Experimental research vs. Actual design of product - ISO 9001 Clause 7.3

al40

Quite Involved in Discussions
#1
Looking for advice.

My current employer (Pure research no prodcution facilities) is gearing up for ISO certification in July 2005.

We're currently developing a New Product Development manual and we're trying to make distinct mark between Experimental research and actual design of product concerning section 7.3 of ISO.

Quick overview.

1) The experimental prototypes are only delivered to the military for lab and field experiments. ( I can't elaborate any further)

2) The prototypes are based on an DOD SBIR "Small business innovation research grant" and no contract involved.

3) They have agreed that any product that is deliverable under a commercial contract or that will be comerically reproduced will fall into our NPD manual and follow ISO requirements.

4) All deliverable prototypes that are pure experimental are addressed per the DOD SBIR.

5) Management will not include their SBIR experimental research projects and lab, and eqipment under ISO and have stated that if this not acceptable they will not pursue ISO certification.


Is this acceptable per ISO? I can't find any ISO references that addresses this type of situation.

As far as I can tell only the products that Senior managment say are pursuable either by contract or RFQ should fall under the ISO requirements.

Is my thinking correct?
 
Last edited:
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
Q

qualitytrec

#2
Why are you pursuing ISO registration? Is it a customer requirement, business inhancement, marketing ploy, or something else?

For your grant are you required to provide something to prove that the grant is being used properly? This might be a "product" that requires ISO. The grantor in this case could be a customer.

You can limit your scope to a degree but it sounds like your business is to "play" until you find or create something useful (like silly putty, or post its :lol: ), then give it over to the DOD to find something to do with it. I am not sure how your experimental side is not a key process to your contract side, so I can not give much help beyond the above.

I would need more info than has been provided to answer more clearly.

Anyone else have input on this?

Mark
 

Al Rosen

Staff member
Super Moderator
#3
Allen M. said:
Looking for advice.

My current employer (Pure research no prodcution facilities) is gearing up for ISO certification in July 2005.

We're currently developing a New Product Development manual and we're trying to make distinct mark between Experimental research and actual design of product concerning section 7.3 of ISO.

Quick overview.

1) The experimental prototypes are only delivered to the military for lab and field experiments. ( I can't elaborate any further)

2) The prototypes are based on an DOD SBIR "Small business innovation research grant" and no contract involved.

3) They have agreed that any product that is deliverable under a commercial contract or that will be comerically reproduced will fall into our NPD manual and follow ISO requirements.

4) All deliverable prototypes that are pure experimental are addressed per the DOD SBIR.

5) Management will not include their SBIR experimental research projects and lab, and eqipment under ISO and have stated that if this not acceptable they will not pursue ISO certification.


Is this acceptable per ISO? I can't find any ISO references that addresses this type of situation.

As far as I can tell only the products that Senior managment say are pursuable either by contract or RFQ should fall under the ISO requirements.

Is my thinking correct?
Hi and welcome to the cove.

I think you will be able to limit the scope of your registration to include only products deliverable under a commercial contract. This will be stated on your certificate and in your Quality Manual. You need to discuss this with your registrar. Before going much further, find one that has experience with the type of operation and products you have and discuss your plan. They also have different financial arangements for registration, so this will also be a consideration. We have discussed the merits and cost of various registrars in other threads in the cove, so you might want to do a search here. For starters look at this thread.
 

al40

Quite Involved in Discussions
#4
Research

My company does SBIR research with acoustics for the DOD.

We have developed some patents that we would like to have commerically reproduce by a subteir contactor and our primary customer is requiring us to have ISO9001:2000 prior to the contract signing.

So we will only put those items that fall into our NPD under the scope of ISO.

Again management has made the commitment to become ISO certified and hopefully a new company they are starting will also be ISO certified that most likely will be the sub-teir contactor for their pre-production prototypes.
 

al40

Quite Involved in Discussions
#5
More info

Again,
I have been hired to implement the system and get them ready for certification, I have the full support of the executive committe, they even set in the four hour long ISO training with the workers and they have voiced their commitment to ISO.

Again we do not produce any products other than the future pre-production prototypes.

All other activiteis in the past has been research done on SBIR's. The only deliverables were either a DOD prototype or a report that had to meet the SBIR requirements.

The problem I'm having is where do I draw the line?

Right now I had to basically tag all their research equipment with "reference only" tags. Since they are not in the calibration system and management has decieded that the research equipment doesn't have to be

Their development side only has 5 pieces of equipment in calibration and they only have 10 suppliers that would affect quality of the final product.

So I have a very simple system the only problem for me is the research vs. design issue.

Thanks,
 
G

Graeme

#6
Build a fence ... and calibrate everything.

Allen,

I am working with an electronic calibration lab that is a very small department (10 people) of a very large (over 50,000 people) company. The calibration lab is registered to ISO 9001:2000 -- the rest of the company is not registered to anything.

We found that they key was to be able to very clearly define and enforce a "fence" around the lab. Everything inside the fence is part of the lab and under the QMS; everything outside the fence is either a supplier or a customer. (Yes, that means the entire rest of the company!)

That sort of idea may be able to work for you as well. Can you define research as a supplier to development? If ncessary, can you also define HR, finance, shipping & receiving, IT and so on as either a customer or a supplier (or both)? Can your definitions be made to stick? If so, it might be workable. You will certainly have to check with some registrars as well to see if they will accept it, but you are probably going to have to shop around anyway to find someone with a qualified auditor with the proper clearances.


:topic:
Allen M. said:
Right now I had to basically tag all their research equipment with "reference only" tags. Since they are not in the calibration system and management has decieded that the research equipment doesn't have to be

Their development side only has 5 pieces of equipment in calibration and they only have 10 suppliers that would affect quality of the final product.
Allen,

This is a side issue to your main question ...

I don't understand why the research people don't want their equipment calibrated. I recall that one key factor of research is reproducibility -- the researcher or anyone else should be able to repeat the work in the same manner and get the same results. If the test and measurement equipment is not calibrated, reproducibility might be impossible because, without calibration, they have no idea what the measurements really are! Yes, there are numbers on the screen, but are they valid?

Calibration with proper traceability provides the vital assurance to a reseacher that he or she is reading values that are actually meaningful. Even if the work can't be published in the open press they still have to do reports to the government sponsor ... and those reports have to be as truthful as possible. Calibration gives assurance that, if used properly, the instruments are telling the truth.

As a longtime friend of many of us said -- "does it matter if the measurement is wrong? If it does, calibrate the instrument. If it doesn't matter, then why are you making the measurement?"
 

al40

Quite Involved in Discussions
#7
Research and ISO

Graeme said:
Allen,

I am working with an electronic calibration lab that is a very small department (10 people) of a very large (over 50,000 people) company. The calibration lab is registered to ISO 9001:2000 -- the rest of the company is not registered to anything.

We found that they key was to be able to very clearly define and enforce a "fence" around the lab. Everything inside the fence is part of the lab and under the QMS; everything outside the fence is either a supplier or a customer. (Yes, that means the entire rest of the company!)

That sort of idea may be able to work for you as well. Can you define research as a supplier to development? If ncessary, can you also define HR, finance, shipping & receiving, IT and so on as either a customer or a supplier (or both)? Can your definitions be made to stick? If so, it might be workable. You will certainly have to check with some registrars as well to see if they will accept it, but you are probably going to have to shop around anyway to find someone with a qualified auditor with the proper clearances.


:topic:


Allen,

This is a side issue to your main question ...

I don't understand why the research people don't want their equipment calibrated. I recall that one key factor of research is reproducibility -- the researcher or anyone else should be able to repeat the work in the same manner and get the same results. If the test and measurement equipment is not calibrated, reproducibility might be impossible because, without calibration, they have no idea what the measurements really are! Yes, there are numbers on the screen, but are they valid?

Calibration with proper traceability provides the vital assurance to a reseacher that he or she is reading values that are actually meaningful. Even if the work can't be published in the open press they still have to do reports to the government sponsor ... and those reports have to be as truthful as possible. Calibration gives assurance that, if used properly, the instruments are telling the truth.

As a longtime friend of many of us said -- "does it matter if the measurement is wrong? If it does, calibrate the instrument. If it doesn't matter, then why are you making the measurement?"


I'm not sure if we can since our customer wants the company to be ISO certified.

I'm really stuck on this one,
I'm looking at having any military research out of our ISO scope, so we don't have to address research. As far as calibration of equipment goes, the equipment used is mostly signal generators, microphones, and a couple of multmeters, and micrometers.

Any equipment used in receiving or design will be in the calibration system.

Any help or documents I could benchmark against would be welcome.
 

Al Rosen

Staff member
Super Moderator
#8
Allen M. said:
As far as calibration of equipment goes, the equipment used is mostly signal generators, microphones, and a couple of multmeters, and micrometers.
Then it shouldn't cost very much to calibrate. From experience, that multimeter will invariably find its way into production, test or design. What is the objection to calibrating the development equipment, if there isn't much of it?

Look at this thread, as an example.
 
Last edited:
G

Graeme

#9
Allen M. said:
I'm looking at having any military research out of our ISO scope, so we don't have to address research.
So, referring to my earlier fence analogy, maybe you can build a fence around Research and define them as not part of the quality management system, but everything else in the company is included.

Since registration is a customer requirement, does the customer have any suggestions to help you?

Allen M. said:
As far as calibration of equipment goes, the equipment used is mostly signal generators, microphones, and a couple of multmeters, and micrometers.

Any equipment used in receiving or design will be in the calibration system.
As Al Rosen said, that equipment is not very expensive to calibrate. I also agree that unless chained down the instruments will migrate to other areas. The microphone might be the most expensive to calibrate if it is done correctly. Signal generators - it depends on the frequency range. Audio, RF and microwave generators into coaxial cables are routine, but if your generator has a waveguide output then it might cost more. Micrometers and multimeters are definitely low cost - they are the high-volume low cost work for a lab.

Calibration is a method of preventing the propagation of errors. Using calibrated instruments in research is the earliest and cheapest opportunity to reduce errors. If a research scientist gives a design engineer specifications with incorrect values, a lot of unnecessary effort will be put into making the prototype work - because you have to figure out by experiment how to duplicate the measurement errors inherent in the research item.

Allen M. said:
Any help or documents I could benchmark against would be welcome.
I assume you have a copy of ISO 9001:2000.
  • Along with that you need ISO 9000:2000 (Fundamentals and vocabulary).
  • A copy of ISO 9004:2000 (Guidelines for performance improvements) is often helpful. The title is actually a bit misleading. It is an in-depth analysis of the requirements of the standard with examples of what activities and business pactices would meet each one.
  • Since you know that a measurement system is one of the processes, you also need a copy of ISO 10012:2003 (Measurement management systems).
All of the above are available from ASQ Quality Press in either print or electronic form.

It would be useful to do a search here in the Cove for "gap analysis" and 9000:2000. There are probably a number of useful checklists and discussions that can help you evaluate the current state of the organization against the requirements of the standard. (For best results, select Advanced Search in the toolbar [at the top of the forum page] and use the Google search.)

You may also be able to get some useful information and guidance from Defence Logistics Agency - it's been a number of years but I think they were training people to be ISO 9000 auditors. Maybe your contracting officer can help you find them.
 

al40

Quite Involved in Discussions
#10
Graeme said:
Allen,

I am working with an electronic calibration lab that is a very small department (10 people) of a very large (over 50,000 people) company. The calibration lab is registered to ISO 9001:2000 -- the rest of the company is not registered to anything.

We found that they key was to be able to very clearly define and enforce a "fence" around the lab. Everything inside the fence is part of the lab and under the QMS; everything outside the fence is either a supplier or a customer. (Yes, that means the entire rest of the company!)

That sort of idea may be able to work for you as well. Can you define research as a supplier to development? If ncessary, can you also define HR, finance, shipping & receiving, IT and so on as either a customer or a supplier (or both)? Can your definitions be made to stick? If so, it might be workable. You will certainly have to check with some registrars as well to see if they will accept it, but you are probably going to have to shop around anyway to find someone with a qualified auditor with the proper clearances.


:topic:


Allen,

This is a side issue to your main question ...

I don't understand why the research people don't want their equipment calibrated. I recall that one key factor of research is reproducibility -- the researcher or anyone else should be able to repeat the work in the same manner and get the same results. If the test and measurement equipment is not calibrated, reproducibility might be impossible because, without calibration, they have no idea what the measurements really are! Yes, there are numbers on the screen, but are they valid?

Calibration with proper traceability provides the vital assurance to a reseacher that he or she is reading values that are actually meaningful. Even if the work can't be published in the open press they still have to do reports to the government sponsor ... and those reports have to be as truthful as possible. Calibration gives assurance that, if used properly, the instruments are telling the truth.

As a longtime friend of many of us said -- "does it matter if the measurement is wrong? If it does, calibrate the instrument. If it doesn't matter, then why are you making the measurement?"

Do you have a document that I can benckmark against or does anyone know of a case study that would help me?

Thanks

Allen :confused:
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Marc Skins - Experimental "Dark" Mode Elsmar Xenforo Forum Software Instructions and Help 9
D Showing the Response Surface Experimental Point in MiniTab Using Minitab Software 5
M Experimental Design at Nested Gage R&R using Minitab 16 Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 2
A Questions about Regression for Modeling, Best Experimental Design Using Minitab Software 2
S A Systematic Experimental Approach - Driers for Paint Coatings Using Minitab Software 2
P Balanced Scorecard in Measurement of an Experimental Approach Quality Tools, Improvement and Analysis 2
T Setting up a Standard Experimental Plan for Food where Factor Levels are Different Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 2
Marc Experimental Hybrid Cars Get Up to 250 Mpg World News 17
D Question on equipment - when to use reference only or research only stickers ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 5
L Clinical research - Request from ANVISA ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 1
Watchcat Authoritative References about the Research Question? Quality Tools, Improvement and Analysis 0
A VDmax25 and cGMP requirements for "research use only" products Other Medical Device Related Standards 1
M Risk Classification For Supplier - Clinical Research Organisation (CRO) Supply Chain Security Management Systems 3
M Exemption Clauses for Research, Demonstration, etc. Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 2
N Time source for paper-based documentation (research nurses) US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 1
M Medical Device News CDRH Research Programs – VICTRE: Virtual Imaging Clinical Trials for Regulatory Evaluation Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
S Medical Device Research Use Only (RUO) label Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 4
M Acceptance of remote auditing techniques - Can you help me with my research? General Auditing Discussions 0
N Dataset for Academic Research - Infusion pump flow IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 1
T Research Medical Device EU - Requirements and Regulations EU Medical Device Regulations 13
Y Change Management in a very complex Research Organization Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 3
L EU MDR CRO (Contract Research Organization) requirements for Clinical Investigations EU Medical Device Regulations 1
T Control of R&D (Research and Development) Parts and Equipment ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
I AS9100D - Interview Request - I'm doing research Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 1
I Design & Development, Research and Innovation in the Medical Device framework ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
R University Research Project - Management Review Management Review Meetings and related Processes 17
F Scientific and Research Papers for Foreign Approved Devices Other US Medical Device Regulations 1
H Research Use Only (RUO) Medical Devices in China China Medical Device Regulations 7
S Does a Research facility require DEA registration ? Pharmaceuticals (21 CFR Part 210, 21 CFR Part 211 and related Regulations) 1
T Early Research & Development - ISO 13485:2003 requirements Clarification ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 34
Q IEC 60601 for Non-Medical Research Purpose Devices IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 7
C Selling of Research products in Europe EU Medical Device Regulations 9
Q RUO (Research Use Only) vs. IVD (In Vitro Diagnostic) - Differences EU Medical Device Regulations 6
J Requirements for Importing Research Use Only Medical Devices into Japan Japan Medical Device Regulations 1
E Research or other consents missing from the Donor Medical Chart Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 5
I Is ARIMA (Time Series Analysis) Model appropriate for this Dental Research? Using Minitab Software 4
W Question on Research Use Only (RUO) products into Indonesia, Philippines and Thailand Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 2
J Research Use Only for an MD/IVD Kit EU Medical Device Regulations 3
AnaMariaVR2 FDA's Research Strategic Plan (RSP) US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 0
W FDA Regulations for Research and Development US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 10
C Should Research Findings be in the Design History File? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 1
G R&D (Research and Development) & Workorder Formats Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 2
J Research Use Only (RUO) for Non IVD in EU EU Medical Device Regulations 5
T Class I Medical Device for use in a research project by a physician in Spain 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 2
J EDMS for Very Early Drug Development (Research/Drug Discovery) Pharmaceuticals (21 CFR Part 210, 21 CFR Part 211 and related Regulations) 4
H Medical Device RUO (Research Use Only) and 'Sterile' Label Claims 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 2
J Fastener Manufacturing Research - Mechanical and Engineering Theories Manufacturing and Related Processes 3
J Research Use Only (RUO) Medical Devices and FDA Registrar Corp 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 3
V Depth of Internal Auditing and Training aspects in Research & Development (R & D) Internal Auditing 4
B How do you Research Job Openings? Career and Occupation Discussions 6

Similar threads

Top Bottom