D
Re: 17025 for weight scales
Let me answer/clarify a few items:
1. The scales are used on many orders, not just automotive.
2. We weigh the parts after placement in a basket to verify that they are within a certain weight range.
3. We have to have a basket loaded just so (not too heavy not too light) so that we can maximize profit and get the best results.
4. We have complete confidence in the supplier now doing the calibration. They have been our calibration supplier for the scales for many years and we have not had a problem.
5. We understand that the standard is requiring us to have a supplier that is certified. Of course we do not like giving up our current supplier and adding cost to the customer for this.
We would like to do this in-house if the cost were not so prohibitive. Right now the GM is asking for an appropriation for a pencil (exaggeration but not by much).
Used in the manufacture - or - where valid results are necessary -
If used in the manufacture then this implies they are necessary. The point I was making was - where valid results are necessary "for automotive products". Not everything is black and white in the Std so I still maintain this could be used as justification.
In -house calibration - yes that's a good idea. If its a scale then a reference sample / value (preferably coupled with a stability chart) would sort that out and their (non-17025) supplier could perform "maintenance".
I still believe the best and simplest way is to get a letter from Customer! If they refuse, then it becomes a customer requirement - and that's the end of that.
The items that I would look, at as an auditor - is what happened to contract review? what happened at internal audit? and if something as basic and clear as "calibration" is missed, does the organization really understand/accept the balance of the TS requirements.
Management commitment , from the originators comments - is quite obviously missing, so there is probably a number of other (perhaps more important) aspects of TS compliance that are suspect.
If used in the manufacture then this implies they are necessary. The point I was making was - where valid results are necessary "for automotive products". Not everything is black and white in the Std so I still maintain this could be used as justification.
In -house calibration - yes that's a good idea. If its a scale then a reference sample / value (preferably coupled with a stability chart) would sort that out and their (non-17025) supplier could perform "maintenance".
I still believe the best and simplest way is to get a letter from Customer! If they refuse, then it becomes a customer requirement - and that's the end of that.
The items that I would look, at as an auditor - is what happened to contract review? what happened at internal audit? and if something as basic and clear as "calibration" is missed, does the organization really understand/accept the balance of the TS requirements.
Management commitment , from the originators comments - is quite obviously missing, so there is probably a number of other (perhaps more important) aspects of TS compliance that are suspect.
Let me answer/clarify a few items:
1. The scales are used on many orders, not just automotive.
2. We weigh the parts after placement in a basket to verify that they are within a certain weight range.
3. We have to have a basket loaded just so (not too heavy not too light) so that we can maximize profit and get the best results.
4. We have complete confidence in the supplier now doing the calibration. They have been our calibration supplier for the scales for many years and we have not had a problem.
5. We understand that the standard is requiring us to have a supplier that is certified. Of course we do not like giving up our current supplier and adding cost to the customer for this.
We would like to do this in-house if the cost were not so prohibitive. Right now the GM is asking for an appropriation for a pencil (exaggeration but not by much).
for the clarification, it always helps.
for asking for a waiver on something they do not require anyway.