ISO 9001:2008 Sec 7.6 - Can we just log measurement devices as 'Pass/Fail'?

[somashekar]

With regard to mics and calipers, the question I have is,

Can we just log the devices as 'Pass/Fail'? with no record of a reading.

Or is there the requirement to record a reading As Found - As Left ?
I do not see this in the standard, but our registrar has told us it is required?

Can we just log the devices as 'Pass/Fail'? with no record of a reading. = No, A record of the reading is what will tell you / lead you / evidence you to log the device as 'Pass/Fail.

Or is there the requirement to record a reading As Found - As Left ? = The meaning of calibrate as I found is ...
Mark (a gauge or instrument) with a standard scale of readings.
Correlate the readings of (an instrument) with those of a standard in order to check the instrument's accuracy.
So record is a requirement.
The standard is not tailor made to say all the specific requirements, but is there to say what needs to be done, and lets the user decide logically. Your registrar is helping you to see the logic.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Can we just log the devices as 'Pass/Fail'? with no record of a reading. = No, A record of the reading is what will tell you / lead you / evidence you to log the device as 'Pass/Fail.

No. The reading itself is what tells me whether a device passes or fails. Recording the reading won't change the result.

Or is there the requirement to record a reading As Found - As Left ? = The meaning of calibrate as I found is ...
Mark (a gauge or instrument) with a standard scale of readings.
Correlate the readings of (an instrument) with those of a standard in order to check the instrument's accuracy.
So record is a requirement.

Your conclusion has no logical antecedent. I can do what you wrote in blue without writing anything down.

The standard is not tailor made to say all the specific requirements, but is there to say what needs to be done, and lets the user decide logically. Your registrar is helping you to see the logic.

If the standard doesn't include "all the specific requirements," the standard is useless. The standard, by definition, does include all of the specific requirements.

 

[Big Jim]

This is post # 3 or the third post as one can take it.
If QMS was about seeing the 'shall' then let alone calibration, the whole of the QMS can be let to the winds and one can hold few 'shall' documented procedures and make a kite of the ISO certificate ...

Pardon me. I misquoted. It is post #4.

 

[Big Jim]

This is post # 3 or the third post as one can take it.
If QMS was about seeing the 'shall' then let alone calibration, the whole of the QMS can be let to the winds and one can hold few 'shall' documented procedures and make a kite of the ISO certificate ...

And by the way, no one has found the shall yet.

 

[Jen Kirley]

And by the way, no one has found the shall yet.

I tried to explain it, but got beat up for my efforts.

 

[somashekar]

If the standard doesn't include "all the specific requirements," the standard is useless. The standard, by definition, does include all of the specific requirements.

Going by the standard and by what we can gather around here, perhaps even my management review records can simply be ...
..."The Management has reviewed the organization's quality management system, in quarter Q1, 2013, and has ensured its continuing suitability, adequacy and effectiveness." ...
The standard simply asks for "Records from management reviews shall be maintained".
Well, I have even seen such a stuff in real.

 

[Big Jim]

I tried to explain it, but got beat up for my efforts.

Simply because it wasn't there.

 

[StevePenney]

[FONT=&quot]Wow, I never would have thought there would be such an involved discussion on this thread, and with such polarized opinions. In my reading of the standard, I can see where recording the result may be implied, but not required. Our registrar has interpreted things this way also. Since it is just a little more work to write down a number, why not do it as additional informative information? Since it is our Quality Manager who decides how the calibration results are recoded, I will let him argue this one at our next re-certification. Honestly, I still am not sure what the standard actually requires. [/FONT]

 

[qusys]

[FONT=&quot]Wow, I never would have thought there would be such an involved discussion on this thread, and with such polarized opinions. In my reading of the standard, I can see where recording the result may be implied, but not required. Our registrar has interpreted things this way also. Since it is just a little more work to write down a number, why not do it as additional informative information? Since it is our Quality Manager who decides how the calibration results are recoded, I will let him argue this one at our next re-certification. Honestly, I still am not sure what the standard actually requires. [/FONT]

Hi StevePenney.
I hope that you are satisfied with responses . Here the Cover are very expert and always ready to share and help when there is a post about quality topics.
The Cove is a big source of information.
However, to come back to your question I thinj that the organization shall pruse the effectiveness and the efficiency of a QMS. This principles is well embodied in the consideration of your last post. You are right in your understading of the standard, but the organization shall also take decision by "factual approach" as one of the principle and this is a principle that guides all QMS.

 

[somashekar]

Honestly, I still am not sure what the standard actually requires.

Steve...
Actually standard requires nothing.
When you want to embrace the Standard that you requires you to establish, implement and maintain a QMS that is effective to your business, and sustains continual improvement. Standard tells what are the processes necessary which interacts to help a QMS support the business and meet customer and other requirements. Along the way it tells what shall be done which are more of a structural process in nature that binds all the interacting processes. It lets you exclude certain processes if you are not doing them in your business.
So the actual requirement is something that a business has to see within and decide.
Wish the standard was exclusively written for you and me, but that is not the way an international standard is made. The key lies in adoption of the standard and mapping our business process to standard.