4.10.7 Interpretation - Extends the ISO Guide 25 requirement of calibration labs

S

Steven Sulkin

#1
An interpretation has been published that extends the ISO Guide 25 requirement of calibration labs to 2001. Does this interpretation also apply to other labs (e.g. Metallurgical) 4.10.7?
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
L

Lassitude

#2
As I understand it, the 'waiver' is because the QS9000 honchos required, thru the 1998 version of QS9000, all QS comp-anies to use guide 25 labs. Their downfall was that no one on the QS committee bothered to check to see if what they were asking for was, in fact, possible. It is not - there aren't enough guide 25 labs to service all the companies required to use them.

I don't know about metalurgical labs. I assume they have to be compliant as they are test labs. The glossary is kinda screwy - it appears to imply that A2LA accredits to guide 25 which, as I understand it, is not the case.
 
T

TheOtherMe

#4
This is an 'oldie', but I figured what the hey:

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-iso25On Behalf
Of Greg Gogates
Sent: Friday, April 16, 1999 4:47 PM
To: quality.org
Subject: Please explain some confusions

Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:48:04 -0500
From: Jay Warner
Reply-To: a2q
Organization: Warner Consulting, inc.
To: Guide to Guide_25
Subject: Please explain some confusions

Dear Guide 25 people,

Either I am woefully ignorant (a real possibility) or something strange is going on. You folks, I hope, can clairify and straighten me out.

I’ve a client who does calibration work for hire, and wishes to become ISO9000 certified. Fine, that is being done. But some of their customers will want to have us follow the letter of the QS9000 law, which effectively means, calibration work will be Guide 25.

Question 1: Is this narrow interpretation real? I know there are small outs in the QS document. However, they certainly would not make an internal auditor happy, when they ask, and we say, well, we followed a different clause.

I understand that there are only 2 registrars that can/will certify to Guide 25. They are both quite busy, as you might suspect. We were planning to have our ISO auditor “certify compliance to Guide 25” instead, on the grounds that GM, etc. feel this is acceptable for another year or two until more registrars can do the work and catch up. Now a possible registrar (with whom we have not yet signed) allows that they have been sued by one of the 2 Guide 25 registrars above to cease and desist from even this level of certification.

Question 2: What other out is there for a small firm seeking to become certified, and fully acceptable to QS9000 certified firms?

When given an opportunity, A2LA said we didn’t need the auditing/certification they do. GMC, etc., say you really don’t have to have more than a plan in place by 12/31/99,

(Question 3: Is this statement true?)

but I severely doubt this would be acceptable to the instruction readers, the customers who count.

The irony, of course, is that calibrations in the past have been fully traceable and acceptable for the tasks at hand. But I sense the various forces and bodies involved are putting themselves and lab suppliers into some serious catch 22 binds.

Please clarify my fuzzy head.

Jay
--
Jay Warner
Principal Scientist
Warner Consulting, Inc.
4444 North Green Bay Road
Racine, WI 53404-1216
USA

Ph: (414) 634-9100
FAX: (414) 681-1133

Power to the data!

----------snippo----------

From: "Ryan Wilde"
To: "ISO 25 Group"
Subject: RE: Please explain some confusions
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 19:47:36 -0500

When this whole QS9000 fiasco started, we were caught entirely by surprise. We too are a small lab (8 technicians.) What I have gleaned from this since then is:

1. Yes, this interpretation is real, be accredited or do not work do work with QS9000 companies.

2. The only out we have found is to send a copy of our work instructions for specific jobs to the company for whom we are doing the calibration. They in turn put there name and designation to the document, and you calibrate to THEIR standards, using your company's internal training records of proof of technician competence. As you can see, this practice is not recommended, and there is no substitute for a true accredidation through A2LA or NVLAP.

3. This is a true statement, all that is required from AIAG is a documented plan to assure that accredidation is accomplished by January 1, 2001. (I have this AIAG document locally in MS Word format for anyone who would like a copy, just e-mail me and it is yours)

Now my own little soap box:

The benefits received from going through the self-scrutiny of preparing for accredidation is worth the cost alone. We, as a company, since embarking on this task of accredidation, have found areas to improve at almost every juncture.

Through round robin after round robin, we have performed exceptionally. Therefore, we always believed that we were doing everything as well as it could be done, as our results were as good as any other lab included in the comparison. Disecting our entire process has shown us that we were wrong. We were good, but we could be better.

You are correct, this is a hard road to follow for a small laboratory. It takes a great deal of commitment from every member of a small organization. And yes, it is not cheap. But the benefits do, in my opinion at least, far outweigh the drawbacks. And as far as traceability and acceptability are concerned, if you have ever in the past bought a replacement part for a widget, and had it not quite fit correctly, then the system failed. The best traceability does not overshadow competence. And as I'm sure all of us have seen, competence in labs with traceable standards is not universal. The accredidation process is a good first step towards confidence that traceability truly IS met.

Ryan Wilde
Technical Manager
Quality Control Sales & Services
Indianapolis, IN, USA
Phone: (317)299-8855
Fax: (317)299-8960
 
T

TheOtherMe

#5
From: TSmith
To: Greg Gogates
Subject: Re: NVLAP etc.

Greeting Jim,

Well, there are a bunch of 9000 registration bodys now selling guide 25 accreditation. Entella (for GM) , UL and NQA. Could you please advise us if NVLAP has MRA's with these 3 Groups. I'm sure their clients are not being told up front if they don' t. IF they do, GOD BLESS THEM. IF they dont, and the client is being mislead, ITs time for the second coming.

Keeping the Faith
Tom Smith
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
A Interpretation of GMP Requirements for class 1 medical device manufacturer (device GMP exempt, only General controls applicable) 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 4
P MDR Rule 10 interpretation - Active Device EU Medical Device Regulations 3
Q % Study variation low, % tolerance high - GR&R Interpretation help Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 3
A Interpretation with regards to Ppk > Cpk Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 14
A OHSAS 18001 external auditor finding personal interpretation? Occupational Health & Safety Management Standards 5
A OEM branding - My interpretation of the LVD Directive makes us a manufacturer CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 3
P Average Peel Strength - Interpretation of BS EN 868-5:2018 and ASTM F0088/F0088M Other Medical Device Related Standards 2
B ISO 50001 Interpretation of section 3.3.9 (Outsourcing) ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 5
K Interpretation of significant change - material change Canada Medical Device Regulations 3
R MDR Software Rule 11 Formal Interpretation EU Medical Device Regulations 7
A IATF Sanctioned Interpretation No. 7 - Type and Extent of Control (supplemental) IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
F Interpretation of MDR 2017/745 Article 23 - CE Mark Requirements EU Medical Device Regulations 6
U Hand-Held dosing device has no PATIENT - Interpretation of the PATIENT definition IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 6
G Medical Device "Immediate Container" Interpretation of Definition US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2
A Interpretation of Article 16 (2b) - Packaging, samples and Certificate EU Medical Device Regulations 10
D EU MDR Corrigendum Interpretation EU Medical Device Regulations 3
M Informational MDCG 2019-3 Interpretation of Article 54(2)b – Pre- market clinical evaluation consultation procedure with the involvement of expert panels Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
G EU MDR 2017/745 Rule 11 interpretation - Re-classification of a Software as Medical Device Other Medical Device Related Standards 0
JoshuaFroud Interpretation of Clause 5.5.2 in ISO 13485:2016 ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
Q P x I = Value interpretation for residual risk? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 1
T CSA Z299.3-85 Nuclear interpretation AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 2
D VDA Trigger Matrix in the VDA 6.2 Manual - Interpretation and Use VDA Standards - Germany's Automotive Standards 3
B Interpretation of Customer Specific Requirements of Continental - Records Retention Customer and Company Specific Requirements 6
S Interpretation or Definition of ‘Once Every 5 Days’ ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 7
N What is the interpretation I-MR-R chart in this question? Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 1
E ME (Medical Equipment) Systems - IEC 60601-1 Clause 16.1 Interpretation IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 6
P IATF 16949 Cl. 7.1.5.2.1 "Calibration/Verification Records" Interpretation IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 12
B Clarification on interpretation of some EN ISO 14971:2012 & IEC 62304:2006 req's ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 46
M IATF 16949 - 7.1.3.1 Plant, Facility, and Equipment Planning - Interpretation IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 8
R Location Interpretation on Drawing - Hole to Hole? Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 7
T TS 16949 Clause 7.4.1.2 and Sanctioned Interpretation IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 12
D Interpretation of new IAQG ruling - Audit duration for nonconformance verification AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 7
K Interpretation of IEC 60601-1-2 Electromagnetic Compatibility – Requirements & tests IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 4
S Heat Treatment - Soaking time interpretation Manufacturing and Related Processes 5
D Interpretation of DOE interaction plot Using Minitab Software 8
A Training material for interpretation & understanding Part 11 requirements 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 2
L Interpretation of "Any or All"'? IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 10
G Interpretation of phrase - "Direct Authority" EASA and JAA Aviation Standards and Requirements 5
pittmatj Brazil: Interpretation of RDC 185 Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 6
D What is your understanding or interpretation of TS16949 7.4.1.2 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 6
M Interpretation of Plus/Minus Draft - Injection Molded Parts Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 10
E FDA Significant Change Interpretation - Guidance Document EU Medical Device Regulations 2
0 ISO 9001:2008 interpretation not the same per country? (Netherlands and France) ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 7
M Multiple Standard Interpretation Queries Occupational Health & Safety Management Standards 4
A Need MSA %GRR Interpretation Advice Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 2
P EU Conflict Minerals Regulation Interpretation RoHS, REACH, ELV, IMDS and Restricted Substances 3
S AS9102 Interpretation on Form 2 field 6 - Specification AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 3
A Coke Reactivity Index (CRI) Testing Code Interpretation: ASTM D5341-99 (2004) Various Other Specifications, Standards, and related Requirements 2
P Internal Audit Reports reviewed by management? 21 CFR 820.22 Interpretation 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 6
J Annex ZA of ISO 14971:2012 - Deviation 7 - Incorrect Interpretation ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 10
Similar threads


















































Top Bottom