Pipettes - Using ISO 8655 standard tolerances instead of manufacturer's tolerance

BradM

Staff member
Admin
#1
We have an ISO17025 vendor that calibrates our pipettes. We are currently wanting to change our acceptance tolerance to model ISO 8655 tolerances.

The 17025 auditor is questioning the move to use the tolerances specified in ISO8655, because they are wider than the manufacture specifications for that device. Essentially, the auditor is questioning the ISO standard.

My point is this: it is an observation that mfg. specifications should be used, but certainly not a violation of 17025, or even bad metrology, to use a tolerance other than mfg. specifications. This is even more so, given that the tolerances come from an ISO standard.

Obviously this is an issue between the AB and my vendor, until the problem becomes my problem. Essentially having the AB auditor telling me what tolerances I will use becomes my problem.:tg:

Any thoughts or opinions on this would be greatly appreciated.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#2
Re: Using ISO standard tolerances instead of MFG. tolerance

We have an ISO17025 vendor that calibrates our pipettes. We are currently wanting to change our acceptance tolerance to model ISO 8655 tolerances.

The 17025 auditor is questioning the move to use the tolerances specified in ISO8655, because they are wider than the manufacture specifications for that device. Essentially, the auditor is questioning the ISO standard.

My point is this: it is an observation that mfg. specifications should be used, but certainly not a violation of 17025, or even bad metrology, to use a tolerance other than mfg. specifications. This is even more so, given that the tolerances come from an ISO standard.

Obviously this is an issue between the AB and my vendor, until the problem becomes my problem. Essentially having the AB auditor telling me what tolerances I will use becomes my problem.:tg:

Any thoughts or opinions on this would be greatly appreciated.
It shouldn't make any difference if the ISO tolerances are more generous than the manufacturer's; what's important is that the tolerances (regardless of the source) are what's right for your purposes. You can say that a new tolerancing scheme came to you in a dream and the auditor shouldn't care so long as the scheme works for you.
 

Jerry Eldred

Forum Moderator
Super Moderator
#3
Re: Using ISO standard tolerances instead of MFG. tolerance

That is an interesting one. My reply doesn't claim to be an answer, but more conversation from another who finds this befuddling.

An analogous situation I've had is calibrations to torque wrenches. There is an ISO procedure (ISO6789) with prescriptive requirements to cal torque wrenches of many types, and generic specs by type. It doesn't always match OEM specs.

I just re-read the SCOPE section of my applicable ISO, and it said it applied in particular to "...torque wrenches in accordance with numbers 258 and 259 of ISO 1703:1983."

I don't know the wording of your applicable ISO, but it raises the question (presuming the scope in yours is similar to mine), is calibrating in accordance with an ISO procedure (such as yours or mine listed above) as opposed to calibrating with an OEM procedure/specs (or other legitimate procedure/specs) something that should be done only when it is a requirement of another ISO? And conversely, unless there is a specific ISO requirement to calibrate something to an ISO procedure, should it not be used unless it is either the only legitimate available procedure, or it is not in conflict with OEM specs?

In our Torque wrench procedure circumstance, there were and (more currently) are some conflicts and disagreements. I can't think of the particular model, but our very astute senior torque person at my current lab (when presented with the ISO to cal torque wrenches) told me that he would have to cal to different specs if he used the ISO.

I'm not certain what the presumed real world scope of ISO cal procedures is, but I wonder if it is supposed to be for either ISO prescriptive environments, or where no other legitimate procedure exists. I am thinking that Torque wrenches are so commonly used globally, and perhaps a LOT of them globally with no legitimate specs or procedures, that its intent was to create some level of order, but perhaps not to replace legitimate OEM specs and procedures.

Just a few questioning thoughts. I'll be curious to see some more expert replies.
 

BradM

Staff member
Admin
#4
Re: Using ISO standard tolerances instead of MFG. tolerance

It shouldn't make any difference if the ISO tolerances are more generous than the manufacturer's; what's important is that the tolerances (regardless of the source) are what's right for your purposes. You can say that a new tolerancing scheme came to you in a dream and the auditor shouldn't care so long as the scheme works for you.
Thank you, Jim. This is along the lines of what I was thinking about.
 

BradM

Staff member
Admin
#5
Re: Using ISO standard tolerances instead of MFG. tolerance

An analogous situation I've had is calibrations to torque wrenches. There is an ISO procedure (ISO6789) with prescriptive requirements to cal torque wrenches of many types, and generic specs by type. It doesn't always match OEM specs.

I just re-read the SCOPE section of my applicable ISO, and it said it applied in particular to "...torque wrenches in accordance with numbers 258 and 259 of ISO 1703:1983."

I don't know the wording of your applicable ISO, but it raises the question (presuming the scope in yours is similar to mine), is calibrating in accordance with an ISO procedure (such as yours or mine listed above) as opposed to calibrating with an OEM procedure/specs (or other legitimate procedure/specs) something that should be done only when it is a requirement of another ISO? And conversely, unless there is a specific ISO requirement to calibrate something to an ISO procedure, should it not be used unless it is either the only legitimate available procedure, or it is not in conflict with OEM specs?

In our Torque wrench procedure circumstance, there were and (more currently) are some conflicts and disagreements. I can't think of the particular model, but our very astute senior torque person at my current lab (when presented with the ISO to cal torque wrenches) told me that he would have to cal to different specs if he used the ISO.

I'm not certain what the presumed real world scope of ISO cal procedures is, but I wonder if it is supposed to be for either ISO prescriptive environments, or where no other legitimate procedure exists. I am thinking that Torque wrenches are so commonly used globally, and perhaps a LOT of them globally with no legitimate specs or procedures, that its intent was to create some level of order, but perhaps not to replace legitimate OEM specs and procedures.

Just a few questioning thoughts. I'll be curious to see some more expert replies.
As always, thought-provoking statements. Here are some additional thoughts:

1. Does the mfg. always know better how to calibrate their device than any other entity? My point is this: mfg. companies make things; that's their business. The process of setting tolerances, determining suitability and such, may not be their primary strength.

2. If there was not a need for the ISO standard for pipettes, why was one written? Especially with pipettes, there are a lot of variables that come into play, probably as much as most other instruments. I believe that the ISO specification allows for more sources of error before stating that an instrument is in/out. Many times it is unclear how the mfg. calculates the acceptance tolerance for equipment.

As I have stated before, mfg. do not have a business interest to develop "realistic" tolerances. They are in the business of selling:); that requires having same/lower tolerance, and same/lower price than the competitor. Too, if they have a fair amount of failures requiring calibration, that means more service business for them. :tg:

Essentially, we have pipettes that have mfg. specifications of .01, ISO tolerance of .1, and a use requirement of 1. Obviously I made those numbers up, but not too unrealistic to demonstrate how much tighter the mfg. tolerance is to what we require the instrument to perform. I would think as long as the procedure/tolerance used meets the need of the process, that should be OK within 17025.
 

Ajit Basrur

Staff member
Admin
#6
Hi Brad,

If I understand right, ISO 17025 pertains to General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories - so its more like a QMS for testing labs, while

ISO 8655 gives specific technical requirements needed for calibrating pipettes, dilutors and dispensers.

Thus there should be no issues while following ISO 8655.
 

BradM

Staff member
Admin
#7
Update: I would appear that the auditor for the Accreditation Body is highly insistent that the work is to be done to mfg. specifications, and essentially, not recognizing the ISO specification.

I have let my vendor know I am not happy with it,:mad: as it will create huge work on our end, with no value/process improvement that I can see.

As always, your thoughts/ comments are welcome.:)
 

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#8
Update: I would appear that the auditor for the Accreditation Body is highly insistent that the work is to be done to mfg. specifications, and essentially, not recognizing the ISO specification.

I have let my vendor know I am not happy with it,:mad: as it will create huge work on our end, with no value/process improvement that I can see.

As always, your thoughts/ comments are welcome.:)
What is the auditor citing as the requirement? What is he basing his "ruling" on?
 

BradM

Staff member
Admin
#9
What is the auditor citing as the requirement? What is he basing his "ruling" on?
That's a good question. Essentially I have not received any citation from them on why to perform it this way. This individual comes from a testing environment where everything was done to mfg. specifications, and thus cannot comprehend something being verified outside of the specification.

The issue is we have every mfg. known at just about every range; thus tracking them individually is a nightmare. Hence the reason we wanted to use the ISO specification; to standardize our approach.

Given the fact that I cite from 17025 customer requirement sections, and the preference to use ISO specifications, I am at a loss why such an intepretation is being so heavily relied upon. I think as long as the lab and I agree upon the tolerances, it should be fine.

This plays into why I have always taken the other side of things also, as the auditee. Having someone tell you to challenge the auditor/ appeal decisions is one thing; doing them is another. People spend a huge amount of time and effort getting accredited; and are reticent to "rock the boat". Too, given the expenditure of time and money, they may not be interested in switching accreditors.

Reason #100,000 why a good auditor is worth more than what they are paid.:agree1:
 

Hershal

Metrologist-Auditor
Staff member
Super Moderator
#10
One key here is the decision by the customer (BradM) regarding the specs.....

ISO/IEC 17025:2005 Clauses 5.4.1 and 5.4.4 allow the laboratory and the customer to agree on the requirements.....the laboratory has to perform any validation that may be necessary.....and also other Clauses such as 4.4.1

If the assessor has valid reason for objecting to the lab agreeing to the new specs, then that should be laid out in a concise manner with the applicable references (if any) cited.....

If the assessor refuses and has no identifiable basis, then the laboratory can appeal the assessor's decision to the AB.....

Hope this helps.....
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
D Calibration tolerance question using Pipettes Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 1
M Is calibration from long ago still valid on never used pipettes? General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 8
T Volumetric Glassware (pipettes) Calibration Uncertainty Measurement Uncertainty (MU) 8
M Calibration of Glassware - Pipettes & Flask General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 2
J Incoming Inspection Records using Excel File ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
J Using ring gauges General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 2
M Load Cell Calibration using a totalizer on a flow meter General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 0
P Can Neoprene be Cleaned Using Isopropyl Alcohol (IPA) Manufacturing and Related Processes 4
GreatNate Anyone using the Intellect QMS software? Quality Assurance and Compliance Software Tools and Solutions 1
chris1price Sterilization using beta radiation Other Medical Device Related Standards 2
M Using the phrase "herein referred to" Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 8
B Struggling with using the 5.6 version Ford Capacity Analysis Report APQP and PPAP 5
cnbrosa Study Type 1 on a CMM using a measuring support Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 4
R MRB (Material Review Board) Process using MS Sharepoint or MS Teams Manufacturing and Related Processes 2
K 510k FDA review, will they accept Biocompatibility result generated using feasibility product lots? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 8
B AS9100D 7.1.5.2 Calibration or Verification Method using outside cal lab AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 1
U Medical Device CE Marking - Using a disposable bearing CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 3
D Risk Analysis using Monte Carlo Simulation instead of Scoring and Heat Map Risk Management Principles and Generic Guidelines 2
W Using tailoring guidelines to tailor a QMS procedure ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 2
Y We found out we have been using a equipment without validation for past 4 years Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 6
D Using Laboratory Notebooks in R&D and Design and Development ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
C Importer shell game - Using a third party logistics provider (3PL) in the EU EU Medical Device Regulations 5
S Work performed in Canada on US patients using US device Canada Medical Device Regulations 1
S Is using ANSI/ASQ Z1.4-2008 the correct sampling plan to determine Pass/Fail of Apparel measurements? AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 4
A What are the pros and cons of using an audit software for internal auditing? General Auditing Discussions 7
Tagin Evaluating nonconformances for escalation using Bayesian methods? Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 2
D Using non-conforming components even though the final assembly is conforming? Manufacturing and Related Processes 5
B Using Unreleased Documents & Process Maps for Internal Audit purposes ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 12
R Clause 7.7 Replicate, Recalibration and Intermediate checks using Artifact ISO 17025 related Discussions 1
Stoic Are any medical device companies using the 2011 FDA process validation guidance instead of GHTF/SG3/N99-10:2004? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 1
B Unit of Use DI (Device Identifier) - Products using the same device US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 0
A Using Arduino based sensors for Poke-Yoke Manufacturing and Related Processes 6
M Using your Manufacturer's ISO certification ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 5
Ed Panek Adverse Event Clinical Trial using a 510K approved Device Other US Medical Device Regulations 6
B Using non CE parts in a machine CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 1
G Gauge R&R on multiple dimensions using 3D measurement system Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 6
A Hospital IT expectations for connected medical device using WIFI Medical Information Technology, Medical Software and Health Informatics 0
Proud Liberal Cp / Cpk on position using multiple MMC bonuses Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 2
B Using external FDA and ISO 13485 audit as internal audit Internal Auditing 6
D Using "Particle Size Standard" templates as gauges - How to avoid giving a gauge # while using for process control? General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 2
J Class 1 Medical Device - Using a UPC over the UDI? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 0
I Reducing CE marking cost using manufacturer test reports CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 5
CPhelan Using clinical trial safety data for evidence for CE marking EU Medical Device Regulations 8
M Accredited Calibration Sevice Provider using computerized system to issue calibration certificate Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 3
M Accredited Calibration Sevice Provider using computerized system to issue calibration certificate General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 2
M Raw stock material testing discrepancy using an XRF (x-ray fluorescence) analyzer Manufacturing and Related Processes 7
Z Using FMEA for Knowledge Management FMEA and Control Plans 6
Sidney Vianna NASA to Develop a Novel Approach for All-Electric Aircraft Using Cryogenic Liquid Hydrogen as Energy Storage World News 2
S How many of you are using Robotic process automation for calibration lab management? ISO 17025 related Discussions 0
J Including Repeats in DoE using Minitab Using Minitab Software 5

Similar threads

Top Bottom