TS16949 - No "For Reference Only" Gages allowed?

[AndyN]

Nice Red Herring.

What has it got to do with "where necessary to ensure valid results" and its application to the auditor making up his own rule that reference only devices can never be used?

What has a red herring got to do with it? It's a perfectly good example which explains, from a management point of view, why 'for reference' gauges should be in anyone's system - Bob did a great job of explaining it too - basically, if it's not in the control plan, get rid of it! End of debate!

 

[Big Jim]

What has a red herring got to do with it? It's a perfectly good example which explains, from a management point of view, why 'for reference' gauges should be in anyone's system - Bob did a great job of explaining it too - basically, if it's not in the control plan, get rid of it! End of debate!

Show me the shall!

That may be good management, but that doesn't make it a requirement. Everything off that point is a red herring.

 

[howste]

I think there are two arguments discussions going on in this thread:
1) Discussion about the acceptability of using uncalibrated/unverified measurement equipment
2) Discussion about the meaning of the term "For Reference Only"

Here are my thoughts about the first discussion:

As has already been stated by several others, the TS 16949 standard only requires calibration/verification when necessary to ensure valid results. To me this means that if the measurement is important, the equipment should be calibrated. To me it also means that if there are other methods to detect bad product downstream, then the organization can decide whether or not they will calibrate the equipment used upstream.

Here are my thoughts (opinion) about the second discussion:

First, a few definitions of the word reference:
- The use of a source of information in order to ascertain something.
- The sending of a matter to an authority for decision or consideration.
- The act of looking at something for information.

Here's the definition of "Reference Measurement Standard" and its synonym "Reference Standard" from the International Vocabulary of Metrology (VIM): "measurement standard designated for the calibration of other measurement standards for quantities of a given kind in a given organization or at a given location"

I believe that the term "For Reference Only" as used in this thread (and in real life) means exactly the opposite of the definitions above. If a piece of measuring equipment is not trusted, why would I tell someone to "reference" it, or in other words, use it as an authoritative source of information? Why not instead label it with "Not Calibrated" or something that actually says what I mean? I think this was Andy's point above when he said "'For reference' on anything which is in an unknown state is an oxymoron."

 

[bobdoering]

As has already been stated by several others, the TS 16949 standard only requires calibration/verification when necessary to ensure valid results. To me this means that if the measurement is important, the equipment should be calibrated.

I agree, and that means if it is on the control plan, it is important. Not only should it be calibrated, you should have an idea if it is the correct gage for the job (Gage R&R). MSA is: calibration (bias), gage R&R, stability and linearity...not just any one of the items.

To me it also means that if there are other methods to detect bad product downstream, then the organization can decide whether or not they will calibrate the equipment used upstream.

Not necessarily. There are more things to consider than bad product down
stream in a TS16949 system. Another is elimination of waste by detecting bad product at its source. Look at the AIAG PFMEA detection scoring to illustrate that point.

Here's the definition of "Reference Measurement Standard" and its synonym "Reference Standard" from the International Vocabulary of Metrology (VIM): "measurement standard designated for the calibration of other measurement standards for quantities of a given kind in a given organization or at a given location"

Actually, these definitions are for gage standards - the gages you use to calibrate a gage, not your floor gage. These definitions do not apply.

 

[Stijloor]

Friends,

It appears to me that the standards writers have some work to do on calibration and management representatives.

Stijloor.

 

[AndyN]

Bob:

Your comment "Actually, these definitions are for gage standards - the gages you use to calibrate a gage, not your floor gage. These definitions do not apply." is technically correct.

However, the way I've tried to explain and I (believe) Howste is using this description, is that the TERM 'Reference' means to use the thing for authoritative data/information - why else would you use it?

In which case, putting 'for reference' on an unqualified item is, in fact bogus and incorrect! It's like a Venus Flytrap - get a document, don't control it and stamp it 'for reference'...how is someone supposed to know if they should take what's inside as being correct?

It's these 'conventional wisdoms', created as a means - without full thought - to pass audits, which should have been put out to pasture a long time ago...

 

[Jim Wynne]

Bob:

Your comment "Actually, these definitions are for gage standards - the gages you use to calibrate a gage, not your floor gage. These definitions do not apply." is technically correct.

However, the way I've tried to explain and I (believe) Howste is using this description, is that the TERM 'Reference' means to use the thing for authoritative data/information - why else would you use it?

In which case, putting 'for reference' on an unqualified item is, in fact bogus and incorrect! It's like a Venus Flytrap - get a document, don't control it and stamp it 'for reference'...how is someone supposed to know if they should take what's inside as being correct?

It's these 'conventional wisdoms', created as a means - without full thought - to pass audits, which should have been put out to pasture a long time ago...

Perhaps a little history will be enlightening with regard to the "reference only" phenomenon and why CB auditors get their shorts in a bunch when they see it.

Although I don't know for sure, I strongly suspect that the misuse of the word "reference" has its roots in engineering drawings, where the word is typically construed to mean that the dimension or feature it's applied to doesn't have to be verified. In this sense it's also frequently misused because a reference dimension should have a traceable antecedent--e.g., another drawing where the dimension is subject to tolerance control. Often that's not the case--there is no reference for reference dimensions, and in some minds this makes sense. In any event, "reference" has become code for "don't worry about it."

There have been a lot of companies, when faced with the need to calibrate many devices that were never calibrated before, that sought an expedient method for easing the burden. The method chosen in some instances was to designate devices that couldn't be adjusted--linear scales, 1-2-3 blocks, etc.--and mark them "reference only" with a documented explanation of the strategy. Unfortunately, other companies used "reference only" arbitrarily and without documented justification/rationale.

It's that latter bit that's given "reference only" a bad name, and why it should be avoided. Auditors see it as a sign of careless circumvention of requirements. If you believe that you have reasonable justification that calibration isn't necessary for a given device "to ensure valid results," you should give the device a number in the calibration system, indicate its status in the record (along with requirements for verifying efficacy) and have your gage control procedure explain the rationale used to establish a no-calibration status.

 

[vanputten]

I would question a 3rd party auditor that walks into an organization and states not matter what they will not accept "For Reference Only." Too dogmatic and myopic for me. I would at least expect the opportunity to show the effectives of for reference only status.

And, like so many discussions, I think it comes down to operational definitions of terms and overtly understanding assumptions.

Does "For Reference Only" mean the exact same thing everywhere in all systems?

 

[Stijloor]

I would question a 3rd party auditor that walks into an organization and states not matter what they will not accept "For Reference Only." Too dogmatic and myopic for me. I would at least expect the opportunity to show the effectives of for reference only status.

And, like so many discussions, I think it comes down to operational definitions of terms and overtly understanding assumptions.

Does "For Reference Only" mean the exact same thing everywhere in all systems?

Good question.

I agree with Jim Wynne on this one. May I add that most organizations use this "for reference only" as a lame excuse for not having to verify/calibrate their monitoring and measuring equipment.

In addition, no one has been able to provide me with an acceptable definition either.

Stijloor.

 

[AndyN]

I totally agree, Jan. Dirk is also correct - in principle, however, the vast majority of people who take the route of 'for reference only' markings on measuring equipment or documentation either are uneducated to the ramifications of their choices or are taking the 'silver bullet' approach to (cynically) getting certified.