Shop Floor Tools, Reference or Calibrated?

[Kurt Smith]

We are a small ISO 9001 metal shop and I an inexperienced Quality Manager. We have up until now interpreted 7.1.5 to mean that any tool used by QAs to accept or reject parts need to be calibrated and logged. We have it noted in our manual that all unmarked tools be considered for reference only and not used for final acceptance. And 3 years of external audits haven't objected to this arrangement yet.

This has worked well for us and saves time, money, and headache calibrating and recording the 40 or so protractors and calipers used throughout the building for in process work. Everything goes through the inspector before going out the door and those tools are calibrated.

Now I have a customer requesting that our control plan include each operator verifying that their tools calibration is current. Have we misunderstood the requirement? Or am I safe to let them know that only the inspection station will be using calibrated tooling?

 

[Rich Shippy]

Is any of the "in-process" work involve dimensions on a customer drawing?

 

[Kurt Smith]

Is any of the "in-process" work involve dimensions on a customer drawing?

Yes. They are making parts to customer prints. So they are measuring and verifying their work. It then gets verified against the calibrated tools when the part moves to the QC station.

 

[Golfman25]

Your interpretation for ISO is correct. 7.1.5.2 only requires calibration where measurement traceability is a requirement -- i.e.; before product is released to the customer.

Like you, we have a trained QA Inspector verify everyone's work. The shop guys setup and use their gages initially, but the QA inspector has the final say if/when the gage readings are different. Since our QA inspection is at three times -- setup, in-process, and Final -- it hasn't been a problem.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Have we misunderstood the requirement?

Customer auditors can “impose” expectations on top of any standard if they see fit. I know you mentioned being new at this, so be aware, there are a lot of organizations out there that do NOT have a separate, independent QC inspection function. They make the operators accountable for part conformity and give the operators calibrated instruments so they themselves can check the characteristics of the parts. I am not saying that independent QC are not necessary in all cases (it is ALWAYS a risk based decision) but many progressive organizations are minimizing reliance on (independent) inspection to assure product quality.

Good luck.

 

[Golfman25]

Customer auditors can “impose” expectations on top of any standard if they see fit. I know you mentioned being new at this, so be aware, there are a lot of organizations out there that do NOT have a separate, independent QC inspection function. They make the operators accountable for part conformity and give the operators calibrated instruments so they themselves can check the characteristics of the parts. I am not saying that independent QC are not necessary in all cases (it is ALWAYS a risk based decision) but many progressive organizations are minimizing reliance on (independent) inspection to assure product quality.

Good luck.

I agree, but this is were customer auditors (and others) can get into trouble. I am having this issue right now. You can still be "progressive" and do it the old fashioned way. In our case, there is nothing to measure until the part is complete as the dimensions change throughout the process. It would be a complete waste for our operators to check dimensions while running parts. But our customer "expects" that -- crazy times.

 

[Big Jim]

Check your customer's terms and conditions and see if they require what the auditor is asking for. If not, explain to them that you are meeting the requirements of ISO 9001 and also explain what your approach is. Don't forget, they are your customer, so handle it carefully unless you don't want their business.

That said, I personally think it is a bad practice not to have the operator's measuring tools calibrated. You can add a lot of value to a run before determining that it doesn't meet spec. But that's just one opinion among many.