ISO/TS16949:2009 - MSA requirements for common gages

[BHobbs_Busche]

I have a TS auditor who is wanting to see gage R&R for things like radius gages, angle gages, optical comparators, and calipers that we occasionally identify in control plans as measurement techniques for in-process inspections. My company provides CNC machining of iron and aluminum castings for automotive, agricultural, and industrial applications, and we use hard gages such as form/function gages, thumbnails, etc. whenever possible, and conscientiously perform R&R's for them. Sometimes there are corner radii or chamfer lengths that aren't critical enough to justify the cost of producing or purchasing specific gages for, and with 650 employees scattered throughout 9 separate manufacturing facilities, sharing a "master set" of common gages is not feasible. Tool verification is also not an applicable alternative in most cases. The auditor's claim is in keeping with the AIAG rule that all gages specified in control plans must have MSA. Although she only wrote this up as an OFI this year, next year will probably be a different story (same auditor). Our business is very fast-paced, and typically operates around only 27% indirect, so there isn't enough time or manpower to perform formal MSA anymore than absolutely necessary. We are at a loss for determining how to appease the auditor on this issue. Any advice and/or similar experience would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Danny Hoover]

Re: TS16949-MSA for common gages

Bhobbs,
I was in the same position of no r&r data on any "non-critical" items, same as you are. We appeased the auditor by doing an r&r on each type of tool one time, and keeping the document on record. I had 4 plants under our ISO/TS accreditation and that satisfied our auditor.
It worked for this auditor, not sure if it is of any help to your situation.
Good Luck,
DH

 

[Kales Veggie]

Re: TS16949 - MSA requirements for common gages

I have a TS auditor who is wanting to see gage R&R for things like radius gages, angle gages, optical comparators, and calipers that we occasionally identify in control plans as measurement techniques for in-process inspections. My company provides CNC machining of iron and aluminum castings for automotive, agricultural, and industrial applications, and we use hard gages such as form/function gages, thumbnails, etc. whenever possible, and conscientiously perform R&R's for them. Sometimes there are corner radii or chamfer lengths that aren't critical enough to justify the cost of producing or purchasing specific gages for, and with 650 employees scattered throughout 9 separate manufacturing facilities, sharing a "master set" of common gages is not feasible. Tool verification is also not an applicable alternative in most cases. The auditor's claim is in keeping with the AIAG rule that all gages specified in control plans must have MSA. Although she only wrote this up as an OFI this year, next year will probably be a different story (same auditor). Our business is very fast-paced, and typically operates around only 27% indirect, so there isn't enough time or manpower to perform formal MSA anymore than absolutely necessary. We are at a loss for determining how to appease the auditor on this issue. Any advice and/or similar experience would be greatly appreciated.

Hi,

Yes, TS requires in 7.6.1 that all measurement systems on the control plan must undergo an MSA.

My 1st question would be, why are these gauges on the control plan? There is no requirement that all gauges are on the control plan.

My suggestion to review your process FMEA, maybe update it, make sure all the controls are up to date, review O and D and decide what should be on the control plan.

Your PFMEA should direct what goes on the control plan.

 

[BHobbs_Busche]

Re: TS16949 - MSA requirements for common gages

Kees,
The FMEA does drive our control plans, but the control plans evolve into pictorial quality processes for our operators. We can't tell them how to measure something without it matching the control plan and vice-versa. Final audits are conducted in-cell, and we do not perform dock audits, so all features have to be checked in the cell. Typically, we take a part into the QA lab for CMM once per shift to verify & check whatever can't be checked in the cell. Knowing all this, do you still think we could get away with not listing all gages in the control plan? How?

 

[Kales Veggie]

Re: TS16949 - MSA requirements for common gages

Kees,
The FMEA does drive our control plans, but the control plans evolve into pictorial quality processes for our operators. We can't tell them how to measure something without it matching the control plan and vice-versa. Final audits are conducted in-cell, and we do not perform dock audits, so all features have to be checked in the cell. Typically, we take a part into the QA lab for CMM once per shift to verify & check whatever can't be checked in the cell. Knowing all this, do you still think we could get away with not listing all gages in the control plan? How?

Yes, I think so, if your PFMEA supports it. TS does not state that all controls must be on the control plan. TS is very specific about special characteristics, tough.

Sometimes gages, like sight gages are used for set-up / quick verification on the line. The final acceptance of a product is done by the CMM, which should be have an MSA on file.

For example checks done on intermediate (phase 1 machining) dimensions that are touched again in a later process and are measured for final dimension do not have to be on the control plan.

Your PFMEA should give you good guidance here.

 

[qusys]

Re: TS16949 - MSA requirements for common gages

Yes, I think so, if your PFMEA supports it. TS does not state that all controls must be on the control plan. TS is very specific about special characteristics, tough.

Sometimes gages, like sight gages are used for set-up / quick verification on the line. The final acceptance of a product is done by the CMM, which should be have an MSA on file.

For example checks done on intermediate (phase 1 machining) dimensions that are touched again in a later process and are measured for final dimension do not have to be on the control plan.

Your PFMEA should give you good guidance here.

Agree.
My advice is to start from mfg process flow then FMEA and control plan, aligning them.
It could also be useful to break down control. As reference FMEA shall address you in the risk mgmt, not all tools and equipment are "critical" for your product quality. Perform MSA only for which you have categorized as critical in your control plan, based upon your FMEA.