Is there a standard which states how often instruments should be calibrated?

[Gmzita]

Hi - this is my first time posting or answering anything - so here it goes - I agree with everything that has been listed above - i.e. manufactures recommendation, monitoring and data analysis, etc. But you also may want to check the testing or calibration methods that you are using. For instance, some of the ASTM and ISO standards actually do state or recommend a frequency for the calibration of items. ASTM E4 has a section titled "Time Interval Between Verifications" which gives recommended intervals for the calibration of a Force Testing Machine. Many other standards may also contain this information. It will require some digging but you may be able to find the answers for some of the equipment there.

[Big Jim]

At least in a backhanded way, ISO 9001 does provide some guidance on calibration intervals. It may not seem evident though.

I think that it goes without saying that you don't want to do it so often that it is burdensome.

The outer limit is from the paragraph in 7.6 right below the letters (7.6 a-e) where it states:

"In addition, the organization shall assess and record the validity of the previous results when the equipment is found not to conform to requirements. The organization shall take appropriate action on the equipment and any product affected."

Determining and taking appropriate action on the equipment may not be very difficult, but doing so on the product affected can be a huge liability and a huge project as well, one that you don't want to do if at all possible. This, in my mind is the outer side of the interval. It needs to be often enough that your risk is mitigated as much as practical.

Simply choosing an interval of two years without thinking through the impact could expose you to a lot of risk.

[ssz102]

generally speaking, the instruments are calibrated by one year according to the requirements from your customer or using habit

[AndyN]

In Reply to Parent Post by Big Jim

At least in a backhanded way, ISO 9001 does provide some guidance on calibration intervals. It may not seem evident though.

I think that it goes without saying that you don't want to do it so often that it is burdensome.

The outer limit is from the paragraph in 7.6 right below the letters (7.6 a-e) where it states:

"In addition, the organization shall assess and record the validity of the previous results when the equipment is found not to conform to requirements. The organization shall take appropriate action on the equipment and any product affected."

Determining and taking appropriate action on the equipment may not be very difficult, but doing so on the product affected can be a huge liability and a huge project as well, one that you don't want to do if at all possible. This, in my mind is the outer side of the interval. It needs to be often enough that your risk is mitigated as much as practical.

Simply choosing an interval of two years without thinking through the impact could expose you to a lot of risk.

What you're proposing is hardly preventive, Jim! I'd suggest it's more in the use of data, from the original condition the equipment is purchased in, plus the quality planning aspects which should be the focus of determining the length of time before a recall is done. To suggest that a requirement which is reactive in nature is a place to start isn't in the overall theme of ISO 9001, IMHO!

[Big Jim]

In Reply to Parent Post by AndyN

What you're proposing is hardly preventive, Jim! I'd suggest it's more in the use of data, from the original condition the equipment is purchased in, plus the quality planning aspects which should be the focus of determining the length of time before a recall is done. To suggest that a requirement which is reactive in nature is a place to start isn't in the overall theme of ISO 9001, IMHO!

Absolutely it should be in the use of data, and any other appropriate means. However, the risk of needing to determine if you shipped bad product, how that will hurt the financials, and the damage to a reputation certainly helps drive home the point that you don't want to be involved in risky behavior.

My point is very simply that there is a degree of guidance from the standard itself, light guidance it may be, but some guidance. I'm certainly not suggesting it is all that is needed. I'm sorry you took it that way.