Templates and records · IATF 16949 · Clause 7.1.5.1.1

Measurement systems analysis (MSA) for IATF 16949

Calibrating a gauge shows it measures well in the laboratory. MSA shows that, in the operators’ hands and with real parts, measurement variation is small compared with the tolerance.

In one sentence

Measurement systems analysis quantifies how much of the observed variation comes from the measurement system itself —gauge, operator, method— through statistical studies such as repeatability and reproducibility, because IATF 16949 requires them for every type of inspection, measurement and test system listed in the control plan (7.1.5.1.1), using the methods of the reference manuals the customer accepts.

Content reviewed on 17 October 2026

Where the standard requires it: IATF 16949 · Clause 7.1.5.1.1 Clauses are those of IATF 16949:2016, which always applies together with ISO 9001:2015. The AIAG and VDA manuals cited are industry references that apply when the customer requires them; they are not part of the standard.
Type of information: Mandatory record Studies required by 7.1.5.1.1; customer acceptance is retained if other methods are used
Who fills it in: Metrology or quality With the operators who measure at the workstation
When: Before PPAP And when the gauge, method or measuring range changes, and at intervals set according to risk
How long it is kept: Organisation’s policy IATF requires a documented record retention policy that meets statutory, regulatory, organisational and customer requirements (7.5.3.2.1).

What the standard requires

What IATF 16949 demands and what it leaves to your judgement

The standard requires statistical studies that analyse the variation in the results of each type of measurement system identified in the control plan, with methods and acceptance criteria conforming to the customer’s reference manuals. If other methods are used, customer acceptance is needed and that record must be retained.

It is a separate requirement from calibration (7.1.5.2), which also has its own requirements under IATF. A calibrated gauge may be unfit for a tight tolerance if its variation consumes a large share of it.

For variables repeatability and reproducibility studies, the AIAG MSA manual suggests accepting below 10% of tolerance or total variation, judging case by case between 10 and 30%, and rejecting above that; for attribute characteristics, agreement studies.

Read it in context: Support, in the IATF 16949 Academy

Structure

Fields the template should include

Measurement system, gauge and identification
Control plan characteristic it measures, and its tolerance
Type of study: repeatability and reproducibility, bias, linearity, stability, attributes
Parts, operators and repeat measurements in the study
Results: % R&R against tolerance or total variation, and number of distinct categories
Acceptance criterion applied and its source
Conclusion: acceptable, conditional, unacceptable
Actions if unacceptable
Date, owner and next study

Example

Example: R&R study of a height gauge

Company, people and figures are fictitious: the example only shows what a properly completed record looks like.

Field	Content
Gauge	Digital height gauge MD-114 · OP 60
Characteristic	Bracket height 48.0 ± 0.2 mm (tolerance 0.4 mm)
Study	Average and range R&R · 10 parts · 3 operators · 3 repeats
Result	R&R 22.5% of tolerance · 6 distinct categories
Conclusion	Conditional: the customer is informed and the cause analysed
Cause	Reproducibility dominates: each operator rests the part differently
Action	Locating fixture and photo-based work instruction · metrology · 20 May
New study	27 May 2026: R&R 9.1% · acceptable

At the audit

Mistakes auditors commonly flag

There are only calibration certificates: no MSA study exists at all.
Studies using parts that do not cover the actual process range.
One gauge is studied, but not the others of the same type listed in the control plan.
Attribute characteristics, such as visual inspections, are never studied.
Unacceptable results with no action taken.

In Kimobox

How this record is kept in Kimobox

1Each measuring instrument has its own record with its calibration and alerts before each due date.
2The MSA study is attached as a versioned record of the gauge, with its result and date.
3An unacceptable result is opened as an action with an owner and a deadline.
4Control plans link to the gauge and therefore to its calibration and MSA status.

Frequently asked questions

What people ask us before getting started

What is the difference between MSA and calibration?

Calibration compares the gauge with a traceable standard. MSA measures the variation of the whole measurement system under real conditions: gauge, operators, method and parts. A gauge can be properly calibrated yet lack the resolution or repeatability needed for the tolerance.

Does every gauge need an MSA?

The standard requires it for each type of inspection, measurement and test system identified in the control plan. The usual practice is one study per gauge type and characteristic, extended where the risk justifies it.

What is the number of distinct categories?

An indicator from the AIAG manual showing how many distinguishable groups the system can sort process variation into. The manual recommends five or more.

Keep your IATF 16949 records without loose templates

We'll show you the module running with data similar to yours.

Request a demo

Keep exploring

Sources

Where each figure comes from

References to the official text in force. If a standard is revised, this page is updated and the review date says so.

IATF 16949:2016 — Quality management system requirements for automotive production and relevant service parts organizations IATF · First edition, October 2016
Measurement Systems Analysis (MSA) (industry reference, not part of the standard) AIAG · 4th edition, 2010
IATF 16949 Sanctioned Interpretations and FAQs IATF Global Oversight · Continuously updated