Designing new gauge tracking software

[jimmymustang06]

We have used GageTrak for many years, but it has become so bloated with "features" that we don't, and won't, use. The whole thing is just cumbersome having to navigate through the various windows and tabs of stuff we don't use. Our IT manager is pretty slick and has programmed many of our UI's on the floor in which measurements are recorded and saved. So to make a long story a bit longer, we are wanting to made a program in our MRP package whereby we could track our gauge calibrations more efficiently only needing to enter information we need to ensure our gauges are still giving us the correct readings.

I'm unclear about what all has to be recorded and still be in compliance with IATF. So far in the "Gage Records" part of the database, We're asking for: gauge ID, description, location (workstation), last cal date, next cal date (calculated), gauge ID of standard. Then in the calibration section of the database: gauge ID, gauge ID of standard, date, standard measurement, gauge measurement before, gauge measurement after. I would imagine we could color-code the measurement field so that if the entered value is not in tolerance, the field would turn red.

For the most part, our gauges are hand-held OD and tubing wall micrometers and calipers. We don't "calibrate" gauges, with regards to "fixing" them to measure correctly again. We basically verify that they are still measuring in tolerance. If they are not, most times, we scrap them and buy new. Our bigger machines (tensile testers, comparators, rockwell hardness etc are calibrated by either OEM's or outside labs.

I guess I'm wondering how much of the measurements, taken during calibration, do we have to record? Is the info above enough?

 

[Miner]

If you do not get a response, you may want to ask a mod/admin to move this thread to the calibration sub-forum.

 

[John C. Abnet]

Is the info above enough?

Good day @jimmymustang06 ;
So, one key point that it appears you may already understand is the difference between the term "verification" and "calibration". From your description it sounds as if your organization is not equipped to calibrate, but only verify your measurement equipment. If I am correct in this understanding, then I would council that your internal documentation/claim is for periodic verification and you leave calibration to a laboratory set up/certified to do that.
In regards to if your system has "...enough" per your original post.
ISO 17025 is EXTREMELY specific in regards to what is needed specific to the act of calibration and record keeping of calibration activities. If you are not familiar with ISO17025 (certainly not necessary), it may be helpful for you to own/review that standard in order to assist your understand of "calibration" requirements, simply for the purpose of giving you some perspective.

IATF 9001 7.1.5.2 and 16949 7.1.5.2.1 are pretty specific regarding what IS required. As you can see, it is not so specific about "calibration", but it is specific about ensuring that the devices used are identified, traceable (when required) to the measurements made, be validated as to being the proper tool (7.1.5.1.1= MSA) , taken out of service if/when damaged/out of calibration, notification to customer and containment of any potential product shipped, etc..etc..etc...

Remember the authors and intent. IATF 16949 is all about the OEM receiving conforming product. ISO 17025 (likely not a direct requirement for your organization), is all about the handling and calibration of the measurement systems.

Summary:
Identify your measurement tools. Determine when they need verified (think tape measure vs OD mic). Verify them as determined. Keep records. React and record/contain/recall product if/when a measurement tool is determined to have been measuring wrongly.

Here are some previous discussion links you might find helpful...

Definition - Calibration vs. Verification of Calibration vs. Verification - Definitions
Definition - Calibration vs. Verification - Definition of
Verification vs. Validation vs. Calibration - What is the difference?

Hope this helps.
Be well. (and safe)

 

[Jim Wynne]

Good day @jimmymustang06 ;
So, one key point that it appears you may already understand is the difference between the term "verification" and "calibration". From your description it sounds as if your organization is not equipped to calibrate, but only verify your measurement equipment. If I am correct in this understanding, then I would council that your internal documentation/claim is for periodic verification and you leave calibration to a laboratory set up/certified to do that.

"Verification" in this sense is a form of calibration. Calibration is comparison to a standard and may or may not involve adjustment and specific record-keeping.

 

[John C. Abnet]

"Verification" in this sense is a form of calibration. Calibration is comparison to a standard and may or may not involve adjustment and specific record-keeping.

Agree fully Jim. Just hoping to point out that there are additional requirements of a calibration lab over and above what it appears the OP organization is performing. Indeed, there are some simple semantics to the actual terms, but as we know certified calibration requires a whole additional level of requirements. Hoping not to confuse the terms.

Thanks for adding this clarification.

Be well. (and safe)