1. Hello and Welcome to The Quality Forum Online...Continuing in the spirit of People Helping People !
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
You must be a registered member in order to post messages and view/download attached files in this forum.
Click here to register.

7.1.5.2.1 Calibration/verification records

Discussion in 'IATF 16949:2016 - Automotive Quality Systems' started by Josepi, Aug 7, 2018.

  1. Josepi

    Josepi Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2017
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Under 7.1.5.2.1 Calibration/verification records it states that:
    "The organization shall have a documented process for managing calibration/verification records. Records of the calibration/verification activity for all gauges, measuring, and test equipment (including employee-owned equipment relevant for measuring, customer-owned equipment, or on-site supplier owned equipment) needed to provide evidence of conformity to internal requirements, legislative and regulatory requirements, and customer-defined requirements shall be retained."

    Setting: We are a foundry and make iron castings. We build patterns to make impressions in the sand which forms the molds used to make the castings.


    It has been argued internally (much debate) that employee owned calipers and tape measures used to build the patterns, are never used to check the final dimensions of those patterns. They only use their own tools (i.e. non calibrated mini rulers) as reference or to get them close. They then check out calibrated tools to verify that the patterns are to specification on the drawings. Final dimensions are always verified by layout with a coordinate measuring machine (CMM).

    So, should the employees their own rulers and calipers in for calibration? Even if they argue that they use calibrated equipment for final measurement and verification? Even if they argue that they are not measuring final product? (Though they are measuring a pattern used to make final product).

    I think I know the answer... but any input is greatly appreciated.
     
  2. BradM

    BradM Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    210
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Location:
    Arlington, TX
    Well... to me, trying to "control" employee owned equipment is a futile effort. :)

    I would clearly mark and control the "calibrated" instruments. All "calibrated" readings come from these. Then, all other instruments are for reference only, and don't matter.
     
  3. tony s

    tony s Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2015
    Messages:
    670
    Likes Received:
    429
    Trophy Points:
    62
    Location:
    Laguna Philippines
    Clause 7.1.5.2.1 of IATF 16949 is based on clause 7.1.5.2 of ISO 9001. The statement of the ISO 9001 requirement specifies "When measurement traceability is a requirement..." Traceability is a requirement when an organization needs to demonstrate to their customers that their measuring equipment read exactly the same values as the customers' measuring equipment. Question: Do the employee-owned measuring equipment need traceability against your measuring equipment for final verification that are traceable to the customers' measuring equipment? or national/international standards?

    Applicability of 7.1.5.2.1 on employee-owned measuring equipment will depend on your answer.
     
  4. Ardaqr

    Ardaqr Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2016
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    How do you manage traceability of the control equipments if the employees have their own equipments ? I think at least you'll have a corrective action because of that.

    If the measurement equipment effects the quality of the final product, calibration is mandatory. You should mark, calibrate and supply the traceability of the employees' own devices even if you guarantee your final product with the calibrated equipments. Because it also could effect the repair costs of the iron casting which is an input for the non-quality costs.
     
  5. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    470
    Likes Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Technically if you confirm final product with calibrated equipment you should be ok. However if you want to include employee owned equipment in calibration I have found allowing them to calibrate themselves releaves a lot of anxiety about "touching my stuff."
     
  6. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    2,095
    Likes Received:
    1,081
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    It's unlikely this is actually happening, it's more likely they are "verifying" their equipment. Calibration is really beyond most shop-floor people.
     
  7. hogheavenfarm

    hogheavenfarm Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    205
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Not necessarily. Adjusting the tool mechanically may be beyond the scope of shop personnel knowledge, but it can also include a measurement analysis correction of a simple subtraction or addition to the measured value. A caliper may be found to have a 0.003" bias, that can be mentally corrected for, as long as it has been found to be true. This is "calibration", not verification. That said, I think the OP is correct in referring to final tools as calibrated and controlled, and shop tools labeled "Reference", although a certain amount of risk is present in doing this, and that is what eventually will decide whether to have personal tools part of teh calibration program or not.
     
  8. Jennifer Kirley

    Jennifer Kirley Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    664
    Likes Received:
    483
    Trophy Points:
    62
    Location:
    USA
    Instruments are calibrated in order to verify conformance to customer requirements, but also to control production waste. We ought to be doing it for that reason primarily, with the standard's requirement second. Not the other way around.
     
  9. judegu

    judegu Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2018
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    7
    Location:
    China
    Sadly sometimes we indeed do something primarily to conform to the standard`s requirement. ( it is sad but also quite true)

    In this case we are talking about, in my opinion, as long as "Final dimensions are always verified by layout with a coordinate measuring machine (CMM)", I have confidence that the product will conform to the customer relevant requirements. However, if we are talking about the compliance with the IATF16949 requirements, I think, at least, we need to do something to determine the necessity of the calibartion for employee-owned measuring equipment. And in this case, I think the result would be probably that there is no need to do it since the production waste is not an issue. (if it was, someone would have already done something about it.)

    And talking about my experience, in my company, no employee-owned measuring equipment is being in use (I wonder whether it is allowed to be used). If there was any, the calibration guy would definetly do the calibartion to avoid unnecessary troubles during the 2nd, 3rd parties audits.
     

Share This Page