Decisions About Product
Conformity assessment is making a decision about whether a product, service or other entity conforms to specifications. This final chapter deals with putting into use, when making decisions, all the measurement tools given in the intervening chapters to demonstrate to what extent actual measurement results live up to the initial motivations for making conformity assessment (providing consumer confidence; tools for supplier and supplier when ensuring product quality; essential for several reasons, such as health, environmental protection, fair trade and so on) presented in Sect. 1.1.
Quality assurance of product is intimately related, as said previously, to the quality of measurement—comparability of product quality characteristics is obtained by measuring product with comparable measurement, as assured by metrological traceability to agreed and common reference standards.
Measurement uncertainty leads to certain risks of incorrect decisions in conformity assessment. In this closing chapter, the predictions of design of experiment, ‘rules of thumb’ and more insightful judgements about ‘fit-for-purpose’ measurement and optimised uncertainty based on cost and impact, will be revisited with the actual measurement results in hand, such as obtained in the pre-packaged goods example followed throughout the book.
KeywordsConformity assessment Product Comparability Risks Decision-making Fit-for-purpose Optimised uncertainty Cost Impact Case studies
- AFNOR, Use uncertainty in measurement: presentation of some examples and common practices, in French Standardisation FD x07–022 (2004)Google Scholar
- T. Akkerhuis, Measurement system analysis for binary tests, PhD thesis, FEB: Amsterdam Business School Research Institute (ABS-RI) (2016). ISBN 9789462333673. http://hdl.handle.net/11245/1.540065
- M. Ben-Akiva, M. Bierlaire, Discrete choice methods and their application to short term travel decisions, in International Series in Operations …, 1999 (1984). books.google.com
- D. Deaver, Guardbanding with confidence Proc. NCSL Workshop & Symposium, Chicago, July–August 1994 (1994), pp. 383–394Google Scholar
- T. Fearn, S. A. Fisher, M. Thompson and S. Ellison, A decision theory approach to fitness for purpose in analytical measurement Analyst 127 818–24 (2002)Google Scholar
- R. Fleischmann, Einheiteninvariante Gröβengleichungen, Dimension. Der Mathematische und Naturwissenschaftliche Unterricht 12, 386–399 (1960)Google Scholar
- B. Gao, C. Wu, Y. Wu and Y. Tang, “Expected Utility and Entropy-Based Decision-Making Model for Large Consumers in the Smart Grid”, Entropy 17, 6560-6575; doi:10.3390/e17106560 (2015)Google Scholar
- R.J. Irwin, A psychophysical interpretation of Rasch’s psychometric principle of specific objectivity, in Proceedings of Fechner Day, 23 (2007).Google Scholar
- G. Iverson and R. Luce, The representational measurement approach to psychophysical and judgmental problems, in Measurement, Judgment, and Decision Making. Academic Press Cambridge (1998)Google Scholar
- ISO 5725, Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results, Part 6: Use in practice of accuracy values (1994)Google Scholar
- JCGM 106:2012, Evaluation of measurement data – The role of measurement uncertainty in Conformity Assessment, in Joint Committee on Guides in Metrology (JCGM) (2012)Google Scholar
- D. Kahneman, A. Tversky, Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2), 263–291 (1979). http://www.princeton.edu/~kahneman/docs/Publications/prospect_theory.pdfMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- B. Mandelbrot, N Taleb, Wild uncertainty, in Financial Times, 2006-03-24, Part 2 of ‘Mastering Uncertainty’ series (2006)Google Scholar
- D.L. McFadden, Economic choices, in Prize Lecture, Stockholm (SE), 8 December 2000 (2000). http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2000/mcfadden-lecture.pdf
- L.R. Pendrill, “An optimised uncertainty approach to guard-banding in global conformity assessment”, Advanced Mathematical and Computational Tools in Metrology VIII, in Data Modeling for Metrology and Testing in Measurement Science Series: Modeling and Simulation in Science, Engineering and Technology, Birkhauser, Boston 2009. ISBN: 978-0-8176-4592-2. http://www.worldscibooks.com/mathematics/7212.html
- L.R. Pendrill, H. Karlsson, N. Fischer, S. Demeyer, A. Allard, A guide to decision-making and conformity assessment, in Deliverable 3.3.1, EMRP project (2012–5) NEW04 Novel Mathematical and Statistical Approaches to Uncertainty Evaluation (2015). http://www.ptb.de/emrp/new04-publications.html
- D.A. van Kampen, W.J. Willems, L.W.A.H. van Beers, R.M. Castelein, V.A.B. Scholtes, C.B. Terwee, Determination and comparison of the smallest detectable change (SDC) and the minimal important change (MIC) of four-shoulder patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). J. Orthop. Surg. Res. 8, 40 (2013). http://www.josr-online.com/content/8/1/40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- R.H. Williams, C.F. Hawkins, The Economics of Guardband Placement, in Proceedings, 24th IEEE International Test Conference, Baltimore, MD, 17–21Oct. 1993 (1993)Google Scholar