|
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums 
|
|
|
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums
|
The New Elsmar Cove Forums
|
 The New Elsmar Cove ForumsThe Cove Forums
 ISO 9001/4:2000
 Transition from 1994 to 2000 (Page 2)
|
 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 |
posted 19 June 2000 07:40 AM
   
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 IP: Logged |
|
Oscar Lurker (<10 Posts) Posts: 3 |
posted 19 June 2000 11:56 AM
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. ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
isodog Forums Contributor Posts: 30 |
posted 19 June 2000 08:01 PM
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 |
posted 20 June 2000 07:54 AM
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 |
posted 20 June 2000 02:34 PM
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 |
posted 20 June 2000 05:15 PM
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
------------------ IP: Logged |
|
isodog Forums Contributor Posts: 30 |
posted 21 June 2000 11:39 PM
No question their heads are in the wrong places. Any other clever observations? IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 2820 |
posted 24 June 2000 05:04 PM
quote: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 |
posted 24 June 2000 05:13 PM
quote: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 |
  |
Hop to: |
Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks! - Marc
Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
UBB 5.45c
The Cove Privacy Policy 