The Elsmar Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums More Free Files Forum Discussion Thread Post Attachments Listing Elsmar Cove Discussion Forums Main Page
Welcome to what was The Original Cayman Cove Forums!
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums

Search the Elsmar Cove!

Wooden Line
This is a "Frozen" Legacy Forum.
Most links on this page do NOT work.
Discussions since 2001 are HERE

Owl Line
The New Elsmar Cove Forums   The New Elsmar Cove ForumsThe Cove Forums
  ISO 9001/4:2000
  Transition from 1994 to 2000 (Page 2)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Transition from 1994 to 2000
Jim Biz
Forums Contributor

Posts: 95
From:ILLINOIS
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 19 June 2000 07:40 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jim Biz   Click Here to Email Jim Biz     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Subject at hand:

I am aware of 1 or 2 companies in out area that have actually implemented the elements of the 1994 standards... with no real intention of being registered - they knew they needed a quality system and have put the elements to work for them ... it will be interesting to see what if anything they change internally due to the newest versions..

Regards
Jim

IP: Logged

Oscar
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 3
From:Brigham City, Utah, USA
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 19 June 2000 11:56 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Oscar   Click Here to Email Oscar     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I think the issue of tagging instruments that are not calibrated may be a carry over from the requirements of the old calibration stadanrd (45662). Para. 5.10 stated "Items not calibrated to their full capability or which have other limitations of use, shall be labeled or otherwise identified as to the limitations." Our quality system still requires tagging of instruments that are not calibrated. We have put exceptions in our procedures excluding wall clocks, fire system gages, etc. from this requirement.

------------------
Oscar

IP: Logged

isodog
Forums Contributor

Posts: 30
From:Vernon Hills, IL, USA
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 19 June 2000 08:01 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for isodog   Click Here to Email isodog     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well! Since I started all this c**p (I'm tying to set a good example here)about calibation stickers, I'd like to make a point.

There is significance in the fact that the company (not suppler no more) is NO longer required to (4.11.2d) "Identify inspection, measuring and test equipment with a suitable indicator or approved identification record to show the calibation status." It just ISN'T there in the ISO 9000:2000 DIS.

Are you all going to continue to use stickers, or is there an alternative?

By the way, I can get passionate about a good wine, the Iowa Hawkeyes, the right lover or five inches of fresh powder at 7:00 in the morning, but NOT this stuff. Get a life!

Dave

IP: Logged

Jim Biz
Forums Contributor

Posts: 95
From:ILLINOIS
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 20 June 2000 07:54 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jim Biz   Click Here to Email Jim Biz     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

Are you all going to continue to use stickers, or is there an alternative?

I don't plan to (and really never did) sticker "every" insturment in the plant...(we dont use "For reference only stickers)

The alternative we use are manufacturers identification numbers traced back to our calibration database.. Current condition, history & status verified when the device is "checked out" of the tool crib prior to use.

I really think this all boils down to "who controlls the actual calibration of the device"

If the employee is qualified to calibrate his own - then there should be no reason that he can not calibrate on either a set date or frequency that is appropriate and turn in the information to be recorded - sticker or not.

Jim


IP: Logged

John C
Forums Contributor

Posts: 87
From:Cork City, Ireland
Registered: Nov 98

posted 20 June 2000 02:34 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for John C   Click Here to Email John C     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
A relevant point is that this is not a case of either/or. If we choose to use stickers, then this is either for an extra level of protection or to reduce overall costs. We still have to hold records and identify items. The choice to invest money in the stickers process should be made on the grounds that there will be a positive return in value in reduced cost or customer satisfaction. This is the basis of the decision, not whether the auditor is for or against.
Personally, I favour the stickers. My experience tells me that most people need them to maintain customer satisfaction and that they reduce the cost, not add to it. I think Barb's message is similar, based on her wide experience.
I'm surprised that some people are hostile towards stickers. Maintaining stickers is such a small fraction of the overall cost and, if the auditor asks just once, to be taken to see the records instead of just checking the sticker, then Auditor, Guide and Supervisor will all treck across the plant and the half hour that it takes will negate the whole year's savings in time spent sticking on and on sticker material.
Of course, if your equation comes out the other way, then don't do it. But, if you get into an argument and don't have management's support, they'll probably overrule you - they're more scared of the registrar than they are of you. Better to save yourself for the day when there's something worth making a stand for.
rgds, John C

IP: Logged

Wendell Goodson
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 5
From:Garland, Texas USA
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 20 June 2000 05:15 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Wendell Goodson   Click Here to Email Wendell Goodson     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This is our reply to TC 176, and it was published in the ISO-900 + ISO 14000 news letter for the month of june. I guess that we differ a little from your views.

Wendell Goodosn


ISO 9000 + ISO 14000 News
Letters to the Editor
Get real, TC 176!
Iāve read the proposed changes to the ISO 9001 standard and, to say the least, TC 176 must have had their head in the wrong place to make the wholesale change to the elements of the standard the way they did. I canāt believe this is for the good of the customer to change the standard this way.
We believe the custome is always right and that pleasing the customer is the most importamt thing any business can do. However, by changing the standard in the format that is proposed will hurt small businesses to the point of having to hire a consultant to find out exactly what the auditors will want documented.
Furthermore, it is the most fragmented standard that Iāve seen outside of MIL-Q-9858A. We had somthing that could have been improved without this re-numbering of the elements that will cause complete confusion to small businesses.
Get real! Letās change it the way we did in 1994, not this way. Use the existing elements and improve them. Donāt change them this way.
I can see our auditors from our third party saying we will have to re-write all three tiers of our procedures and policies, to conform. We already have spent over $150,000 and now will have to throw it away.
Wendell Goodson
2405 South Shiloh RD
Garland, Texas 75041
USA.
Tel. + 1 972 278 97 00 ext. 143.
Fax + 1 972 278 97 99.
E-mail : w_goodson@email.msn.com

------------------

IP: Logged

isodog
Forums Contributor

Posts: 30
From:Vernon Hills, IL, USA
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 21 June 2000 11:39 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for isodog   Click Here to Email isodog     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
No question their heads are in the wrong places. Any other clever observations?

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 2820
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 24 June 2000 05:04 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Biz:
Subject at hand:

I am aware of 1 or 2 companies in out area that have actually implemented the elements of the 1994 standards... with no real intention of being registered - they knew they needed a quality system and have put the elements to work for them ... it will be interesting to see what if anything they change internally due to the newest versions..


Just a comment... Using ISO9K as a tool makes sense. Doing it because your customer requires it is typically only a financial decision. I would expect more from a company doing it because they see opportunity for improvement rather than as a customer requirement.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say "...what if anything they change internally due to the newest versions..."

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 2820
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 24 June 2000 05:13 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Wendell Goodson:
I can see our auditors from our third party saying we will have to re-write all three tiers of our procedures and policies, to conform. We already have spent over $150,000 and now will have to throw it away.
Make a cross-reference matrix. Why would you rewrite all (or any) of your procedures? Document tiers are a convenience, not a requirement. All I would rewite is your systems manual - a 1 day job. If all your procedures and such are that dependent upon structure you goofed when you developed your systems documentation.

IP: Logged


This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 

All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Hop to:

Contact Us | Cayman Home Page

Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks! - Marc

Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
UBB 5.45c

The Old Cove Message Board The Cove Privacy Policy
Y'All Come Back Now, Ya Hear?