Reference Only Measurement Devices

[noboxwine]

Our biz, water valves and hydrants is simply not design intensive. Make the components look somewhat like the drawing, put ‘em all together and then ultimately, it’s only about fit, form and function at final assembly. With the exception of metallurgical integrity or an operator sleeping during a tool crash, the parts will always work; even if they occasionally fall outside of the gauge. Simply adjust and go on. “Gauges” are attribute (go – no go), and basically only used to verify a set up. Some “gauges” are simply mating components from inventory. After that, we may check one once in while but never on a specific frequency nor in a batch containment situation. My experiments have proven no performance improvement by doing this. Now, to make a long story a bit longer, I cannot cost justify subjecting these gauges through a full-blown calibration system. What about the infamous “Reference Only” sticker? How can I manage this part of the business both cost effectively and stay within the minimum requirements of 7.6? My heart tells me that final assembly is the only thing I care about and whatever happens before that is only for reference purposes. If I haven’t completely confused everyone, your opinions would be greatly appreciated. Don’t sugar coat it! Please tell me what I need to know and thank you very much.

 

[Mike S.]

Seems to me the first line of 7.6 says you determine what to measure and how to measure it (with the goal of ensuring the stuff meets spec’s./customer requirements). If you can’t find a nationally or internationally traceable standard that suits you to measure your parts, I’d say make your own guage/measurement device and write down how you will calibrate or verify it as allowed in section (a). For example, if you can get the job done by checking to see if a certain part from inventory “mates” with the newly made part, I’d pick a “guage” part from inventory that looks “typical” to me, and call it my “standard”. Maybe “calibration” or “verification” is comparing it visually to a second “backup standard” that is not used but kept in a fur-lined case. Does this make any sense? Am I nuts?

 

[db]

OH NO!

My computer started shuddering. I thought I read "Reference Only"!

A couple of questions. First, if the gauge has no real value (other than setup) why use it? If it is necessary, why not verify it? Remember, it is YOUR system and YOU make the rules. It is better you decide how you are going to do things and stick by them, than to just say "Reference Only".

 

[E Wall]

How about this for brief and simple:

"Assembly GO/NO-GO guages and final product guages are the only identified monitoring and measuring devices used by Company X. These guages will be stored wherever is appropriate (drawer/wall mounted/etc..) and inspected visually every day by the associate using them for chips/cracks/rust/etc...and at least once every 2 years against a master guage (? use whatever is appropriate). Replacement guages are kept in the parts room if needed (?)

- At the Assembly point: At the start of each machine shift, a first article inspection will be performed against the guage (#****).

- At Final product testing: When packaging product, #X parts will be verified to the guage (#****).

No record will be kept of process inspections unless there is a nonconformance identified. Both the supervisor and QA inspector will be notified of any nonconforming product imediately."

The sticky whicket (so to speak) is the requirement to "assess and record the validaty of previous results if the equipment is found not to conform to requirements."

"If the guage is found to be out of tolerance a sampling of the previous machining shift product will be performed (sampling plan to be specified by the QA Manager) and if found nonconforming the material will be handled according to the nonconforming product guidelines.

This information shall be recorded on form XXX and kept on permanent file with that days production reporting data."

The key is: Have you evaluated what your needs are and have you put whatever the necessary measure are in place (along with how are they review/monitored for continued serviceability).

 

[E Wall]

How about this for brief and simple:

"Assembly GO/NO-GO guages and final product guages are the only identified monitoring and measuring devices used by Company X. These guages will be stored wherever is appropriate (drawer/wall mounted/etc..) and inspected visually every day by the associate using them for chips/cracks/rust/etc...and at least once every 2 years against a master guage (? use whatever is appropriate). Replacement guages are kept in the parts room if needed (?)

- At the Assembly point: At the start of each machine shift, a first article inspection will be performed against the guage (#****).

- At Final product testing: When packaging product, #X parts will be verified to the guage (#****). "

****Create a reference list of guages and where used if need be and refer to the document rather than the guage #****

"No record will be kept of process inspections unless there is a nonconformance identified. Both the supervisor and QA inspector will be notified of any nonconforming product imediately."

The sticky whicket (so to speak) is the requirement to "assess and record the validaty of previous results if the equipment is found not to conform to requirements."

"If the guage is found to be out of tolerance a sampling of the previous machining shift product will be performed (sampling plan to be specified by the QA Manager) and if found nonconforming the material will be handled according to the nonconforming product guidelines.

Nonconforming product information shall be recorded on form XXX and kept on permanent file with that days production reporting data."

The key is: Have you evaluated what your needs are and have you put whatever the necessary measure are in place (along with how are they review/monitored for continued serviceability).

If you can get buy with simpler great - if you need more detail...make it so!

 

[gpainter]

What do you use to determine if the product is good or bad? These need calibration.

 

[noboxwine]

Thanks very much to all. I think by marrying these replies together, I can maintain low costs, make good parts and comply. Thanks again !

 

[Ken K]

Ouch!

Our biz, water valves and hydrants is simply not design intensive. Make the components look somewhat like the drawing, put ‘em all together and then ultimately, it’s only about fit, form and function at final assembly.

I may not sleep well tonight...

 

[M Greenaway]

Ken

I share your concern.

This looks extremely alarming in both the methods undertaken, and the attitude of the company.

I would assume that any valve operates under a certain pressure, and therefore has certain safety considerations that must be addressed. I have worked for a valve manufacturer, although they were very high pressure valves used for all sorts of unhealthy media, I would have thought similar safety considerations must be thought of.

Maybe noboxwine has just explained it so that it sounds worse than it actually is - I would be interested to hear more detail.

 

[noboxwine]

Re: Ouch!

Ken K said:






I may not sleep well tonight...

Don't worry. Everything is 100% tested far above regulatory standards.

That's why I want to put the energy into other parts of the system instead of calibrating a thread gauge for a stem which has never failed in the field.

Sleep tight !