Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision |
| articles:optimizing_calibration_intervals [2023/07/14 14:20] – [Using the “Staircase” method] rrandall | articles:optimizing_calibration_intervals [2023/07/14 14:21] (current) – [Reducing Waste: Through Optimizing Calibration Intervals] rrandall |
|---|
| Most M&TE are on arbitrary 12 month calibration intervals... as if “one size” fits all. These are typical “manufacturer-recommended intervals” - which are often extremely conservative because the manufacturer wants their calibration labs to stay busy. And most companies happily pay them to do so. Yes… over-calibrating M&TE reduces risk… but only to a degree((A MUCH better way to reduce risk is to increase the minimum "Accuracy Ratio" between the M&TE and the tolerance of the characteristic being measured, but that's a topic for a separate article.)). Is it efficient or cost-effective? No. Does the reduction in risk justify workers being without M&TE or the company paying excessive amounts for this “over calibration”? In most situations, the answer is a resounding NO! | Most M&TE are on arbitrary 12 month calibration intervals... as if “one size” fits all. These are typical “manufacturer-recommended intervals” - which are often extremely conservative because the manufacturer wants their calibration labs to stay busy. And most companies happily pay them to do so. Yes… over-calibrating M&TE reduces risk… but only to a degree((A MUCH better way to reduce risk is to increase the minimum "Accuracy Ratio" between the M&TE and the tolerance of the characteristic being measured, but that's a topic for a separate article.)). Is it efficient or cost-effective? No. Does the reduction in risk justify workers being without M&TE or the company paying excessive amounts for this “over calibration”? In most situations, the answer is a resounding NO! |
| |
| | [[https://openclipart.org/detail/544/balance-scale|{{ :articles:gerald-g-balance-scale.png?direct&160|}}]] |
| If M&TE calibration intervals were optimized based upon performance, optimal calibration intervals for some instruments might be 18 months, 24 months, or even longer. This results in immediate tangible cost savings. And while a few instruments may require shorter calibration intervals (e.g., 9-month intervals), immediate intangible savings are realized through the increased confidence in the reliability of the M&TE. | If M&TE calibration intervals were optimized based upon performance, optimal calibration intervals for some instruments might be 18 months, 24 months, or even longer. This results in immediate tangible cost savings. And while a few instruments may require shorter calibration intervals (e.g., 9-month intervals), immediate intangible savings are realized through the increased confidence in the reliability of the M&TE. |
| |
