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.
Last edited by apestate; 11th May 2006 at 05:45 AM.
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.
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. :: 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. ::
and you asked for feedback didn't you? . And discussions on topics like these are always entertaining
Quote:
Originally Posted by atetsade
1. I'm not interested in working for a company customers do not visit.
uhm, ok, then calibration would influence customer perception.
Quote:
Originally Posted by atetsade
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.
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.
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.
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
Calibration and ISO 9000
: 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.
:
. And discussions on topics like these are always entertaining
Linear Mode
