Summer 2003 The Standard
The Standard
Vol. 17, Issue 2 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality
Chair’s Column
Message from the Chairman (2003-2004)
Dilip Shah
I started writing this column having returned from
the Annual Quality Congress (AQC) in Kansas City in
May, 2003. It was good to meet many of you who
stopped by at the MQD booth and introduced your-
selves. The AQC and other conferences and venues
provide a chance to meet the Division members face to
face, and that is always nice.
I was very pleasantly surprised while attending the
Certification Board reception on Sunday, May 18, at
the AQC. The Measurement Quality Division was rec-
ognized for its contribution and support for ASQ’s
newest certification exam, the Certified Calibration
Technician (CCT). As if that was not enough, Chris
Grachanen was recognized for his individual efforts at
making the CCT exam a reality. The Division is very
proud of both this group and individual awards. We will
continue to support these efforts in various ways by
publicizing and providing subject matter experts for the
maintenance of the CCT exam.
MQD hosted a session on the CCT exam with three
presentations at the National Conference of Standards
Laboratories International (NCSL International) con-
ference in Tampa on August 18, 2003.
Many of you contacted me after the publication of
the last issue of The Standard with your feedback and
best wishes. Others contacted me to volunteer their
services. I thank you all. As we close our fiscal and
Page 1
Summer 2003
electoral year, we will miss some of our volunteers--
Joe Filipowicz (MQD Secretary) and Frank Voehl (MQD
Treasurer and The Standard Executive Editor). I thank
them for their past contributions to the Division. Mark
Schoenlein has agreed to be the Treasurer and the
Editor of The Standard. Jay Bucher has agreed to
volunteer for the Secretary position. Mark is no stranger
to the MQD, having been the Past-Chair. Please join
me in congratulating Mark for being elected ASQ
Fellow recently. Please welcome Jay to the group.
Jay’s bio appears separately in the newsletter. My
thanks also go to Duane Allen, our immediate Past-
Chair. I have valued Duane’s friendship while working
with him in the Chair-Elect position.
One of my first acts as Chair of the Division was to
sign the MQD sponsorship agreement of the Metrology
Handbook that will be published by the ASQ Press. I
am very excited about this project that is being led by
Jay Bucher. A handbook of this nature has long been
desired by measurement professionals. We hope to
have it published in the second quarter of 2004.
Sincerely,
Dilip Shah(ASQ, CQE)
E = mc3 Solutions
197 Great Oaks Trail #130
Wadsworth, OH 44281-8215
Tel: 330-328-4400
Fax: 330-336-3974
E-mail: emc3solu@aol.com
IN THIS ISSUE
Chair’s Column .................................................. 1
Advertising & Article Info .................................. 2
CCT Update ........................................................ 3
Publication Update ............................................ 4
Editor’s Note ....................................................... 4
The Learning Curve X 2 ..................................... 5
The Contrarian Metrologist ............................... 9
Upcoming Events ............................................. 10
MQD April Meeting Minutes ............................ 11
MQD Officers List ............................................. 12
Regional Councilors List ................................. 13
 Summer 2003 The Standard
The Standard
Vol. 17, Issue 2 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality
Publication Advertising
Staff
2003 Rates for a single publication:
Managing Editor Business card size ..................... $20
1/4 page ..................................... $35
Mark Schoenlein 1/2 page ..................................... $70
P.O. Box 206 Full page .................................. $120
Perrysburg, OH 43552 A 15% discount will be applied for multi-
Tel: 419-247-7285 edition ads.
Fax: 419-247-8770
Ads must be formatted in MS Word or
E-mail: mark.schoenlein@
as a TIF file.
us.o-i.com
Advertising must be clearly identified as
an ad and should relate to the field of
measurement quality.
Ads must not imply endorsement by the
Measurement Quality Division or ASQ.
Letters to the Editor
The STANDARD welcomes letters
from members and subscribers. Letters
should clearly state whether the author
is expressing opinion or presenting
facts with supporting information.
Commendation, encouragement,
constructive critique, suggestions, and
alternative approaches are accepted.
If the content is more than 200 words,
we may delete portions to hold that
limit. We reserve the right to edit letters
and papers.
Page 2
Summer 2003
Publication Information
The STANDARD is published quarterly
by the Measurement Quality Division of
ASQ; deadlines are March 15, June 15,
September 15 and January 15.
Text information intended for
publication can be sent via electronic
mail or through postal mail on 3 1/2"
diskette in Microsoft Word saved in
Rich Text Format (RTF). If it is not
feasible to send text in electronic form,
clean printed text can be submitted.
Graphics or illustratios must be sent in
a TIF file format.
Photographs of MQD activities are
always appreciated.
Publication of articles, product releases,
advertisements or technical information
does not imply endorsement by The
Measurement Quality Division of ASQ.
While The STANDARD makes every
effort to ensure the accuracy of articles,
the publication disclaims responsibility
for statements of fact or opinion made
by the authors or other contributors.
Material from The STANDARD may not
be reproduced without permission of
ASQ. Copyrights in the United States
and all other countries are reserved.
© 2003 ASQ, MQD. All rights reserved.
Website Information
The Measurement Quality Division
homepage can be found on the internet
at www.measurementquality.org. Past
editions of the STANDARD in PDF
format are available there.
 Summer 2003 The Standard
CCT Program Update
By Chris Gachanen
FINAL EXAM COMPLETED!
More than four years’ work involving hundreds of
calibration practitioners from government agencies,
academia, and small and large commercial interests
has culminated in the American Society for Quality
(ASQ) Measurement Quality Division (MQD) Certified
Calibration Technician (CCT) exam. These volunteers
along with dedicated ASQ staff and contracted industry
professionals engaged in a variety of research, analy-
sis, data acquisition and dissemination of information
activities to define the CCT body of knowledge (BOK).
The CCT exam reflects the CCT BOK, deemed appro-
priate by the above-mentioned volunteers, for the mid-
level calibration practitioner and formally recognizes
the scope and depth of the specialized comprehension
required by these professionals. The CCT exam marks
the first time that certification criterion for a peer recog-
nition program has been established in the U.S. for
calibration practitioners.
The CCT exam went from working draft to final
revision at the CCT Exam Review Workshop con-
ducted on the 4th and 5th of April, 2003, at ASQ
headquarters in Milwaukee, Wis. Nine calibration prac-
titioners from commercial, government, and private
calibration interests attended this ASQ-sponsored
workshop. As the name implies, the final exam work-
shop focused on final approval of candidate exam
questions for use on the CCT exam. Each candidate
exam question had to be evaluated and approved in
terms of its applicability, clarity and appropriate cogni-
zant level. In addition, each candidate exam question
had to be both accurate and exclusively correct, while
each of its distracter choices had to be plausible. Each
exam question must reference a hard copy and/or
electronic publication available in the public domain.
The CCT exam encompasses 125 questions spanning
the following six major topic areas:
1. General Metrology (30 Questions)
2. Measurement Systems (25 Questions)
3. Calibration Systems (25 Questions)
4. Applied Math and Statistics (20 Questions)
5. Quality Systems and Standards (15 Questions)
6. Uncertainty (10 Questions)
Page 3
References used for CCT exam question develop-
ment may be found on the ASQ CCT web page. It is
acknowledged that the CCT BOK spans many different
publications as is typical of a new ASQ certification. As
of this writing (3rd week in April, 2003), I am aware of
several CCT exam study guides / preparation publica-
tions and workshops that currently are, or will shortly
be, available as well as a metrology handbook in the
works.
The CCT exam’s first public offering was held June
7, 2003. ASQ headquarters has informed me that there
were over 100 CCT exam candidates for the June 7
offering, a healthy showing for the first offering of a new
ASQ certification. This response reflects the enthusi-
asm calibration practitioners have for the CCT pro-
gram.
After the June 7 CCT exam offering, a Cut-Score
Study Workshop was conducted on June 20-21, 2003,
at ASQ headquarters in Milwaukee, Wis. The Cut-
Score Study Workshop focused on determining the
raw score for a passing CCT exam score. The work-
shop, comprised of 10-12 ASQ calibration practitioners
that did not take the CCT exam in June and would not
be eligible to take the CCT exam until June of 2004,
employed various time-proven techniques and meth-
odologies in developing the cut-score threshold. Cut-
score development activities focus on the borderline
case, assuming that those exam candidates that be-
long to the upper grouping (passing the exam) will tend
to earn higher scores than those who belong in the
lower grouping (not passing the exam). The cut-score
threshold can be viewed as the score one would
reasonably expect from a person whose skills are
considered borderline between the two groupings. To
derive this threshold, Cut-Score Workshop partici-
pants must make a judgment for each exam question
as to the probability that a borderline test-taker would
answer it correctly. The result of each participant’s
evaluation is then assessed in the context of the group.
Analysis and other activities are employed to derive
consensus and ultimately the cut-score threshold.
These aforementioned activities help ensure that the
CCT exam cut-score truly reflects the borderline case.
I wish to express my sincere appreciation to the
many volunteers who have contributed to the CCT
exam development and to the many individuals devel-
oping materials for aiding technicians in studying for
the exam. Without their passion the CCT program
would not have gotten beyond the “wishful” stage.
 Summer 2003 The Standard
Publications News
By Chris Grachanen
It is with great pleasure, enthusiasm and sincere
gratitude that I can announce that Jay Bucher, Man-
ager of Metrology Services for the Promega Corpora-
tion, has volunteered to lead the development of an
ASQ Quality Press Metrology Handbook. Jay has, in
three simple words, “The Right Stuff” to see this project
through. I applaud Jay’s willingness to shoulder the
challenges that lay ahead. I know that I speak for those
committed to seeing this project through that Jay is not
alone and that we are here to provide support however
we can.
Jay Bucher
Jay is the Manager of Metrology Services for
Promega Corporation, a biotechnology company in
Madison, Wisconsin. He started his career in metrol-
ogy in 1971 with the United States Air Force. After
graduating from the Precision Measurement Equip-
ment Laboratory (PMEL) school in Denver, Colo., Jay
advanced through increasingly more challenging posi-
tions within PMELs, from calibration technician to
section supervisor, quality assurance manager to lab
and flight chief. In 1994, he volunteered to upgrade the
capabilities of the Indonesian Air Force’s PMEL pro-
gram. Jay trained their officers and NCOs in all aspects
of PMEL management and established their initial
quality assurance and scheduling programs. Retiring
from the Air Force after 24 years of active duty service,
Jay spent time working as the Senior Metrologist for the
Royal Saudi Air Defense Force PMEL in Jeddah, the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Page 4
Jay joined Promega in 1997, where he developed
and implemented all facets of an ISO 9001 and FDA
(cGMP) compliant program for their Metrology Depart-
ment. He took them paperless for data collection and
storage in January of 1999. His department has also
been rated Best-In-Class during their annual quality
system reviews for three consecutive years.
Jay has been a member delegate to NCSLI since
1997; and he started the Madison, Wis., section in
2000 and is their section coordinator. Jay’s presented
papers and made presentations at NCSLI section
meetings and also at their annual Workshop & Sympo-
siums. He has been published in Cal Lab Magazine
and The Standard, The Newsletter of the Measure-
ment Quality Division of ASQ. Jay joined ASQ in 2002
and was selected to be a subject matter expert (SME)
during ASQ’s Certified Calibration Technician (CCT)
exam development process; he participated as an
SME during the CCT’s Test Specification and Item
Review Workshops.
Managing Editor’s Note
Mark Schoenlein
I would like to thank Frank Voehl for his years of hard
work as the Executive Editor of the Standard. His
global perpective kept us thinking. His numerous con-
tributions kept us informed. With Frank’s departure
there remain only two of the original contributing Stan-
dard authors--both are named Phil, and each is located
on opposite coasts of the U.S.
So, please help Phil & Phil out. We would love to
publish your article, story, or technical information
relating to measurement science.
 Summer 2003 The Standard
The Learning Curve
These are the thirty-third and thirty-fourth
installments in a contiguous series of essays, ostensibly
chartered to be concerned with the subject of the
education of professional metrologists but very often
wandering in divergent directions according to the
caprice or megrims of this columnist.
Phil Painchaud
Dear Boss:
For most of my adult life, and admittedly that goes
back a ways, many individuals, myself included, have
been pressuring for professional recognition of metrol-
ogy. We have realized for several decades that would
be impracticable if not impossible without some recog-
nized reputable institution of higher learning offering a
recognized degreed curriculum in that science. Admit-
tedly the George Washington University of Washing-
ton, DC, did several years ago offer an abortive
Master’s level curriculum. It proved to be an excellent
attempt; and, while it was open to the public, it was
designed specifically for students already employed by
the National Bureau of Standards (the forerunner of the
present NIST). While it was in existence, the program
granted a number of Master’s degrees. Once their
target market was saturated, the program died a natu-
ral death.
There is an excellent two-year course at the Butler
County Community College in Butler, Pennsylvania.
But it is only a two-year course, and two-year degrees
are not generally considered of professional level in
themselves; however, they can be, and often are,
excellent feeder programs preparatory to entering the
upper division of a four-year institution. There have
been and are still now a number technical training
courses, both military and private, designed specifi-
cally to train calibrators--not to educate professional
metrologists. That statement is not intended as a
Page 5
deprecation or as a putdown. Knowledgeable, highly
skilled calibrators are always in demand; a really good
one is “worth his weight in gold. But a thousand highly
skilled calibrators do not one decent metrologist make.”
Simply stated, they are a different breed. While many
of these organizations do a superior job of preparing a
student for employment in a calibration laboratory, they
are not designed educate professional metrologists.
As of September, 2002, that has all changed. Our
long awaited degreed curriculum in measurement sci-
ence has been approved by the hierarchy of the
California State University System and are at the time
of this writing available at the California State Univer-
sity--Dominguez Hills, in Carson, Calif. The program is
available on-line, on-campus, and on-site.
From anywhere in the world, a student may attend
on-line via the Internet. While it is possible for any
qualified student to enter the program at any level,
freshman, sophomore, junior, or senior, it is strongly
recommended that only upper division candidates
attempt it. Hence the admission requirements for on-
line and on-site have been currently set at:
•A minimum 56 transferable units including com-
pletion of all of General Education Requirements of
the California State University System with a 2.0
GPA.
•Completion of one year of college-level calculus
•TOEFL score of 550 (for students whose primary
language of Instruction was not English)
Students graduating from an accredited community
college should have little or no problem qualifying for
upper division entry. Students electing the on-campus
route also should have no problem as they can com-
plete their lower division requirements while preparing
for the more specialized measurement science upper
division education.
One thing to keep in mind--the official title of this
program is: BACHELOR of SCIENCE in QUALITY
ASSURANCE (with MEASUREMENT SCIENCE
OPTION). I have explained in previous columns the
problems we have encountered in getting this program
through the approval chain. Dominguez Hills is not
chartered to teach engineering. This didn’t bother us,
as we all know that metrology is a fundamental science
and not an engineering discipline. But along the line
some administrator insisted that metrology is an engi-
neering discipline, so we just called it measurement
science--and away it went. So when you query the
institution, DO NOT ASK ABOUT A COURSE IN
METROLOGY! Ask about the Measurement Science
 Summer 2003 The Standard
Option of the Bachelor of Science in Quality Assurance
Program.
If you would like a copy of the preliminary announce-
ment sheet the university has issued, I will be happy to
send you one. Please write, FAX, or e-mail me at one
of the addresses below. Please do not phone me for
these. Phoning me on other matters is OK and wel-
come, but not for this. If you wish to contact the
university directly:
E-mail: bsqa@csudh.edu
www/csudh.edu/bsqa/
Phone: 310-243-3880
I am not sure how many of you involved in commer-
cial or military metrology are aware of the National
Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). It has
been around for a long time; I am not sure how long. It
is primarily an organization of the various state, county,
and local weights and measures officials, including
those from our outlying possessions and many foreign
jurisdictions. Representatives from corporations whose
business depends heavily on legal metrology and just
plain outsiders like myself may also belong as non-
voting associates. I have belonged for many years; my
membership number is #19. Like most other organiza-
tions of its nature, the NCWM publishes many docu-
ments including a newsletter. In their SUMMER 2002
issue there was an item that caught my attention as I
felt it has validity far beyond the legal metrology do-
main. It is by Danny Newcombe in a column he does
entitled METROLOGY CORNER. I have permission to
reproduce this excerpt for you.
METROLOGIST — DIRECTOR/SUPERVISOR
COMMUNICATION
“The Metrology Subcommittee hopes ro provide
future columns aimed at fostering increased communi-
cation between program directors/supervisors. A key
requirement for the laboratory’s annual submission to
NIST, OWM and for laboratory accreditation by
NVLAP is management review. This review is a
requirement of the quality standards published in [NIST]
Handbook 143 and is used to help inform and provide
input for routine laboratory operations. Based on state-
ments from program directors and metrologists over
the past few years, there are often breakdowns in
communication between Metrologists and their pro-
gram directors. This is partly due to the rapid changes
that occurred to Metrology quality demands over the
Page 6
last decade. A good management review of the
laboratory program should eliminate most of these
communication issues. The management review often
occurs in the fall just before the annual submission is
due, but is this review enough?
The operations of the [Metrology] laboratory are
becoming more involved than in the past with the
“quality system.” Metrologists and program directors
need to communicate several times during the year.
When this happens, fewer “suprises” occur and plan-
ning becomes much easier.
Topics of importance might include audit outcomes,
results of round robin or proficiency testing, work load
trends, equipment needs, upcoming external calibra-
tion needs, trends that effect the laboratory such as
changes in quality standards (ISO/IEC 17025, QS
9000), or any other issues that could potentially affect
either the laboratory or the entire weights and mea-
sures program. It is a good practice for metrologists to
update their directors soon after attendance at regional
training meetings (RMAPS) or NIST, OWM metrology
[include ASQ-MQD, MSC and NCSLI] metrology semi-
nars. E-mails can be effective, but staff meetings work
well and might be scheduled periodically. The key to
effective management review is for everybody to be
committed to a quality operation.—”
(Note: The words in brackets [+] are mine. PAP)
As some of you may know, I have made a reason-
able living over the years as a consultant, often review-
ing administrative problems affecting metrology and
calibration laboratories. More often than not I have
found the problems’ basic cause due to a lack, or even
a total absence, of communication between the me-
trologist in the laboratory and his direct line manage-
ment. I often find this reticence to communicate insti-
gated and maintained by the metrologist or lab man-
ager. How often have I heard, “I don’t want to talk to him
because I don’t want him meddling in my lab”? Then
this often follows-- “I don’t want to talk to him because
he doesn’t know what we do here, how we do it, or what
we need to do it. Besides, he won’t give us what I think
we need.”
How is he supposed to know what you do, how you
do it, or what you need if you don’t tell him? “I’ll tell him
nothing; he is supposed to know these things because
he is the boss. If I tell him anything at all, he’ll come
down poking around and asking more questions. I
don’t want him or anybody poking around my cal lab.”
I wished that I had had Mr. Newcombe’s article with me
over the years.
That about wraps it for this issue. Don’t forget,
contact me or the university for more information on the
degreed program.
 Summer 2003 The Standard
Dear Boss Again:
Well the good news is that the first four-year, truly
academic metrology program with an accredited de-
gree is literally underway at the California State Univer-
sity—Dominguez Hills. It is not overwhelmed with
students as yet, but there are enough to justify its
existence with the “bean counters.” The facilities on
campus are not ready as yet, hence no on-campus
classes until next Fall; but the on-line approach is going
great guns. I have assisted Dr. Watson with the
development of a number of the syllabi and examina-
tions. It has been, to me, very gratifying work after
waiting so many years to see the formulation of an
objective that at times seem like an unattainable dream.
It is not too late for those of you who are unable to
travel to the California campus to sign up for the on-line
classes, or, if you are in a large enough organization,
to investigate the possibility of on-site classes--where
the Dominguez Hills faculty members will travel to your
site and conduct classes for you there. If you already
have transferable credits (from a junior or a community
college, or from another university) you are way ahead-
-a couple of steps up, one might say. Why wait?
Investigate now!
Those of you who have been readers of this column
for any length of time will know that generally I do not
copy other people’s material unless it is extremely
pertinent or timely. I have from time to time copied
some of my own earlier material when I felt it apropos.
This time I intend to try something different.
I have been asked to review the Master’s thesis for
a candidate for that degree at California State Univer-
sity--Dominguez Hills. His name is David Harris, and
he is an on-line student who has been working for that
degree in quality assurance. While he is not a profes-
sional metrologist by the criteria I hold to, he is by both
training and experience a highly qualified calibrator--
far above the norm. It will not take much more educa-
tion to elevate him to the standards that I hold to be
required for a profession metrologist. (What these are
may be a point of controversy for future discussion, but
not here and now.) He has been working for his
present employer for several years studying manufac-
turing processes to determine how the proper applica-
tion of metrology can improve the product yield and
lower costs.
Naturally I cannot reveal details of his thesis at this
time. And while admittedly I do not agree with certain
portions of his analysis and proposals, I do feel that in
this thesis he has made several statements that are
better than just good--some are, I feel, magnificent;
and a few cases are classics. With his permission I will
quote and comment on a few here:
Page 7
“--Metrology is a system. It must be looked
at on a worldwide scale. It cannot be
localized. It cannot exist in a vacuum.”--
Many times I have used the expression, “Metrology
and metrologists cannot exist in an ‘Ivory Tower.’” I
think we were saying the same thing in different analo-
gies. His next statement, I told him, is or should be a
classic and should be emblazoned on the walls of
every corporate boardroom and every metrology labo-
ratory in the world.
“Effective metrology requires a highly vis-
ible top-down commitment by management.
It cannot be left to the individual whims of
the technician, the engineer, or the product
line manager.”
In previous columns you have heard me preach (or
“soap box” if you prefer) that an effective metrology
organization can only be managed by competent ad-
ministrative metrologist reporting directly and solely to
top management. It must not be hidden either organi-
zationally or physically. It must stand out such that
every member of the parent organization from top to
bottom can observe its every move as it sets an
example of efficiently, efficaciousness, ethics, and
integrity. It must become the conscious of the entire
organization.
Example in point: Once when I was auditing a
metrology operation in a very large, very sophisticated
manufacturing plant, I found the calibration laboratory
had been well designed from the visibility standpoint. It
was at the junction of two main corridors with continu-
ous large plate-glass windows on the two exposed
sides. However, as soon as they had moved in, the
technicians, with the encouragement of supervision,
had totally covered the glass with posters, charts, and
other obscurities. When I asked why, both the techni-
cians and their supervision told me, “We don’t want
anybody looking in on us.” In my report to management
I simply asked, “What cabalistic rituals are they at-
tempting to hide?” I never got back to check on it; but
I was told management got the idea, and suddenly not
only were the obscurities removed but two layers of
supervision went out the door also.
This next one is a basic truth that should apply
wherever there is a properly applied metrological over-
view of whatever is the process of interest, be it during
initial concept or field or warranty service of the product
after sale, or anywhere in-between.
“Metrology--makes the usual assumption
that the data collected is questionable and
uncertain--”
 Summer 2003 The Standard
As I have said so many times before, a properly
empowered metrology organization must become to-
tally responsible for the validity of all measurements
made within its area of jurisdiction, irrespective of who
makes them. The precepts of democratic jurispru-
dence (i.e., “innocent until proven guilty”) cannot and
must not be allowed to exist here. All measurements,
including those made by the metrology organization
itself, must be suspect until irrefutability proven correct
(i.e., “guilty until proven innocent.”). No measurement
can be made correct by edict or fiat, except those made
by the National Standards Agency (NIST); and that is
only because Congress said so. If this were not true we
would have technological anarchy.
This next one is a truism that I have preached many
times.
“--Metrology cannot exist unless it is uni-
formly applied to everyone in the pro-
cess.”--
How many times have we heard the baseless
argument, “My measurements don’t need to be checked
because I am doing R&D, not production.” Or “I don’t
want my instruments calibrated as I am only making
comparative measurements.” The best irrefutable
argument I have ever encountered was written 41
years ago in 1962. You will find it in NBS Miscellaneous
Publication 248, Page 203, in a paper entitled “Instru-
ment Recall Concepts and Policies,” and authored by
none other than Jerry L. Hayes, the long-time head of
the U.S Navy Metrology Engineering Laboratory. This
is one of the classic papers I belief that our Editor
intends to include in this journal in his new regular
feature entitled:
METROLOGY: ITS ROOTS AND ORIGINS.
This next one hopefully might straighten out the
convoluted thinking of many individuals who have an
incomplete and/or erroneous concept of what metro-
logical traceability is all about.
“--Traceability is the property of the result
of a measurement, not of an instrument or
of a calibration report, or of a laboratory. It
is not achieved by following a special pro-
cedure or by using special equipment.--”
I think that this one is pretty clear and needs little
reinforcement from me. Mr. Harris has obviously
learned some of his lessons very well. My final quota-
tion from his thesis in this column is one which I am not
quite sure to call a soliloquy or a monologue, or a
monograph; nevertheless, it is a commendable train of
Page 8
thought that all in any aspect of metrology should
understand thoroughly.
“--Calibration is actually the act of histori-
cal story telling. It is the act of creating an
NIST traceable uncertainty statement. It
relates a unit’s performance with respect
to an SI unit of measurement at a specific
time, using a specific set of standards, by
a specific individual, at a specific place, in
a specific environment. Even a unit operat-
ing well outside of its stated manufacturer’s
range of operation can be calibrated using
this philosophy. Physical adjustments of
indication to closely represent the value
targeted is strictly an act for ease of use
and interpretation. Without a qualifying
uncertainty statement it has little mean-
ing.--”
Learn that and you will have learned what calibra-
tion is all about. However, some purists may challenge
Mr. Harris’ inclusion of adjustments. Many purists
insist that no adjustments are ever allowed during
calibration--that is a maintenance function, and the
device must be recalibrated after any maintenance
activity. But that is an argument for another day.
We will call it quits for now, but I would like to ask one
favor of any of you who snap out of your lethargy and
elect to contact me. Please, when you are contacting
concerning material in a specific column, tell me which
column you are referring to by number. For example,
this column is Number 34. Some of you just open up
and start, “I read your column” and go on thus and so,
etc. I never know which column you are referring to.
A couple of months ago an individual called, and it took
quite a few minutes of AT&T long distance time to figure
out that they were referring to a column published three
years ago. When I write a column I have only a vague
idea when it will be published and even less of an idea
when you may receive it. But with a number I can
identify it instantly. Thank you.
I can still be contacted at the same old stand:
Phil Painchaud
1110 West Dorothy Drive
Brea, CA. 92821-2017
Phone: 1-714-529-6604
FAX: 1-529-1109
e-Mail:
painchaud4@cs.com or olepappy@juno.com
 Summer 2003 The Standard
The Contrarian
Metrologist
Philip Stein
LEARNING TO READ
It’s the primary job of the Contrarian Metrologist to
be grumpy, to scold his readers for failing to behave
when they know better or, in some cases for not
knowing better.
As regular and irregular readers of this column
know too well, I have been a laboratory quality systems
assessor for the past five years and have worked for
three different accreditation bodies during that time,
performing about 120 assessments to the require-
ments of ISO/IEC 17025.
The accreditation process is quite different than
what most organizations are used to. Quality systems
are widely known by now. Every quality manager and
most other management is familiar with the ISO 9000
series, and many of them have been through the
registration process. As useful as 9000 is, it’s a stroll in
the park compared to ISO/IEC 17025; and many labs
are just not ready for the difference.
Officially, the difference between registration (9000)
and accreditation (17025) is that an accredited organi-
zation has been judged to be competent at performing
the work listed on its scope of accreditation. An ac-
creditation assessment is carried out by an assessor
who is an expert in the relevant fields and can fully
understand the work that he or she observes. A regis-
tration audit checks to see that the organization has a
Page 9
conformant documented quality system and that said
system is fully operational – that is that everyone and
every activity in the company follows it. The issue of
whether the work under that system accomplishes
what it is supposed to (e.g. calibrating micrometers)
never comes up.
Thus, an accreditation assessor will in general look
very much more closely at everything going on relevant
to the work. This extreme care (nit-picking) extends to
every aspect of the quality system, even to the extent
of finding holes in processes that have been previously
vetted and approved by an ISO 9000 audit (this can be
very annoying to a laboratory that thought they were
doing well, only to be told that some other auditor was
wrong and missed something important).
My scolding today concerns people’s ability to read
and understand what they see. ISO/IEC 17025 as-
sessments are much pickier about certain details, and
this leads to some difficult situations. Here’s an actual
example from a recent job.
The standard, ISO/IEC 17025 says “4.8 Complaints:
The laboratory shall have a policy and procedure for
the resolution of complaints received from clients or
other parties.”
Now I think this is very clearly written (some part of
the standard are not as clear) and quite explicit. To
understand what is required, it is necessary to read the
sentence carefully.
When visiting a lab, I found that they did not have
any mechanism for dealing with complaints, and so I
cited a deficiency to the requirements: “No policy or
procedure for handling complaints was in evidence.”
Now maybe I’m naïve, but I think someone reading first
the standard and then my citation should have a pretty
good idea what to do in order to clear the deficiency and
conform to the standard: WRITE A POLICY AND A
PROCEDURE FOR HANDLING COMPLAINTS. Is
that so hard to understand? Further, the procedure
must concern itself with complaints from ‘clients or
other parties.’ A document that refers only to customer
complaints doesn’t cut it – and I have written many
citations for this omission as well.
There’s one other set of details that needs to be
attended to in order for the newly written document to
be conformant to the requirements and to be approved.
Every company is required (even under 9000) to have
a procedure by which policies are written and approved
(right signatures, etc.). Approved procedures must be
appropriately identified (usually with a number) and
their existence (or changes performed) entered on a
master list along with the date of the initial approval or
of the change. In order to approve the work and close
 Summer 2003 The Standard Page 10

out the deficiency, I need to see the policy, the proce-
dure, and the master list; and they must all match and
make sense together. In other words, I have to read
them carefully, as carefully as the accreditation cus-
tomer should have read the standard and my citation in
the first place.
So, please, if your laboratory is going to be as-
sessed, take the time to learn how to read both the
standard and your citations. You’ll save yourself and
everyone else a lot of wasted time and trouble.

Important Upcoming Events

Conference Dates Location Contact Number Website

ACMC Met/ October 17-20, 2003 Montreal, Canada 613-990-2999 www.acmc-canada.com

CMM Course

MSC January 14-16, 2004 Anahiem, CA 310-574-2027 www.msc-conf.com

uality Expo Detro April 19-21, 2004 Novi, (Detroit) MI 888-267-3794 www.quality.reedexpo.com

IDW May 10-14, 2004 Nashville, TN 865-574-4261 pritchardew@y12.doe.gov

ASQ AQC May 24-26, 2004 Toronto, Canada 800-248-1946 www.asq.org

T. Stuart Shannon & Associates, Inc.

• On-site Calibration Services
• Temporary & Project Staffing
• Temperature & Humidity
Room/Chamber Mapping
• Internal & External Auditing
• Systems Integration
• Inspection & Testing Services
• Metrology Consulting & Training
• Program Design & Set-up
• Metrology Engineering &
Procedure Writing
• Equipment Sales & Service
• Metrology Program Management
• Equipment & Facility Validation

For more information:

Call Toll Free 866-799-0186

Email Sales@Shannon-associates.com
Or visit us on the web @ www.Shannon-Associates.Com
 Summer 2003 The Standard
TELEPHONE MEETING MINUTES
MEASUREMENT QUALITY DIVISION
APRIL 18, 2003
1:00 PM CENTRAL TIME
The meeting was called to order as scheduled by
the Chair-Elect, Dilip Shah.
Attending were:
Duane Allen (allendk@corona.navy.mil)
Chris Grachanen (chris.grachanen@hp.com)
Phil Stein (pstein@measurement.com)
Hershal Brewer (hbrewer@iasonline.org)
Jay Bucker (yokota-69@charter.com)
Mark Schoenlein(mark.schoenlein@us.o-i.com)
Frank Voehl (fvoehl@aol.com)
Bill McCullough--t.b.a.
Sheryl Furger (sfurger@asq.org)
Phil Painchaud (painchaud4@cs.com)
E. Joseph Filipowicz (joeflip@earthlink.net)
Discussion Items
Duane Allen mentioned that display materials for
the upcoming AQC were ordered, and no complica-
tions were expected. It was agreed that, with Dilip, Phil
and Duane staffing the booth, the booth coverage was
sufficient.
Chris Grachanen said that the launch of the first
CCT exam was well underway. The exam review went
OK. ASQ has reported that the initial sign-up of
approximately 100 individuals to take the test is a very
good showing for the premier test.
CCT handbooks were to be distributed by Mary
Martin. These will be available at the ACQ booth.
There was discussion by all concerning what ap-
proach the division should make to the requirement for
declaration of experience. A concern was how do other
organizations within and without ASQ handle this re-
quirement to provide adequate information and insure
the credibility of the CCT certificate. Duane said he
would look into what kinds of options were convention-
ally available to the division.
A proposal by Dilip Shah and seconded by Phil
Stein to issue funds not to exceed $3,000 to update the
MQD website was tabled for lack of quorum stated by
our by-laws. Duane stated he would put the proposal
on the Internet to make the vote.
Dilip Shah gave a thorough review of the develop-
ment of the CCT handbook. There was discussion
about not compromising the test nor getting into areas
Page 11
not usually handled by ASQ divisions. Everyone
agreed that we need to pursue Dilip’s intent to make
this a comprehensive reference book for use by those
seeking most questions about the profession. It ap-
pears that the handbook could be of significant con-
tent. A point was made and some investigation will be
made to insure that we are not “reinventing the wheel”
in respect to terms and definitions. Close examination
will be made by the editors to use definitions recom-
mended by other bodies or to at least cite them as a
reference or bibliography item.
Phil Painchaud gave an overview of the program at
Cal State, Dominguez Hills. He explained how suc-
cessful it has become and why as it involves their BS
program in quality assurance.
In the course of our discussion, an action came up
which was accepted by Duane Allen. The topic: check
out the timeline on how the “Standard” is printed and
developed from its earliest stages until it finally reaches
members’ hands.
Hershal Brewer discussed his preparation for his
future activity as the coordinator for the next MQD
Conference. He sought other people’s advice that can
be provided in the future.
Financial Report
It was mentioned that we have approximately
$77,000 in our account. Our records are up to date. It
seems we may be in arrears for our commitment to the
ASQ building fund. A question was raised from the
floor as to whether ASQ showed us “on the record” for
commitment to provide monies to the fund. Duane
Allen said he would check.
The next conference call is not yet scheduled but
will be held at 7:00 p.m. when it is scheduled.
A discussion was held about how “share point”
works and its benefits to the user.
A copy of the division by-laws will be provided to all
officers.
A motion to adjourn was provided by Duane Allen
and seconded by Phil Stein. The meeting adjourned
about 2:30 p.m. Central time.
Submitted by
E. Joseph Filipowicz
Secretary
MQD-ASQ
 Summer 2003 The Standard Page 12

Measurement Quality Division Officers

Chair Website Manager
Dilip A. Shah Christopher L. Grachanen
E = mc3 Solutions Manager, Houston Metrology Group
197 Great Oaks Trail #130 Hewlett-Packard
Wadsworth, OH 44281-8215 P.O. Box 692000 MS070110
Voice (330) 328-4400/Fax (330) 336-3974 Houston, TX 77269-2000
E-mail: emc3solu@aol.com or dashah@aol.com Voice (281) 518-8486/Fax (281) 518-7275
E-mail: Chris.Grachanen@hp.com
Chair-Elect
Christopher L. Grachanen NCSLI Representative
Manager, Houston Metrology Group Christopher L. Grachanen
Hewlett-Packard Manager, Houston Metrology Group
P.O. Box 692000 MS070110 Hewlett-Packard
Houston, TX 77269-2000 P.O. Box 692000 MS070110
Voice (281) 518-8486/Fax (281) 518-7275 Houston, TX 77269-2000
E-mail: Chris.Grachanen@hp.com Voice (281) 518-8486/Fax (281) 518-7275
E-mail: Chris.Grachanen@hp.com
Treasurer
Mark Schoenlein Newsletter
Owens-Illinois Plastics Group Mark Schoenlein
One SeaGate, 29L-PP Owens-Illinois Plastics Group
Toledo, OH 43666 One SeaGate, 29L-PP
Voice (419) 247-7285/Fax (419) 247-8770 Toledo, OH 43666
E-mail: mark.schoenlein@us.o-i.com Voice (419) 247-7285/Fax (419) 247-8770
E-mail: mark.schoenlein@us.o-i.com
Secretary
Jay Bucher Examining Chair
Manager, Metrology Services Philip Stein
Promega Corporation 400 Oak Street
6700 Royal View Drive Pennington, NJ 08534
DeForest, WI 53532 Voice (609) 737-9421/Fax (609) 737-9144
Voice (608) 277-2522/Fax (608) 277-2516 E-mail: pstein@measurement.com
E-mail: jbucher@promega.com or yokota-69@charter.net
Immediate Past Chair/Nominating Chair
Certification Chair Duane Allen
Christopher L. Grachanen U.S. Navy
Manager, Houston Metrology Group P.O. Box 5000, Code MS11
Hewlett-Packard Corona, CA 92878-5000
P.O. Box 692000 MS070110 Voice (909) 273-4783/Fax (909) 273-4599
Houston, TX 77269-2000 E-mail: AllenDK@corona.navy.mil
Voice (281) 518-8486/Fax (281) 518-7275
E-mail: Chris.Grachanen@hp.com Simmons Scholarship
Norm Belecki
Program Chair 7413 Mill Run Drive
Hershal C. Brewer Derwood, MD 20855-1156
Accreditation Officer Voice (301) 869-4520
5360 Workman Mill Road E-mail: n.belecki@ieee.org
Whittier, CA 90601
Voice (562) 699-0541, ext. 3309/Fax (562) 692-2845 Standards Committee Representative
Mobile (949) 632-8762 Bill McCullough--t.b.a.
E-mail: hbrewer@iasonline.org
 Summer 2003
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
Richard A. Litts, 100 Evergreen
Dr.,Downingtown, PA • E-mail:
ralitts@aol.com
Region 6
Open
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
REGIONAL
The Standard Page 13
Region 8 ext. 3714, FAX (402) 293-2035, E-
Open mail: tmyers@scholars.bell
Region 9 Region 14
Dr. Henrik S. Nielson, HN Metrology Keith Bennett, Transcat • (713) 465-
Consulting, Inc., 5230 Nob Lane, India- 4395, FAX E-mail:
napolis, IN 46226 • (317) 849-9577, E- kbennett@transcat.com
mail: hsnielson@worldnet.att.net Region 15
Region 10 Bryan Miller, 417 Robinhood Dr., Flo-
Mark Schoenlein, Owens-Illinois Plas- rence, AL 35633 • (256) 764-2733,
tics Group, One SeaGate 29L-PP, To- FAX (256) 764-2733, E-mail:
ledo, OH 43666 • (419) 247-7285, FAX milleb@mindspring.com
(419) 247-8770, E-mail: mark. Region 25
schoenlein@us.o-i.com Open
Region 11
Raymond Perham, Michelin Tire Corp.,
Rt 4 Antioch Church, P.O. Box 2846,
Greenville, SC 29605 • (864) 458-1425, Please notify the editor of any
FAX (864) 458-1807, E-mail:
errors or changes so that this list
ray.perham@us.michelin.com, or
can be updated.
home E-mail: r.perham007@aol.com
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
MAP
 The Newsletter 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 2003

American Society for Quality

Measurement Quality Division
600 N. Plankinton Ave
P.O. Box 3005
Milwaukee, WI 53201-3005
TIME VALUED MATERIAL