← Back to Clause Explorer
7.1.5.1.1IATF 16949 ONLYIATF 16949:2016

Measurement system analysis (IATF only)

Plain-language summary

Knowing your gauge is calibrated is not enough — MSA asks whether the whole measurement SYSTEM (gauge + operator + method + environment) can actually distinguish good from bad on each control-plan measurement.

What the clause is really asking

Statistical studies (GR&R, bias, linearity, stability, attribute agreement) are required to analyse variation in the results of each measurement system named in the control plan. Methods and acceptance criteria should follow customer-referenced manuals (typically AIAG MSA) unless the customer approves alternatives.

What auditors look for

Auditors take the control plan and ask for the MSA study behind each measurement: current GR&R for variable gauges, attribute agreement for visual/go-no-go checks, study repeated after gauge change or repair. Results exceeding criteria with no action is a standard finding.

Typical evidence

GR&R studies; attribute agreement analyses; MSA planning linked to control plan; reaction records when studies fail criteria.

How to comply — recommendations

Plan MSA off the control plan: every measurement listed gets a study type and frequency. Re-study after repair, relocation or method change. When GR&R fails, fix the method or gauge — do not quietly widen the tolerance.

Common nonconformities

Control-plan measurements with no MSA; GR&R >30% accepted without action; visual inspections never given attribute studies; MSA not repeated after gauge replacement.

Related clauses

Builds on ISO 9001 7.1.5 (see Example row)

Qlause provides interpretive guidance only and is not a substitute for the standard. Refer to your licensed copy of ISO 9001 / IATF 16949 for the authoritative text.