I am interested in how others have dealt with employee owned inspection equipment. The practice that we use right now is that each employee is to calibrate their own equipment and mark it with a certain color sticker that show it is calibrated. This has been a issue during customer audits.

I am helping implement a new quality software which includes calibration. I personally feel that we need to try and get away from employee owned inspection equipment, but many in the company think this could be very expensive for the company if they have to buy more tools.

I would appreciate any input on how you have dealt with this problem.

Hi Jamie,

Welcome to the Cove!!!!

I want to encourange you to use the search function because many times these questions have been discussed in detail. You can find the search function here (http://Elsmar.com/Forums/search.php)

There is a seperate board that addresses calibration issues here (http://Elsmar.com/Forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=13)

And to answer your question....we calibrate employee owned equipment if it is used for acceptance. We do not allow the "owner" of the gage to do it.

Hope this helps a bit.
CarolX

Jamie,

I agree with Carol. We treat employee-owned equipment no differently than company-owned from a calibration perspective. Only a trained and authorized cal. person is permitted to cal the equipment if it is done in-house (mic's., calipers, etc.) and all equipment cal. history is in one cal. database. If I were auditing your company -- for ISO or otherwise -- I would want to see proof that everyone doing a cal. was properly trained and using the correct procedures, standards, etc. and keeping the records properly. Also the employee-owned equipment must be approved for use prior to using it for inspection to ensure it is of sufficient quality to do the job right. This is done at the initial calibration.

Hope this helps. Welcome! :bigwave:

Jamie,

I would agree with Mike about personal measuring equipment but add the following:
If only company equipment is being used to determine the acceptance of materials at each stage of the process there would be no problem handling the calibration of personal equipment as you presently do. In otherwords if Joe S, the machine operator, checks the material but Helen M, the QA inspector(she has company measuring equipment), checks the material before it is permitted to go to the next operation then it doesn't make any difference who calibrated Joe S equipment. But if you have personal measuring equipment determining the acceptance of material before going to the next operation then you should have a qualified person calibrating their equipment.

Mooser

As said, product acceptance is the crux of the issue that has caused so many arguements between lab, production, and set-up people for ages.

At previous companies we decided that we did not give a darn about individuals gages used during set-up or repair. They could use tape measures or gages to do their job because there was always the backup of a "dimensional" inspection performed by trained personnel with calibrated gages.

It was interesting because we could tell by the failure rate of products submitted for "production approval" which personnel were using deficient or incorrect gages and target those for action such as "re-training".

Of course all based on having a robust system of product approval before moving to subsequent operations.

Al...
:)

Originally posted by Al Dyer
At previous companies we decided that we did not give a darn about individuals gages used during set-up or repair. They could use tape measures or gages to do their job because there was always the backup of a "dimensional" inspection performed by trained personnel with calibrated gages.

It was interesting because we could tell by the failure rate of products submitted for "production approval" which personnel were using deficient or incorrect gages and target those for action such as "re-training".
Al...
:)

Such procedures may ensure no bad product makes it to the customer but it allows, or could allow, bad parts to be made in the first place (i.e. waste). So why not also calibrate & control gages "used during set-up or repair" to prevent the "failure rate of products submitted for "production approval." :confused:

I agree with Mike too..
All equipment calibration is kept in our Gage-Trak database.

That is why the failure set-up is monitored. To identify scrap that can be reduced. Let the people use their gages and then show them the error of their ways. With the data to back-up that their gages need to be part of the overall calibration or to use gages supplied by the controlled lab. This point really only comes up when a new person is hired, give them the freedom of their own tools but monitor how the tools affect the process.

Even if a set-up person uses a company calibrated gage is there not a secondary step whereby they are verified by a Q.C. function?

As said, this measure of their set-ups vs. lab results will lead to a good picture of who is doing the job correctly. Assume that people want to do the right and only correct them if they are not. This might also help at review time.

Maybe too hypothetical but maybe set-up scrap should be addressed during product realization!!!

Al...

We have taken a simple stance on employee owned gauges.

"If it's on-site, it's in the calibration system". And it will therefore be maintained and repaired by the company. If the employee does not agree with that, the gauge has to be removed.

Hi Jamie and welcome to the Cove :bigwave:

We allow no employee owned inspection equipment whatsoever here. We used to issue personal (but company owned) equipment, but that meant having lots of gauges all over the place, and the matter of calibration was not handled in a good way.

Today, we have a system of process (workplace) based gauges. That resulted in a sharp reduction of the number of gauges in circulation as well as cost for calibration.

I'm still not happy with the calibration discipline, but I'll admit that it has improved a great deal.

/Claes

I think 7.6 reads something like this-----"...measuring devices........where necessary to achieve valid results,......will be calibrated....."

If the measuring device being used is checking a feature in which it is necessary to have a valid result, then it will be calibrated, according to your guidelines.

It doesnt matter where the gauge comes from or who buys it.

Trying to make expeptions and / or having 2 systems makes it incredibly difficult and costly. (Thats why I had martinis for breakfast in the early 90's). Make it simple all the time ! JMHO
:bigwave:

Claes, If you don't allow

employee used inspection equipment then who or what uses the inspection equipment?:biglaugh:

Errrr... Ah hem... :o Interesting typo wasnt' it? :vfunny: Ok, I stand corrected, and so does my post....

/Claes:bonk:

Over the years, I have worked in at least four places where calibrated instruments are used.

At three of those places, the rule was -- if that "type" of tool, instrument or test equipment is in the calibration system, then no employee is permitted to have a personally-owned one at work. That restricts employee-owned tools to simple hand tools, but removes any possibility of accidentally using an uncalibrated instrument.

At the fourth place (where I am now) employee-owned tools are permitted. So are uncalibrated tools. However, if a tool is going to be used on work that requires a calibrated tool (it says so in the work instruction) then it has to be calibrated no matter who owns it. In my opinion (from the very bottom of the influence heap) this creates a significant risk of using an uncalibrated tool.

In every place, only trained and qualified people assigned to the calibration lab are allowed to perform calibrations.

At the current company, there is a prevailing attitude that a lot of tools don't need to be calibrated because "I'm only using it for troubleshooting" or "I'm only doing alignment & setup, not certifying final results". In my opinion, all of these are lame excuses. If you are using an uncalibrated tool to make a measurement or adjustment, you are telling me that it does not matter if the result of your work is wrong! ("someone else will catch it later") This invites rework, and there is at least some chance that an error may NOT be caught later.

"Does it matter if the measurement result is wrong?". If the answer is "Yes", then the tool/instrument/meter must be calibrated. If the answer is "No", then your next question should be "Why am I doing this?" (Badly quoted from Phil Stein.)

Very Interesting indeed, before my current contract I worked full time as a quality manager for a sub-contract precision engineering company and calibration was nothing less than a thorn in my side, and a very boring one at that. . .

Originally we said ya! To all people having their own only if it was engraved with a unique number, the company had its own numbering systems but personal equipment had the an agreement to have their own system, be-it the owners name or whatever. Our biggest problem was controlling them! The company’s equipment was kept in the gauge issue room and issued when required. Calibration every so many years as required etc.

When it came to calibrate personally owned equipment it was basically pot luck if they had the device! Some would take it home at the end of a shift, some would leave it home, some would say they are leaving it at home and never bringing it back. TAs a result we would remove it from our circulation list. Only for an auditor to come in and pick the ****ed micrometer up several years later when the guy decided to bring it back in!! Very frustrating.

We decided on: “If you have a personally owned measuring instrument it must be kept within the gauge issue room under the strict calibration and gauge issue system. Personal equipment will be issued on request to the owner only. All measuring instruments are held within the authorised storage facility under the owners own risk and no liability shall be accepted by ????? Ltd. Failure to adhere to this policy would stipulate gross misconduct on behalf of the employee, the standard ????? Ltd misconduct procedure will apply”.

It did the tick, people either took their instruments home, or gave them over to the gauge issue room.

Lee01