Hello forum

This article was written to help sell my quality director on a little more work in the equipment calibration arena. "For what we do here, that stuff isn't necessary." and hopefully that opinion can be turned around.

For now, I hope to entertain a few of you with my writing and ask for feedback on the letter. ;)

2 pages, written by Erik Vitands.

Hi, just read through your letter. A few questions to start with:

- this article is written for Quality director or for Top management
If it's for top management, I'd say it's a bit long. I'd go for a summary like:

"we promise our customers our product meets certain specifications, we might even provide our customers with these results of measurements, These measurements can only be trustworthy if we use equipment that can measure correctly, to do that we need to calibrate, which is common business sense (why measure if we don't know if the result is thrustworthy?). ISO 9001:2000 and the rest of the world agrees with me on this.".

Some general remarks
customer perception is not influenced by calibration, they won't see it unless they audit onsite.
I miss the clear link to necessity of calibrations. We need to do calibrations when we measure things to prove that our product is conform customer requirements. That is why really, and not because the ISO tells us.
i feel the reference to the ISO 9001:1994 is confusing and not necesarry
in the beginning you say it'll save money, in the end you say it won't
i'd say calibration is an integral part of any process which requires measurements.

Hope this helps, regards, Martijn

you were supposed to be amused by my writing.

1. I'm not interested in working for a company customers do not visit.

2. the necessity of calibrations is apparent if you work for a manufacturer, but not to some people who interpret ISO 9001:2000, like most auditors.

3. manufacturing-centered ISO 9001,2 rev 1994 is where I went for insight into the unspecific ISO 9001:2000 requirements, and so has almost everyone else who ever applied the new standard.

4. calibration will save money, and it won't. That's the duality of things.

5. ::applause:: thank you Martijn, calibration is not only necessary, it is fundamental. The point of all this is that calibration isn't simply checking that the tool measures a gage block within +/- .0001 (or thereabouts) and putting a new sticker on it. Traceability isn't just having gage blocks in the building. The point of all this is that you end up with technicians doing these things and thinking they're in compliance with ISO when the system is not managed.

Well, we don't manage systems here. For what we do, it isn't necessary. ::biglaugh::

you were supposed to be amused by my writing.


and you asked for feedback didn't you? :). And discussions on topics like these are always entertaining

1. I'm not interested in working for a company customers do not visit.


uhm, ok, then calibration would influence customer perception.

4. calibration will save money, and it won't. That's the duality of things.

I still think the "money spin" is out of place in this discussion, calibrations are required whereever you promise customers specific product specifications, and making/losing money on those calibrations are part of production process, not something you do as an extra service to your customer.

Martijn

I know. I'm sorry, I did go nuts over that whole issue.

To me, the problem is that top management here won't do ANYTHING to improve quality through the quality assurance function. This slowly twisting realization came as a complete surprise to me and maybe even caused a little panic.

You were exactly correct that the tie to financial gain is unclear. It's difficult to assess. If someone can prove through measurement uncertainty assessment that there's a .0003" out of tolerance condition waiting in the wings, it may or may not save the company $250,000. However, that assessment will cost time and effort, possibly a little training expense, and that cost can't be justified by explanation. You either get it or you don't.

I did appreciate your feedback, Martijn. It's just that it was so spot on accurate, it made me a little mad.

The discussion here was based on some inadequate calibration routines that are done too often. However, given the experience of my quality director, myself, and many examples of company audits, however you choose to do calibration is just fine. There is an activity called "calibration" and there are records to show, so there's no issue. It just makes me a little mad.

--Erik

Erik,

Perhaps it might help if you approach the problem from a different angle. I'd suggest you'd start with your products specifications and production process parameters that are relevant to product quality. Discuss this list with production to assure that these are all relevant specifications. Ask them if you need an exact value on that specification or an indication only. For those that require exact values, make a list of measuring equipment. Then use the manuals of the equipment to set calibration procedures/frequencies, etc.

Talk this through with management and explain that production want to know the exact values, so we need to calibrate. If management says some of these calibrations are not necessary, translate that to management saying that value is not needed exactly, so it doesn't need to be measured. make it a discussion between production and management, not you and management.

Tell production to stop measuring things if the devices are not calibrated, but point out the risks (liability!) to management.

hope this helps, regards, Martijn

The cost savings come from not shipping bad product, or scrapping good product. Both conditions can be caused by gages that are not providing accurate readings (bias).

The cost savings come from not shipping bad product, or scrapping good product. Both conditions can be caused by gages that are not providing accurate readings (bias).

I agree, but dont think it should be part of a case made towards management to improve calibrations. You measure products with calibrated equipment, or don't measure at all. If you start pointing out costs of using non calibrated measuring devices, you should also start pointing out the money saved by not calibrating, or even worse, the money saved by not measuring anything at all.

This discussion should be focussed on the necessity of measurements (and thus calibration) and not the costs involved. That's my view of it anyways:D

I agree, but dont think it should be part of a case made towards management to improve calibrations. You measure products with calibrated equipment, or don't measure at all. If you start pointing out costs of using non calibrated measuring devices, you should also start pointing out the money saved by not calibrating, or even worse, the money saved by not measuring anything at all.

This discussion should be focussed on the necessity of measurements (and thus calibration) and not the costs involved. That's my view of it anyways:D

The "necessity of measurement" is always tied to costs. Everything in business is tied to costs. How can anything in business be justified any other way? Appealling to the altruism of business owners is like trying to convince wolves to become vegetarians.

Jim, perhaps I'm not making my point clearly here. My point is that calibration or not should not be decided on costs. If from a cost point of view you don't want to calibrate, go a step further and don't measure in the first place. Why measure if you don't calibrate?

Not measuring is fine as long as you don't promise your customer that you check the specification as a part of your quality control.

edit:
measuring and not calibrating is fooling yourself and probably your customers as well

not measuring is a business decision

This article was written to help sell my quality director on a little more work in the equipment calibration arena. "For what we do here, that stuff isn't necessary." and hopefully that opinion can be turned around.



Erik,

What is the basis for the director's comments? Is there some truth to the statement?

How many product issues have been attributed to a poor equipment calibration system?

I have been question many times about our calibration system. No, it is not up to par with other system I have run, but....and this is the crux of it all...it works for us. Any time I have an auditor question our method, I ask for the requirements, to which none is presented. So there may be a basis for your directors comments.

Hello all, and thanks for the replies and interest.

Your posts and references have taught me alot about how to base a good calibration system.

I should clarify that something called "calibration" is done. Usually, on a 3 month interval, all the tools we've decided to calibrate in-house are brought into the QA lab and inspected. Measurements are taken at 1 to 4 points. The range of the instrument is usually covered, but often not. About 10% of the calibrations consist of one single measurement.

It just seems lazy. I often check a micrometer and see that it is .0003" out. However, someone along the line defined acceptance of micrometers as +/- .0003" so they aren't even adjusted and sent back out, every three months.

Internally calibrated instruments include micrometers, calipers, indicators, bore gages, height stands, angle gages, and miscellaneous tools such as chamfer checkers and inside caliper indicators and the like.

The product is usually completely finished fabrications that include machined parts, formed sheet and plate, and maybe some fasteners, all welded together and painted. The customers are mostly farm implement plants around the midwest. The shop is a job shop and does a variety of work, often with allowances of .001".

It's a large company and is constantly investing in new machines, new tools, new plant infrastructure. Constantly, and at a very fast clip. Currently pursuing ISO 9001:2000 certification.

Carol, the quality director's comment is based on success and experience, as you suggest. The company is full of consciencious and talented people who really do a good job, and the customers don't seem to mind about exacting requirements as long as the part works, which is usually what happens.

As far as the rest of your feedback, there should probably be an investigation into costs of nonconformance and waste, before any discussion of that can begin. That is probably where my efforts will wander next.

The frustration and resultant stranglehold approach of my little paper is because a decent calibration routine wouldn't take any more time to accomplish than the three month interval reference checks done already. It would also give me a good outlet to plan and implement a process based calibration system, and be better than sitting around at night doing practically nothing.

However, there is no arguing with success, and there aren't any requirements of ISO 9001:2000 broken as long as nobody tries to define "calibration."

Thanks for your interest and replies.