For Reference Only or Calibration/Verification - Tape Measures for cutting bar stock

[Jim Wynne]

Re: For Reference Only or Calibration/Verification

I agree totally. That's my point, people use the "for reference only" as a crutch not to calibrate.

In this specific case (original post), the organization may want to do a mini-FMEA, a risk analysis and then make a decision based upon that result. As an auditor, where The Standard states "where necessary" or "where applicable", if an organization states "not necessary", if they showed me their risk analysis that they signed off on, then I'd have to accept it because if they state that, my follow-up question is "what was the thought process behind that determination?"

Yes. That's why I said that the rationale for excluding devices or applications should be documented.

 

[samsung]

Re: For Reference Only or Calibration/Verification

Yes. That's why I said that the rationale for excluding devices or applications should be documented.

This is the only post where I don't see a 'Thanks' button. Peculiar characteristic. Forum moderator may fix it.

Now I see it. No problem.

 

[JRKH]

Re: For Reference Only or Calibration/Verification - Tape Measures for cutting bar st

Why does it have to be expensive at all? Buy a $10 tape measure, verify it once (against a calibrated 36" master steel rule) before use to make sure it is correct. Then, periodically determine the condition is still good. I agree this is not NASA and does not have to be complicated. But, it can be done so easily... And the same principles can be applied to many other gages...THAT is the value that an auditor can "bring to the audit process..."

AND if the auditor checks with the operators and they know they are to check their tapes agains the master rule every day/week month;
AND if there are no rejections that can be traced to a defective tape measure then it would appear you have proven the following:
1) You have a system in place to control the tape measures
2) Employees using tape measures are trained and know how and where to check their tape measures (and what to do if one is found bad)
3) The system is adequate since there have been no rejects as a result of a bad tape measure

Peace
James

 

[John Martinez]

Re: For Reference Only or Calibration/Verification

Yes. That's why I said that the rationale for excluding devices or applications should be documented.

I saw that. I was trying to give an example of a specific type of documentation, as well as insight from a third party auditor perspective.

All that said, I think we agree.

 

[DrM2u]

Re: For Reference Only or Calibration/Verification - Tape Measures for cutting bar st

Why does it have to be expensive at all? Buy a $10 tape measure, verify it once (against a calibrated 36" master steel rule) before use to make sure it is correct. Then, periodically determine the condition is still good. I agree this is not NASA and does not have to be complicated. But, it can be done so easily... And the same principles can be applied to many other gages...THAT is the value that an auditor can "bring to the audit process..."

Setting asside the suggested (and not so cheap) calibrated or 'master' 36" rule, you are not saying anything different from what I did. To my point, the rule is not cheap to buy or to re-certify. For that matter, you can buy enough measuring tapes for the money to last you a while. The first-time 'verification' can take the form of a certificate from the OEM, unless you do not trust that the likes of Starrett can make a reliable product. Besides that, why not entrust the user to evaluate the condition of the tape daily or before use? It shows empowerment of and trust in the work force.

As far as the value brought by the auditor, a good auditor presents more than one example in order to avoid being construded as consulting. These examples are gathered based on percieved 'best practices' observed during audits. It is up to the client to evaluate if there is any value in implementing any of the examples or a deviation of.

 

[DrM2u]

Re: For Reference Only or Calibration/Verification - Tape Measures for cutting bar st

AND if the auditor checks with the operators and they know they are to check their tapes agains the master rule every day/week month;

... or just to check the condition of the tape, depending how the system is defined. All the other following AND and THEN can remain unchanged. After all, there is more than one way to skin the cat.

 

[dtr18c]

Re: For Reference Only or Calibration/Verification - Tape Measures for cutting bar st

Thanks to everyone for your helpful responses!

To clear things up about what will be affected if the length is bad:

• If the length is too long then the automatic bar feeder won't be able to load it (travel issue)
• If the length is too short then we get less pieces.

 

[JaneB]

Re: For Reference Only or Calibration/Verification - Tape Measures for cutting bar st

what will be affected if the length is bad:

• If the length is too long then the automatic bar feeder won't be able to load it (travel issue)
• If the length is too short then we get less pieces.

This quite clearly indicates the need to have accurate measurements.
It isn't solely about the effect on 'final product characteristics'. Think more broadly (and use common sense):
If your automatic bar feeder can't load stuff, then presumably that slows down work? Which costs, yeah?
And if you get fewer pieces if the lengths are too short, then that's wasting material. All of these things are important in managing quality too.

But as Helmut says, a 'calibration' system can be cheapo and practical, doesn't have be expensive.

 

[dtr18c]

Re: For Reference Only or Calibration/Verification - Tape Measures for cutting bar st

This quite clearly indicates the need to have accurate measurements.
It isn't solely about the effect on 'final product characteristics'. Think more broadly (and use common sense):
If your automatic bar feeder can't load stuff, then presumably that slows down work? Which costs, yeah?
And if you get fewer pieces if the lengths are too short, then that's wasting material. All of these things are important in managing quality too.

From previous posts in this thread I got the impression that we could justify not having calibration with a risk analysis. Your response better explained explained what i was getting hung up with.

determine acceptance of the product" for movement to the next function area

So now I'm a little confused, I see risk analysis as a reasonable method to justify not calibrating since the likelyhood that a tape measure would be able to hold our 0.5" tolerance with end play and any sort or warping.
But, I also am thinking about:

It isn't solely about the effect on 'final product characteristics.

Can anyone shed some light on this situation?

Thanks!

 

[Jim Wynne]

Re: For Reference Only or Calibration/Verification - Tape Measures for cutting bar st

This quite clearly indicates the need to have accurate measurements.
It isn't solely about the effect on 'final product characteristics'. Think more broadly (and use common sense):
If your automatic bar feeder can't load stuff, then presumably that slows down work? Which costs, yeah?
And if you get fewer pieces if the lengths are too short, then that's wasting material. All of these things are important in managing quality too.

But if it's been rationally determined that the probability of gage error is acceptably low, calibration would be wasteful. That's why the standard calls for calibration "when necessary to ensure valid results." If calibration/verification isn't necessary to ensure valid results, it shouldn't be done.

But as Helmut says, a 'calibration' system can be cheapo and practical, doesn't have be expensive.

It's not practical, regardless of what it costs, if it's not necessary.