Katherine47
Registered
Regarding measuring equipment the standard states:
8.5.1
ensuring that documented information for monitoring and measurement activity for product acceptance includes:
− criteria for acceptance and rejection;
− where in the sequence verification operations are to be performed;
− measurement results to be retained (at a minimum an indication of acceptance or rejection);
− any specific monitoring and measurement equipment required and instructions associated with their use;
I am very green with Quality Assurance, and work for a very small company who has promoted me into sole QA role so please excuse if this is a silly question.
My company has previously calibrated all measuring equipment in house at 6 monthly intervals IAW OEM recommendations (great). the results of this calibration are in a register detailing the equipment identification, the person who conducted the calibration, the results of the calibration, the date, extra notes etc. There is also an attached procedure which details how to calibrate and the acceptable tolerances.
One person is convinced that we need to further support our calibration with a printed certificate stating the type of calibration conducted, and the signature of the boss (who did not actually perform the calibration), tool ID and date of calibration for each tool. I'm not joking when I say that is all the information on this certificate
This seems not only like overkill to me, but redundant information. The certificate sits in a binder, never to be looked at again, there is no new information on it. Everything is already accounted for in the Procedure and Register.
Have I missed something here? I want to stop doing this as it's a waste of time and paper. This is a weird hill that this person is willing to die on, but as I am the only person hired to do this role, I want to be able to show this person that this practice is not necessary.
8.5.1
ensuring that documented information for monitoring and measurement activity for product acceptance includes:
− criteria for acceptance and rejection;
− where in the sequence verification operations are to be performed;
− measurement results to be retained (at a minimum an indication of acceptance or rejection);
− any specific monitoring and measurement equipment required and instructions associated with their use;
I am very green with Quality Assurance, and work for a very small company who has promoted me into sole QA role so please excuse if this is a silly question.
My company has previously calibrated all measuring equipment in house at 6 monthly intervals IAW OEM recommendations (great). the results of this calibration are in a register detailing the equipment identification, the person who conducted the calibration, the results of the calibration, the date, extra notes etc. There is also an attached procedure which details how to calibrate and the acceptable tolerances.
One person is convinced that we need to further support our calibration with a printed certificate stating the type of calibration conducted, and the signature of the boss (who did not actually perform the calibration), tool ID and date of calibration for each tool. I'm not joking when I say that is all the information on this certificate
This seems not only like overkill to me, but redundant information. The certificate sits in a binder, never to be looked at again, there is no new information on it. Everything is already accounted for in the Procedure and Register.
Have I missed something here? I want to stop doing this as it's a waste of time and paper. This is a weird hill that this person is willing to die on, but as I am the only person hired to do this role, I want to be able to show this person that this practice is not necessary.
