1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
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.

Risk assessment mentioned in clause 7.1.5.2.1 c)

Discussion in 'IATF 16949:2016 - Automotive Quality Systems' started by morteza, Aug 23, 2017.

  1. morteza

    morteza Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Hi all,

    There is a problem with me in understanding the requirement mentioned in clause 7.1.5.2.1 c):

    b) any out-of-specification readings as received for calibration/verification;
    c) an assessment of the risk of the intended use of the product caused by the out-of-specification condition

    If I would understand the requirement correctly, it says that if you find out that your gauge is out of specification (during calibration/verification), you must do a risk assessment about the usage of the products checked by the failed gauge.
    my questions are as follows:

    1- What is the difference between this risk assessment and FMEA? in FMEA?

    Rationale for this question: Gauge out of specification is a cause that that its event would be product conformity or nonconformity. conformed product has no consequence on customer or organization, but nonconforming product has some consequences on customer or organization which are analyzed in FMEA.

    2- Is this risk assessment done after the presence of any out of specification gauge or before it?

    Rationale for this question    : Based on Risk concept. any risk assessment should be done before its occurrence.

    Thanks all
     
    morteza, Aug 23, 2017
    #1
  2. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,399
    Likes Received:
    2,683
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    It seems pretty simple to me (others may have a different thought) but if, for example, an item of measuring equipment is found to be out of specification when calibrated and you take a look at the value the lab measured and compare that to the part specification and tolerance, if the the dimension is a key characteristic then there's a risk of failure - like the diameter or surface finish of a brake caliper piston. On the other hand, it might be an open toleranced feature on a part which has no affect on the actual function, it's simply a general value to keep the fit/form/function to the correct value.

    A review would identify the risk impact on the correct functioning of the product.
     
    Andy Nichols, Aug 28, 2017
    #2
    morteza likes this.
  3. MCW8888

    MCW8888 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2015
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    42
    My understanding of clause 7.1.5.2.1 c: If the gauge was found to be out of calibration (I hope the Control Plan says to use calibrated gauges); need to assess the validity of the previous results measured by an out-of-calibrated gauge.
     
    MCW8888, Aug 28, 2017
    #3
  4. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,399
    Likes Received:
    2,683
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    This has always been the case. In 7.1.5.2.1 states:

    c) an assessment of the risk of the intended use of the product caused by the out-of-specification condition;
     
    Andy Nichols, Aug 28, 2017
    #4
  5. morteza

    morteza Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Hi Andy,
    Thanks for your answer.
    what is your idea about my perception on clause 7.1.5.2.1:

    Risk: usage of product with incorrect reading of the specification
    cause: gauge failure (out of specification gauge)
    consequences: 1- no negative consequence (reading "good part" as "bad"), 2- effect mentioned in PFMEA, such as safety problems, customer dissatisfaction, etc (reading "bad part" as "good")
    severity: as mentioned in PFMEA (for consequence #2)

    finally, based on severity number (from 1 to 10) we take the necessary action (from taking no action to product recall).

    is my perception right? is it enough for meeting this requirement?
     
    morteza, Aug 28, 2017
    #5
  6. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,399
    Likes Received:
    2,683
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    I'm not certain this is one of those things that needs your approach, but go ahead if you think it's worthwhile. My thoughts are that this is such a low occurrence that you'd be wasting a lot of time going back through a lot of PFMEA forms and up dating them. Indeed, there may be ZERO effect on the product...
     
    Andy Nichols, Aug 28, 2017
    #6
    morteza likes this.