Measuring Equipment and Monitoring Equipment - Verification

[Sandra Feliciano]

Thanks, Bob!

Of course it helps - all opinions on the subject help! Thats why we discuss subjects!

So, if I understood correctly, your opinion is that this hypothetic company should verify its monitoring equipment, but that is not an ISO 9001 requirement. If that is your opinion, I must say I totally agree with you - even if that frustrates me deeply, as, like you, I also feel that too many times people and companies just do what is necessary to meet minimum requirements.

Just a clarification: 'Security/surveillance' is not 'my business'. I am an lead auditor and I work for a CB, where I also revise audit reports.

I bring into the forum questions that arise once in a while and where auditors do not agree with each other, to try to check what my international peers opinions are.

I guess on this particular example I was hoping one of you guys would come up with some brilliant rationale that would justify the need to verify monitoring equipment and to comply with bullets a) to e) of clause 7.6 in what concerns monitoring equipment that does not measure anything (just monitors).

/S.

 

[bobdoering]

Yes, it would be nice. But, it can get dicey. Just check out the people in medical that have to validate their software. They are wondering if they need to validate MS Excel because they use it to analyze their data. Do I need to verify my video card? Sometimes - especially if you measure with it.

It all goes back to the fundamental audit question:

"How do you know?"

If it makes sense to answer the question: "How do you know that Excel provides you the correct calculations?" then you really need to develop a plan to prove it. But, do you need to verify the firmware in the carbon monoxide monitor on the wall? What about the time clock? Do you measure the voltage on flashlight batteries that go through incoming receiving? There needs to be a sensible limit. That is why standards are generic.

"How do you know if this will affect the quality of the product your customer receives?"

 

[Sandra Feliciano]

But, it can get dicey.

I would say: It does get dicey!

By the way, if you're familiar with medical environments, check the other thread I opened for discussion here: http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=31134

/S.

 

[Blake Slayton]

I realize I am about three years behind on this discussion but I wanted to put my two cents in on the subject.

I used to work in the electrical wire & cable manufacturing industry. We had equipment we used in our processes that we considered to be "monitoring" equipment that required calibration. Two examples were a spark tester and an eddy-current tester. These electronic machines did not measure weight, volume or dimension, but indicated flaws in the product.

For example, the spark tester was plastic box which had a spark head affixed inside. The spark head had beaded chains that hung down and the wire being manufactured passed through the chains horizontally. The spark head had a current running through it (usually 7.5kV for 14, 12, and 10 AWG copper conductors). The purpose for the spark tester was to detect pinholes in the insulation which would be detected by the current as the pinhole passed through the spark tester. The result would be a "spark" which triggered an alarm to incidate to the operator that there was section of bad insulation that needed to be cut out.

The eddy-current tester was used to detect missing conductors in multi-conductor jacketed products. Two electrical coils were used; one held a sample of the product being made, the other was inline like the spark tester and the product passed through it. If the product had the same electric "mass" as that of the sample, the tester was "balanced." If not (missing a copper conductor), the tester was unbalanced and the alarm sounded.

These were units that required fine tuning and needed to be calibrated on a regular basis, although they did not "measure" the product per se (dimension, weight, volume, etc.) they monitored the product for defects.

We also had measuring equipment that also "monitored" the product was well such as a laser that measured the copper conductor dimension as well as the overall insulation dimension. It keep records of variations in the measurements which it constantly monitored.

Don't know if this is helpful but thought I'd throw it out there.

 

[BradM]

I realize I am about three years behind on this discussion but I wanted to put my two cents in on the subject.

I used to work in the electrical wire & cable manufacturing industry. We had equipment we used in our processes that we considered to be "monitoring" equipment that required calibration. Two examples were a spark tester and an eddy-current tester. These electronic machines did not measure weight, volume or dimension, but indicated flaws in the product.

For example, the spark tester was plastic box which had a spark head affixed inside. The spark head had beaded chains that hung down and the wire being manufactured passed through the chains horizontally. The spark head had a current running through it (usually 7.5kV for 14, 12, and 10 AWG copper conductors). The purpose for the spark tester was to detect pinholes in the insulation which would be detected by the current as the pinhole passed through the spark tester. The result would be a "spark" which triggered an alarm to incidate to the operator that there was section of bad insulation that needed to be cut out.

The eddy-current tester was used to detect missing conductors in multi-conductor jacketed products. Two electrical coils were used; one held a sample of the product being made, the other was inline like the spark tester and the product passed through it. If the product had the same electric "mass" as that of the sample, the tester was "balanced." If not (missing a copper conductor), the tester was unbalanced and the alarm sounded.

These were units that required fine tuning and needed to be calibrated on a regular basis, although they did not "measure" the product per se (dimension, weight, volume, etc.) they monitored the product for defects.

We also had measuring equipment that also "monitored" the product was well such as a laser that measured the copper conductor dimension as well as the overall insulation dimension. It keep records of variations in the measurements which it constantly monitored.

Don't know if this is helpful but thought I'd throw it out there.

Absolutely it was!! Welcome to the Cove! Look forward to seeing more helpful posts from you.

 

[treesei]

Wonder if the OP will ever see the new posters.

IMHO, we should not be too particular with the original/standard definitions of these words. Think abstractively.

Measuring equipment is related to a product, directly used in the process of delivering this product.

Monitoring equipment is related to the environment, directly used in monitoring the process of delivering this product.

In the OP's example, the product the company delivers is a security service. A "monitoring" camera is not a monitoring equipment here. It is a critical tool thru which the company delivers its product: the security service. It just happens to have the name "monitoring" camera.

 

[BradM]

Wonder if the OP will ever see the new posters.

You know what? That's a really great question.

The answer: maybe; maybe not. But rest-assured.... knowledge never goes to waste. While people may start new threads for questions, there are a lot of people that surf the threads (and yes, old ones) to get information.

I am constantly looking at old threads here. Present company excluded , there have been some brilliant people come here and share some knowledge. Hershal, Jerry Aldred, and Graime Paine have taught me so much about metrology, calibration practices, and did it all with patience and care.

Sorry... got off on a tangent. But sometimes people do still get responses from old threads, and still read them. So.... if you see a topic that you would like to help out on, go for it!!

 

[treesei]

I am constantly looking at old threads here. Present company excluded , there have been some brilliant people come here and share some knowledge. Hershal, Jerry Aldred, and Graime Paine have taught me so much about metrology, calibration practices, and did it all with patience and care.

Sorry... got off on a tangent. But sometimes people do still get responses from old threads, and still read them. So.... if you see a topic that you would like to help out on, go for it!!

I sense your passion and admire it. The Cove is a great place where people help people with their heart.