ISO 9001 - Monitoring and measurement of product - What is product in Transportation

[C Emmons]

Definition of Product

I have a feeling this may be a case of me making this more difficult than I need to but...

ISO 9001:2000 1.1 General
Note: In this International Standard, the term "product" applies only to the product intended for, or required by, a customer.

Keeping in mind that I am in the transportation industry - my product is service. However, my customer requires that I deliver their product....

I am in the process of applying 8.2.4 Monitoring and measurement of product.

Am I to assume that this clause applies only to my product which is service? Is this clause only requiring inspection activities related specifically to my company's product?

Obviously most of our inspection activities are directed at the customer product.

Can I write my process to apply to both?

Am I making this harder than it needs to be?

 

[tomvehoski]

Check out the definitions in ISO 9000: 2000, specifically 3.4.2.

Product = Results of a process.

For ISO 9001 just substitute "service" anywhere you see "product".

For a transportation company your product is pickup, transporatation and delivery of freight.

Your inspections could be:

1. On-time monitoring
2. Damage monitoring
3. Loading of trailers/equipment (if you are responsible)
4. Inspecting freight before pickup.
5. Safety


The definition from 1.1 is saying that internal results of processes are not considered product. For example, if you built a trailer it would not be "product" because it is not intended for the direct use of the customer - it is something you use to provide service. If you sold trailers to end users, then it would be a product.

Hope this helps,

Tom

 

[C Emmons]

Thank you - I think it does. I like this standard when it alot more cut and dry - now it seems like I am having difficulty on where to put my processes in relation to the standard.

So the inspections related to my equipment - maintenance would actually fall under 7.5.1 Control of production and service provision (use of suitable equipment)?

And inspections related to the customer freight would would fall under 7.5.4 Customer property?

 

[tomvehoski]

The 2000 version is much more friendly for service organizations than 1994 was. I worked with a trucking company a few years ago on 9002:94 and we had to make many intrepretations to the standard.

Correct on both your maintenance and customer freight questions. I normally just have a very basic inspection procedure saying:

1. We watch on-time delivery. If late, we take corrective action
2. Drivers check for damage upon loading and unloading. If not loaded properly, they attempt to resolve or notify HQ. If damaged upon delivery, they notify HQ.

One other thing to watch is calibration (7.6), especially if you have a maintenance facility. I have had auditors try to make us calibrate torque wrenches and tire pressure gages. For internal maintenance it is not necessary since the standard states "...measuring devices needed to provide evidence of conformity of product to determined requirements." Unless your customer specifies the truck has to show up with 50 PSI in the tires, it is not a requirement. I am not saying it is a bad idea to calibrate them, just not required by the standard.

Since your product is delivery of freight, your measure of delivery is on time. It is probably not necessary to calibrate your clock/calendar - so you can most likely state 7.6 is not applicable.

Tom

 

[C Emmons]

Oh - then you are going to love this one. Under the 1994 version our auditor forced the following calibration requirement for us to obtain our certification.

As part of the Federal Inspection required annually on our equipment we use a ruler during the inspection of the brakes.

Yep you guessed it. We now have a calibration schedule on 12 inch rulers in each of our maintenance shops. The auditor approached this as if they were trying to help. That if we put one thing under the calibration requirement then future auditors would not audit outside the scope of our procedure.

And that it covers anything that can impact the quality of our product and if our equipment fails - our service fails...

 

[tomvehoski]

I would have found a new auditor (and I did on my previously mentioned client).

You do raise a good point on the federal requirements. We are currently working with one of the biggest LTL carriers in North America and were debating this point. I would conceed that if there is a government regulation that states equipment used for checking brakes, torque, air pressure, etc. had to be calibrated, then it would be required - but under regulatory requirements noted in section 1 and management revew. So far we have not been able to find any regulatory requirements about calibratoin for maintenance equipment. They do have a comparison system for torque wrenches and air gages handled by their equpment supplier, but they don't keep all of the records required by ISO, so we are going with N/A.

You have to draw the line somewhere at what can affect the quality of your product/service. For example, if I cannot get to my client for an appointment it would be considered a service failure, much like a late delivery. So now do I have to approve as a supplier the gas station I stop at in the morning to fill my tank, since if they sell me bad gas I may not get there? My oil change place if they forget to put oil back in my car? The state of Michigan since they control road construction? The local news since they provide me with weather data? It could go on forever.

I have never liked doing things that are not value added just to satisfy the opinion of an auditor, and usually will not.

 

[C Emmons]

I agree with you - we are much more educated with the requirements (or at least we were) now than in the beginning.

During that time we were not confident with debating requirements with and auditor and it seemed like an easy fix.

I never considered this from the aspect you just pointed out - I think I might try claiming a permissible exclusion to calibration and see what happens - should get interesting!

Thanks for the input

 

[Graeme]

It looks like there is a consensus that calibration may not be necessary for the service you provide, and Tom has said he cannot find a Federal requirement for calibration of maintenance equipment. Therefore it may actually be reasonable to say calibration might be excluded for your transportation process.

However ... I would like to mention two other considerations.

First, it is possible that you may still want consider having a calibration program for maintenance tools and measuring equipment, even though it is not "required". Correct maintenance of your fleet (and handling equipment) affects safety, which is at least as important as your quality management system.

The measurements that have been mentioned before can all affect safety if they are wrong.

If it matters if a measurement is wrong, then the tool should be calibrated. In this context, that would mean if an incorrect value can affect safety. (Wheel bolt torque? Air pressure in tires & hoses? Brake lining thickness? Tire tread depth? Speedometer indication?) In my opinion, this would also include relevant values called out in the vehicle maintenance manual even if they are not directly linked to safety. After all, the manufacturer had to have a reason for putting those meaurements in there ... and the tools or measuring instruments used for them should be calibrated.

Second, there might be some other aspects of your process that might require calibrated equipment. An example is if you temporarily store goods in transit, and if any of the items require controlled storage environments. If this applies to you, you may need (for example) calibrated temperature/humidity data loggers or chart recorders to monitor the conditions, and a process for controlling the environment.

 

[C Emmons]

I am currently working on a procedure for Monitoring and Measurement or product. I want to cover several types of inspections under one procedure. For instance:

Receiving inspection occurs:

When a driver receives a shipment - visual inspection
In process inspection - as the shipments move through our system - loaded and off loaded

Purchased product (by maintenance) - can I cover this in the same procedure or do I need to cover under verification of purchased product?

I also see in-process as applying to our equipment as it moves through out our system - Trailers are constanly inspected.

Final Inspection: Customer delivery.

Would it be acceptable to address each of these within one procedure?

 

[Carl Exter]

Yup

IMO, absolutely! If you can simplify your life by showing all the inspections performed and the requirements thereof in a single procedure I would do it. I know of nothing in the ISO standard that dictates how processes are documented. I've always believed in keeping it as simple as it possibly can be while still being effective.