Skip to main content
Advantive

The Surprising Source of Variation and How to Reduce It

By Grace Barton Updated
The Surprising Source of Variation and How to Reduce It

I recently wrote a series of posts on Measurement Studies for the PQ Systems blog:

Assuring Measurement Accuracy with Gage R&R
MSA – When Should a Measurement System Study be Completed?
Setting Up a Measurement System

The next step is analyzing the data.

To illustrate, we will use an example R&R study conducted on the length of molded plastic parts. The study used five samples, and the testers measured the length of each sample twice. Here are the results.

  
A quick review of the data before doing any analysis reveals some interesting variation in the results. How do we decide if this variation is significant or if it is acceptable? It depends on what you are measuring. It is best to compare the variation found in the study to the variation in the product specifications. To do this, we use a statistic called R&R. R&R stands for repeatability and reproducibility:

Repeatability: The ability of one tester using the same equipment and the same sample to get the same number or value each time the sample is measured. It takes no account of the difference in testers, so it is also known as the variation in the equipment.

Reproducibility: The ability of different testers to produce the same number or value using the same equipment and the same sample. Reproducibility is also known as tester or appraiser variation.

Calculating R&R is relatively complex but can be broken down into several simple steps using GAGEpack. Here are the results for the data shown above.

What does the percentage mean? It is the percentage of the specification taken up by measurement variation; it is the width of the variation curve for the measurement system. In this example, 98.59% of the specification is measurement variation—and that’s before we look at any variation in the process! Remember, when you are looking at data from the process you are looking at:

Variation in data = measurement variation + process variation

When we observe variation in data, we tend to assume that it is all coming from the process, however, it is often coming from the measurement system. If the length results measured by the equipment used in the above example are analyzed, the origin of this variation will be the measurement system, NOT the process. Therefore, to improve the capability of the process, it is necessary to improve the measurement system and leave the production process alone.

What value are we looking for in the R&R? Here’s a guideline:

  • Greater than 30%: Not acceptable. The measurement system will not reliably distinguish good product from bad.
  • Between 10 and 30%: Acceptable for normal measurement.
  • Less than 10%: Acceptable for use with statistical process control.

Note the stricter requirement for use with statistical process control. If the value is greater than 10%, then many of the trends and spikes found in control charts will be caused by the measurement system, NOT the process. So, changing the production process will only make things worse!

In our example, the R&R is 98.59%, meaning the measurement system variation comprises most of the variation in the data. The process has to be excellent under these circumstances; otherwise, any slight change in the process will cause results out of spec due to the poor measurement system. When a measurement system has an R&R above 30%, it questions its ability to detect whether product is in or out of specification.

How do you go about reducing the R&R%? That depends on the source of most of the variation. In this example, the equipment variation is slightly higher than the appraiser or tester variation.

If the repeatability or equipment variation is significant, it is an indication that the equipment or test method is unsuitable at this stage. In extreme cases, it may be necessary to replace the equipment. Alternatively, it may only require an adjustment in the test equipment or the method of using the equipment. Investigate how the equipment is used in detail and improve any potential causes of variation.

If the reproducibility or the tester variation is high, the data from the study can be analyzed further to understand the causes. Is it one individual tester, is it a bias issue, or was a particular sample difficult to measure?

Grace Barton

Marketing Specialist

About the Author Latest Posts

Grace Barton is a digital marketing and competitive intelligence professional who crafts strategic narratives by bridging marketing insights with analytical expertise. At Advantive, she creates engaging, data-driven content tailored to the distribution, manufacturing, packaging, and quality industries. Her goal is to deliver impactful messaging that drives engagement and growth based on specific gap closure needs, whether responding to sales organization requirements, pinpointing gaps in content, or meeting immediate market trends.
She thrives on transforming competitive intelligence into actionable insights for the sales organization. Grace manages Advantive’s competitive intelligence platform, Klue, to equip the sales team with the battlecards and market data they need to stay ahead of competitors. Since launch, she’s built 28+ battlecards across four lines of business, ensuring the GTM strategy stays sharp.
Grace has a passion for leveraging market insights with storytelling to guide strategic decision-making, empower sales organizations, and nurture organizational growth.

Areas of Expertise: Digital Marketing, Competitive Intelligence, Strategic Narratives, Marketing Insights, Analytical Expertise

LinkedIn

Editorial standards

Fact-checking & editorial guidelines

Every article on advantive.com is written and reviewed against an internal accuracy standard before publication. Here's what that means in practice.

  • Product claims are verified by the brand team that owns the platform.

    When an article references InfinityQS, WinSPC, PQ Systems, Pinpoint, ParityFactory, ProPlanner, KiwiPlan, DDI System, VeraCore, or any of Advantive's other specialty platforms, the relevant product team checks technical statements about features, deployment, and current capability before the article goes live.

  • External statistics cite their source inline.

    When an article references industry survey results, regulatory benchmarks, or third-party research, the source is linked at the point of citation. Statements without an inline source link are first-party observations drawn from Advantive's product teams or customer base.

  • Publication and revision dates stay visible.

    The original publication date and the most recent revision date are both shown on every article. Topics that change quickly — AI capabilities, regulatory rules, product roadmaps — are revisited on a tighter cadence than evergreen reference content.

  • Corrections are issued openly.

    If a factual error is reported, the article is updated, the revision date advances, and material corrections are noted at the bottom of the article so readers can see what changed and when.

Found something wrong, or have a citation to add? Get in touch with the editorial team and we'll review it.

Subject-matter review

Reviewed by subject-matter experts

Advantive is a portfolio of 14+ specialty software platforms — each one built and maintained by a product team that has spent years inside a specific manufacturing or distribution discipline. Articles in technical channels are reviewed by the relevant team before publication.

  • Quality & SPC content

    Reviewed by the InfinityQS, WinSPC, and PQ Systems product teams — the platforms behind statistical process control, capability analysis, and gage management deployments across food, automotive, pharma, and CPG manufacturers.

  • Manufacturing operations & MES content

    Reviewed by the PINpoint, ProPlanner, ParityFactory, and VIA Information Tools teams, whose platforms run production scheduling, traceability, and shop-floor execution for discrete, automotive, and food-and-beverage manufacturers.

  • Packaging & converter content

    Reviewed by the KiwiPlan, Abaca, and AdvantZware teams, who build software specifically for corrugated, folding-carton, and packaging-converter operations.

  • Distribution, ERP & B2B commerce content

    Reviewed by the DDI System (inFORM ERP), Distribution One, VeraCore, Pepperi, and Commerce Vision teams, whose platforms run wholesale ERP, fulfillment, field sales, and B2B portals for specialty distributors and 3PLs.

Are you a practitioner with domain expertise to contribute? Get in touch — we accept guest contributions from operators in the industries we serve.