Can identical gages in different facilities be in the same family?

V

vfliberty

I was given a minor in our recert audit because I used a study done by another plant on identical attribute gages. I've read forums and meet the criteria for a family - identical gages, manufactured at the same time, calibrated properly, same product and process... There just happens to be 500 miles between us and different operators.
The auditor insists that the R&R MUST be unique to our facility and people. FORD MSA or TS are not too specific on this. I've already started the R&R's because that's what we do, but...
What do you guys think?
 
T

tomvehoski

I would tend to agree, unless your employees are traveling back and forth to use the gages. Training in the gage use at facility A could be different than facility B, causing differences in operator variation. Facility A might be temperature controlled while facility B is not, causing variations in the equipment.
 

Wes Bucey

Prophet of Profit
I was given a minor in our recert audit because I used a study done by another plant on identical attribute gages. I've read forums and meet the criteria for a family - identical gages, manufactured at the same time, calibrated properly, same product and process... There just happens to be 500 miles between us and different operators.
The auditor insists that the R&R MUST be unique to our facility and people. FORD MSA or TS are not too specific on this. I've already started the R&R's because that's what we do, but...
What do you guys think?
For what it's worth, I never found two gages to be "identical," regardless if they are next to each other on a bench in a temperature controlled lab or 5,000 miles apart. I've found them to be "very similar" (certainly within most tolerances), but, ultimately, depending on the discrimination and reliability and repeatability of the various instruments and standards used to check them, variation between gages CAN be detected. Obviously, this variation is even more likely to be found between human operators. When you encounter variation, how do you really know what is attributable to the gage and what to the operator when the gages are 500 miles apart?
 

Jim Wynne

Leader
Admin
I was given a minor in our recert audit because I used a study done by another plant on identical attribute gages. I've read forums and meet the criteria for a family - identical gages, manufactured at the same time, calibrated properly, same product and process... There just happens to be 500 miles between us and different operators.
The auditor insists that the R&R MUST be unique to our facility and people. FORD MSA or TS are not too specific on this. I've already started the R&R's because that's what we do, but...
What do you guys think?

Welcome to the Cove. Can you provide the text of the nonconformity statement, including reference(s) to the standard? You say it's an attribute gage; what kind of parts, and what sort of characteristics are being verified?
 
V

vfliberty

[FONT=T3Font_12][FONT=T3Font_12]
Thanks for responding guys. I agree that no 2 gages are ever the same and I don't normally use family gage studies. In this case the FORD MSA requires use of parts in and out of tolerance and it is impossible for me to create enough variation in the process to do this.

The finding:
The process for ensuring that GR&R studies are done is not effective in practice.

Section 7.6.1 of TS 16949 requires the organization to conduct studies to analyze the variation present in the results of each type of measuring and test equipment.

Evidence of GR&R studies being conducted for attribute gauges referenced on the control plan could not be found during the assessment.

It is an attribute gauge - stab pin checks location of a hole, and a feeler checks gap along a contour, tolerances are +/-2mm. The parts are welded assemblies.​
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
 

AndyN

Moved On
[FONT=T3Font_12][FONT=T3Font_12]
Thanks for responding guys. I agree that no 2 gages are ever the same and I don't normally use family gage studies. In this case the FORD MSA requires use of parts in and out of tolerance and it is impossible for me to create enough variation in the process to do this.

The finding:
The process for ensuring that GR&R studies are done is not effective in practice.

Section 7.6.1 of TS 16949 requires the organization to conduct studies to analyze the variation present in the results of each type of measuring and test equipment.

Evidence of GR&R studies being conducted for attribute gauges referenced on the control plan could not be found during the assessment.

It is an attribute gauge - stab pin checks location of a hole, and a feeler checks gap along a contour, tolerances are +/-2mm. The parts are welded assemblies.​
[/FONT]
[/FONT]

For a start - the nc doesn't give any evidence that the GR&R process is not 'effective', so, on that basis alone, I'd reject it on the auditor! Since this is using a 'golden' standard for acceptance, it seems to me that you'd have to show, firstly, that they are 'identical', for the GR&R to be valid. I see no problem with conducting the GR&R on one gauge and then shipping the other (as when they were new) to another location. As Wes says, the 500 miles or 50 feet doesn't mean anything.

Are you having problems with the customer/parts acceptance/performance? Would 1 location see a difference that the other doesn't? Only then should the auditor truly have an issue...
 

Ron Rompen

Trusted Information Resource
This is probably the most interesting question I've seen here in a long time. :applause:

My initial response (as Lead Auditor) is no, you can't use the 'family' clause for separate facilities....but then I stopped to think about it.

We have two plants here, about half a mile apart. They run different products and processes, but both are the same in essence (assembly of outsourced fabricated products). We have used the 'family' clause for such gauges as micrometers, digital calipers and height gauges, and the issue has never (to the best of my knowledge) been raised. So where do you draw the line?

I'm now unsure as to how I would write this as a finding; definitely it could be an OFI, but would it be a nonconformance or not? It will be interesting to see what some of our other members have to say.
 
V

vfliberty

In response to your question AndyN - perfect Q1 score and 0 PPM since Job 1. The product and process is the same in both facilities. GR&R was done on these attributes when they were new, then shipped here.

To Ron - our products are the same, not just in essence. We ship to different customer plants normally, but are PPAP'd to both locations.

I might add that these gages also take 30 variable points. GR&R's were done initially and annually on each feature, no family gage there. It's not like there's evidence we don't understand the requirement.
 

AndyN

Moved On
Then, clearly, the process is effective, isn't it? Hence, I'd push it back to the auditor to - at the very least - reword the nc. It's just bizarre that the distance between one gauge and another would make it an issue! What would he have you do, another GR&R or move the factory...DOH!
 
V

vfliberty

Another GR&R is what the auditor wants. The feature is on the control plan even though it's not an SC - if it's on the control plan you have to have an R&R - that's a given. My alternate approach is to take it off the control plan.
What bothers me most about this is the cost of this R&R.
50 parts measured on CMM - $937.50
3 operators measuring 50x3 parts - $1125
QE project time - $320
TS Auditor satisfaction - PRICELESS!
 
Top Bottom