I have some gages that are owned by individuals these gages are used in our Tool Room for tool building they are not used to measure customer product. So far I have not included these gages in the calibration system but I am not completely comfortable with that. I would welcome feedback on how others have handled this type of thing.

There are many ways to control personally owned gages. A few (not all inclusive) include:

1. Don't allow personally owned gages
2. Require personally owned gages to be calibrated the same as company owned gages. Issue ID #'s.

I would recommend a clear policy. Depending on what compliance you must adhere to (i.e.: FDA, FAA, ISO9000, etc.) there is the distinct possibility for trouble. An auditor could reasonably ask for an explanation of how you know those un-calibrated, personally owned gages can not be used for product measurements.

If the capability is there, one easy answer might be to require personally owned gages to be calibrated and keep records.

Another avenue could include something in policy or procedures that documents what gage is used in any product tests/measurements.

I won't suggest dis-allowing them, as I don't know your parameters. In many machine shops, machinists like using their own gages.

Bottom line, most companies that have compliance requirements have some measure defined to assure only properly calibrated gages are used where it matters to products.

That;s my two cents. Hope it is of some help.

All of the personally owned gages in our shop are in the Cal program. Typically only 0-1" mics are allowed with the exception of our machinists. Most of the machinists tools are not used on customers parts but we found it to be safer and easier if we had control in house.

I have some gages that are owned by individuals these gages are used in our Tool Room for tool building they are not used to measure customer product. So far I have not included these gages in the calibration system but I am not completely comfortable with that. I would welcome feedback on how others have handled this type of thing.


They may need to be included in calibration, in some appropriate form.

You cite the old working requirement - "gages affecting product." The current standard carries the requirement a little more broadly - it adds "where necessary to ensure valid results." This infers taking the requirement a little more broadly than just measuring parts.

Include all personall owned gages in your calibration program and keep records for them.

Second, and more important, place the responsibility of using gages with valid calibration squarely on the shoulders of the user while defining your QMS. If anyone is found to be using any out of calibration gage, he is answerable. Not the lab.

Thanks to all for your input. What I have gathered from your comments is that adding these gages to the Cal. System or removing the gages from the building is the only way to eliminate the risks involved.

Here is the way we handle it at our ISO 9000/2000 facility. Any gage or measuring device that is used for final inspection (of customer product) is calibrated, whether employee or company owned. All other gages, ect. are marked for reference only.

Here is the way we handle it at our ISO 9000/2000 facility. Any gage or measuring device that is used for final inspection (of customer product) is calibrated, whether employee or company owned. All other gages, ect. are marked for reference only.


Man, unless you have a very simple, one step product, that is a very old style approach. Hardly anyone nowadays only calibrates final inspection gages.

Why would you want to use gages that have not been verified measure anything with gages.

There is a lot of good discussion on the topic of good gage management here at Elsmar. It might be worth reviewing some of the more progressive thinking.

I think there are times when marking gages REFERANCE ONLY makes sense. For instants we have gage pin sets that number over 1000 in total. These pins are easily lost so if we calibrate and use the pin to check product and then the pin is lost before the next calibration we have a problem. What we have done is mark the gage pins sets REFERANCE ONLY. In cases when certain jobs would require gage pins for measurement we assign and calibrate pins just for that job so they are not part of the gage pin sets.

I think there are times when marking gages REFERANCE ONLY makes sense. For instants we have gage pin sets that number over 1000 in total. These pins are easily lost so if we calibrate and use the pin to check product and then the pin is lost before the next calibration we have a problem. What we have done is mark the gage pins sets REFERANCE ONLY. In cases when certain jobs would require gage pins for measurement we assign and calibrate pins just for that job so they are not part of the gage pin sets.

Certainly there are times when gages should be reference only, or not in calibration at all.

However, the example you cite is different. Your gage may be marked "Reference" but in fact they are calibrated. You just chose a calibration method where you calibrate just prior to use. The rest of the time, the gage is not calibrated/verified.

Certainly there are times when gages should be reference only, or not in calibration at all.

However, the example you cite is different. Your gage may be marked "Reference" but in fact they are calibrated. You just chose a calibration method where you calibrate just prior to use. The rest of the time, the gage is not calibrated/verified.

Yes. In even simpler terms, we define it as

Calibration frequency - Before use.

Let me clarify what we do with the gage pins.
The sets or individual pins are not calibrated even before use and are not used for manufacturing of customer product.
Small calibrated sets or in some cases calibrated GO/NOGO pins are used for customer product.

If calibration is done just before use it could present some complications of its own.
1) Do the persons calibrating have documented training for gage calibration?
2) How are the calibration records kept and can the gage be traced to the product inspected?

I'm work in a fairly large company (>3000 people). As we speak, I have a serious issue regarding calibration of tools. I have over 2000 tools out of cal!! When I look at the tools that are out, I find crimpers, meter used by our maintenance people. I find equipment used by our R&D people. I would like to put in place a two tier system. One which calibrates the equipment for production validation. the other which manages the equipment used for reference only. Our QMS will be modified to indicate that the user is responsible to ensure that only calibrated measuring equipment is used for validation of product. I really don't care much about the technician that is doing R & D in the basement. If he really wants to know the right value of a measurement, then he should be using a calibrated tool.

Any help and opinions would be welcome!

the other which manages the equipment used for reference only!

Fleetwood,

I am wondering what you will do to assure that the two-tiered (calibration) system does not get messed mixed up. Personally, I do not like: "for reference only." No one has been able to adequately explain to me what that means. I do know that it is often used as an sorry excuse for not having to calibrate the device at some frequency. Sounds confusing to me.

I'm sure my Fellow Covers will chime in on this one.

Stijloor.

Let me clarify what we do with the gage pins.
The sets or individual pins are not calibrated even before use and are not used for manufacturing of customer product.
Small calibrated sets or in some cases calibrated GO/NOGO pins are used for customer product.

If calibration is done just before use it could present some complications of its own.
1) Do the persons calibrating have documented training for gage calibration?
2) How are the calibration records kept and can the gage be traced to the product inspected?


...so, if you do not use the big set of gage pins for product measurement, why do you have a big, expensive set of gage pins?

I'm work in a fairly large company (>3000 people). As we speak, I have a serious issue regarding calibration of tools. I have over 2000 tools out of cal!! When I look at the tools that are out, I find crimpers, meter used by our maintenance people. I find equipment used by our R&D people. I would like to put in place a two tier system. One which calibrates the equipment for production validation. the other which manages the equipment used for reference only. Our QMS will be modified to indicate that the user is responsible to ensure that only calibrated measuring equipment is used for validation of product. I really don't care much about the technician that is doing R & D in the basement. If he really wants to know the right value of a measurement, then he should be using a calibrated tool.

Any help and opinions would be welcome!


Gosh, what you describe may be a pragmatic attempt to dig out of a hole, but it does not sound like an effective gage management process. I agree with Stijloor - this method will fail frequently.

A key word in your explanation, however, is that you are with a large company. These problems can be common in large companies that are not well organized.

There appears to be much lack of understanding of how gage systems work, or your people would not want to use unverified gages. If they are verified, then they may be close to being in calibration after all.

Not caring what the R&D folks in the basement do, suggests a lot of problems in your organization - dept. vs dept. - or a lack of effectively interacting processes.

It's a tough problem, given the number of gages.

Perhaps the first step would be to remove and isolate many of the gages which are not actually in use. Then, work out a plan to bring the remaining ones into calibration.

The big expensive set of gage pins are used in the making fixtures and tooling which is used to produce customer product. The fixtures and tooling is verified or not by inspecting the product with calibrated measuring equipment. Not all companies look the same. It works for us.

I would have them bring them home and replace with gages the company bought, or tag them reference only. If you're making tooling they should be in the calibration data base as techincally I would say they are not for verifying final product they are making tooling...that makes product. If the tooling is no good....you'll make scrap...and then there goes the MRB's and CAR's. After a 5why you'll come up with tool maker used gage brought in from home. Personally, I've found employee gages from home are beat up anyways.

I would have them bring them home and replace with gages the company bought, or tag them reference only.

Fletch,

What does that mean: "for reference only?" What is the benefit?
How do you ensure that "for reference only" gages can not be used for final inspection?

Stijloor.

The big expensive set of gage pins are used in the making fixtures and tooling which is used to produce customer product. The fixtures and tooling is verified or not by inspecting the product with calibrated measuring equipment. Not all companies look the same. It works for us.

It "works for you" solely because the gages (pins) happen to be accurate. They were verified once upon a time, even if only by the manufacturer. So, they presumably are accurate. (Remember, calibration doesn't make it accurate, it merely verifies whether it is.)

Otherwise, it wouldn't work for you.

However, if it turned out your gage pins were not accurate, the failure to verify/calibrate them would lead to fixtures and tooling which are not right, which could make the product nonconforming - at this point in your explanation, you would finally discover that you have a problem. That would be a costly way to find out the mics your tool guy uses are not correct.

So, does that mean your system is "working for you?" Or, is it simply that at this time, your gages happen to be correct, therefore they don't cause a problem?

My house has never been broken into, so I could presume I don't need locks. The only time I really need locks are those few times when a bad guy happens to be in my yard. But, since I can't predict that, I need to periodically verify my security is working.


I would propose a different angle to this discussion.

I think we need to make our calibration activities more efficient, and need to develop a more effective way. I think we calibrate more than we need to.

Basically, the purpose of calibration is to periodically verify that our gages are capable of giving us readings that are adequately accurate and repeatable for our purposes. But, different measuring systems at different companies have different needs.

Ex 1. I want my watch to tell me the correct time. It is not precisely accurate, but it is adequate for my needs. However, even I want a reasonably accurate result.
2. If I am using it to measure a sports event, there is a greater need for more precise accuracy.
3. And, if I am applying it to NASA or space telescopes, I would need an even higher level of accuracy and precision.

All three levels require the accuracy to be known, but the needed level of accuracy must be determined, and the system must be evaluated to determine that it meets that level of accuracy.
For level 1, I merely calibrate it to the TV weather channel or my cell phone. That is adequate.

For level 2 and 3, a more structured, formal calibration approach would be necessary. We can't shoot a rocket into space, and merely assume the gages were correct.

So, if we understand why we calibrate, and really understand what the requirements specify, then we can fashion a more appropriate approach to calibration.

The issue should not be just whether ISO requires it, but what is best for you. It is necessary that your gage pins are accurate, or it will cost you money and waste. If you bought them with a cert, and they haven't been damaged, they are likely still just as accurate as they were - in other words, still in calibration. So, you can factor that into your planning as to frequency and how extensive the cal needs to be. Maybe, for lab gage pins, just a visual check of condition, if your tolerances are not too precise.

But, limiting calibration to final gages only, and assuming all the rest will eventually lead to problems and waste. Not protecting yourself will lead to problems eventually.

Remember, on Sept. 11, the US government said they "weren't focused on airplane hijackings because we had not had any in 15 years." Not a very effective argument...

I would apply the concept so that the frequency and depth of verification is the variable, not excluding them altogether. If I never check my watch, eventually it will become wrong.

Stijloor,

I was assuming the gages were used by folks in the tool room away from manufacturing. I guess I would have to say get rid of the gages and purchase some for the employees to use.

Stijloor,

I was assuming the gages were used by folks in the tool room away from manufacturing. I guess I would have to say get rid of the gages and purchase some for the employees to use.

Better safe then sorry! Trust me, they will "walk" from the tool room to the production floor.

Stijloor.

Recomendation would be not to permit the use of personally owned tools. The other option is to assign the tools asset numbers and include them in your calibration database. If the tools are not used for acceptance of product they can be identified as "reference only". Be sure your calibration procedure addresses this scenario. I have implemented the 2nd criteria and it has held up in every customer/3rd party audit. It must be covered in your procedure though.

Rob

Fleetwood,

I am wondering what you will do to assure that the two-tiered (calibration) system does not get messed mixed up. Personally, I do not like: "for reference only." No one has been able to adequately explain to me what that means. I do know that it is often used as an sorry excuse for not having to calibrate the device at some frequency. Sounds confusing to me.

I'm sure my Fellow Covers will chime in on this one.

Stijloor.

In my experience, "For Reference only" or "not under calibration" is a concept which is immencely useful and very much manageable when the number of devices to be handled is too large.

While devising such systems I have always followed two specific norms -

A device is never marked as a reference device - it is either marked as 'calibrated' with all relevant details, or 'not calibrated'. A fixing or measuring position is marked as 'reference' or 'indicative'. e.g. in a process plant, pressure gauges at many positions would indicate pressure. This is not a process control measurement - only an indicative measurement. It does not need to be accurate / precise and no control decisions are based on these. The devices mainly come into picture when there is a malfuncion and the maintenance guys are trying to pin down the problem area. Once they pin it down using the 'indicative' instruments, they get on the job using their own calibrated instruments. Again, because the devices have a tendancy to 'walk', the positions where these devices are fitted are marked as 'indicative' or 'reference'. Not the devices. The device is simply marked as 'not calibrated'. A 'not calibrated' device fitted in an 'indicative' position is acceptable.

It is always the user who is responsible to use a calibrated device where required. Responsibility of the lab ends at giving the user a properly calibrated, expiry marked device on request and keeping a record of calibration. They do help by issuing early recall warnings - but that is strictly help, not responsibility.

I have found that this system works much better than the lab trying to withdraw the devices due for calibration and failing.

Stijloor,

I was assuming the gages were used by folks in the tool room away from manufacturing. I guess I would have to say get rid of the gages and purchase some for the employees to use.

You don't have to get rid of them. Buying new just adds cost. Most companies verify employee owned gages.

In my experience, "For Reference only" or "not under calibration" is a concept which is immencely useful and very much manageable when the number of devices to be handled is too large.

While devising such systems I have always followed two specific norms -

A device is never marked as a reference device - it is either marked as 'calibrated' with all relevant details, or 'not calibrated'. A fixing or measuring position is marked as 'reference' or 'indicative'. e.g. in a process plant, pressure gauges at many positions would indicate pressure. This is not a process control measurement - only an indicative measurement. It does not need to be accurate / precise and no control decisions are based on these. The devices mainly come into picture when there is a malfuncion and the maintenance guys are trying to pin down the problem area. Once they pin it down using the 'indicative' instruments, they get on the job using their own calibrated instruments. Again, because the devices have a tendancy to 'walk', the positions where these devices are fitted are marked as 'indicative' or 'reference'. Not the devices. The device is simply marked as 'not calibrated'. A 'not calibrated' device fitted in an 'indicative' position is acceptable.


It is always the user who is responsible to use a calibrated device where required. Responsibility of the lab ends at giving the user a properly calibrated, expiry marked device on request and keeping a record of calibration. They do help by issuing early recall warnings - but that is strictly help, not responsibility.
I have found that this system works much better than the lab trying to withdraw the devices due for calibration and failing.


Interesting ideas, Potdar. I like the Calibrated or Not Calibrated approach.

However, it sounds like the many gages in the Not Calibrated group are actually in a "presumed to be accurate" kind of category. Perhaps many of these are actually known to be correct, to an adequate degree, and that is why we use them. Is there a way to take advantage of that instead of calling it Not Calibrated? Or is it not worth the record keeping requirements?

I would try to remove and eliminate those gages which really aren't needed. There are always some, if you have a lot of gages. 5S begins with simplify.

However, it sounds like the many gages in the Not Calibrated group are actually in a "presumed to be accurate" kind of category. Perhaps many of these are actually known to be correct, to an adequate degree, and that is why we use them. Is there a way to take advantage of that instead of calling it Not Calibrated? Or is it not worth the record keeping requirements?


Very much. All the 'not calibrated' gages are properly numbered and are on record as not calibrated. They are periodically verified for being functional. Actually most need accuracy to the level of gages on a fire extinguisher showing green, white and red ranges. Still most are fit enough to be properly calbrated and put to use as 'calibrated'. That is done when required. Why spend on calibrating them when it is not necessary?

Ask the maintenance guys and they would insist that these are needed. Any 5S efforts would need to start with selling the concept to maintenance. Actually, I devised this method after failing to eliminate them.