posted 29 July 1999 05:41 PM               

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [maimailto:[email protected]]On Behalf
Of Greg Gogates
Sent: Friday, April 16, 1999 4:47 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Please explain some confusions

Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:48:04 -0500
From: Jay Warner
Reply-To: [email protected]
Organization: Warner Consulting, inc.
To: Guide to Guide_25
Subject: Please explain some confusions

Dear Guide 25 people,

Either I am woefully ignorant (a real possibility) or something strange is going on. You folks, I hope, can clairify and straighten me out.

Iâve a client who does calibration work for hire, and wishes to become ISO9000 certified. Fine, that is being done. But some of their customers will want to have us follow the letter of the QS9000 law, which effectively means, calibration work will be Guide 25.

Question 1: Is this narrow interpretation real? I know there are small outs in the QS document. However, they certainly would not make an internal auditor happy, when they ask, and we say, well, we followed a different clause.

I understand that there are only 2 registrars that can/will certify to Guide 25. They are both quite busy, as you might suspect. We were planning to have our ISO auditor ãcertify compliance to Guide 25ä instead, on the grounds that GM, etc. feel this is acceptable for another year or two until more registrars can do the work and catch up. Now a possible registrar (with whom we have not yet signed) allows that they have been sued by one of the 2 Guide 25 registrars above to cease and desist from even this level of certification.

Question 2: What other out is there for a small firm seeking to become certified, and fully acceptable to QS9000 certified firms?

When given an opportunity, A2LA said we didnât need the auditing/certification they do. GMC, etc., say you really donât have to have more than a plan in place by 12/31/99,

(Question 3: Is this statement true?)

but I severely doubt this would be acceptable to the instruction readers, the customers who count.

The irony, of course, is that calibrations in the past have been fully traceable and acceptable for the tasks at hand. But I sense the various forces and bodies involved are putting themselves and lab suppliers into some serious catch 22 binds.

Please clarify my fuzzy head.

Jay
--
Jay Warner
Principal Scientist
Warner Consulting, Inc.
4444 North Green Bay Road
Racine, WI 53404-1216
USA

Ph: (414) 634-9100
FAX: (414) 681-1133
email: [email protected]
web: http://www.a2q.com

Power to the data!

----------snippo----------

From: "Ryan Wilde"
To: "ISO 25 Group"
Subject: RE: Please explain some confusions
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 19:47:36 -0500

When this whole QS9000 fiasco started, we were caught entirely by surprise. We too are a small lab (8 technicians.) What I have gleaned from this since then is:

1. Yes, this interpretation is real, be accredited or do not work do work with QS9000 companies.

2. The only out we have found is to send a copy of our work instructions for specific jobs to the company for whom we are doing the calibration. They in turn put there name and designation to the document, and you calibrate to THEIR standards, using your company's internal training records of proof of technician competence. As you can see, this practice is not recommended, and there is no substitute for a true accredidation through A2LA or NVLAP.

3. This is a true statement, all that is required from AIAG is a documented plan to assure that accredidation is accomplished by January 1, 2001. (I have this AIAG document locally in MS Word format for anyone who would like a copy, just e-mail me and it is yours)

Now my own little soap box:

The benefits received from going through the self-scrutiny of preparing for accredidation is worth the cost alone. We, as a company, since embarking on this task of accredidation, have found areas to improve at almost every juncture.

Through round robin after round robin, we have performed exceptionally. Therefore, we always believed that we were doing everything as well as it could be done, as our results were as good as any other lab included in the comparison. Disecting our entire process has shown us that we were wrong. We were good, but we could be better.

You are correct, this is a hard road to follow for a small laboratory. It takes a great deal of commitment from every member of a small organization. And yes, it is not cheap. But the benefits do, in my opinion at least, far outweigh the drawbacks. And as far as traceability and acceptability are concerned, if you have ever in the past bought a replacement part for a widget, and had it not quite fit correctly, then the system failed. The best traceability does not overshadow competence. And as I'm sure all of us have seen, competence in labs with traceable standards is not universal. The accredidation process is a good first step towards confidence that traceability truly IS met.