Must a vernier caliper and a rule be calibrated according to ISO 9001?

bobdoering

Stop X-bar/R Madness!!
Trusted Information Resource
#41
Re: Must a vernier caliper and a rule be calibrated?

I'm assuming that this is sarcasm, so please correct me if I'm wrong.
A little yes, a little no.

If you feel that "the committee" should be an omniscient body that can account for every contingency in the day-to-day operation of a business, or that the committee's wisdom should always prevail, you're probably right. Some of us think that our experience in the world should count for something, however, and that we shouldn't have to run to the book every time a decision is made.
Sounds like more than just an oddball contingency. If we waited long enough, I am sure a long list of disputed 'need for calibration' nonconformances could be compiled. If so, the standard is too prescriptive (or not prescriptive enough), and should be readily amended to eliminate the problem. This is particularly important for ISO 17025 - more so than ISO 9001.

So, it sounds like there is a whole level of gage criteria where either the device should not be considered a gage, or it use unverified holds no risk. What risk that may encompass (risk of dismemberment or death?) would be the next bone of contention, I am sure.

As far as experiences in the world counting for something - it depends on whose experiences and what experiences they are. Even as a criteria, that can be inadequate. A good standard - emphasis on standard - should not leave it open of a clash of experiences during an audit. And, we see evidence of that here.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#42
Re: Must a vernier caliper and a rule be calibrated?

A little yes, a little no.
So, it sounds like there is a whole level of gage criteria where either the device should not be considered a gage, or it use unverified holds no risk. What risk that may encompass (risk of dismemberment or death?) would be the next bone of contention, I am sure.
Here's where we are perhaps talking past one another. No one said anything about unverified. It's the nature of "verification" that's in question. In some instances, verification requires careful and conscientious comparison to an accepted standard. On the other end of the spectrum, verification can be a comparison against one's own experience. We're not talking about reaching blindfolded into a big box of miscellaneous objects with the aim of using whatever gets pulled out to measure something.

As far as experiences in the world counting for something - it depends on whose experiences and what experiences they are. Even as a criteria, that can be inadequate. A good standard - emphasis on standard - should not leave it open of a clash of experiences during an audit. And, we see evidence of that here.
It's not necessarily about whether the standard is adequate or not; the problem in many instances is pedantic auditors who should know better--that's where the conflict lies. It's just not a practical matter to write the standard such that the lowest levels of perspicacity are accommodated and encouraged.
 

bobdoering

Stop X-bar/R Madness!!
Trusted Information Resource
#43
Re: Must a vernier caliper and a rule be calibrated?

On the other end of the spectrum, verification can be a comparison against one's own experience. We're not talking about reaching blindfolded into a big box of miscellaneous objects with the aim of using whatever gets pulled out to measure something.
I don't agree that appropriate gage verification extends all the way to the realm of comparison against one's own experience. That criteria has sufficient lack of control to be invalid - especially with no criteria for appropriate "experience". In many cases, I would think of that as equivalent to reaching blindfolded into a big box of miscellaneous objects with the aim of using whatever gets pulled out to measure something.


It's not necessarily about whether the standard is adequate or not; the problem in many instances is pedantic auditors who should know better--that's where the conflict lies. It's just not a practical matter to write the standard such that the lowest levels of perspicacity are accommodated and encouraged.
I agree, there are pedantic auditors who must not know better that try to write nonconformances over quality policy statements. The evidence is clear there. But if there is a valid criteria for not calibrating a gage - ever - then let's just get it in the standard and get it done. To the proponents, it seems rather black and white - so let's see it. I'm game - I'll check it out. Gaging should simply not be so esoteric for a need to leave it to such interpretation. I think it truly is about whether the standard is adequate or not - for gaging.

Do not suffer from self-reference criterion. You may feel you have adequate experience to make these decisions, and you may actually have adequate experience to make these decisions. But, there are others that feel they have adequate experience to make these decisions, and do not have really adequate experience to make these decisions at all (the most dangerous condition). And, the other case is there are people who actually realize the do not have adequate experience to make these decisions at all, and are wise enough to come here for help. I do not see an inadequate standard accommodated by auditor and auditee opinions - often divergent opinions - as an optimum condition.
 

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#44
Re: Must a vernier caliper and a rule be calibrated?

I don't agree that appropriate gage verification extends all the way to the realm of comparison against one's own experience. That criteria has sufficient lack of control to be invalid - especially with no criteria for appropriate "experience". In many cases, I would think of that as equivalent to reaching blindfolded into a big box of miscellaneous objects with the aim of using whatever gets pulled out to measure something.
Isn't this one reason that there are third- and second-party audits? If my criterion (or criteria if there's more than one) won't stand up to experienced scrutiny, something will change. We have to depend on the experience of someone.

I agree, there are pedantic auditors who must not know better that try to write nonconformances over quality policy statements. The evidence is clear there. But if there is a valid criteria for not calibrating a gage - ever - then let's just get it in the standard and get it done. To the proponents, it seems rather black and white - so let's see it. I'm game - I'll check it out. Gaging should simply not be so esoteric for a need to leave it to such interpretation. I think it truly is about whether the standard is adequate or not - for gaging.
I disagree. There has to be room for conscientious auditors and auditees to make judgment calls. It happens every day, like it or not. The alternative is the proliferation of those stupid "reference only" stickers. In the case of automotive work, where all gages that appear on the control plan are subject to controlled calibration and MSA, the answer is often just removing things from the control plan, which I'm sure is not the intended outcome. The other choice is to allow yourself to be ordered to waste time.

Do not suffer from self-reference criterion. You may feel you have adequate experience to make these decisions, and you may actually have adequate experience to make these decisions. But, there are others that feel they have adequate experience to make these decisions, and do not have really adequate experience to make these decisions at all (the most dangerous condition).
I'm trying to imagine a situation where measuring something with a tape measure I just bought at the hardware store could result in anything that could rationally be characterized as a dangerous condition. I like to think that people in positions of responsibility are innocent of incompetence until proven guilty, which again is why we have second- and third-party audits.

And, the other case is there are people who actually realize the do not have adequate experience to make these decisions at all, and are wise enough to come here for help. I do not see an inadequate standard accommodated by auditor and auditee opinions - often divergent opinions - as an optimum condition.
People need to be able to make their own decisions based on the best information available. I think that divergent opinions are a good thing in that regard.
 

bobdoering

Stop X-bar/R Madness!!
Trusted Information Resource
#45
Re: Must a vernier caliper and a rule be calibrated?

There has to be room for conscientious auditors and auditees to make judgment calls. It happens every day, like it or not. The alternative is the proliferation of those stupid "reference only" stickers.
No, the other alternative is to have the standard state accurate requirements. Let it spit it out: "If nobody (customer or supplier) is concerned about the validity of the measurement, calibration is not required." Is it that hard?

I like to think that people in positions of responsibility are innocent of incompetence until proven guilty, which again is why we have second- and third-party audits.
...and the subsequent non-conformances we are discussing. (Are we to infer that as evidence of incompetence? I will leave that to the reader to decide.)

People need to be able to make their own decisions based on the best information available. I think that divergent opinions are a good thing in that regard.
Sounds like if the criterion (or criteria :rolleyes:) is "own best judgment", then an audit is wholly unnecessary, as then would be the section of the standard. After all, all you need is "say what you do, do what you say" (whether it is right or not...), correct?

I am sure we can dilute the standard to make everyone happy. It shouldn't be that hard - I am sure it was just a small oversight by the committee. That is why the standard goes under review every so often.
 
M

Mike_H

#46
I must say reading the ensuing discussion(s) has been the most entertaining 15minutes of today...I just got home so the night is still young (football is just about to start on TV so that might change rapidly):)

...so the auditor listened to the "Presidential verbal assault" apologised for the 3am call ...put the phone down...and wrote it up as a major, later downgraded it to a minor (wasn't impressed as it was in German/English and could only understand every 2nd word anyway!). I think he understood the explanation just fine ... he just wanted the QA Manager to sweat a little for passing the phone. :notme:

ps/I take on a Quality Management role in 3 weeks and dive into AS9100.
Hope to speak again soon to let you know how it's going (great forum).
~Mike~
 
R

RRder

#47
A few years back I recall there was a term spoken of as "common sense". Evidently this is no longer a known term and maybe the words have even been removed from a common dictionary!

I agree there is right and wrong for the measurement situation, but it appears the standards creators live on another planet, expecting the common laborer to be at the elite knowledge level of them, at all times. Calibration/verification standards need more emphasis on "keep it simple, but keep it right" tone.

Maybe some of the current problems nowadays relate not just to the parcel carrier mechanic failing to calibrate his feeler gages, but the "root cause" may lie in the mechanic's mother and father not having their genes together during the conception. How far can we go to place the blame for an NC??!! Maybe someday when I'm 6' below, the standards guru's will have control of the genes too!:mg::lmao:
 

Phil Huber

Inactive Registered Visitor
#48
RR and others,
Perhaps the best way to know if "something" needs to be calibrated and/or verified at some frequency is to ask "is this 'something' being used to make a quality decision?"

If the answer is "yes", then it must be controlled. The using facility may best determine how these controls must be applied keeping in mind the need to calibrate/verify to a traceable standard. Sometimes the equipment manufacturer is best qualified to complete these activities.

I have not ever had an NC using these guidelines. It has also helped me to internally apply controls. Many times the operators say "I just use this for reference". Poppy cock. If you make a quality decision, then control the tool.
 

Hershal

Metrologist-Auditor
Staff member
Super Moderator
#49
You are right Phil.

I would phrase it this way though, just my thoughts here.

If the instrument/device makes a quantitative measurement that is meant to convey some information of use, then calibrate and make sure you get the uncertainty.

Hope this helps.
 

Phil Huber

Inactive Registered Visitor
#50
Hershal,
Yes,
You are correct in your wording. In actual instances when I needed to "enforce" this activity, I too used much the same technique.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
A What must be recorded? (ISO 9001:2015, subclause 10.2) ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 9
John C. Abnet Must COPQ always be quantified as a monetary ($) amount? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2
T What does AS9100 mean when it says you must establish a process to do X? AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 24
B IATF16949 audit requirement - Auditor request UCL and LCL must be show Xbar-R, IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 7
A Read instruction manual - What Graphic Symbol must I use? US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 7
M What kind of instrument that must be calibrated? General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 3
Q Must product name be listed the same name in FURLS, UDI, GUDID and Company Website? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 1
J Customer VDA Audit - We must provide refresher training? VDA Standards - Germany's Automotive Standards 4
J Any diverging opinions regarding audit findings or conclusions must be resolved no later than the closing meeting ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 13
I Sampling processes - Who must define the AQL level? AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 9
M Which documents must be updated upon product validation? Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 1
Q IATF 16949 - Product audit - Must each product be audited? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 6
G From an ISO 17025 auditor perspective must micrometer calibration check anvil flatness? General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 4
C Must your reference standard provider be ISO17034 certified to meet your testing lab's ISO 17025 certification requirements? Other ISO and International Standards and European Regulations 2
R Changing Document Control software. Must I transfer EVERYTHING? Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 3
T Must all Disposable Medical Devices be DEHP Free for MDR? EU Medical Device Regulations 1
W Product Audit - It must be a separate and distinct activity (IATF 16949) IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
P Quality objectives - must they include CAPA and internal audit topic? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 28
S Record Retention - How long must a company keep the following records? Records and Data - Quality, Legal and Other Evidence 17
I Is risk acceptability really needed if all risks must be reduced as far as possible? ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 6
A ISO 9001:2015 Clause 9.3.2 - Management Review Inputs must be Documented? Management Review Meetings and related Processes 15
N Must Bioburden Sampling Procedures be Documented? Other Medical Device Related Standards 5
M Contacting a "Must Use" (aka Sole Source) Supplier's Registrar Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 6
T Auditor states my Oven Thermocouples must be Calibrated General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 18
K Must I update the Quality Policy? (ISO 9001:2008) ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 15
B Must a Design Outsourcing Company have ISO13485? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
U Must every procedure be proceeded by a policy? Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 2
P Must all parts of a product be RoHS compliant? EU Medical Device Regulations 5
N Must electrodes for Rx/prescription stimulators be Rx only? Other US Medical Device Regulations 2
V Is there an approach to define the "must 'or' should" in supplier audits? US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2
F Electronic Signatures (21CFR Part 11) - Must They Appear on Printed Documents Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 9
R What are the "Must Have" Specs and Standards for AS9100 Certification AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 8
L Must we do Receiving Inspection for everything? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 15
U Once upon a QMS - Is a Statement of Uncertainty a must for ISO 17025 accredited labs? ISO 17025 related Discussions 8
C Must we identify steps taken to identify the Root Cause of a failure Nonconformance and Corrective Action 15
Y Must every Process have a Quality Objective? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 21
L Must the Signature on a Quality Record be Legible? Records and Data - Quality, Legal and Other Evidence 33
N Must Employees Be Evaluated Annually? Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 19
A Calibration system must meet ISO 10012, ISO 17025 or ANSI/NCSL Z540? ISO 17025 related Discussions 38
D How long must we provide service parts to Ford? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 7
E Must Patent Numbers be Shown on Product Labels? Other Medical Device and Orthopedic Related Topics 18
Ronen E FDA Must Have New Authorities to Regulate Pharmacy Compounding US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 8
P Trip to the USA - Must-Eat Food? Holiday Planning Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 57
Colin What QMS Internal Audits must cover and ISO 9001 Internal Auditing 19
R Is insulation between F type applied part and other parts a must? IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 4
D Must Forms be referenced in applicable Procedures? Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 6
U Must We Audit Critical Suppliers? How often? Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 7
S Integrating a Multi-Management System - What documents & records must we have? Various Other Specifications, Standards, and related Requirements 6
R Risks which must be Distinctly Identified - Harm, Hazard, Severity ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 7
O ISO 9001 requirements for what Internal Audits must cover Internal Auditing 7

Similar threads

Top Bottom