The Elsmar Cove Forum and Site Map The Elsmar Cove Wiki More Free Files The Elsmar Cove Forums Discussion Thread Index Post Attachments Listing Failure Modes Services and Solutions to Problems Elsmar cove Forums Main Page Elsmar Cove Home Page

Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Forum > ISO (International Organization for Standardization) Standards > ISO 19011 and ALL Auditing Discussions


The Elsmar Cove Forum SideBar!
Monitor the Forum
Monitor New Forum Posts
New Threads Feeds
RSS FeedRSS Feed
Sponsor Link










$ Contributor Forum Access
Courtesy Quick Links

Links that Elsmar Cove visitors will find useful in your quest for knowledge:


Howard's International Quality Services

Atul's Symphony Technologies

Dave Scott's Scott Quality Solutions

Praxiom Research Group


NIST's Engineering Statistics Handbook

IRCA - International Register of Certified Auditors

SAE - Society of Automotive Engineers

Quality Digest Portal

IEST - Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology

ASQ - American Society for Quality


All the Important Standards and Related Web Sites in the World
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Content Display Modes
  #1  
Old 9th October 2000, 12:17 AM
Mark Bidinger
Unregistered Guest

 
Posts: n/a
Exclamation Auditor interpretation of PO data - PO submitted for outside calibration

A friend I know just went through a 1st time registration and were given a minor due to the fact that the PO submitted for outside calibration did not specifically call out the test method and criteria for each type of measurement device they had in house, the PO merely stated that it was the suppliers repsonibility to know the appropriate ASI/ASTM/NIST test required and the subsiquent critiera. The Lead Auditor felt this was not enought, that all the specifics should be on the PO

Does this make sence to anyone. I can see having a master list on hand of the information, which is provided to the supplier, and referenced on the PO, but tohave to call them all out on the PO?

Any one else run in to this or have suggestions as to how to resolve?

------------------
Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 9th October 2000, 01:32 AM
Jim Triller
Unregistered Guest

 
Posts: n/a
Mark,
I suggest requiring in the PO that the device must be calibrated in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. Additionally, if the calibration supplier is ISO 9000 registered or has a Z540 system in place the PO should state that the calibration must be performed in accordance with the supplier's quality management system.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

  #3  
Old 25th October 2000, 08:23 AM
CJacobsen
Unregistered Guest

 
Posts: n/a
I have been involved with metrology labs for years. A few simple lines on a PO should satisfy an assessor. Are you sure your assessor understands metrology (calibration) enough to understand what should be on the po?

Every piece of equipment sent out should have on the PO for it:
1. Item, serial number, manufacturer (to conclusively and unambiguously identify the item) as well as any standard number you have assigned
2. What is required, for example: Calibration and certification in accordance with ISO 17025, ANSI/NCSL Z540-1, etc. with before and after data traceable to NIST or industry accepted standards.
3. If it is an electrical device or a device that can easily have the calibration tampered with, a statement such as "Tamper resistent seals required"
You are not requried nor should you be expected to know about every calibration. After all you are sending the equipment out of your facility. It is important that the person you send the calibration to is an 'Approved' source for calibrations and shows as such on your approved vendor list. It is also important to indicate, usually with initials, that after the calibration PO has been generated, someone has reviewed it for the required statements. This is not approval of the PO, just review that all the proper verbiage is present. A copy of this PO needs to be in the history folder for the equipment as well.
It is up to you also to review the Calibration Certificate and the Data supplied when the instrument returns. Evidence of this review is also necessary and initials at the bottom of each page should suffice.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation Bar
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Forum > ISO (International Organization for Standardization) Standards > ISO 19011 and ALL Auditing Discussions

Bookmarks


Visitors Currently Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 Registered Visitors and 1 Unregistered Guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Forum Search
Display Modes Rate Thread Content
Rate Thread Content:

Posting Settings
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Discussion Threads
Discussion Thread Title Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post or Poll Vote
Evidence of Conformity - Interpretation of ISO 9001 Clause 8.2.4 (data - yes or no?) glfmd56 Definitions, Acronyms, Abbreviations and Interpretations 4 6th February 2009 05:38 PM
Interpretation of ISO 13485 Clause 8.4 - Analysis of Data Roland Cooke ISO 13485 - Medical Devices - Quality Management Systems 18 31st January 2008 11:26 AM
Interpretation of 'Breakpoint' in MSA - Please review my data Krzysztof Burdzy Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 1 13th November 2007 07:11 AM
Z540, ISO 17025 and Calibration Data - Requesting Calibration data Marc ISO 17025 - Calibration, Measurement Gages and Test Laboratories 2 22nd September 2005 09:05 AM
ISO 16269-7 Statistical interpretation of data Jimmy Olson SPC Monitoring and Statistical Analysis Techniques 4 4th April 2003 03:12 PM



The time now is 12:58 AM. All times are GMT -4.
The time zone can be changed in your UserCP --> Options.



   

All Y'All Come Back Now, Y' Hear?

Made With A Mac! FreeBSD OS Powered by Apache!
Using php4 Forums provided and maintained by Marc Smith Database by MySQL

FAIR USE and CORRECTNESS NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe herein constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. In addition, I do not guarantee the correctness of the content. The risk of using content from the Elsmar Cove web site and forums remains with the user/visitor.

Responsibility Statement: Each person is responsible for anything they post in the Elsmar Cove forum. Neither I, Marc Timothy Smith, nor any of the forum Moderators, are responsible for the content of posts people make. Liability for post content resides with the poster as does interpretation and/or acceptance and/or use of advice by the reader.

Complaints: If you have a complaint with a post in a forum discussion thread, including Content in general, fighting, flaming, copyright infringement, defamation and/or 'slander', please use the 'Report This Post Report This Post Button button which appears at the top of every post in every thread.

Site courtesy of:
Marc Timothy Smith - Cayman Business Systems, 8466 Lesourdsville-West Chester Road, West Chester, Ohio 45069-1929 - USA
(513) 341-6272

To contact me, click the Google Voice link below, enter Your Name and Your Phone Number and Google will ring your phone and connect you for free!

The Elsmar Cove Web Site is *CopyFree*
no new posts