The current state of our Calibration System

[PaulJSmith]

True enough, Andy. Our training always reinforced to everyone that these were uncalibrated devices, but your point is certainly valid.

Words have meanings.

 

[BradM]

There's an inherent danger in that Paul - it invites "Reference", when in fact you SHOULD label the equipment "NOT CALIBRATED".

That way you avoid ambiguity! Like "reference libraries", you go there because they have the right books for you to read...

True words, Andy.
Somewhat....


Akio Miura was a very, very smart man, and I learned a lot from him. He really taught me to think about this point. He really challenged me on the notion of marking equipment "for reference only". He questioned,

If you're not checking it's accuracy/operation, why have it? Get rid of it!!

Now... I don't believe metrologists can turn around Culture in a short time to purge the company of unneeded equipment. First, it needs to be assessed as not needed.

As Andy and a few others have noted, using employee owned equipment is a tricky path to walk. I think management needs to be encouraged to support the process requirements they have with controlled equipment.

I would identify the need, then let management determine how they want to meet that need.

 

[BradM]

True enough, Andy. Our training always reinforced to everyone that these were uncalibrated devices, but your point is certainly valid.

Words have meanings.

And... and....

My experience (and mine alone).... when you allow employees to use their own equipment... guess what... It's Theirs!! They can really do what they want with it.

 

[Wes Bucey]

As Brad comments, Akio and I were on the same page when it came to tools and measuring instruments for production and inspection:

It is the management's responsibility, which Akio and I interpreted from ISO 9101 (6.3):

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]6.3 Infrastructure[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The organization shall determine, provide, and maintain the infrastructure to achieve conformity to product requirements. Infrastructure includes, as applicable[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]a) buildings, workspace, and associated utilities[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]b) process equipment, both hardware and software), and[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]c) supporting services (such as transport or communication)[/FONT]
​

to supply EVERYTHING required, including hand tools, measuring devices, computers, smart phones, protective gear, even (especially in some areas where public transport is unreliable or unavailable) transportation to and from the workplace. Obviously, to Akio and me, forcing employees to provide such items was simply a way for management to exploit its power over workers to make them involuntarily subsidize the profits of the owners.

We ridiculed any owner who said, "It's the only way we can get workers to take care of the tools!" Sabotage or mishandling of company property is best handled by discovering the root cause and implementing a remedy. (If an employee can't or won't sabotage a hand tool he owns, what's to prevent him from sabotaging a half million dollar CNC machining center?)

 

[AndyN]

Measuring equipment should be treated in exactly the same basis as other equipment needed to do a job. For example, if you need a phone or computer to do your job, is it the expectation of an employer that you provide your own? Do you need to send sales literature to clients? Do you make your own? Answer? Not likely! If you need a drill, file, milling machine, do you whip out your own, from your pocket? Would you take a job that REQUIRED you to do that? HECK NO!

So, why then do we insist on relying on a bunch of tools which we don't own, don't calibrate and can walk when the owner walks to (potentially) make decisions about OUR product, our customers' needs and THEIR SATISFACTION?

Dangerous. Common, yes, but also DANGEROUS.

Tell them: Take your stuff home. We'll give you nice new stuff. It's owned by us. We'll pay to take care of it.

 

[Marcelo]

Also let me run a list of items and if you could let me know your thoughts on whether they need calibrated or not.

What about if you approach it from the process side and determine what you need. What is your requirement for measurement? It is really required?

The usual requirement from standards is that you need to calibrate any measuring device or equipment, if you need valid results from them. So, besides doing what Brad said (determining the measurement needed), you should determine if you need valid results. THEN n you would determine the required measuring equipment/device (because if you do require calibration, this might shorten your options).

 

[Marcelo]

Which is to say: the question is not whether the equipment needs calibration or not (as a lot of people think, unfortunately), but if you need valid results or not. If you need valid results, you need to calibrate. If you don?t need valid results, you don?t need to calibrate (but you can even calibrate if you want).

 

[BradM]

Which is to say: the question is not whether the equipment needs calibration or not (as a lot of people think, unfortunately), but if you need valid results or not. If you need valid results, you need to calibrate. If you don?t need valid results, you don?t need to calibrate (but you can even calibrate if you want).

This is a good point made, and one that's easily overlooked many times.

The organization's culture has a lot to do with it. In the case of the OP... it may well be that "we've always had employee owned instruments"; or by the fact that 2000 pieces of equipment exist, that there is a need for all that equipment. So the process starts with the equipment and goes from there (calibrate this, mark that, does that work?, carry that one home, etc.)

Instead, look at what is required to satisfy the measurement requirements. And... that may take a little digging. Yes, there may be a piece of paper or even a procedure stating something is to be calibrated to a particular parameter. But where did that come from? Is that an old requirement? Is it something from a contract years past or a customer requirement that the organization hasn't had in quite a while?

Yes you have a large task in front of you. But you also have a large opportunity. An opportunity to re-define the calibration system to make it Lean and cost-effective. Then you can focus on what is really important.

 

[Gman2]

Wow what great responses!

I will keep you all posted as to what happens next week during my meeting with management.

It comes down to this comment

"Which is to say: the question is not whether the equipment needs calibration or not (as a lot of people think, unfortunately), but if you need valid results or not. If you need valid results, you need to calibrate. If you don?t need valid results, you don?t need to calibrate (but you can even calibrate if you want)."

Our biggest source of measuring is Tape Measures by far.
But if its the ONLY way we are measuring to conformance then I am of the opinion that we should include them. At lest checking them for damage every few months.

Also does anyone have any more information on the in-house calibration of torque wrenches? I would like to have a way to do it here instead of sending them out.

G

 

[dgriffith]

Also does anyone have any more information on the in-house calibration of torque wrenches? I would like to have a way to do it here instead of sending them out.

G

Andy will be here soon to make sure you understand that torque wrench verification is a process, not a calibration.
Depending on the torque instrument population, and how important your torque requirements are, you're going to have to spend some money on: external vendors; ownership of a torque master to verify your wrenches before use ($1000's, plus sending to a vendor for adjustment/repair/recalibration); or, a torque test/calibration system and do your own, including adjustment and repair (bare-bones $30k -- everything you could want $70K).