Customer Property Identification Requirement - ISO 9001 Clause 7.5.4

We have customer supplied gages.
7.5.4 states that we must identify customer property.
Will a calibration sticker be sufficient?
(We can determine customer by referencing gage# on calibration sticker in our gage management software)
Or, should we explicitly add additional identification such as "Property of [CustomerName]"?

Re: 7.5.4 Customer Property Identification

dtr18c said:

We have customer supplied gages.
7.5.4 states that we must identify customer property.
Will a calibration sticker be sufficient?
(We can determine customer by referencing gage# on calibration sticker in our gage management software)
Or, should we explicitly add additional identification such as "Property of [CustomerName]"?

Click to expand...

What standard applies? ISO 9001 or ISO/TS 16949?

Stijloor.

Re: 7.5.4 Customer Property Identification

Iso 9001

dtr18c said:

We have customer supplied gages.
7.5.4 states that we must identify customer property.
Will a calibration sticker be sufficient?
(We can determine customer by referencing gage# on calibration sticker in our gage management software)
Or, should we explicitly add additional identification such as "Property of [CustomerName]"?

Click to expand...

As a best practice I suggest labeling or engraving the gage (and any other customer-owned assets) with "Property of ..." and here is why:
Let's assume that you are an unionized shop that goes on strike or a company that goes into bankruptcy. The customer will probably want to retrieve their property to use it somewhere else. The only way they can legally do that in most states is by entering the premisses accompanied by the local authorities and retrieving any and all property identified as belonging to them. They cannot take a nail if it does not say on it "Property of ..." or something equivalent to that. Someone please verify or correct this statement.

Now, some customers are very specific about their identification requirements, others could care less (until they get burned). From the ISO 9001 perspective, I satisfy the requirements as long as I can trace a piece of equipment or tool or whatever (including personal data) to the customer owning it. In your case this could be accomplished through the gage database. As a 3rd party auditor I never liked this and considered it superficial, but it met the requirements and interpretations given to me to follow.

DrM2u said:

As a 3rd party auditor I never liked this and considered it superficial, but it met the requirements and interpretations given to me to follow.

Click to expand...

Surely, whether or not you 'like' something isn't the point! The job of a CB auditor is to evaluate what's compliant and effective!

AndyN said:

Surely, whether or not you 'like' something isn't the point! The job of a CB auditor is to evaluate what's compliant and effective!

Click to expand...

DrM2u explained a situation where the base requirement might not be effective, and said that the OP's method would be compliant. What ever happened to "adding value"?

Jim Wynne said:

DrM2u explained a situation where the base requirement might not be effective, and said that the OP's method would be compliant. What ever happened to "adding value"?

Click to expand...

Since I had no grounds to document findings I tried to bring value by identifying opportunities for improvement and offering examples (at least two!!!) of observed best practices for consideration. As an auditor I always tried to leave my 'likes' at the door since it was not my QMS, and I belive that any decent auditor should do the same.

Jim Wynne said:

DrM2u explained a situation where the base requirement might not be effective, and said that the OP's method would be compliant. What ever happened to "adding value"?

Click to expand...

Where, in the example given - that of not actually putting the client's name on the equipment - is there something that needs improvement, if that's what you mean, Jim, by "adding value"?

AndyN said:

Where, in the example given - that of not actually putting the client's name on the equipment - is there something that needs improvement, if that's what you mean, Jim, by "adding value"?

Click to expand...

There are two ways to interpret "effective": a thing can be effective in meeting the base requirements of the standard, or it can be effective in satisfying the intent. I think the intent of the clause in question is to enable everyone, including customers, to be able to identify customer-owned property. As DrM2u pointed out, there may be situations where identification by reference might not enable the property to be identified as customer-owned, thus the point could be made that the strategy might not be effective in all cases. In such a case, an auditor can "add value" by pointing this out to an auditee, perhaps as an OFI.

DrM2u said:

Since I had no grounds to document findings I tried to bring value by identifying opportunities for improvement and offering examples (at least two!!!) of observed best practices for consideration. As an auditor I always tried to leave my 'likes' at the door since it was not my QMS, and I belive that any decent auditor should do the same.

Click to expand...

Am I missing the point - do you mean that you would pass on to my company ideas that you "observed" at another company. If you were my Auditor you would see the door very fast as you might also be passing on benchmarks from my organization.

If we are identifying "in case of liquidation" then even in today's trying times that's a bit negative.

In all cases we must look at the purpose for the requirement. In some cases it is physically impossible to "identify my marking / or labeling) In any case I would never permanently mark my customers property (without their permission) . It seems we are trying to satisfy a silly auditor - rather than meet the intent of the requirement. But of course that's just an opinion.