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 Forums
  Measurement, Test and Calibration
  What M&TE Has To Be In Database?

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

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   What M&TE Has To Be In Database?
Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA

posted 30 March 2000 10:26 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
My experience in ISO9001 has been that all M&TE in a facility has to be in the calibration database. Even those not calibrated (the old 'For Reference Only' class of M&TE). Recently I read somewhere that a registrar accepted a system where only M&TE actually used in inspection and test (thus subject to calibration) was/is in the calibration database.

What say ye, folks? Does every piece of M&TE have to be in the calibration database?

Jerry: How does your facility handle this?

IP: Logged

Jerry Eldred
Forum Wizard

Posts: 136
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 30 March 2000 05:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jerry Eldred   Click Here to Email Jerry Eldred     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This is a rather complicated answer. I hope after you read whatever I end up writing below that you are not more conufsed that before.

From a QS9000 perspective, most definitely any M&TE that are used to test product. Additionally, the MSA requirements surrounding those. You can draw the line there (maybe). If it affects product quality, etc., then it is in that classification.

The second echelon (I'll call the gray area), are those M&TE that are used in maintenance. The choices are (In my view - I am a metrology professoinal, not a QS9000 auditor)
a. calibrate all of them (easy to pass an audit that way, but not necessarily most cost effective).
b. Define those M&TE (still in the gray area) that maintain equipment used in processes, or to maintain other parameters that COULD affect something. This would include multimeters, handheld test equipment, environmental monitoring test equipment, etc. Those also all have to be calibrated.

The third echelon are those M&TE that are most definitely outside the scope of the process. These do not have to be calibrated. But I am stickler enough, that if any company wants to go that route, I strongly advise having it well documented. In some cases, it is almost easier to calibrate all of it than to prove that it cannot affect the process. Some examples are the scales used in shipping and receiving areas, multimeter used by a technician who strictly works on refrigerators in the cafeteria, Thermometer used by the cook in the cafeteria, test equipment used by people who service company vehicles, a nice spectrum analyzer used by the telecommunications tech who works on the LAN equipment (in a semiconductor mfg environment, this would obviously not impact the product - or scope of registration).

My philosophy has been to calibrate anything that measures. And if a decision is subsequently made NOT to calibrate a quantitative piece of test equipment, I still have it in the database. I even maintain a file in the calibration records. I put a memo in the file detailing the who/what/where as to why it is not calibrated.

If I had a meter lab, and 50 meters on-site that could affect the product, and also that could affect the effectiveness of the preventive maintenance done on anything in the factory that could conceivably affect cost, quality or on-time delivery of the product, they would all be calibrated. If in that situation I had one other similar model multimeter that did not affect anything, I would opt to calibrate it.

If it were a case of a significant cost to calibrate, I would weigh the business decision. Then if it did not impact anything that mattered (as above), I would opt to not calibrate.

Any decision by a QS9000 or ISO9000 (moreso in QS9000) company to pot not to calibrate, in my view should be thought through carefully.

Okay, guess I have muddied the waters enough for now. I'm sure there may be those who disagree. But hopefully I have provided some useful insight that may be helpful to someone.


IP: Logged

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 | The Elsmar Cove Home Page

Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!

Main Site Search
Y'All Come Back Now, Ya Hear?
Powered by FreeBSD!Made With A Mac!Powered by Apache!