:confused: We have an area in our Equipment Engineering /Tooling that has approximately 75 hand-held measuring devices; calipers & micrometers. Each of these items is in our electronic Calibration system and each has an asset number etched into it. I recently had a question concerning the need for each item to have a label. It is very time consuming to remove and replace labels. Is it acceptable to have a current list posted in the area with the assest numbers, dates (performed and due), tolerances, etc. instead of having a label attached to each item?

Sandra, I ran a lab that was A2LA accredited to ISO Guide 25, while the main organization was registered to QS 9000 (the lab was included in the scope of the main organization's registration.) I had about 25 to 30 micrometers and calipers - I wrote our work instruction so that the system permitted me to serialize the measuring instruments, and then just post the calibration results. I used an Excel spreadsheet to control the calibration and just posted the updated one quarterly.

I'm not aware of any quality standard that demands an individual ticket on each piece of equipment showing its calibration status, in general they require identification and the ability for a user to verify calibration status, which can be done via a posted list, a shared spreadsheet, or other methods.

The big question is whether you've written your quality system to permit a more general approach, or if you've painted yourself into a corner by requiring an individual ticket/tag on each measuring instrument, and if you have, how hard is it to change the system to a more general approach.

Good luck on changing to an easier way of meeting the standard.

This has been a debated issue (by some) for a long time. I had a debate with a quality director a number of years ago on this topic. I "grew up" believing that the cal sticker on an instrument was there to notify the user of the cal status (which it does).

The quality director asked me why we h ad to have cal stickers on the instruments. I explained it was for the above reason. He contended that if there is something in place that assures the user can ONLY use a currently calibrated instrument, why does there need to be a sticker on the instrument.

The context at that time was a semiconductor wafer fab with full automation. Any time someone used an instrument, it had to be logged through the manufacturing system which had cal and due dates for all instruments, and would not allow any past due or improperly cal'd instrument to process product.

He made a great point. If you have specific compliance requirements that state a requirement for stickers, then so be it. If you do not, however, everything changes.

My position is that you must have something in place which assures that only properly calibrated instruments can be used. This can be colored dots, a list on a bulletin board, barcode link to a database which only allows properly cal'd instruments to be used, etc.

The TEST, however, is that it MUST be effective. If you post a list on the wall or bulletin board, you must have something in place that absolutely assures that only properly cal'd instruments are used. If there are ISO certifications that apply, you may need to create documented training for everyone who uses instruments.

Bottom line, I BELIEVE you can, but be sure you have a method to assure everyone uses the system (this is as true for stickers; it's amazing to me how many people out in the measurement world use past due instruments with an obvious cal sticker on it).

Our QMS is certified to TS16949:2002. All of our measuring devices are etched with a control number that corresponds to the master computer file using GageTracker6. My procedure states method used may be and/or so we could labels or etching.

Kevin,

Thanks alot for the quick response. I will check our Calibration Procedures to ensure we have made (or will make) a provision for listing the assets in this area.:thanx: