, Waltham,
MA 02154 • (417) 890-3766, FAX (617)
890-3748
Region 2
Karl F. Speitel, 14 Kalleston Drive,
Pittsford, NY 14534 • (716) 385-1838
Region 3
Eduardo M. Heidelberg, Carter
Wallace, 61 Kendall Dr., Parlin, NJ
08859 • (609) 655-6521, FAX (609)
655-6736
Region 4
Alex Lau, Imperial Oil, 111 St. Clair
Ave W, Toronto, Ont, Canada M5W-
1K3 • (416) 968-4654, FAX (416) 968-
5560, E-mail: alex.lau@esso.com
Region 5
Open
Region 6
J.L. Madrigal, Brigham Young Univ.,
Dept of Statistics, BYU, 222 TMCB,
Provo, UT 84602 • (801) 378-7357,
FAX (801) 378-5722, E-mail: madrigal
@byu.edu
Please notify the editor of any errors or changes so that this list can be updated.
REGIONAL
The Standard
Region 7
Rolf B.F. Schumacher, Coast Quality
Metrology Systems, Inc., 35 Vista Del
Ponto, San Clemente, CA 92672-3122
• (949) 492-6321, FAX (949) 492-6321
Region 8
Frank Weingard, Actco Metrology Ser-
vices, 202, Westview Dr. Meadville, PA
16335 • (800) 382-0393, FAX (814)
337-8288, E-mail: actomet@tool
city.net
Region 9
Dr. Henrik S. Nielson, HN Metrology
Consulting, Inc., 5230 Nob Lane, India-
napolis, IN 46226 • (317) 849-9577, E-
mail: hsnielson@worldnet.att.net
Region 10
Open
Region 11
Raymond Perham, Michelin Tire Corp.,
Rt 4 Antioch Church, P.O. Box 2846,
Greenville, SC 29605 • (864) 458-1425,
FAX (864) 458-1807, E-mail:
ray.perham@us.michelin.com, or
home E-mail: r.perham007@aol.com
Page 39
Region 12
Donald Ermer, University of Wiscon-
sin Madison, 240 Mechanical Engineer-
ing Bldg., 1513 University Avenue,
Madison, WI 53706-1572 • (608) 262-
2557
Region 13
Thomas A. Myers, Bellevue Univer-
sity, PMP, CQM, 1000 Galvin Rd. S.,
Bellevue, NE 68123 • 1-800-756-7920
ext. 3714, FAX (402) 293-2035, E-
mail: tmyers@scholars.bell
Region 14
Chuck Carter, C.L. Carter, Jr. & Asso-
ciates, Inc. 1211 Glen Cove Drive,
Richardson, TX 75080 • (972) 234-
3296, FAX (972) 234-3296, E-mail:
asqccarter@aol.com
Region 15
Bryan Miller, Champion International,
Inc., P.O. Box 189, Courtland, AL 35816
• (205) 637-6735, FAX (205) 637-5202
Region 25
Nouman Ali Khan, Descon Engineer-
ing Ltd, 38 Sir Agha Khan III Rd., Lahore
54000, Pakistan • V 92-42-6365134,
FAX 92-42-6364049, E-mail: Nakhan
@descon.com.pk
MAP
 The Journal of the Measurement Quality Division
American Society for Quality

The Standard Non-Profit

Organization
U.S. Postage
PAID
Milwaukee, WI
Permit No. 5419
American Society for Quality
Measurement Quality Division

Summer 2001

American Society for Quality

Measurement Quality Division
611 E. Wisconsin Ave
P.O. Box 3005
Milwaukee, WI 53201-3005
TIME VALUED MATERIAL