Advertisement

Decisions About Product

  • Leslie Pendrill
Chapter
Part of the Springer Series in Measurement Science and Technology book series (SSMST)

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Conformity assessment Product Comparability Risks Decision-making Fit-for-purpose Optimised uncertainty Cost Impact Case studies 

References

  1. AFNOR, Use uncertainty in measurement: presentation of some examples and common practices, in French Standardisation FD x07–022 (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. T. Akkerhuis, J. de Mast, T. Erdmann, The statistical evaluation of binary test without gold standard: Robustness of latent variable approaches. Measurement 95, 473–479 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2016.10.043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. D. Andrich, On an identity between the Gaussian and Rasch measurement error distributions: Making the role of the instrument explicit. J. Phys. Conf. Series 1065, 072001 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1065/7/072001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. D. Deaver, Guardbanding with confidence Proc. NCSL Workshop & Symposium, Chicago, July–August 1994 (1994), pp. 383–394Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. R. Fleischmann, Einheiteninvariante Gröβengleichungen, Dimension. Der Mathematische und Naturwissenschaftliche Unterricht 12, 386–399 (1960)Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. D. Hedeker, M. Berbaum, R. Mermelstein, Location-scale models for multilevel ordinal data: between- and within subjects variance modeling. J Probab. Stat. Sci. 4(1), 1–20 (2006)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. R.J. Irwin, A psychophysical interpretation of Rasch’s psychometric principle of specific objectivity, in Proceedings of Fechner Day, 23 (2007).Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. ISO 5725, Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results, Part 6: Use in practice of accuracy values (1994)Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. A.M. Joglekar, Statistical Methods for Six Sigma in R&D and Manufacturing (Wiley, Hoboken, 2003). ISBN: 0-471-20342-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. R. Kacker, N.F. Zhang, C. Hagwood, Real-time control of a measurement process. Metrologia 33, 433–445 (1996)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. B. Mandelbrot, N Taleb, Wild uncertainty, in Financial Times, 2006-03-24, Part 2 of ‘Mastering Uncertainty’ series (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 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
  20. D.C. Montgomery, Introduction to Statistical Quality Control (Wiley, Hoboken, 1996). ISBN: 0-471-30353-4zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. L.R. Pendrill, Operating ‘cost’ characteristics in sampling by variable and attribute. Accred. Qual. Assur. 13, 619–631 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. L.R. Pendrill, Optimised uncertainty and cost operating characteristics: new tools for conformity assessment. Application to geometrical product control in automobile industry. Int. J. Metrol. Qual. Eng 1, 105–110 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1051/ijmqe/2010020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. L.R. Pendrill, Man as a measurement instrument. NCSLI Measure J. Meas. Sci. 9, 24–35 (2014a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. L.R. Pendrill, Using measurement uncertainty in decision-making & conformity assessment. Metrologia 51, S206 (2014b)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. L.R. Pendrill, H. Källgren, Optimised measurement uncertainty and decision-making in the metering of energy, fuel and exhaust gases. Izmerite’lnaya Technika (Meas. Tech.) 51(4), 370–377 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11018-008-9047-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. J.H. Petersen, K. Larsen, S. Kreiner, Assessing and quantifying inter-rater variation for dichotomous ratings using a Rasch model. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 21, 635–652 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280210394168MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. F.-J.V. Polo, M. Negrin, X. Badia, M. Roset, Bayesian regression models for cost-effectiveness analysis. Eur. J. Health Econ. 1, 45–52 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. G.B. Rossi, Measurement and probability – A probabilistic theory of measurement with applications, in Springer Series in Measurement Science and Technology, (Springer, Berlin, 2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8825-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. G. Taguchi, Taguchi on Robust Technology (ASME Press, New York, 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. M. Thompson, T. Fearn, What exactly is fitness for purpose in analytical measurement? Analyst 121, 275–278 (1996)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. V. Turetsky, E. Bashkansky, Testing and evaluating one-dimensional latent ability. Measurement 78, 348–357 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. J.S. Uebersax, W.M. Grove, A latent trait finite mixture model for the analysis of rating agreement. Biometrics 49, 823–835 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. A.M. van der Bles, S. van der Linden, A.L.J. Freeman, J. Mitchell, A.B. Galvao, L. Zaval, D.J. Speigelhalter, Communicating uncertainty about facts, numbers and science. R. Soc. Open Sci. 6, 181870 (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.181870ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. F.K. Wang, J.C. Chen, Capability index using principal component analysis. Qual. Eng. 11, 21–27 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. E.D. Weinberger, A theory of pragmatic information and its application to the quasi-species model of biological evolution. Biosystems 66, 105–119 (2003). http://arxiv.org/abs/nlin.AO/0105030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. J. Yang, W. Qiu, A measure of risk and a decision-making model based on expected utility and entropy. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 164, 792–799 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leslie Pendrill
    • 1
  1. 1.PartilleSweden

Personalised recommendations